Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
For my issues paper I chose to write about the pros and cons of censorship in public and public school libraries. As I researched, my understanding of exactly what censorship is changed quite a bit from the rudimentary understanding I had before. As a result, I came to realize just how complicated of an issue it really is and why there hasn’t (in many minds) been a truly universal solution thus far. Librarians of course have principles and codes they have chosen to uphold, however (as most idealistic intentions have in common) humans are not so black and white as we might wish to be. There are also widespread and very reasonable concerns about minors’ access to inappropriate material before they are ready for it. This is what makes for a complicated dilemma as these lawful rights and the perceived potential to harm children conflict with each other. I will delve into this complex quandary, first exploring the cons (and later the pros) of censorship in public schools.
According to Dr. McElrath’s Module 7 PowerPoint presentation, censorship is defined as “examining resources for the purpose of removing, suppressing, banning, prohibiting, labeling, prescribing, restricting, exorcising, or deleting (including due to being deemed objectionable on moral, religious, political, military, or other grounds).” It is in direct opposition to the First Amendment right to free speech as well as the Library Bill of Rights (while not technically an official law, is still a code librarians are expected to operate by – regardless of their own beliefs and values). Contrary to what many likely believe, these rights apply to minors as well. The ALA website states “Library procedures that deny minors equitable access to all library resources available to other users violate the Library Bill of Rights. The ALA opposes all attempts to restrict access based on the age of library users” (“Interpretations”). So censoring materials goes against the very law and core of librarianship, regardless of the library setting or the age of the patrons. This alone is a highly compelling argument against censorship.
Filtering the internet is an exceedingly common practice currently used in public schools (as well as many public libraries). CIPA (Children’s Internet Protection Act) “requires any public or school library that is to receive federal eRate funding to have Internet use policies and to install technology that blocks or filters Internet content that has been deemed harmful to minors” (Childs). However, when steps are taken to censor materials online in this way, it often causes its own fair share of problems. There is often the issue of under or overclocking; either not being efficient enough (some students even being savvy enough to hack through the blocking), or too efficient (blocking school appropriate and/or useful websites) – further impairing student learning. Due to overclocking, students or patrons may have to ask to be unblocked which can lead to a violation of privacy as well as a feeling of suspicion (which may cause patrons to hesitate if they even choose to ask at all).
Rubin (493-494) argues that censorship inhibits the need to educate future generations, stating “Others contend that a comprehensive education involves exposing students to many different points of view and teaching them the critical thinking skills necessary to make well-reasoned decisions.” Anderson discusses how, while librarians are human with their own personal beliefs (political, religious, etc.), it is important that they do not allow themselves to become activists to further their own agenda – “critical that they are objective and unbiased, curating a well-rounded collection that contains a wide array of viewpoints.” If students are only exposed to a narrow set of perspectives, then their intellectual vision will also be narrow (similar to the old saying “small towns breed small minds”). It is also fair to say that these children will grow up one day to be a part of the “real world” (which includes sexuality, violence, profanity, etc.). So to attempt to shield them entirely from that until adulthood is not exactly realistic (naivete after all has its own set of dangers). Kinkaid’s article discusses a helpful set of procedures to follow if ever met with opposition over censorship. These include making sure all staff knows the policies, how to deal with an angry stakeholder, being knowledgeable on the materials in question and prepared to justify their inclusion, and being well versed in the First Amendment and Library Bill of Rights.
Everyone has different perspectives, and in certain areas of the United States, many may share harmful ideals against a marginalized group. If the librarians of such a given area act upon that shared culture, purposefully failing to curate literature including that/those groups, then that will likely make those groups feel unwelcome and perhaps even as if they are walking into a hostile environment (which is the opposite of what libraries are supposed to stand for). This also sets up that area to continue that cycle of narrow viewpoints for generations to come. Peet’s article goes on to discuss the allowance of hate group’s literature in the library as well as their use of the meeting rooms (in this particular instance the KKK). It is questioned whether that is truly still considered a safe place if their presence (due to their violent history, even if they are not being overtly hostile) perpetuates a feeling of the opposite (especially to those marginalized groups their hate is directed towards). James LaRue (Director of the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom) makes the fair point, however, that “as long as they are following the rules of conduct” then to deny them access to express their First Amendment rights sets a dangerous precedent for other groups. He also makes sure to point out that any such group meetings do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the library (and its staff) but that they must uphold the right to free speech To not allow one group would open up the doors for any other group to be disallowed for any incongruence with any given staff member’s personal beliefs.
