Censorship is an issue that is of much concern to libraries as it affects the selection, exclusion and access of resources. This blog post will examine in detail my reading and analysis of the professional journal article’s titled “School librarians’ intellectual freedom attitudes and practices”. The scholarly article was written for the purpose of investigating censorship in school libraries in the United Kingdom and is mainly concerned with understanding school librarian’s theoretical and practical values on the topic. McNicol hypothesizes that although it is common knowledge that the role of librarians is to support the freedom of access to information, in practice there are a variety of challenges that results in resources being censored (McNicol, 2016, p.329-330).

The value of intellectual freedom and opposition towards censorship is upheld by many library associations around the world. The American Library Association defines “intellectual freedom is the right of library users to read, seek information, and speak freely” (American Library Association, 2018).  The belief of librarians as supporters of freedom of information is also upheld in Australia as ALIA, the leading organization for Australian libraries supports the freedom of access to information, inclusive practices for developing policies in this area, resistance to select groups or individuals that wish to restrict access to information, and recognizes that the power of censorship belongs to state and federal government (Australian Library and Information Association, 2018). Additionally, the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions identifies that “censorship prevents the enjoyment of several generally recognized human rights” due to it’s power of restricting access to information which may result in suppressing ideas (International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2019). Overall, there is general consensus that libraries and librarians are to support the freedoms of expression and access to information.

Censorship commonly occurs for resources that contains topics considered inappropriate for a variety of reasons such as controversial ideas, illegality, offensiveness towards certain groups, or sensitive topics.  Oltmann, Peterson & Knox categorises censorship into three different categories known as regulations, self-censorship and challenges (Oltmann, Peterson & Knox, 2017, p.275-276). It can also be assumed that a higher number of topics will be considered inappropriate for children and young adults as these two groups are culturally seen as still developing their understanding of the world around them, are generally considered to be more impressionable and more easily influenced. The main article identifies that resources for children and young adults receive a higher number of complaints in comparison to other resources (McNicol, 2016, p.331). Another study that examined the censorship challenges picture books faced in Canada revealed that the actions of censorship often come from the publisher, community groups and librarians (Saltman, 2016, p.92-95). The reasoning of censorship form publishers stems from the possibility of reduction in sales due to the controversial nature of some content and illustrations believed to be potentially problematic are often redrawn or discarded during the editing process (Saltman, 2016, p.99).

Although McNicol has identified that censorship can occur due to complaints, the article has not addressed the method librarians can take to handle and resolve this process. ALIA’s guideline for Australian school librarians in dealing with challenged resources identify that the librarian should first aim to resolve the challenge informally, inform and provide understanding to the complainant about the school’s collection development policy, and if the situation escalates the librarian should inform the principal and a complaints committee of the school before making a final decision on the resource (Australian Library and Information Association, 2017, p.18). The guideline also suggests that a complaints committee should be comprised of various stakeholders such as teachers, library staff, principal, parents, student and community representatives (Australian Library and Information Association, 2017, p.18). In an American study on censorship challenges, the majority of resources were challenged were books (Oltmann, Peterson & Knox, 2017, p. 279-282). In the documented cases most items were challenged by patrons and parents because of controversial topics related to violence, offensive language and sexuality (Oltmann, Peterson & Knox, 2017, p.280-281).

Self-censorship is considered the most common form of censorship practiced by librarians, is often unrecorded, indirect and can be disguised as selection decisions.   (as cited in McNicol, 2016, p.330-331, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, 2019). The method used by McNicol to achieve understanding of the beliefs school librarians had towards self-censorship was an online survey. Survey Monkey was used as platform to ask questions to school librarians subscribed to the mailing list for school libraries in the United Kingdom. The questions were categorised in relation to policy, diversity in collections, access to resources and the selection of resources (McNicol, 2016, p.332). As it was hypothesized that there are significant differences between the understanding of the principles of censorship and the actual practices librarians implemented, the survey was further divided between these two categories. In comparison to other previous similar surveys about censorship, one advantage identified in this survey is that in comparison to previous surveys, all the respondents were school librarians (McNicol, 2016, p.333).

