censorship – The Teacher LiClaireian

Historically, change has been a recurring theme of human existence. Categorising these changes has been popular practice in understanding our history – for example the Industrial Age occurring between 1760-1970. Currently, we find ourselves as consumers of and contributors to the Digital Age or the Information Age which began in 1970 when transistor technology was developed. Libraries, including school libraries, have always been concerned with information as they have always housed collections of information in a variety of genres and formats. Thus, the so-called “Information Age” has impacted and continues to result in change for libraries and the collections they house.

Collection development is a central activity occurring in any library. Corrall (2018) suggests that a collection pertains to the entire notion of a library, and that the words ‘library’ and ‘collection’ are essentially synonymous. Where once the professional practice of collection development involved a much less diverse and interactive suite of resources, the Digital Age has seen a proliferation of information that seems to defy the constraints of space and time (Newsum, 2016). In relation to school libraries, SLAV (2018) states that “school libraries reflect and contribute to the achievement of the school’s mission by managing and curating equitable, inclusive and diverse physical and digital collections that reflect both a local and global perspective.” This statement reflects the need for school libraries to continue to develop collections that are driven by the needs of the community that they serve (Tuminello, 2021, March 3). However, following my engagement in this subject, I believe the collection should promote not only the consumption of new information and ideas, but also the creation. I believe that it is paramount for school library professionals to continue to be able to promote and encourage a life-long love of learning and growth for all students, regardless of the complexities that the digital age has contributed to the collection development role, now and into the foreseeable future.

Throughout this subject, I became particularly interested in the notion of selection versus censorship in the context of a digital age. As a future Teacher Librarian (TL), I certainly see myself as an advocate and supporter of intellectual freedom. However, there has to be a place for censorship in schools with access to the internet. Whilst the internet is an abundant resource for information that can resource and supplement the curriculum in a way that has not been done before, I bring into question whether the all of the information it provides is intellectual in nature, and therefore if the use of filtering in schools is compromising “intellectual” freedoms. In a blog post on April 13, I commented that “our communities have constant and uncensored access to the whole world of information. I would question this level of self-selection autonomy in the school context, and argue that internet filtering is necessary on some level in a school context.” However, whilst internet filtering is common practice in schools for this very reason, it is also as problematic. Johnson (2010) highlights some of the issues that occur when using blocking tools to filter what information is accessible to students and provides example of situations where student learning is negatively impacted by poor filtering decisions. Of note, his first suggestion to rectify these issues relate to the school policy that underpins internet filtering decisions.

The complexities of collection development in school libraries continues to evolve and change as the ongoing digital revolution influences publishing models and digital content. In such an age, school libraries should be promoting 21st century learning, and thus should access and acquire collections that provide this. However, to create such a collection requires professional decision-making that must be supported by policy should it aim to be ethical and accountable for the decisions made. A collection development policy (CDP) “aims to ensure equitable access to resources for all in the school community” (ALIA, 2017, p.4). In a blog post on May 14, I stated that “it is important to be able to be transparent, and to make conscious and systematic decisions that can be backed by the CDP so that questioning by stakeholders in relation to censorship, money and other issues can be answered and supported by documentation.” Whilst a CDP does provide a written document that supports the decision-making that pertains to the collection, it further supports the school library professionals by outlining the purpose of the collection and assists in future proofing the importance of the position of the library in the school. Thus, having a thorough and professional CDP that is regularly reviewed alongside the corresponding procedures is essential to justifying and promoting the worth of a school library.

Remaining relevant in a digital and dynamic age is a challenge faced by all libraries, including school libraries. On May 20, I commented that “the future of school libraries is directly related to the future of education, the future of learners and the future of content.” As mentioned earlier, in some ways it can be deduced that the library is the collection and the collection is the library. In order for libraries to justify themselves in a world where free and open access to information is afforded to anyone with an internet connection, they must be able to support their claims. A CDP allows the TL and the staff who collaborate to develop the document to provide a purpose and projection into the future for the collection development practices in a school. Prior to completing all of the modules, I made comment on April 13 that “the TL must have selection policy that is clear, strong and defensible to allow them the courage to make decisions that allow the community intellectual freedom.” I now understand that the policy requires more than just consideration of selection, but also pertains to identification, as well as acquisition, evaluation and deselection issues. If the policy is created collaboratively, and is able to succinctly address these principles, set goals and provide continuity, then the TL alongside the school community allow themselves the ability to be flexible and adapt to future technological changes, and can also demonstrate a clear vision that outlines the ever-changing complex notion of collection development.