While intellectual freedom is currently backed by the First Amendment, laws can always change and many continue to fight for censorship (of materials for minors especially). Reasons for censorship include “profanity, sexuality, religion/witchcraft, violence/horror, rebellion, racism/sexism, substance use/abuse, suicide/death, crime, crude behavior, and depressing/ negative tone” (Rickman). In spite of First Amendment rights, it is largely agreed that children should not have free access to all of the media and literature that exists in the world (and there is not much educationally to gain from exposing a 7-year-old to literature or media containing extreme violence and sexuality). There is much that they are simply not capable of fully understanding yet, which can lead to a multitude of negative outcomes. The question is, how is it possible to protect children without infringing on their rights?
Some schools are trying to find ways to compromise and still incorporate books (that may be seen as objectionable) while allowing parents to make the final decision on what their child reads. A Delaware school sends home permission slips so they could be given an alternate (still aligned to the subject matter) book to read if they are opposed to the assigned one (Censorship dateline). This is seen by many as “soft censorship” as it is essentially “poisoning the well” to have to get permission (as there is an implication that the materials contain objectionable or inappropriate material). However, it does give parents some control over what their child is reading while not affecting the learning of other students. Some other districts are using opt-out policies where parents can view the year’s upcoming curriculum/book lists and opt-out of certain books (again having similar, yet more “unoffensive” books substituted). Dana Nahlen makes a good point that “the only way you get to where no one opts out is if you take all diversity of thought out of the literature” (Censorship dateline). Be that as it may, should it not be the parent’s final decision on what their child is exposed to? Even the ALA itself purports a similar message “We affirm the responsibility and the right of all parents and guardians to guide their own children’s use of the library and its resources and services” (“Libraries”).
School libraries are in a unique situation as they also have “loco parentis” responsibilities (meaning they essentially act in place of the parents), and parents thus “expect schools to protect their children from harm, including from ‘unhealthy’ materials” (Rubin 515 ). While the “ALA recognizes the importance of specifically addressing the needs of school library media centers…attempts to restrict use or access should be resisted” (Rubin 515-516). Unfortunately not much was then said on exactly how to address these unique needs (without censorship). It seems there is not much other option than to in some way censor materials – whether that be through filtering, opt-outs/permission slips, and/or choosing books for curriculum that do not contain any or very little “objectionable” material. That being said, as the grade levels go up those types of books are much more difficult to find, and thus by their very nature less likely to provide a well-rounded education/variance in perspectives.
At the same time, choosing age/emotionally-appropriate literature is important and in effect, there has to be some kind of censorship happening. There may be a book out there written to a 2nd grader’s reading level, but if it contains sexual situations and copious profanity (despite possibly having wonderful educational content) it is realistically not going to be chosen for the school reading list. While minors technically have First Amendment rights, there is no doubt some form of censorship happening when most educators are selecting books (especially due to the subjective nature of what is objectionable) and most parents are going to support that. Even public libraries can feel this pressure – “to ensure the survival of the library – those who wish to restrict materials often threaten to campaign against funding for library services, thus threatening the survival of the library itself” – and may partake in subtle self-censoring to keep their stakeholders happy (Rubin 547). This practice is typically done under the radar due to being difficult to prove as there are many reasons certain books may not be selected (such as budget or lack of interest) (R.S.).
In summation, it is clear why this is such a complicated and controversial issue. On the one hand, censorship is a violation of rights, and it is clear what a dangerous precedent it sets (the current state of North Korea is just one example). On the other hand, it is generally agreed that there is a lot of media that children should not be exposed to too early. Admittedly, while writing this paper I had difficulty finding articles in favor of censorship. This is likely due to the fact that the databases used are rooted in a college that offers an MLS degree and of course, colleges in general are against censorship. Any mention of the reasons or desires for censorship was typically met with an opposing viewpoint by the author. However, there are some fair points where children are concerned (especially in this digital age where everything is accessible online). Movies have age restrictions (that can of course be overridden by parents), so why not books? If it would cause more harm than good for children to be exposed to it, then would it not be a reasonable practice?
