ILS503 - Foundations of Librarianship

Freedom to Read:
The Librarian's Mandate to Protect Intellectual Freedom

____________________________________________________________________________

This assignment, aside from giving me an opportunity to explore an area that has "a direct association with a larger component of the knowledge base of librarianship and is of demonstrable importance to the field and profession", also gave me the opportunity to think critically about an issue that held great interest for me. I was always given the freedom to read what I chose growing up, which allowed me to think about what I liked and didn't like in a book, and also gave me the opportunity to lose myself in someone else's story. I worry that many young people today are not being given the opportunity to choose for themselves, or that individual families might be denied the opportunity to decide what will be read.  I read in the news recently that The Perks of Being a Wallflower has been challenged in Wisconsin and was reminded that intellectual freedom is an issue about which we must never become complacent.

_______________________________________________________________________

Abstract

However librarians choose to use their Library and Information Science degree, over the course of their professional careers, they will no doubt encounter the issue of challenged or banned books. Whether librarians are on the receiving end of a challenge, hearing, or lawsuit or are viewing the challenge from a professional distance, this event demands that they examine their professional and personal stand on the issue of Intellectual Freedom and First Amendment Rights. This paper proposes to look at this issue as it relates to print material in schools and library media centers, first examining Intellectual Freedom issues as they relate to this population, followed by a close examination of the controversial issue of censorship.

Introduction

Access to a wide variety of reading material in schools and school library media centers is at the heart of an ongoing struggle between censors and Intellectual Freedom (IF) proponents over the freedom to read for children and young adults. The most current statistics published by the American Library Association (ALA, 2007) on book challenges by institution span the years between 1990 and 2005. Over the course of those 16 years, the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) registered 8,777 challenges against books and other print materials. Of these reported challenges, research by the OIF suggests that there may be as many as four or five additional challenges not reported for each one that is. If those projected figures were calculated the figures would be staggering: it would mean that in those sixteen years there were between 35,108 and 43,885 additional challenges not reported for reasons unknown.

The 8,777 documented challenges came from a variety of reporting sources with the result always being one of the following; the challenged material was banned and removed from a classroom or library shelf, the “offensive” passage or image was expunged, the challenged material was “removed” to a shelf or locked room with limited access, or the challenged material was returned to the library shelf. Of the material being challenged during this time period, seventy-two percent of these challenges were to material in schools or school libraries. Parents brought sixty percent of the total number of challenges and administrators brought nine percent (ALA, 2005).

These figures are disturbing because they directly affect a librarian’s ability to provide access to information. The situation requires librarians examine closely the issue of Intellectual Freedom and the various underlying motivating factors leading to censorship. Just as doctors take the Hippocratic Oath to uphold the values of the medical profession, by virtue of pursuing a degree in an ALA accredited Library and Information Science program, librarians are implicitly accepting the core values and principles upon which the American Library Association is founded. The ALA Constitution states, “The object of the American Library Association shall be to promote library service and librarianship… to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all” (ALA, 2007). Supplementing the ALA Constitution, the Council of the American Library Association voted in 1998 to commit the resources and energy of the Association to focus on five Key Action Areas and expanded those areas in 2005 to include two more. These areas are diversity, equitable access to information and library services, education and lifelong learning, Intellectual Freedom, advocacy for libraries and the profession, literacy, and organizational excellence (ALA, 2005). A love of books and a burning desire to help others, while beneficial traits for a librarian, should not be the sole foundation upon which a career in Library and Information Science is based. Strict adherence to and respect for the pursuit of Intellectual Freedom should be one of the core values defining and motivating a librarian’s career choice and how the challenges of that position are met.

Historical Precedent

In order to understand the complexity of censorship, librarians need to examine carefully all the factors influencing Intellectual Freedom, from external challenges to self-censorship. First and foremost, censorship must be viewed within a historical context, taking into account the long-standing precedent for overt censorship of ideas. Some of the earliest documented cases of censorship occurred during the Hellenistic Era. In 387 BC, Plato suggested that Homer be expurgated “for immature readers”, Caligula tried to banish Homer’s Odyssey in 100 AD because he feared people would be influenced by Greek ideas of freedom, and the Alexandria Library was burned in 642 AD (Noble, 1990).  During the Age of Enlightenment and Discovery, Galileo’s belief that the sun was the center of the universe threatened the teachings of the Catholic Church. Pope Urban VIII placed him under house arrest and his work, Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems, was placed on the Index of Prohibited Books in 1633 where it remained for two hundred years (Sobel, 2000).

