In between what has felt like a daily barrage of book bans, censorship legislation, and library board take-overs happening in public libraries across the country, we now face the uncertainty that comes with recent news about the Supreme Court’s upending of Roe v. Wade. Underneath the surface of all of these issues lies a political agenda rooted in power and control. Make no mistake, this is an agenda that undermines the value that public libraries bring to their communities as places where anyone can freely seek information and as places that celebrate diversity of thought and story. With the overturning of Roe, it is more important than ever for libraries to protect the privacy of patrons who seek information to help them make decisions about their health. And, if recent events in public library land provide any indication, some library workers will likely do that work under the threat of criminalization.

Navigating this political climate starts with understanding and leveraging the structures of government in which public libraries are situated. Here are a few steps to help get you started. Thanks to John Chrastka, Executive Director of EveryLibrary, for chatting with us on this topic and contributing to these strategies.

Know your library’s legal basis and know the line of authority. Does the library function within a municipal government structure or is it an independent library district? Is your board a governing board or an advisory board? The answers to questions like these will impact everything from the library’s financial bottom line to its management and its policies. State library law forms a foundation that will either help or hinder a library’s ability to uphold core principles of intellectual freedom, privacy, and social justice. For instance, Kentucky lawmakers recently passed a bill that changes how library board members are appointed in the state, shifting more authority to elected county judge-executives and raising concerns about Kentucky public libraries becoming a new breeding ground for legislators to exercise their political agendas. “The method by which you appoint a board matters a great deal. In cases of book banning, the board will have set policies that adjudicate the issue. But, when policies are overturned as a result of changes in board appointments, or when the structure of how those policies are made changes, there will be consequences down the road,” says Chrastka. Knowing your state’s library laws and your library’s positioning within other government structures may seem obvious or of most concern to library administrators. The truth is – these factors impact every library worker and every library patron. And, it’s all too easy to compromise the mission of the library when a rift forms between written law and practice or when library staff form assumptions about how things will always be based on current relationships between the library and other political players. Being informed will empower you to advocate for legislation that supports the core values that make public libraries inclusive and useful to their communities.

Track bills in your state. Most states have online applications for tracking legislative bills, allowing you to monitor activity and updates that impact public libraries and library laws. Also, look to your state library association’s advocacy committee or your state library. Ask them what advocacy activities, from writing to legislators to giving testimony, they recommend or already have planned. In addition, library administrators should regularly talk to their library boards about legislative bills and issues that have potential to impact their authority and the library’s operation. Library board members often have strong connections to law makers. They know the audience for your advocacy efforts well, which can make all the difference in ensuring your message lands.

Get to know your local elected officials, too. State legislators shape library laws, but it’s also worth considering the nature of your library’s relationship with local elected officials. Do library board members, library staff, Friends or Foundation members have a good sense for what each of your local council members or commissioners care about? Or, what their values are? Does the library monitor what issues council members put their support behind? The time to develop relationships with your local elected officials is now – before any pressing issues arise. Your local elected officials likely know your state legislators, so knowing who your allies are locally is paramount. They can become your best advocates, mobilizing alongside you when issues arise, if the library has invested time both in getting to know them and in sharing stories and data about the library’s impact in the community.

Harness the power of collective action. No one individual or entity can advocate effectively in isolation. The issues public libraries face today are about deeply held ideologies, values, and political power. The pressure to compromise the principles, independence, and apolitical operating structures that make public libraries valuable to their communities is real. So, how can library workers advocate effectively for legislation and board decisions that ensure the library’s ability to serve the whole community and uphold crucial pillars of its mission? “Libraries across the country are rather alone when crisis hits. We have to get to a place where it’s more than just librarians fighting for the structure of government,” says Chrastka. There are many players in our communities who have a role to play. The library director and library board are crucial players, as are other library staff members, Friends members and staff, local elected officials, state library associations, school officials, business leaders, and many other community partners. Directors should bring all these players into their circles. Get to know them personally. Make sure they know about the principles that guide our work and why they matter. Make sure they know about the human impact of the local public library. Let them know how they can help, and ask them how you can help. With these small steps, we begin to build a coalition for collective action.

