An article put together by the American Library Association defines censorship very well. In it, the article says, "Censorship is the suppression of ideas and information that certain persons—individuals, groups or government officials—find objectionable or dangerous." (ALA, 2007) This idea of filtering materials for patrons of a certain library or area definitely has a huge impact on librarians of all areas. This can mean materials and books not being allowed into the country, a librarian not choosing a book for their library, or because the town or area where the library is located would be opposed to the topic or kind of material that is included. (Asheim, 2005) This is an issue that comes up in all types of libraries in different ways.
Banning and challenging books also goes along with censoring. There are many factors that can lead to books not being allowed in a certain area or library. When doing the banned book project I noticed many of the books that were challenged were done so by a town or a small group of people. Therefore that book is allowed in most areas but patrons in that specific area will not be allowed to read that particular material because it is being censored is one way that it can affect librarian’s especially in schools and public libraries.
Sexuality is one of the main factors taken into consideration when going to censor materials. However, it can be very hard to get the court system to determine that a material needs to be illegal, there are many factors that have to be taken into consideration when a court is deciding whether or not to censor it for the country. (ALA, 2007) So this is something that the average librarian has to deal with when ordering new materials for their library or just working a new area.
Discussion Questions
Do librarians censor all the materials they choose or don’t choose for their libraries?
Is it ethical for librarians to censor materials for the patrons of the library or set restrictions on certain things?
How can you as a librarian defend articles that are in your library that could be challenged by the community or patrons?
Works Cited
ALA. (2007). Intellectual Freedom and Censorship. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from American Library Association: http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm
Asheim, L. (2005). Not Censorship But Selection. Retrieved February 14, 2008, from American Library Association: http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=basics&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=109668
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Do librarians censor all the materials they choose or don’t choose for their libraries?
When librarians select books to be in their library, I think they choose books that meet the basic goal of the library which is to have a variety of diverse books that could appeal to any one of their patrons. Therefore I do not believe that it is the librarians place or responsibility to sensor the books they choose. I do however believe that it is their responsibility to ensure that books are in age appropriate sections. Therefore not letting young children have access to books meant for young teens.
Now if a librarian decides not to choose a book to be housed at their library, I think it would be for more practical reasons other than self-censorship. I think if a book is not chosen it could be because they do not have enough space or the book is very similar to others books that they already carry. This is something that I have seen within my own local community library. The Oak Park Library is small therefore they can not carry all the books available, however they are part of a local database shared with other libraries in the county. This allows us patrons the ability to find the book at another local library, like the Southfield Library.
Re: Do librarians censor all the materials they choose or don’t choose for their libraries?
I do not know what librarians actually do but hopefully they are not censoring materials. Perhaps one of the best ways to ensure that librarians ‘select’ but do not ‘censor’ materials to be purchased for the library collection is to ensure that they follow a written collection development policy. This policy should, at minimum, accord with the Library Bill of Rights and the ALA Code of Ethics, and provide the evaluation criteria to be used for selecting materials. As indicated in Developing Library and Information Center Collections (Evans, & Saponaro, 2005), regarding selecting materials for public libraries, “[c]ommunity need is the dominant factor in selection…Although librarians do the selecting, occasionally they employ a committee format with patron involvement” (p. 75). Also, “[m]ost libraries depend on positive reviews when making selection decisions about children’s books” (p. 77). The authors indicate that ALA’s “Booklist is the most important selection aid” to use and that although it “contains only recommended titles, it also reviews a wide range of nonprint materials and reference items” (p. 77). For info on Booklist, see: http://www.ala.org/ala/booklist/booklist.htm
Regarding school library media centers—which naturally focus on “curriculum support” and “teaching requirements” (p. 78)—Evans and Saponaro also indicate that “[n]ormally, teachers and media specialists serve on committees that review and select items for purchase. There may also be some parent representation on the committee …” (p.79). As we found out in the banned books assignment, “[s]ome parents and religious groups have strong objections to certain ideas in books and journals” (p.79). Therefore, “the need for a collection development policy may be more acute in the school media center than in other settings” (p. 79).