These examples of censorship cannot be dismissed as outdated anomalies. Two hundred and forty years later in the United States, the first major case of censorship resulted from the 1873 Comstock Act, making it illegal to mail any “obscene, lewd, or lascivious book” (U.S.Congress, 1873). Although they targeted pornography, these laws affected medical textbooks for their graphic depictions of the human body, as well as dime store novels. In the 1950’s, comic books were burned for corrupting the morals of young people, and in 1973 thirty-four copies of Slaughterhouse Five were thrown into the Drake, North Dakota public school furnace by the local school board (Hentoff, 1992).  Today, books dealing with homosexuality such as Annie on My Mind are being banned in Bend, Oregon and Lapeer, Michigan (Karolides, 1999) as well as the Harry Potter books because of their “teachings of witchcraft” (LaRue, 2007).

Challenges come from both conservative and liberal voices. Little House on the Prairie was challenged in Tribodoux, Louisiana and Sturgis, South Dakota for being derogatory to Native Americans and The Complete Fairy Tales of the Brothers Grimm were challenged in Kyrene, Arizona for being excessively violent, negative to women, and anti-Semitic (Meyer, 1994). Ageism, sexism and racism are the primary concerns listed when liberal groups and individuals challenge books “as being out of step with contemporary mores” (Granberry, 1999). Presently, librarians are facing an unprecedented rate of book challenges from the right and the left (ALA, 2008).

What exactly is it that drives censors? What could possibly motivate the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, one of the oldest and most influential civil right’s organizations, and James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, a politically conservative religious right organization, to both censor books? What drove Plato to expunge Homer and parents in Berks County, Pennsylvania in 2005 to censor the novel, Sex Education (Meyer, 1994)? The motivation to censor has not only survived but has also increased in frequency for over two thousand years, primarily motivated by one of two distinct forces –fear of ideas and the urge to control another’s thoughts.

Fear of Ideas

Fear is a powerful primal emotion; its effect on us is visceral. In short, fear keeps us from putting ourselves into the path of danger and its presence guarantees our survival. When we encounter ideas, however, this is not the case. Yet censors respond to material they deem objectionable as if it were. Censors are motivated by fear of the printed word, “… fear of people, fear of the new, the different, fear of changing patterns, of sex, of frankness, of words…” (Wooster, 1944). They choose to fight what they frequently refer to as “filth” (Noble, 1990). Censors are fearful of the power of the written word, fearful that it is “… capable of great harm and destruction if not controlled…” (Noble, 1990). Their fear is based on their belief that reading objectionable material will negatively influence a child. To the censor, children and young adults are seen as vulnerable, prone to being corrupted, and in need of protection.

A paternalistic drive to control ideas is at the heart of the second force affecting overt censorship of the printed word. When the desire to restrict access to information is made manifest, the result is the control of others’ thoughts. When parents seek to keep their child from reading a book, they are essentially exerting control over their child’s mind. When they request a book be removed from a classroom or library however, they are exerting thought control over every child at that school. Censors give numerous reasons for removing books including but not limited to; they contain sexually explicit or offensive language, the material is unsuited to a specific age group, or it may promote witchcraft with occult themes (ALA, 2007).  The censor truly believes that he or she is morally right and sees the act of removing offensive material as an honorable act.  Both fear and the desire to control thoughts seem to be predicated on the belief that the child’s mind is a vessel, corruptible by merely being exposed to ideas. This paradigm leaves no room for Intellectual Freedom and inhibits the ability of the child or young person to develop his or her own worldview.

Developing a Worldview

Why is it so important for young people to develop their own worldview? A worldview is the totality of our life experiences. It comes from our upbringing, our exposure to religious beliefs (our own and others), world cultures, and exposure to differing life experiences. Because we are limited by the scope of our own experience, reading can provide us with this expanded worldview. We are able to enter and inhabit another’s world. We see situations from opposing viewpoints. We are able to gain differing perspectives not possible otherwise. All of these experiences contribute to the worldview a young person develops, and becomes the prism through which choices are explored and decisions are made. As young people mature, development of these skills is necessary if they are to make informed decisions.

Conservative religious groups object to books they see as advocating immoral beliefs and behavior for this very reason.  Liberal civil rights groups object to books they see as advocating outdated attitudes toward sexual orientation, racial, socio-economic, and gender stereotyping for this very reason. Imagine the worldview a young person would develop if censors prevailed. Instead of a realistic representation, in the sanitized world censors would have children view, no one swears or uses racial epithets, no one is violent, no one smokes, has sex or is homosexual, poverty doesn’t exist, there is no sexism, ageism, and everyone worships the right religion. It is hard to imagine such a worldview preparing any child for the challenges society faces today.