Resources and articles for further exploration:

1. ALA Advocacy and Public Policy: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/advocacy-public-policy
2. Dankowski, T. (2022, March 26). Challenging times: PLA 2022: addressing the swell of censorship cases. American Libraries Magazine. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blogs/the-scoop/challenging-times/
3. Floyd, D. (2022, June 13). Chattanooga City Council wants more oversight of Public Library to ‘ensure accountability’. timesfreepress.com. https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2022/jun/13/public-library-board/570842/#/questions/
4. Harris, E. A., & Alter, A. (2022, July 6). With Rising book bans, librarians have come under attack. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/06/books/book-ban-librarians.html
5. The Kansas City Star Editorial Board. (2022, June 23). Conservative culture warriors take aim at Kansas City’s Mid-Continent Public Library. The Kansas City Star. https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article262781858.html
6. Legislation of concern. EveryLibrary. (2022, April 3). https://www.everylibrary.org/2022_legislative_attacks
7. York, D., & Barton, R. (2022, April 14). Update: In Final Day of legislative session, Kentucky House votes to override gov. Beshear’s veto of Bill Impacting Public Library Board membership. WKU Public Radio | The Public Radio Service of Western Kentucky University. https://www.wkyufm.org/2022-04-14/bill-shifting-authority-over-public-library-boards-to-judge-executives-dies-after-failed-veto-override-in-kentucky-house
8. Zarroli, J. (2022, June 21). Some states are changing the laws that govern community libraries. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/06/21/1106320865/why-states-are-changing-the-laws-that-govern-libraries-serving-communities

The post Just Where are We Heading? first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The following books at the Victoria Public Library have been challenged in citizen complaints:

• Neither by Airlie Anderson
• Worm Loves Worm by JJ Austrian
• Uncle Bobby’s Wedding by Sarah Brannen
• Jo: An Adaptation of Little Women (Sort Of) by Kathleen Gros
• The Rainbow Flag: Bright, Bold, and Beautiful by Michelle Millar Fisher
• The Only Black Girl in Town by Brandy Colbert
• Beyond Magenta by Susan Kuklin
• The Moon Within by Aida Salazar
• Jack not Jackie by Erica Silverman
• The Black Flamingo by Dean Atta
• Red: A Crayon’s Story by Michael Hall
• Teens & LGBT Issues by Christine Wilcox
• Jacob’s Room to Choose by Ian Hoffman + Sarah Hoffman
• Queer (The Ultimate LGBTQ Guide for Teens) by Kathy Belge and Marke Bieschké
• My Family: My Two Moms by Claudia Harrington
• My Family: My Two Dads by Claudia Harrington
• The List of Things That Will Not Change by Rebecca Stead
• In the Role of Brie Hutchens by Nicole Melleby
• Rick by Alex Gino
• Sex us a Funny Word by Cory Silverberg and Fiona Smyth
• If I Was Your Girl by Meredith Russo

When going through these complaints, a couple things jumped out at me. First, the list trends overwhelmingly towards LGBTQ+ topics in both children’s and YA books. Second, the suggested replacements on the complaint forms overwhelmingly had a religious bent. Further, in a couple cases, complainants neglected to include subtitles for suggested replacements. For example, A Change of Affection: A Gay Man’s Incredible Story of Redemption, was simply listed as a A Change of Affection. Additionally, When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment, was listed only as When Harry Became Sally. There may be no larger intentions behind these omissions, but it is worth noting.

Schools in Texas have additional pressure coming from state leadership. Texas Governor Greg Abbott called on the state board of education and the Texas Education Agency to create standards for what books can go into school libraries as well as to pull books deemed “overtly sexual.” Abbott’s initiative led to state representative Matt Krause creating a list targeting 850 books. Unsurprisingly, these books predominantly address either racial or LGBTQIA+ topics. 

In reaction, the North East Independent School District in Texas pulled 414 books from its shelves for review. Supposedly, many of these titles will be available again following their review, but the school district did not stop there. They are implementing a set of electronic tools to allow parents to see which books their children have checked out. This school district was not the first to implement such a policy. The Collier County School District in Florida implemented this practice all the way back in 2015.

Getting back to the Victoria (TX) banning attempts, let’s examine the timeline of events. This past summer, members of the Victoria community submitted 43 separate citizen complaint forms. The complainants asked for either the removal or relocation of materials they deemed inappropriate. They were undeterred when their requests were denied, as 12 community members submitted further complaints about the aforementioned list of 21 books. A public hearing was held in November, but a ruling did not come down until the Library Advisory Board meeting on December 15th. As a result of that meeting, the board voted to approve the library director’s recommendation to keep all 21 of the contested books.