At the same time restricting items often has the opposite effect, causing the item to become even more desirable. This very thing happened to me recently, when a suicide scene was removed from the popular Netflix series 13 Reasons Why (based on a book by the same title). Before its removal, I had the show on my watch list but wasn’t in any big rush to get to it. The fact that this scene had now been removed made me very curious and I even admittedly attempted (unsuccessfully) to find the clip online. Two interviewed students expressed the same thoughts in the Isajlovic-Terry article, even listing ways they got around their school’s attempts to restrict what they could check out (including having an older sibling check it out for them, sneak it home and read it without their parent’s knowledge, etc.).
The only real solution I have personally come to is that intellectual freedom must be upheld, but that parental involvement and encouraging age-appropriate reading is also important. As the old saying goes, “raise up a child in the way he should go and he will not turn from it.” If parents hold certain beliefs and values, then it should be a continual discussion in the home and children should have a pretty clear idea of what is expected of them (for a perhaps extreme example – not searching for pornography on the school laptop or checking out “50 Shades of Gray” when they are only in the 3rd Grade). If a parent opposes literature being read in school, they should have the right to request an alternative book. At the end of the day, I believe that libraries should not be censored, but that parents ultimately have the right to decide what is appropriate for their child.
Works Cited
- Anderson, Judy. “Intellectual Freedom Equals Individual Freedom.” Journal of Information Ethics, vol. 27, no. 2, Fall 2018, pp. 7–12. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=133682175&site=ehost-live.
- Best, Rickey. “Censorship or Selection? Academic Library Holdings Of the Top Ten Most Challenged Books of 2007.” Education Libraries, vol. 33, no. 2, Winter 2010, pp. 18–35. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=58489279&site=ehost-live.
- “Censorship Dateline: Schools.” Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, vol. 64, no. 1, Jan. 2015, pp. 7–22. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=102304921&site=ehost-live.
- Childs, Laura. “To Uphold and Resist: Protecting Intellectual Freedom through Progressive Librarianship.” Serials Librarian, vol. 73, no. 1, Sept. 2017, pp. 58–67. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/0361526X.2016.1270248.
- “Filters and Filtering.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, May 2017, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/filtering.
- “Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, 2018, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations.
- Isajlovic-Terry, Natasha, and Lynne (E. F. McKechnie. “An Exploratory Study of Children’s Views of Censorship.” Children & Libraries: The Journal of the Association for Library Service to Children, vol. 10, no. 1, Spring 2012, pp. 38–43. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=75044356&site=ehost-live.
- Kincaid, Courtney, and Brooke King. “Fire Up About CENSORSHIP.” Texas Library Journal, vol. 94, no. 1, Spring 2018, pp. 12–13. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=128726902&site=ehost-live.
- “Libraries: An American Value.” American Library Association, ALA American Library Association, 3 Feb. 1999, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/americanvalue.
- McElrath, Dr. Eileen. “Module 7 Censorship Summer 2019.” PowerPoint presentation. Accessed 17 July 2019.
- “Minors and Online Activity: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.” Advocacy, Legislation & Issues, ALA American Library Association, 24 June 2019, www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/minorsonlineactivity.
- Peet, Lisa, and Kara Yorio. “First Amendment Debate.” School Library Journal, vol. 64, no. 8, Aug. 2018, pp. 12–13. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=131053818&site=ehost-live.
- Request. “Professional Ethics.” Tools, Publications & Resources, ALA American Library Association, 6 May 2019, www.ala.org/tools/ethics.
- Rickman, Wendy. “A Study of Self-Censorship by School Librarians.” School Library Media Research, vol. 13, Jan. 2010, pp. 1–21. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=126492386&site=ehost-live.
- R. S. “Here’s Why It’s Censorship.” Horn Book Magazine, vol. 83, no. 3, May 2007, p. 228. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=24638990&site=ehost-live.
- Rubin, Richard. Foundations of Library and Information Science, 4th ed. NY: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2016.
- Scales, Pat. “Age-Appropriate Reading.” School Library Journal, vol. 63, no. 4, Apr. 2017, p. 24. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lih&AN=122345155&site=ehost-live.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.