Communities and Their Role in the Censorship of Libraries

Debate over what materials should and shouldn’t be allowed in libraries has occurred for
decades throughout the modern library movement, beginning with questions such as whether or
not fiction should be banned. These earlier debates evolved into the current position of todays’s
library professionals: “no one has the right to tell anyone else what they are allowed to read”
(Berry). However progressive the views of the modern library movement are, there are still factors
that contribute to the censorship of materials in libraries. Whether factors include the morals of
parents and teachers, the ethics and protocol of public officials, or the core beliefs of religious
entities—or all of these—the censorship of libraries is tremendously impacted by the communities
in which they serve.

In a Texas town in 2011, Tammy and Randy Harris’s six-year-old son was suspended from
school for a day after chanting “poo poo head”—a phrase he had learned while reading the Captain
Underpants graphic novel, The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby, which he acquired through his
school’s library. Mr. and Mrs. Harris insisted that book be removed from the its shelves; initially, it
was a futile attempt, but with persistence, the book was reviewed further, and thus removed from
that Texas elementary school.

In the United States, it is not uncommon for parents to find something “offensive” contained
in a circulated book within libraries that serve their children; it is also not uncommon for such
parents to immediately demand that these materials are removed and therefore made unavailable
to their children—and the children of all of the other parents in the community, for that matter.
This type of advocacy implies that such parents assume that their view of particular topics are the
norm, and also that they believe they are truly doing all of the other parents an unsolicited favor by
ensuring that the circulation of these “inappropriate” materials is ceased.

The number-one complaint that parents in the United States voice regarding
“inappropriate” books for their children is that such materials contain themes or content related to
homosexuality, bisexualism, and transgender identities. While one might assume that the issues
with such topics stem from the fact that they are not dealt with appropriately by qualified
professionals; however, the fact that the topics are brought up at all is at the root of most parental
concerns. In recent years, books that contain sexual content—whether heterosexual or homosexual
in nature—have been take off shelves because they have been deemed inappropriate for school
aged-children. Not all sexual content causing concern is necessarily found within a libraries’ books;
in the case of Bill Cosby’s Little Bill series, it was targeted for censorship because of the sexual
allegations made against its creator (Barnett).

When selecting materials, school librarians often build their collections in a proactive
manner, first considering the outside influences and opinions of parents, administrators, and
community groups, making forecasts of potential challenges from such stakeholders, and thus
choosing their materials accordingly. While the American Library Association advocates for the
intellectual freedom of all people without discrimination and biases, some individuals view the

1
librarian’s role as a censor—particularly the school librarian’s role—as something that is rather a
responsibility, and not to be considered an infringement of (children’s) intellectual freedom.

Some studies have shown that age, race, gender, experience, and membership of
professional organizations influence the censorship practices of school librarians in particular.
There is a marked difference in the approaches to censorship between librarians who belong to
professional organizations and those who do not. Librarians who do affiliate with such groups are
more likely to uphold the belief of the rights to intellectual freedom, even if it means facing
potential challenges by parents, administrators, and other stakeholders. Likewise, those who do not
belong to such organizations are less likely to take “risks” when selecting materials, or in defending
challenged materials they have already purchased. In terms of age, the findings of such research
indicate that the level of censorship by school librarians increases for younger students, when those
who serve older patrons are not so strict with their censorship. Also noted in the findings is that
male librarians tend to be considerably more liberal, and therefore censor their materials with less
frequency than their female counterparts (McNicol).

In schools, the issue of censorship is not limited to the library and its facilitators; teachers—
particularly those who use literature as part of their instruction—are also faced with the
responsibility of determining what is perceived as “appropriate” for their students. Teaching today,
more than ever, is a collaborative practice within school systems; sometimes this teamwork
approach can mean that one teacher is going to “have her way” while another does not, particularly
in regard to the selection of texts used in class. For example, one teacher may find a text that he or
she feels would provide valuable exposure to real-life themes for their students while supporting
the curriculum, and present it to his or her colleagues; if those colleagues are more conservative
with their material selection—choosing more cautiously so as not to provide any opportunities for
challenge—then the former teacher has inadvertently censored his or her material, when the others
disagree to use the suggested text. Some teachers go to the extreme of choosing materials that are
in fact below their students’ reading ability and/or grade level, in order to avoid friction that might
result from choosing something more academically—but less “morally”—appropriate (Berchini).

Historically over the last centuries, texts that challenged political authority were banned
from the public—for example, Animal Farm by George Orwell—Orwell’s book was banned in Russia
because it illustrated the barbaric dictatorship present there during that time. Human nature
causes people—readers, in this case—to want what they cannot have. In in the 1980’s, the British
government denied its citizens the book Spycatcher, which made them want access to it even more.
Similarly, when students at the Texas elementary school where Tammy and Randy Harris
accomplished getting The Adventures of Super Diaper Baby pulled from the library’s shelves, kids
couldn’t wait to get their hands on the forbidden book elsewhere.