While this is a win. It is also part of a deeply concerning movement affecting libraries across the United States. Of course libraries are deeply affected, but it is also members of already marginalized communities feeling the strain as their identities come under question. Victoria resident Nat Clark had this to say: “I am just a person who loves humans. Why can’t I see that in a children’s book? Why couldn’t I see that when I was younger? Why wasn’t that there? Because people didn’t want it to be there.”[1] They are making an important point here. When diverse books are contested and demonized, it signals to people that they are not welcome. When people cannot see themselves in the collection, we are saying that libraries are not for them. 

Citations

1. Victoria Advocate, December 21, 2021 “Victoria Public Library Board Votes to Keep All Twenty-One Contested Books” https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/premium/victoria-public-library-board-votes-to-keep-all-21-contested-books/article_14699d98-5e0f-11ec-a2f9-a343ab897758.html.

The post Stop Trying to Make Book Banning a Thing first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

What does it mean when a library’s collection can be dissected into segments and categories of approval? Perhaps the better question is: Who decides what is considered approvable material? Are the approval of these items based on popularity? Usefulness? Quality of the writing? Overtness of content? Budget allocation? Or is there an agenda attached to the approval of these items, the kind that lines up perfectly with the approver’s ideological, political, cultural, or societal worldview? On the one hand, these are difficult questions to answer.

But on the other hand, the answers to these questions are easily found in the patrons the library serves. A library is the community’s great equalizer. It is a place for all regardless of income, race, creed, sexual orientation, education level, station, community status, or any other constructed demographic. The beauty of this philosophical service framework is that a library has one job: provide the best resources (e.g. digital or physical materials, programming, space, expertise, etc.) to the community it serves. A well represented collection does just that, even if a difficult task.

Bias is certainly represented within a library’s collection. In fact, I would argue that it is natural for book selectors to purchase materials that specifically interest the individual purchaser. That being said, there is a needed balance in a library’s collection to ensure that a topic is covered—to the best of the library’s ability—from each end of the spectrum and everything in between. Too much or too little of a perspective is a disservice to the community, and also deteriorates the integrity of the collection as a whole. Relegating LGBTQ-themed books to a specific location in the stacks is anathema to what the stacks truly symbolize. It is within the stacks that all voices are collected together. It is within the stacks that different peoples and cultures await discovery. It is within the stacks that the spectrum of thought is fully recognized from A-Z. It is within the stacks that all are given the same treatment. And it is within the stacks that the user of the library can safely go to their favorite authors time and time again, or, if bold, they can randomly or serendipitously choose a new venue of entertainment or enlightenment.

Stories—even the stories we do not like—humble and humanize, educate and empower, offer a new perspective or reinforce understanding of the world. No one is forced to seek a new perspective or introduce themselves to a new voice about a subject. But there is a danger to always finding solace in a single perspective. A continuous, non-altering, single perspective may give credence to the sole individual’s worldview, but it can also be an insular, myopic perspective. As our country continuously redefines itself, it is of crucial importance that diversity is not only represented, but also celebrated. This does not mean that we all have to agree with each other about everything. It means that we can disagree without being disagreeable. It means that materials for you may not be the materials for me, and vice-versa. But it also means there is the option for us to explore a different perspective.

Libraries across the country open their doors every morning to a populace with needs. All of these needs differ. Some want access to technology. Some want to enter a space that is welcoming and safe. Some want to be entertained. Some want to be educated. Some just want someone else to see them as a fellow human being. All of these needs are important. Through inclusivity, the celebration of diversity, and the belief that a library enriches and empowers a community, all who enter a library know that their voice, their constructed demographic, is represented.

The post Importance of a Collection’s Inclusivity first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The Feds

Since 2003, the Children’s Internet Protection Act has been a presence in schools and public libraries which receive certain types of federal funding.  Under this act, Internet filtering software is utilized, which can do more detriment than good. We all know that filtering software can be problematic for a teenager performing research on “safer sex practices” when they are too ashamed to ask an adult or check out a book on the subject. However, libraries are not in a financial situation to deny federal funds, so what do we do? Do we defend the principles of our vocation, filtering all of the Internet computers, and take the money? Or do we deny the funds thus giving our patrons the right to view what they want–including material deemed obscene? Librarians can override the filter if needed, but very few patrons will want to have their inquiries “approved.”

