Heather Fucinari



Running Head: POLICIES AND CENSORSHIP

Collection Development Policies and Censorship

Heather Fucinari

San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science

LIBR 266-12, Fall 2008

Abstract

Challenges to school library literature are still rampant in today’s world. Despite the fact that libraries adopt collection development polices, many challenges still result in the moving or removal of challenged materials. Many of these materials were deemed legitimate additions to the library’s collection according to the selection criteria of the library. Several recent cases of challenges to school library literature are explored as well as the relevance of the intellectual freedom and reconsideration sections of school library policies.

Collection Development Policies and Censorship

First Amendment rights and intellectual freedom are tenets of the American Library Association (ALA) and the library profession as a whole. The subject of censorship is broad, complex and controversial and one strongly fought against by the ALA and other advocacy groups. While the purpose of libraries is to represent all community members varying viewpoints they often find themselves faced with challenges to materials once deemed acceptable for the collection. School libraries are the main target of censorship taking 70% of challenges (NCAC, Censorship in Schools section, para. 35). The ALA (2008) defines a challenge as, “an attempt to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group. A banning is the removal of those materials. Challenges do not simply involve a person expressing a point of view; rather, they are an attempt to remove material from the curriculum or library, thereby restricting the access of others” (para. 5). Any type library faced with a challenge is presented with a delicate situation. For this reason, libraries are strongly encouraged to adopt a collection development policy with an intellectual freedom caveat including instruction on handling these complaints. However, even libraries with policies on hand may find themselves on the losing end of a challenge. Are these policies little more than blind inclusions because the ALA advises them? This paper will focus on literary challenges at school libraries today and surmise if libraries are standing behind their collection development policies and conviction to intellectual freedom.

Debates on the relevance of collection development policies are rife in the library profession, however, more so for “pigeonholing” the collection developer with selection than for providing a legitimate fallback for challenges (Disher, 2007, p.45). The ALA and National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) are among groups that are proponents of First Amendment rights and provide ample literature for school libraries to educate and protect themselves from challenges. Among these documents are ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Manual and the Workbook for Selection Policy Writing. School library collection development policies vary from other types of libraries due to the educational standards that must be met in selection. This does not constitute internal censorship, but selection based on educational goals. Section 53.1.3 of the Intellectual Freedom Manual addresses this difference by acknowledging, “Members of the school community involved in the collection development process employ educational criteria to select resources unfettered by their personal, political, social, or religious views” (ALA, 2006). The Workbook for Selection Policy Writing is specifically written so that school libraries may prepare themselves for the inevitable challenge,

A comprehensive policy on the selection of instructional materials also will enable school professionals to rationally explain the school program to the community. And, most important in a crisis, when there are complaints about social studies texts, human development materials in the media center, or fiction in the English class, the use of the “objectionable” item can be explained more easily (ALA, 1998, para. 2).

The Workbook continues to give school libraries guidelines for important inclusions such as detail on who is responsible for selection, polices on controversial material and reconsideration, and a sample statement on intellectual freedom. Addition of these sections arms a library with a consistent reply to a challenge. It may disarm the disgruntled patron or deter them from bringing a full challenge to the library.

School libraries garnered additional security in the Island Trees School District v. Pico court case. The 1982 decision found, “school officials may not remove books from school library shelves simply because they dislike the ideas contained in those books” (Ishizuka, 2001, p. 17). Although there is no question that this decision was a great win for intellectual freedom, Evans & Saponaro (2005) note, “the success rate (restricting access or removal) is over 40 percent, in spite of the Island Trees/Pico decision” (p. 416). This success rate may be due to libraries not including or properly standing behind their collection development policies. Additionally, groups like Parents Against Bad Books in Schools (PABBIS) make it their mission to find controversial material in schoolbooks and fight to remove them from curriculum. PABBIS () has constructed a website to inform parents of their mission and what battles they are currently spearheading. Included in the site is an ever-growing list of 1350 books, some not reviewed by PABBIS, which have been recommended for challenge by individuals or groups. The ALA has published their Freedom to Read Statement that includes propositions specifically targeted towards group like PABBIS. Point six of the Statement posits, “It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large; and by the government whenever it seeks to reduce or deny public access to public information” (ALA, 2004, para. 13).

Censorship tactics do not always come from third parties such as PABBIS or individual patrons. One of the biggest threats to the core beliefs of the library profession stands with the librarians themselves. Internal, or self-censorship, is a danger to the library and undermines the point of a collection development policy. Schrader (1996) explains the practice of censorproofing as an attempt by librarians to avoid the purchase of authors, titles and subjects that have been the target of challenges. This practice is a direct affront to the Library Bill of Rights. According to the Intellectual Freedom document, ”Evaluation of library materials is not to be used as a convenient means to remove materials presumed to be controversial or disapproved of by segments of the community” (ALA, 2006, 53 Intellectual Freedom section). Schrader notes, “In Arkansas, 82% of school librarians said that they felt compelled to exercise some self-censorship in collection development, and 56% also reported that they treated some questionable or challenged materials differently from other materials” (para. 3). With those staggering statistics, the idea of a collections development policy seems moot.