References

Australian Library and Information Association School, & Victorian Catholic Teacher Librarians. (2017). A manual for developing policies and procedures in Australian school library resource centres. https://www.alia.org.au/sites/default/files/ALIA%20Schools%20policies%20and%20procedures%20manual_FINAL.pdf

Corrall, S. (2018). The concept of collection development in the digital world. In M. Fieldhouse & A. Marshall (Eds.), Collection development in the digital Age (pp. 3–24). Facet. https://doi.org/10.290/9781856048972.003

Johnson, D. (2010). Censorship by omission. Library Media Connection, 28(4), 48-49. http://dougjohnson.squarespace.com/dougwri/censorship-by-omission.html

Newsum, J. M. (2016). School collection development and resource management in digitally rich environments: An Initial Literature Review. School Libraries Worldwide, 22(1), 97–109.

School Library Association of Victoria. (2018). Statement on school libraries. https://slav.org.au/Statement-on-School-Libraries

Selection, as I see it, is a professional responsibility whereby the TL selects resources for the school library that meet the needs of the curriculum, the students and the whole school community. These selections are based on a selection criteria, and decisions to select the resource are made regardless of whether the selector believes the resource may incite controversy within the community that the library serves. The TL must have selection policy that is clear, strong and defensible to allow them the courage to make decisions that allow the community intellectual freedom.

The following quote offered in Module 2, Developing Collections, hits the nail on the head:

Selection … begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor of thought control. Selection’s approach to the books is positive, seeking its value in the book as a book and in the book as a whole. Censorship’s approach is negative, seeking for vulnerable characteristics wherever they can be found – anywhere within the book, or even outside it. Selection seeks to protect the right of the reader to read; censorship seeks to protect – not the right – but the reader himself from the fancied effects of his reading. The selector has faith in the intelligence of the reader; the censor has faith only in his own. In other words, selection is democratic while censorship is authoritarian, and in our democracy we have traditionally tended to put our trust in the selector rather than in the censor (Asheim, 1953, p. 63).

Jenkinson (2002) suggests that selectors look at resources with an open mind – they are trying to see the positive value of the resource and how such a resource might meet the needs of the curriculum and the students. Whereas, censors see the resources with a negative lens and tries to find ways of excluding resources based on words, topics or themes that may exist. In many instances, this is done without consideration of context.

All of the above considered, the role of the TL is to avoid being timid and neutral, and encourage resource collection that allows the school community intellectual freedom and is as progressive as possible.

However, when considering the world wide web (WWW), our communities have constant and uncensored access to the whole world of information. I would question this level of self-selection autonomy in the school context, and argue that internet filtering is necessary on some level in a school context. With physical resources, we are able to offer literature and resources appropriate and educational for particular age groups and not for others. The internet and digital resourcing takes this selection criteria away if we are unable to filter the information being accessed. The power of media outlets to push their own agenda in this space (in particular, political agenda), and the algorithms that exist to propagate false information, is quite terrifying in my opinion. After watching The Social Dilemma in 2020, I was compelled to delete all of my social media for this reason. That said, I think it is of particular importance to educate everyone with access to devices, and not just young people, about the power of such intelligence. “Advancing technology is both our saviour and our doom” – Olaf, Frozen II.

Another example I would like to draw upon here is the sexually objectifying portrayals of women in the media, and young boys’ access to pornography. There is a large body of research that exists demonstrating that regular, everyday exposure to this content contributes to greater tolerance of sexual violence toward women, higher levels of body dissatisfaction, greater self-objectification, and greater support of sexist beliefs (Ward, 2016). In this context, I would question whether all of the information available on the WWW is, in fact, intellectual in it’s nature. Don’t get me wrong – being able to discuss these issues in a safe space, such as a classroom environment, is of the greatest importance. But there is a difference between intellectual content and just simply content. Questioning the purpose behind the creation of the content is a part of the selection process. Being able to filter what is available to students on the internet is extremely important policy in this context. Sexual and pornographic content is contributing to some of the biggest issues in our society, and filtering access to this type of information online is an important tool in the battle against sexual exploitation, violence against women and domestic violence, and human trafficking.

Therefore, as TL’s in a rapidly growing technological environment, making sure that the selection policy can address the issues above and allow for robust discussion amongst the school community, but still allow and encourage a filtering process that considers the appropriateness of what is available on the internet is paramount. Whilst I don’t personally see a “fine line” between selection and censorship (I believe them to be essentially opposites), I think there is merit in filtering on the internet whereby students can access information that is harmful, untrue and has the potential to incite violence and exploitation.

References

Asheim, L. (1953). Not censorship but selection.Wilson Library Bulletin , 28, 63-67.

Jenkinson, D. (2002). Selection and censhorship: It’s simple arithmetic. School libraries in Canada, 2(4), 22.

Ward, L. M. (2016). Media and Sexualization: State of Empirical Research, 1995–2015. The Journal of Sex Research, 53(4-5), 560-577. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1142496

The Teacher LiClaireian

A digital introspection of learning experiences

Tag: censorship

Resourcing the Curriculum of Today and the Future

Selection, Censorship and the WWW