Evans, G. E., & Saponaro, M. Z. (2005). Developing library and information center collections (5th ed.). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.
That is a very good point. School librarians really need to be aware of the books they are ordering, and reading the reviews of each of the books is a good way to accomplish this. By making sure that they check for positive reviews, the librarian is showing that they looked at it, and tried to avoid problems with picking the wrong books. And it also protects them against angry parents or adminstrators to a certain extent.
I just stumbled across this article online. It talks about censorship and the children's book "And Tango Makes Three."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330956,00.html
Do you think that in this case that the librarian was censoring the book? What would you have done in that situation if there were upset parents on both sides?
I don't think it was the librarian in this case that censored, I think it was the school superintendant. He made sure the book was pulled from the shelf at 16 schools in the district. Until he did that, I believe that the incident followed the review process correctly. The school's review committee and the principal did not find the book to be objectionable.
What to do when there are angry parents on both sides of the issue? Give the book to the review or selection committee, just as they did. Make sure that the reasoning for keeping the book (or not) is made public, and allow public discussion to take place in a reasonable and orderly fashion.
As a librarian i should reach out knowledge to people. This does not specify a particular group of people. For the library's worth to be felt the patrons have to be able to find content that appeals to them. So i should be able to defend the content of any article, book, magazine stc found in my library because the public has to be reached one way or the other.
Besides if the community challenges the library content they should have a reason and which should not be on personal bases.So since everyone has their own theme of interest when it comes to reading, my library should be able to reach all categories of people's interest
I think Kim hit on a good point that librarians should be distributing a variety of books for their eclectic patron base. Also, it's common sense not to put a love novel in a children's section. So if all of the books are in their appropriate sections then there shouldn't be a need to censor anything.
It sets a bad precedent because if the library did ban certain books or censor aspects of their services, then they would be moving towards a dictatorship by assuming what they think is tasteful is what everyone should think is acceptable. It's bad for the community because equally important yet different arguments either for or against topics and beliefs could never be heard and we would lose out. It's an important aspect of our country that we allow freedom of expression, and it would be a horrible loss if our country established ONE set of peramiters when determining what ideas should be distributed.
Censorship: I think the acquisitions librarians should strive to develop a well-rounded collection. Purchasing too much on one perspective and no fairly purchasing books from other perspectives on an issue is censorship.
Defending purchases: I don't think librarians should accommodate bias of one single group. There will naturally be some books that support the minority positions and many that represent various other perspectives. There is no reason to pull books due to one person's complaint. You are serving a community, not one person's personal issues.
Is it ethical for librarians to censor materials for the patrons of the library or set restrictions on certain things?
Personally, no. I mean how would that be any different from a patron challenging a book that went against their beliefs? How would it be possible for their view not to have some level of bias in doing so?
How can you as a librarian defend articles that are in your library that could be challenged by the community or patrons?
I think this would depend on the circumstance surrounding it. Granted, a librarian could argue that they are there to represent that community as a whole and not just parts of it. But, for instance, say a student came in and was doing a research paper and determined that there was a book that was offense to their personal beliefs on the shelf. A librarian may show that student how to incorporate such material in their paper as an opposing view. I think it would matter on the situation and the level of creativity the librarian in question had.
Do librarians censor all the materials they choose or don’t choose for their libraries?
I feel that it is important for the library to be familiar with the community in which they serve. With this knowledge, there will be some areas of interests that many patrons may share. With that, the librarian would be able to purchase books in that topic area such as a certain sport or hobby. I do not feel that this is censorship but rather knowing whom you serve and catering to their needs.
On that same note, I do not feel that it is ethical for the librarian to not order something because it would go against what the majority community is interested in. For example, on a low challenge situation, the Detroit Pistons have had some successful seasons in the past few years which has brought out the fans in full force. A library in Detroit may choose to order books on the Pistons and the players due to the rising interest of the community. However, the same library should not decide to exclude books on the Detroit Lions simply because they did not prove to be successful. All "sides" need to be represented but also learn how to read the community to ensure that there are materials on high interest topics.