Intellectual Freedom and Democracy

It is clear that children and young people are not going to be able to develop their unique worldview without the freedom to read and explore new and divergent ideas. A librarian’s mandate to protect a child’s freedom to read isn’t solely about providing the material itself. A librarian’s mandate to protect a child’s freedom to read is about protecting the ideal of Intellectual Freedom. In the ALA’s Library Bill of Rights, Intellectual Freedom is defined as “the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction” (Intellectual Freedom Manual, 2005). This is true no matter how repugnant or anathema to our own beliefs those ideas may be. Because our democracy is based on self-government and the ability of our citizens to construct informed decisions, it is crucial that young people learn to think for themselves. Access to a wide variety of materials with vastly differing views prepares “…future citizens who are able to participate fully in our democracy and think for themselves‘ (OIF, 2002). If children are to have access to the information they need, librarians must be willing to ensure their collections reflect this diversity of ideas. Yet this is not an easy or straightforward task.

Freedom to Read Statement

In theory, librarians have a toolbox filled with policy statements developed by the ALA in conjunction with various organizations concerned with Intellectual Freedom issues that should prepare them to uphold those principles. In 1953, the ALA and the Association of American Publishers prepared a joint statement of their philosophical stance on the dangers of censorship of any ideas (Intellectual Freedom Manual, 2005). The ALA Code of Ethics states libraries and librarians should “Uphold the principles of Intellectual Freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources” (ALA, 1997). Not only are librarians obligated by the Library Bill of Rights and the Code of Ethics to uphold Intellectual Freedom, they also implicitly have the obligation to preserve and support the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which states, "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech or of the press”(US Documents 2005). The First Amendment sanctifies not only the right of publishers and creators of materials; it also protects a person’s right to access those expressions of free speech.

Other documents such as the Library Bill of Rights (LBOR) further elucidate and refine these issues. Article V ensures children and young adults have free access to all services that a library provides (ALA, 1948). With a philosophical foundation so clearly defined, it begs further examination as to why some librarians choose to honor these mandates while still others choose to ignore them altogether. But before librarians can grapple with the challenge of collection development, they must acknowledge that the material available to them is not an accurate representation of the knowledge available on any given subject. What is available to them is the material the publishing industry has made the editorial decision to print.

Covert Censorship

Overt censorship in the form of a material challenge is a tangible threat to Intellectual Freedom. While it certainly will be one of the most distressing events in a librarian’s career, at least it is a quantifiable event. It will be discussed, debated, hotly contested, and ultimately resolved. This is democracy in action. More worrisome to the profession though are the silent, invisible and insidious forms of censorship. Before a librarian has the opportunity to develop and follow a material selection policy, censorship has already restricted available print material. Publishing houses clearly have the power to make editorial decisions driven by economics, politics, and personal or ideological preference. In 1971, a U.S. government-sponsored publication cancelled William Noble’s story about a housing program for the poor in Chile. Noble’s editor informed him the story made it all the way to the White House before it was dropped. Noble, a well-known Freedom of Speech advocate surmises it was dropped for political reasons – namely anti-Allende sentiments from Richard Nixon who loathed Allende and would not favor an article in support of his governmental programs (Noble, 1990).

An even darker side of publishing occurred when the publisher of Fahrenheit 451 marketed the book for 13 years after expurgating more than 75 passages containing words such as “hell, “damn”, and “abortion”. For six years from 1973 to 1979, only the expurgated version was sold, amazingly without Bradbury’s knowledge of the missing passages. After he was informed of the deletions, he demanded that the original edition replace the expurgated version. Since 1980, the original version is the only one available for purchase (Karolides, 1999). Here, vigilance by Bradbury’s friend was the only thing that rescued Fahrenheit 451 from expurgation.

While there will always be an unknown number of books never published, or edited prior to publication, what we do know is that school book club groups have edited and published sanitized versions of books currently in print. In 1981, the Young Adult division of the Intellectual Freedom Committee investigated Scholastic and other book clubs and found that all of them expurgated books. The ALA threatened withdrawal of Newbery and Caldecott medals from those expurgated books, and demanded that such books be identified as an “edited school book edition” on the copyright page (Granberry, 1997). Here again, vigilant efforts from outside groups or individuals protected access to materials that had been expurgated by the publishing industry.