 

The findings of the survey identified that school librarians were more likely to support most freedom of information theoretically with over 95% of respondents approving of these ethics, but in comparison to the questions on practices there were some pro-censorship beliefs amongst a significant minority of 20% of respondents. The censorship beliefs that were supported were: that the librarian’s moral values were important to the selection process, support for requests for excluding resources if significant individuals demanded it such as head teachers or local councilors, that the school library’s collection should not oppose the values of parents, labelling resources that contained potentially controversial content so it is easier for people to avoid them if they wished, the restriction of access to controversial websites and limiting the amount of resources that contained controversial content.

This study highlights that school librarians are more likely to support censorship when challenged with concerns from important stakeholders such as parents, other teachers and managerial authorities of the school (McNicol, 2016, p.335-337). Overall, it was also found that participants that were members of professional associations such as the Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals and those that do not work with pre-school children had higher scores for supporting diversity of resources and intellectual freedom (McNicol, 2016, p.337).  This implies that there are censorship challenges librarians face for the selection of resources for young children such as difficulties in deciding what content is appropriate for the age group.  McNicol believes that the higher scores for individuals related to professional associations are correlated to the practices of those organisations such as raising awareness of censorship issues, and providing direct support to librarians (McNicol, 2016, p.338).

The article identified some pro-censorship attitudes held by school librarians. Internet filtering as one type of censorship that is “widely accepted amongst UK school librarians” (McNicol, 2016, p.338) and the findings identified that the participants were also supportive of this action. McNicol criticizes this supportiveness by identifying that it potentially limits the opportunities for teachers and parents to “engage with children about their proper use of the internet” (McNicol, 2016, p.338). The study also found that several school librarian respondents believed it was their right to determine the inclusion and exclusion of resources. Although librarians are must evaluate resources, there is a risk that selection decisions may be made from personal beliefs are biased and so McNicol recommends librarians to adhere closely to collection development guidelines that have been set up and agreed upon (McNicol, 2016, p.338).

However, there are several limitations using this method in the study. The parameters for answers were multiple choice, with “strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree and strongly disagree” as options (McNicol, 2016, p.333). Having only multiple choice eliminates the option for detailed responses and this type of close ended questioning also does not allow for the gathering of high-quality qualitative data. The survey also only amounted to 96 responses from United Kingdom school librarians, with a significant minority of 33% that had less than 5 years of experience working in school libraries (McNicol, 2016, p.333). This skews the data towards a bias for new professionals and identifies that the sample size may be too small.

McNicol’s study concludes that “librarian’s censorship practices are not solely determined by their theoretical attitudes towards intellectual freedom” and advises that they will need support to practically implement these ideas effectively (McNicol, 2016, p.339). Other studies that examine self censorship and challenges also do generally support this notion.  However, it is clear form this study it’s purpose was to indicate the issue instead of providing possible solutions or improvements.

Reference

American Library Association. (2018). Support for intellectual freedom. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport/selectionpolicytoolkit/intellectualfreedom

Australian Library and Information Association. (2018). Free access to information statement. Retrieved from https://www.alia.org.au/about-alia/policies-standards-and-guidelines/statement-free-access-information

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

International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. (2019). IFLA Statement on censorship. Retrieved from https://www.ifla.org/publications/node/92391

McNicol, S. (2016). School librarians’ intellectual freedom attitudes and practices. New Library World, 117(5/6), 329-342. doi: 10.1108/NLW-01-2016-0002

Oltmann, S.M, Peterson, C, & Knox, E.J.M. (2017). Analysing challenges to library materials: an incomplete picture. Public Library Quarterly, 36(4), 274-292. doi: 10.1080/01616846.2017.1324233

Saltman, J. (2016). That skeleton is naked! Challenges to the Canadian picture book. New Review of Children’s Literature and Librarianship, 22(2), 87-107. doi: 10.1080/13614541.2016.1223918

Wikimedia. (2010). Freedom of information logo [Image]. Wikimedia. Retrieved from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_of_Information_logo.gif