Since I have never had to deal with this, I do have a question as to how to go about ordering books. Every library has a budget which determines how many and what books to purchase. How do you choose to buy one book over the other if they both have positive reviews? How do you make sure that your own personal thoughts and feelings don't interfere with this process?
In response to question 1, no, I do not think that a librarian censors something by not selecting it for his or her library. To say that this is censorship assumes that librarians have the ability to include every resource they find in their library, which financially isn't possible. However, in my opinion, building a good collection that benefits the community means looking at their tastes and needs when selecting books. If a particular community has a distaste for sexually explicit descriptions, for example, a librarian might not purchase these materials to avoid controversy. However, this librarian also might choose not to purchase the materials because they would get little to no use, and there are other materials that he or she could purchase that would be used much more. I believe, therefore, that there is a fine line between censorship and making good collection development choices.
I think that unless there is a very extreme case, a librarian should not censor the material that patrons may access. I do believe that patrons should have indications about the possible content of what they check out, such as proper placement in adult, youth, or children's sections.
Finally, I think that the best defense for a librarian fighting censorship is the right NOT to read. Patrons can make conscientious choices about what they check out and consume, but they do not have a right to do this for others. Simply stated, if a patron dislikes a particular book, he or she can avoid being offended by closing the book and bringing it back.
While I absolutely agree that a librarian should not censor the materials they choose or don't choose, deeper reflection suggests that the simple act of choosing one book over another could be construed as an act of censorship. The idea of a community member lobbying to have a book removed from the library is much easier to identify and object to than the thought process one goes through when deciding what to purchase. The absence of a thing is always much more difficult to discern than the removal of a thing.
While it seems a nice idea to say pick one with one viewpoint and one with the opposite, that really isn't possible under most circumstances. A many viewpoints don't have binary opposites. And as budgets shrink, decisions about what to purchase become more difficult. So it's left to the reasonable librarian to make a reasonable decision, whatever "reasonable" might mean.
I suppose the proper response is we, as librarians, should be careful about both not purchasing ideas which we object to, and not over-purchasing ideas we favor.
An additional conundrum I've been wrestling with:
The members of your community/board recommend the purchase of a book that contains medical information you think is questionable. Do you purchase the book?
In the library that I work at now and the one that I worked at before I know that the librarians pay a lot of attention to what they order and before they order the book it has to be looked at by our director. I always see librarians reading book reviews when deciding on what books to order. When I work now, each librarian has a certain section (fiction, sci-fi, 600-640, and Easy books) they are responsible for ordering those books. So in a way librarians probably do censor the books they order, obviously if they just ordered anything it would cause an uproar if the wrong person got a hold of the book.
It is not ethical for librarians to censor materials for library patrons. It is the role of the librarian to expand the minds of the community it serves. I don't feel a librarian should exclude a book without valid reasons (ie. a standardized purchasing form, so every book is equally evaluated).
According to the Rubin, "books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves" (203). It is not the librarians place to deny the patrons of the community.
Jessica Kay-Oosterhouse
Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science (2nd ed). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2004.
Question:
The members of your community/board recommend the purchase of a book that contains medical information you think is questionable. Do you purchase the book?
Answer: Does this person find it personally offensive/questionable, or are their basic standards that are not being met? If administrators and community members are all requesting the book, i think one would have a hard time NOT getting the book as our libraries serve the community - not our personal interests. Just because we, as librarians, don't agree with it, doesn't make it ok for us to censor it.
I am not sure what all of the hullabaloo surrounding the Tango book is. It is obvious to me that if a review committee deemed the book appropriate and the superintendent went over their heads and pulled it anyway, then that is CENSORSHIP. I am starting to get a bit tired of the qualifying discussions of what type of censorship is ok and what isn't. It is ALL unethical and limits our (and our children's) intellectual freedoms. There are a lot of books I would rather my kids didn't see, but they do, and then we talk about them and and I share my views and then they have the choice to agree with me or not. The tango book is about two make penquins raising a baby. It is about love, and parenting. There are no graphic sex scenes. It is not inappropriately written or illustrated in any way. By lending all this discussion to it, we are giving the censors way too much power. It shouldn't be censored more than any other book. period.