Self-Censorship

Publisher initiated censorship is frequently an unperceived challenge to Intellectual Freedom. Another formidable threat that goes unperceived is restrictive selection procedures by professional librarians. Rubin believes that the seemingly clear and simple mandate to protect Intellectual Freedom has become one of the most challenging and controversial aspects of librarianship due to “what librarians perceive as conflicting moral, ethical, personal, social, and legal obligations”(2004). Why would a professionally trained librarian wish to restrict access to material from the population his or her library serves? At the most extreme end of the spectrum is the librarian who does not believe in the mandate to protect Intellectual Freedom. Denise Varenhorst and the Family Friendly Libraries (FFL) organization frequently present awards of recognition to libraries for “…allowing parents to limit their minor child’s borrowing privileges, and providing a ‘parents’ advisory section’ for materials parents may wish to pre-screen for their children”(FFL, 2008).

All of these actions being commended restrict Intellectual Freedom and were implemented by professional librarians in public and school media centers. Here paternalistic ‘father knows best’ selection and censorship is at play. Belief that the ALA’s public stand on Intellectual Freedom issues will ensure access to all information provides a false sense of security. Unfortunately, some librarians blatantly ignore Intellectual Freedom policies and practice restrictive selection and circulation policies that threaten access to information.  When this happens, vigilance on the part of civil rights organizations and the public may be the only insurance that a wide variety of materials will be available for children and young people.

Factors Restricting Access

Rubin has identified four factors that he believes lead to self-censorship. First and foremost, a librarian’s personal experiences and values come into play when making decisions regarding access. A librarian who defines herself as a feminist might believe that distributing material she views as sexist to children and young adults would be harmful to their development.  A self-censoring librarian in this situation may justify not purchasing this material finding it  “outside the scope of curriculum needs”. In this instance one would wonder how many other books in the collection meet this criteria or any other criteria cited in the selection policy (Rubin, 2004). Every collection has books that do not meet selection criteria. Therefore, librarians must move from asking, “Does this book fit selection criteria?” to the more probing question, “How does this book not fit selection criteria?” The answer to this question is more apt to identify self-censorship in the selection process.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to know how frequently this type of restrictive selection occurs.  But, if this issue is to be addressed, we must examine a librarian’s ability to reconcile personal beliefs with Article VII of the ALA Code of Ethics. If librarians are to uphold Intellectual Freedom, it is imperative that they identify their personal tendencies toward censoring controversial issues of personal importance.

A second factor influencing self-censorship is the obligation a librarian feels to shield children from material that might potentially harm them. We are all obligated to protect our most vulnerable members from exploitation no matter what profession we hold (Rubin, 2004). One common way schools and librarians accomplish this is through reader-leveling programs. In this instance a librarian might place a sticker on a book identifying it as appropriate for an older age group. Schools are then able to remove books from open access and restrict children from checking out books when they do not meet this age or reading level requirement. This technique allows librarians to restrict access to material they personally deem inappropriate under the guise of acceptable reading guidelines.

A third factor affecting access is the value a librarian places on his or her role in the school and community. This identification with school and community standards can make purchasing materials that he or she perceives as offensive or inappropriate to that population untenable. Finally, a librarian is frequently motivated by the desire to protect his or her library from reprisals if the school board and community view material selection as contrary to their values (Rubin, 2004). Fear is at play here in these forms of self-censorship, although it is fear of reprisal. Challenges to material elicit considerable publicity, and special interest groups such as FFL and Phyllis Shafly’s Eagle Forum are positioned to step into these challenges with procedural and legal support. Although most challenges are resolved before going to court, lower courts generally follow the decision in Pico v. Island Trees Board of Education. This ruling supported Intellectual Freedom and a student’s right to access information in their school library stating books may not be removed because school boards dislike the ideas in those books (Noble, 1990). Regardless of this outcome, most schools and librarians strive to avoid these public confrontations.

Consciously or unconsciously, librarians, teachers, and others are simply not purchasing or are expunging or removing books for fear of controversy. In December of 2000, a survey of teachers on the International Reading Association website cited self-censoring as a way to pre-empt challenges in the classroom. One respondent stated, "I refrained from shelving The Giver, by Lois Lowry, in my fifth-grade classroom. I love the book, but felt the themes were too mature for my students and [I] would have had difficulty defending it if a parent had challenged … One teacher reported deleting Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes from a thematic unit on wolves because in two of his fractured fairy tales--"The Three Little Pigs" and "Little Red Riding Hood"--a character takes out a gun and shoots other characters. "Since the disaster at Columbine," that teacher said, "I have deleted these very creative poems from my repertoire because of the explicit violence" (Education Digest, 2001).