The selections for most collections in academic libraries are typically driven by the school’s
“mission, values, and curriculum” (Gehring). With the exception of divinity schools and those
founded on the principles of particular religions, censorship in academic libraries is substantially
less common in those of earlier formative schools, as well as those in smaller, less diverse

2
communities, where librarians face regular pressure from outside influences. Religious-based
universities may argue that their core beliefs revolve around the pursuit of “the truth” as it is taught
by a particular religion, in which case exposure to materials that go against those values is
unproductive and therefore censored. While complaints by students are sometimes made regarding
the “inappropriate material” encountered in a divinity library in particular, many experts argue that
exposure to material deemed “inappropriate” will not be of any influence for those in the pursuit of
(God’s) truth—they have “nothing to fear”—and that censorship in fact denies devout students
those opportunities to practice and reaffirm their religious beliefs by making the personal choices
to abstain from such materials (Gehring).

In response to the censorship issues presented in today’s libraries, librarians from school,
public, academic, and special collections libraries have access to a variety of support methods
regarding handling such matters, whether it’s by the support of organizations such as the American
Libraries Association, procedural processes to challenges shared by other library professionals,
procedures set in place by community stakeholders such as library board trustees, or the published
findings of research and solutions related to the topic. Library professionals who belong to
organizations such as the ALA have the tendency to be more liberal and confident in their
censorship practices.

Each year, the ALA promotes and hosts a Banned Book Week, to celebrate and protect
individuals’ rights to intellectual freedom. Through this event, librarians and citizens are provided
with information about how to take action and “Stand Up for Your Right to Read”. The ALA offers
suggestions for staying informed, which include being aware of situations around censorship;
attending school board, literary board, and PTA meetings; subscribing to news publications in both
print and online formats; and joining groups that are dedicated to protecting individuals’ right to
read. Additionally, the ALA provides methods for challenging censorship, to include reporting
incidences to their Office for Intellectual Freedom; attending and participating in public hearings;
writing letters to public officials; contacting local news organizations; working with community
groups; forming a coalition to stand against censorship in a community; and getting support from
national groups. Lastly, the ALA provides suggestions for supporting local schools and libraries,
such as joining Library Friends groups and PTAs; and participating in Banned Books Week,
promoting the right to read, by being a part of the celebration (Doyle).

The American Library Association defines intellectual freedom as: “…the right of every
individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view without restriction. It provides
for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of s question, cause or
movement may be explored. Intellectual freedom encompasses the freedom to hold, receive, and
disseminate ideas” (McNicol). Research indicates that when trying to protect this core belief, all
types of libraries benefit substantially from having procedural processes in place in order to handle
potential material challenges that threaten it. Despite the common and inaccurate belief of parents
and citizens that demanding a book to be removed from circulation because of something they find
that goes against their moral beliefs (and therefore, it is assumed everyone else’s) is immediate and
automatic, many library professionals who support the ALA’s core belief in the right to read

3
practice procedures which can include processes that originate with a simple form, to an entire
challenge process that undergoes reviews on multiple levels before something is deemed unsuitable
for the community. (Preer).

References:

Barnett, D. (2017, Sept. 22). Banned Books Week: How censorship through the decades cracked
down on literary sex, drugs... and poo poo head. The Independent. Retrieved
from http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/banned-books-week-
censorship-a7958606.html

Berchini, C. (2017, Sept. 27). Who Gets to Choose Which Childhood Experiences Are
'Appropriate'? Education Week. Retrieved
from http://www.edweek.org/tm/articles/2017/09/27/who-gets-to-choose-which-
childhood-experiences-are-appropriate.html

Berry, J.N. III. (2016). The oldest challenge: it comes from believers, parents, even
librarians/blatant berry. Library Journal. Retrieved from
https://lj.libraryjournal.com/2016/11/opinion/john-berry/the-oldest-challenge-it-comes-
from-believers-parents-even-librarians-blatant-berry/#_

Doyle, R. (2016). 2015-2016 Books challenged or banned. American Library Association. Retrieved
from https://www.ila.org/content/documents/2016banned.pdf

Gehring, D.R. (2016). Faith-informed intellectual freedom: an annotated bibliography. Collection

Building, 35(2), 48-53. Retrieved from: https://www-emeraldinsight-
com.libproxy.uncg.edu/doi/full/10.1108/CB-12-2015-0020

McNicol, S. (2016). School librarians’ intellectual freedom attitudes and practices. New Library
World, 117(5-6), 329-342. Retrieved from https://www-emeraldinsight-
com.libproxy.uncg.edu/doi/full/10.1108/NLW-01-2016-0002

Preer, J. (2014). Prepare to be challenged! Library Trends, 62(4), 759-770. Retrieved from
http://muse.jhu.edu.libproxy.uncg.edu/article/552030