I think that if the community and the board members wanted the book that contained questionable medical content, the librarian would have to look into it. Reading reviews of the book and articles would also help, making sure there are positive reviews. If you check this out I feel that you as the librarian are covering yourself, that you checked out the book, made sure that reviews were positive before putting it into the library.
Another problem that I feel you run into is that even though you may get a book that could be controversial, patrons that don't agree with it could check it out and not bring the book back to get it out of the library. How will you deal with that situation?
Sarah & Dana, your points about the mythical medical book are appreciated. I was trying to come up with a situation which would not be cut-and-dried, at least for me. It's possible that, in the interests of brevity, I didn't put enough into the question to bring that out.
I was imagining a situation where the librarian's personal feelings are not at issue. Also, I was imagining a situation where there wasn't an overwhelming call for the book to be purchased: it's NOT a situation where administrators and community members are all requesting the book (does that sort of thing happen often?); instead, imagine there've been enough requests to make it noteworthy, but not so many that decision to acquire is essentially not a question. As to the book itself, let's imagine a new fad diet book. In your research you've found some medical professionals who think following the diet is bad for a persons health, while others say it has no impact on a person's health ....
Do any of those changes make the question more difficult to answer? Personally, I'm as interested in the question as the answer.
Dana, isn't the thing to do with that sort of 'self-service censorship' to charge the person for the book, plus a cataloging fee, plus a reshelving fee and repurchase the book? And perhaps block their card until the book is returned or the fee paid? I imagine that's what the thing to do in any event, whether the book is unreturned because the patron finds it offensive, or just can't find it.
To make that question more difficult, what do you do when said 'self-censored' book is out of print?
Russel-
You have come up with some intriguing questions. I am not sure that the caveats placed on the question make it any more/less difficult to answer. Any way you look at it, deciding to include a book or not solely on what the librarian (or administrators) believe to be its merits is a form form of censorship, in my opinion. If there is enough interest to justify a purchase, then I think it would need to be purchased. This question (enough interest) is where a good library standard for purchasing is necessary.
Do librarians censor all the materials they choose or don’t choose for their libraries?
No, good librarians will make purchases so that the library "...will serve its mission of providing a broad diversity of points of view and subject matter." (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/intellectual.htm#ifpoint13)
Is it ethical for librarians to censor materials for the patrons of the library or set restrictions on certain things?
No, it is unethical. The librarian's personal beliefs have nothing to do with the books on the shelves provided there is a balance of materials representing varied positions.
How can you as a librarian defend articles that are in your library that could be challenged by the community or patrons?
Having review processes established before there is a challenge, will make the job easier. Keeping materials in the correct areas will help. Post simple explanations regarding the Bill of Rights and the Library Bill of Rights. Treating clients with respect if they bring materials to your attention.
I do not think that librarians should censor any library material because by doing so would be imposing their views. If they happen to come across material that they do not agree with, I think that librarians should not put themselves in a position in which they will feel uncomfortable such as reading books in which they would skip over words, for example, be electing not to read the book at all. In my opinion on library book purchasing, I think that there needs to be a balance as to what librarians are required to do and what they want to do; to make their jobs easier I think that librarians should just adhere to the book selection policy in which they work. Using a booklist such as booklistonline.com could help librarians in the selections of books. The following link is about the ALA booklist:
http://www.ala.org/ala/booklist/insidebooklist/booklistpolicy/booklistselection.htm
Russell-The "questionable" medical book could be cataloged in accordance with its content. It is always helpful to look at the OCLC record for the book. In theory, a medical book of fictional content would go with the fiction books. If the book is all theory and not a real "medical book" it could go in the section with theories of marginal scientific basis. Books are cataloged alongside similar texts. Look of the Library of Congress catalogs the book. It will tell you a lot about the content.