This type of censorship is not restricted to teachers and librarians. A principal in Erie, Pennsylvania allowed teachers to mark over passages in Dian Fossey’s book Gorillas in the Mist that described their mating habits. This expurgation was far from subtle, black felt-tip markers were used. It came to light when the parent of a ninth grader protested (Granberry, 1997). In 1972, after Maurice Sendak’s book, In the Night Kitchen, was published, the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom reported an item from the School Library Journal submitted by a librarian in Caldwell Parish Library, Louisiana. "Maurice Sendak might faint,” the librarian wrote, “but … [we], knowing that the patrons of the community might object to the illustrations… solved the problem by diapering the little boy with white tempera paint. Other libraries might want to do the same” (OIF, 1972).

On February 2, 1973, the formal response by the Intellectual Freedom Committee to this incident was to draft, "Expurgation of Library Materials: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights" condemning any “deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliteration. By such expurgating, the library is in effect denying access to the compete work and the full ideas that the work was intended to express (Intellectual Freedom Manual, 2005). This response hardly stopped the practice – a fact attested to by Maurice Sendak’s extensive collection of expunged copies.

Factors Honoring Access

While fear of reprisal might motivate librarians, teachers, and administrators to self-censor, Rubin lists three alternate factors that motivate librarians to honor access to a wide variety of material. First and foremost is the obligation a librarian feels toward the education of children and young adults (2004). “Rarely do I decide to not purchase a book from a real censorship point of view. Usually I consider the need for the materials and the interest that it might have for our children in our school." (Education Digest, 2001) The second is the librarian’s obligation to protect free access to ideas and information. Finally, the obligation to preserve the core values of the profession increases the librarian’s willingness to offer a wide and varied assortment of material that all children and young adults have access to.

Through professional training and exposure to the accepted professional standards of the ALA, Rubin thinks it is likely that a librarian has integrated these beliefs and developed his or her own professional Code of Ethics (2004). Currently, this area of librarianship needs closer examination. Why is it that some librarians blatantly disregard these core values while others embrace it and stake their professional reputation on it? One has to wonder if there is a correlation between the quality of graduate level courses offered on the topic and the librarian’s level of self-awareness on issues pertaining to censorship and Intellectual Freedom.

The New York Library Association (NYLA) has developed a Self-Censorship Checklist available on their website that helps librarians identify if they are either consciously or unconsciously self-censoring their book selections.  Questions such as these and many more listed on their website will help librarians identify potential self-censorship.

Has your library ever...

• Not purchased material because a review or publisher's catalog indicated that it was for "mature readers," had explicit language or illustrations, or might be controversial?
• Not purchased a popular book because it might be unpopular with parents or pressure groups in the community?
• Not purchased material concerning minorities because "no one in our community is like that"?
• Purchased a potentially controversial book, but put it in the Adult collection rather than the Young Adult collection for which it was intended?
• Reviewed a potentially controversial item and recommended that it not be purchased because of lack of literary merit, even though other non-controversial materials in the collection also lacked literary merit?

Challenges on Books

• Expression of Concern - An inquiry that has judgmental overtones.
• Oral Complaint - An oral challenge to the presence and/or appropriateness of the material in question.
• Written Complaint - A formal, written complaint filed with the institution (library, school, etc.), challenging the presence and/or appropriateness of specific material.
• Public Attack - A publicly disseminated statement challenging the value of the material, presented to the media and/or others outside the institutional organization in order to gain public support for further action.
• Censorship - A change in the access status of material based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes.       
  

Conclusion

 
Finally, self-censorship requires closer examination of factors such as educational standards, professional integrity, socio-economic status, moral and religious beliefs, and political affiliations to identify if there is a correlation between these and a librarian’s willingness to embrace Intellectual Freedom. Based on information gathered from these studies, recommendations should be made to supplement current educational training around this issue. The field of Library and Information Science can no longer stand complacently behind the policies and procedures of the ALA, assuming that their existence alone will guarantee Intellectual Freedom. Factors contributing to self-censorship need to be identified and professional programs designed that require librarians to grapple with these issues that lie at the heart of their mandate to protect Intellectual Freedom.

_____________________________________________________________________

Works Cited