Book challenges take place all over the country, but they are more likely to be concentrated in certain demographic areas. Arkansas is located in one of these higher concentration areas, so the pressure of self-censorship is particularly tempting. Figure 1 shows current actions taken by the NCAC in response to literary challenges across the country (NCAC, n.d., Action Alerts section). Eastern and Central regions of the United States have a strong predominance of challenges. Without the mass concentration of New York in the Eastern region, the Central region, which includes the South, shows a great amount of activity.

[pic]

The Fayetteville School District in Fayetteville, Arkansas was the target of concerned parent, Laurie Taylor. Taylor’s cause was to move 70 books from schools in the district to a restricted area. Among the books include the lauded Beloved by Toni Morrison, a top target among challenges. The school district agreed to review the books at a rate of several weeks per book (Barack, 2005). The NCAC was one of many advocacy groups to step in and write a concerned letter to the Superintendent of Fayetteville Public Schools. The letter cited the constitutionality of this decision and warned,”The district's earlier decision to remove books has, predictably, only resulted in escalating demands. You are now seeing first hand the common consequence of censorship - it opens the floodgates to unending demands. Thus, Ms. Taylor is now pushing for a district-wide audit to purge all school libraries of all materials that contain "vile and gratuitous sexual premises" (Bertin, 2005, para. 7).

The Fayetteville Public School District notes the importance of intellectual freedom and reconsideration guidelines on their public website they are still inundated with challenges. As a result of these challenges, many of the books in question such as It’s Perfectly Normal, The Teenage Guy's Survival Guide and It's So Amazing were moved to the Parent Library section. According to the Fayetteville Public School District () this section is not meant to be a restricted area to students. However, this section contains books geared towards parents, not the intended student body. The books, legitimately deemed acceptable for the curriculum now lay in a section meant for a completely different demographic and away from student browsing.

An example of selection power gone awry is seen in the pulling of Manga: 60 Years of Japanese Comics from the libraries of San Bernardino County. The NCAC describes, “Clearly, when it was ordered, the book met the criteria that form the basis for the library's collection development policy. Having been checked out 128 times in less than a year (according to press reports), it has also received the community vote” (NCAC, n.d., para. 2). Regardless of its merit, San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus ordered the book removed from library shelves making it unavailable to children and adults alike. San Bernardino library director Ed Kieczykowski noted that it was the "first book ever pulled from the SBCL system and acknowledged that the book had been checked out 125 times before it generated a complaint”. He also said, “If we get a complaint, we have to take action," he said. "I don't have an easy answer for this" (Reid, 2006, para. 4). Clearly, the majority was for the inclusion of this particular book in the library system. This case is an example of lack of adherence to a library policy or, too much power placed in the hands of the selecting body. The response from Kieczykowski is disheartening in light of the county having a collection development policy that this book initially fit. No, the answers are not simple, but adherence to a policy can surely ease the difficulty.

Ultimately, the only collection development policy worth having is the one approved and adhered. Even an approved policy can be made meaningless in the hands of decision-making bodies that do not have First Amendment rights in mind. Additionally, the temptation of self-censorship in the library undermines the purpose of a collection development policy and is as detrimental as not having a policy itself. If librarians cannot use their policies to guard against attack, then the integrity of the profession can be put into question. Many groups like the ALA and NCAC fight daily to keep First Amendment right and freedom to read alive, but are constantly faced with not only opposition from individuals, but undermining from those in the profession itself. The library profession must take deep consideration of the outcome of challenges presented to other libraries. If librarians cannot stand behind a collection development policy, let alone the freedoms guaranteed to patrons, then the core values set forth are meaningless.

References

American Library Association (ALA). (2008). In Censorship in school. Retrieved December 08, 2008 from

American Library Association (ALA). (2006, July 26). 53 Intellectual freedom. Retrieved December 07, 2008 from

American Library Association (ALA). (2004). In The freedom to read statement. Retrieved December 07, 2008 from ment.cfm

American Library Association (ALA). (1998). In Workbook for selection policy writing. Retrieved December 07, 2008 from fm

Barack, L. (2005). Battle over Books. School library journal, 51, no. 9, September 1995, 18. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text.

Bertin, J. E. (2005, July 12). In Letter from NCAC, NCTE, APFFE. APP, and PEN American center to Fayetteville public schools superintendent. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from Fayetteville~NCAC_Confronts_Efforts_to_Censor_Books_in_Fayetteville_Arkansas.cfm

Disher, W. (2007). Crash course in collection development. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.

Evans, G. E., & Saponaro, M. Z. (2005). Developing library and information center collections (5th ed.). Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited.

Ishizuka, K. (2001). Librarian in censorship case honored. School Library Journal, 47, no. 10, October 2001, 17. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text.

National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). (2005). In Censorship in schools. Retrieved December 08, 2008 from

National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC). (n.d.). In Action alerts. Retrieved December 08, 2008 from

Reid, C. (2006, April 24). Manga works pulled from libraries. Publishers Weekly Virtual Edition, April 24, 2006. Retrieved December 09, 2008 from

Schrader, A. M. (1996). Censorproofing school library collections: The fallacy and futility. School Libraries Worldwide, 2, no. 1, January 1996, 71-94. December 11, 2008 from Library Literature & Information Science Full Text.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download

To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.

It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.

Literature Lottery

Related download
Related searches