For example, cataloging a book about Intelligent Design can prove tricky. Do you put it in the science section by the evolution books, or in the religious/theosophy section. Personally, I would think it would be best cataloged with the religiously inspired texts. It is more "creationism" than evolution-based. However, the Library of Congress catalogs it as QH325, which is in the biology section.
Before purchasing books we as librarians evaluate these books according to certain common standards like pricing. Not to forget that we live in a community that has certain values which we can’t ignore and those values have an indirect effect on our decision of getting the book into our library. Of course we can never please everybody even in the same culture, what is informative for me could be harmful for another person. Ideally librarians should fight to provide all kind of information to the patrons and make them accessible to the patrons, but is this issue happening???
I think that it isn’t the librarians’ duty to censor the patrons’ material; if patrons are adult they can make up their decision but if they are children it is the parents’ responsibility to censor if they would like to. Although as a parent I am against the issue of censorship, I would like my kids to have access to the materials they want. If they come across a susceptible issue I will read the material with them and discuss and explain it in the right way, I want them to be educated and knowledgeable in everything especially the sensitive issues like sex education.
I think that librarians can defend challenged materials in their libraries by fighting to keep those materials on the shelves. We should educate people about challenged materials by conducting seminars inviting the community to attend and let them speak freely about their concerns relating those materials. This may reduce the propaganda around the challenged materials and lead to successfully keeping materials on the shelves…
I think that by nature of the beast that librarians censor be it intentional or unintentional. Maybe funds have something to do with what is selected, or the mission of the institution may dictate what is or is not accepted. With that being the case is it unethical? When one knows what is the mission, it could be easier to defend what is available in the library.
I agree with Jessica. Librarians cannot completely separate themselves from a decision whether or not to buy a book or other item.
It will certianly be challenging to weigh the sides of an issue and purchase things that I don't aggree with, but I do think it is important to support the community in its entirety.
Jessica, you make a good point. In a way librarians cannot avoid censoring books, because they cannot possibly have every single book in their library. They will always have to choose. I think that it is very important for them to examine how much their personal feelings affect the books they order and to be extra careful to order books that represent factions of books or opinions that they would not have personally chosen.
Becasue of the space and cost limitation placed on librarians they constantly have to make these choices. My question is can that really be considered censorship? Sure it can lead to censorship if a librarian is consistently choosing books that they think will not offend people or consistently not ordering books that represent a certain view point. But if they are doing their best to make sure they are ordering good books that represent all tastes and beliefs can they still be held accountable for censorship because they are forced to choose which books to include and which to not include?
Do you think it would be difficult to defend a book that you personally disagreed with?
Do Not Defend; Stick to Guiding Principles
It’s all too easy to be drawn into seemingly ‘logical’ arguments that are in fact built on false premises or that use someone’s else’s ‘frame’ in a way that makes it difficult to defend one’s core beliefs without seeming to be in some way ‘out of the mainstream’ or (perversely) in favor of something one isn’t really in favor of. The thinking is something like “Well if you have this book in your library you must think it’s ok or you wouldn’t have in your library.” This is faulty ‘logic’ and one way to combat it is to refer back to guiding principles such as those provided by the ALA Library Bill of Rights, Core Values, and the Code of Ethics.
The only thing one needs to do is seek guidance from, and affirm these guiding principles. One need not go beyond that or engage in discussions over particular books.
Catherine makes a really good point I think. It would be really difficult to defend a book that you don't agree with yourself, but in many of those situations the librarian has not choice in the matter but to defend the title. If you put it in your library, you have to be ready with positive reviews and explanations of why you put the book in there since you are the one that buys the books and puts them on the shelves.
In regards to the question: “Do librarians censor all the materials they choose or don’t choose for their libraries?
I believe this is a very good question. Do librarians censor simply through choosing what to maintain in their libraries and what not to. The answer is yes. The librarian regardless of intention may be choosing one book over another for various reasons and in doing so he/she is making a value judgment about that work. Granted this is not the type of censorship that is motivated by a desire to certain materials out of the hands of the public, but it still remains censorship.
