Stories of librarians confronting censorship are common and it is a phenomenon that occurs even in the present day. Just last month a borrower in Longwood, Florida refused to return several volumes because she felt that the “materials were inappropriate for minors” (Jackson, 2006, May 6). In 2006, a reference librarian at Ohio State University faced harassment charges from four faculty members at his own institution. Their claim was that several items that the librarian had recommended created a hostile workplace environment. (Albanese, 16) In both of these cases, the conflict was resolved, with the librarians triumphant over the forces of censorship.
Librarians pride themselves on a long history of resisting censorship and they celebrate their struggle to provide full access for all users. In fact, the American Library Association even acknowledges the fight against censorship through awards such as the “Intellectual Freedom Award” and “The John Phillip Immroth Memorial Award.” So, it’s hard to imagine a Librarian that would knowingly act as a censor, but at times, librarians can be censors also. Censorship is, after all, a case of omission, and when the actions of a librarian lead to any form of omission, they are in reality, actions of censorship. Filtering programs for school computers block students’ access to information and too often, librarians do not resist the use of filtering programs. This lack of resistance is nothing more that tacit acceptance of censorship. Doug Johnson (2010) describes filtering of school computers as “a sin of omission as much as commission because too many of us are just willing to let is happen” (p. 48). In the case of the Ohio State University reference librarian, one of the complaints in the harassment charge was that the recommendations were biased, and in essence, omitted pertinent materials representing alternative view points (Albanese, 2006, p. 16).
Consider, also, the librarian’s role as steward of a collection. When a collection has been built through a fair and rigorous selections process, the librarian must preserve that collection. Items that are missing, stolen, lost or damaged, should be replaced or repaired. Inaction that leads to an omission from a collection has the same results as censoring that same item, but in this case, the librarian is playing the role of the censor. It is worth pointing out, that in the Longwood, Florida case of the borrower refusing to return items to the library, many people made donations in an effort to restore the items to the collection. So many donations, in fact, that the library had to stop accepting further donations (Jackson, 2010, May 7).
The librarian’s resistance to censorship is tied to a basic tenant of librarianship--preservation of the human record. Building a collection through an inclusive selection process and active stewardship of collections are basic elements in the resistance to censorship.
Albanese, Andrew. (2006). Controversy at OSU-Mansfield. Library Journal, 131 (9), 16.
Cain, Charlene C. (2006). Librarians and Censorship: The Ethical Imperative. Louisiana Libraries, 68 (3), 6-8.
Jackson, Rachael. (2010 May 6). Mom checked out racy teen books from library – and she won’t give them back. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-06/news/os-longwood-library-gossip-girl-books20100505_1_library-notes-library-services-manager-library-policy.
Jackson, Rachael. (2010 May 7). Gossip Girl-inspired books returned to public library. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/features_momsatwork/?p=5356.
Johnson, Doug. (2010). Censorship by Ommision. Library Media Connection, 28 (4). 48-49.
Very good post. A perspective I never thought about before. We can actually be considered censors if we don't actively seek to replace damaged and missing parts of our collections? Will have to explore this further...
ReplyDeleteTo see stewardship and censorship issues posed this way intrigues me. The process of managing selection, usage or choices for a particular collection are tied to its community's needs. So criteria guiding decisions to repair, preserve or replace are not set in stone, nor questions of censorship most of the time. I keep a foundry text classics from 1967, but a 1987 Computer Science brochure or 1999 C++ book is too dated as study materials. So if we suppress records to withdraw, & replace with a newer more useful item, is that censorship too? Today's budget & space concerns make it impractical to have soft cover CS books like these rebound or kept for posterity, but even an electronic version can take up space but outlive its useful life, can't it? What about Interlibrary Loan & Library Consortiums as a way to extend a collection's ability to service patrons with items it doesn't own? Examples of challenged books or ideological hot-potatos interest me, but I doubt they are sacred cows if practical considerations have to be accounted for in the mix of these decisions. If a library didn't own a copy because it was stolen, but a patron could locate 26 other copies of Angela Davis's bio in Michigan e-Library, am I a censor if I don't replace the stolen copy but instead spend on another title?
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you raised the issues of budget and space. Budgets are shrinking everywhere and I think that is multiplied in the library environment. As the costs for materials (both paper and electrons) outpace collections budgets, libraries are forced to cut back on acquisitions. Maybe it is the CS book that gets dropped for "budgetary" concerns. Consortia and InterLibrary loan options certainly satisfy the immediate needs, but I worry about the future. In twenty years, the collection will be incomplete.
ReplyDeleteToday, I can look back to the popular magazines of the mid-20th century. Ladies Home Journal is an example. Research on Zeitgeist has made this a very popular item. At the University of Michigan, the series is held in the shelving facility and it is one of the most requested items. (The advertisements are the focus of many studies on the period.) I'm not sure if the University Librarian could make a cogent explanation as to why the series was incomplete, if it were. And, I'm not quite sure what the selection criteria were at an academic library that led to the acquisition of a common, popular magazine. But, now, it is a highly used "collection" within the system, and great care is taken to preserve the volumes. (The status is being changed to non-circulating.)
Concerns for space, or the lack thereof, seem to be driving aggressive weeding programs. The old saying, "Out with the old, in with the new" comes to mind. Isn't it true that most libraries report out (i.e., brag about) the number of their acquisitions? But, while many libraries maintain relationships through InterLibrary loan and consortia agreements, there are no apparent relationships when it comes to weeding. It's easy to imagine both Wayne State University and Michigan State libraries weeding the same item thinking that the other one has it. But, in the end, the patron doesn't get the item that they were looking for. Your point about withdrawals is excellent. Today, when Online Public Access Catalogs are so accessible and immediate, missing items bring a palpable response from patrons.
Kenneth Kidd (2009) points out that censorship and prizing (i.e., selection) are two aspects of the same process (p. 197). He states further:
"To prize is to make a positive judgment about the quality of a text or idea, and thereby to participate in a cultural process of evaluation. To censor is to likewise participate in that process but to make a negative judgment about the quality of a text or idea. What we call ‘‘literature’’ is the product of censorship as much as prizing." (Kidd, 2009, p. 198). The evaluative process that we use to maintain a collection is little removed from the selection process, and the end result it the "literature" or collection.
Personally, I have a hard time explaining to young people the joys of using MS DOS systems during the early days of desktop computers. Every day there are fewer of us that remember evolution of MS Word from version 1.0 to Office 2007.
Kidd, K. (2009). 'Not censorship but selection': Censorship and/as prizing. Children's Literature in Education, 40(3), 197-216.
Censorship is a double-edged sword. None, some, too much - what is the right mix of censorship? As with any profession, job, or set of responsibilities, the important question is not how much, but how? Diplomacy and tact speak volumes, especially in dealing with the public. The parent who refused to return the racy books... a little over the top. Do parents put that much time and energy into censoring television programs, commericals, late night tv, etc.
ReplyDeleteWhen Magic Johnson announced that he is HIV positive, there was a influx of radio and television advertising. Totally out of the blue, at the breakfast table, my six year old son said, "I already know to use a latex condom." I held my head low to hide my reaction. Can we sensor all advertising media? Is the librarian intended to be the scapegoat?
I would embrace exposing teens to the harsh REALITY of Life 101. We are responsible to live with the outcome of the decisions we make. We are not living in the 1950's where mom may have proudly decided to become a wife and mother, or work in the sciences.