While researching this topic I came across two very interesting articles the first by Craig Gable titled “The Freedom to Select.” In the article Gable challenges a piece written by David Issacson titled “On My Mind.” Both articles appeared in the journal American Libraries. Gable discusses how Issacson shows contempt for the very people he is supposed to serve as a librarian. In his article Issacson writes: “I think librarians ought to have the courage to say that some books aren't worth reading at all and don't belong even in the most "balanced" collections.” He claims to not be advocating “censorship,” but simply “intellectual discrimination.” Issacson believes it is the job of the librarian to make value judgments in regards to the collection at the library. A librarian should be discriminating in the sense that he/she provides a collection of “good books.” Furthermore, he suggests: “Even in 2006, librarians ought to be models of good reading conduct. I do care that patrons are readers rather than nonreaders. But why set our goals so low? Literacy is better than illiteracy, but discriminating readers are ever so much better than undiscriminating ones.”
Gable writes: “As gatekeepers of American freedoms including freedom of choice and the pursuit of (intellectual) happiness-librarians are obliged to exercise their responsibilities with unaffected humility, not with a clandestine jackbooted determination to lead patrons unwittingly into the promised land of institutionally approved "good books." Gable believes that by attempting to impose his ideas of “good books” onto the public he is taking away their right to choose and placing his own values onto the public. Moreover, Gable suggests that “Isaacson maintains that librarians should prevent people from reading selected materials on the basis that we designate those works as having no redeeming cultural value.” Is it the librarian’s job to make the judgment as to what has cultural value or not. I don’t think so.
Although the everyday decision of which book to carry and which book to not carry at a library is dictated by many things, I believe that a librarian should be able to set their own values aside and function to serve the public’s needs. Perhaps in a school library book selection should be more discerning, but in a public library it is not or should not be the librarian’s job to choose what books children or adults can read. As Gable points out: “Libraries, whether public or private, belongto the people who use them, not the librarians who operate them”
Craig Gable (2007, March). The Freedom to Select. American Libraries, 38(3), 38. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 1271157301).
David Isaacson (2006, December). On My Mind. American Libraries, 37(11), 43. Retrieved February 21, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 1270899121).
Melissa, those sound like two very interesting articles - thank you for sharing. I especially enjoyed that last line:
“Libraries, whether public or private, belong to the people who use them, not the librarians who operate them”
It reminded me of a weeding process that we are going through - our head librarian has significantly cut the size of our western and horror collection because of extremely poor circulation (we had some books that had never been checked out). The majority of our patrons are not into reading those genres and the decision was made to weed those sections to make room for the more popular mystery, Adventure/Suspense and Sci-fi books (we also suffer from a major space issue).
Now I ask you, is she censoring? Because she made a conscious decision to get rid of those books and not reorder them is she censoring our patrons from the joys of the Western and Horror genres? Or is she simply trying to give the patrons who use our library what they want?
I think that censorship can be a very slippery slope in both directions. In one direction we start consciously censoring books and then it gets out of control to the poitn where everything is censored and in the other we become so sensitive to censorship that it becomes a witch hunt where everyone is a censor and should be held accountable.
In a way, librarians do censor the materials they buy, but only because they know what they are buying an not buying. For every book that is in a library there were probably numerous other choices that got turned down, mostly because the librarian couldn't afford all of the books, thus he or she had to chose one.
The trick is, according to Fostering Media Diversity in Libraries: Strategies and Actions, covering all the bases, all the groups, all the peoples who will be using the library. Diversifying helps to reduce bias.
I agree with the point that holli v makes. A librarian should be familiar with its patrons wants and needs. The purchase of a book should meet their wants and needs. A librarian's personal beliefs should not affect the decision to not purchase the book.
When choosing a book, as dana b says, one should read several credible reviews of the book. This way, if the book does get challenged there is an argument for the selection of the book.
Post a Comment