It is our job to provide information, but if we make the whole Internet accessible to our patrons, the library becomes ineligible for the eRate program. In “Fencing out Knowledge:  Impacts of CIPA 10 Years Later,” a study found that “half of all libraries with Internet filters received requests from adult patrons to unblock the filters for legitimate purposes.”[1]   To have or not to have federal funding for the library’s Internet is quite a conundrum.  Providing information and a broad array of materials to our patrons is the purpose of the library, but at what cost?

The Patrons

I have witnessed two ways in which a patron can censor or attempt to censor.  The first more traditional means of challenging materials is when a patron comes in and reports to the librarian that they believe an item is offensive. Most often this happens in the youth department, but I have seen it happen in the Adult Department. For example, a woman came in and wanted Beyond Magenta: Transgender Teens Speak Out removed because her teenager checked it out and she found it offensive. Now, this is not entirely censorship because we did not remove it, but she did want it removed.

Another incident occurred during the 2008 Barack Obama and John McCain presidential election. We had a patron at our library who decided to make all of the McCain books “unavailable” to other patrons. She achieved this by checking out all of the McCain books we had, so that other patrons could not read them.

The Librarians 

When a librarian does not want to acquire controversial material for the library because it may cause an uproar within in the community, that is a form of censorship. I once had a boss who made me send back a book to our vendor because the title was offensive and she was worried that it would insult the patrons (never mind it was a best seller). Public school libraries are not required to have LGBTQ literature in their collection. While the age in which we live is more accepting than it was at one time, a lot of people still have a problem with these materials. Therefore, many public school librarians will not add the genre to their collection, in order to dodge any potential issues that may arise.

These are a few of the types of censorship that may occur at the library and a lot of us do it more than we know. I wanted to write this article to make ourselves aware of censoring. According to Lamba Legal, in addition to not purchasing materials, “some school districts, organizations and individuals have attempted, unlawfully, to restrict students’ access to books or websites purely because they address LGBTQ themes or other issues related to diversity.”[2]  Instead of trying to hide LGBTQ themes from the library, we should be encouraging patrons to educate themselves. To educate oneself is to alleviate the fear that may be a result of ignorance. Please do not foster ignorance by denying patrons the freedom to form their own opinions.

References

[1] Kristen Batch. “Fencing out Knowledge: Impacts of the Children’s Internet Protection 10 Years Later.”  Policy Brief No. 5, June 2014. http://connect.ala.org/files/cipa_report.pdf  Web 23 Sept 2016.

[2] Lambda Legal. “Preventing Censorship of LGBT Information in Public Schools,” https://www.lambdalegal.org/sites/default/files/publications/downloads/fs_preventing-censorship-of-lgbt-information-in-pubilc-school-libraries_1.pdf Web.  21 Sept 2016.

The post Censors Near You first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

According to the Federal Communications Commission, public libraries and schools across the country “that receive discounts for Internet access or internal connections through the E-rate program”[1] are subject to meeting certain requirements imposed by the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). If libraries and schools wish to continue receiving these discounts, they must ensure their network has a blocking software installed to “block or filter Internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors).”[2] Of course, parents, guardians, and educators can appreciate and respect that these measures are put in place to protect our children from accessing harmful content. The problem, however, is the over-filtering of content that occurs too often: “Filtering beyond the requirements of CIPA.”[3] Over-filtering can lead to the oversight of credible sites and information by students because there may be no access to them. Filtering is subjectively interpreted by school and library administrators, so what one deems as acceptable may not be to someone else. Contemporary issues like gender equality, same-sex marriage, and the LGBT community are being filtered, hindering a student’s ability to learn and comprehend these prevalent societal matters. Keith Kreuger, CEO of the Consortium for School Networking said,

[T]he key is balancing safety and access. Without question, students need to become digitally literate (having the knowledge and ability to use information and technology for varied purposes) because ultimately they live in an unfiltered world. School systems need to ensure that we create a safe environment [but] if we believe any technical solution like filtering will keep us totally safe, that is misplaced.[4]

Librarians across the country have fought hard for equal access and do their best to offer services and databases to all but are still limited in many ways. The American Library Association has spoken out against over-filtering and the way it denies students the opportunities to research controversial topics. ALA believes in protecting students’ access to “legal constitutionally protected information that is necessary for their studies[, and] personal well-being.”[5] The lack of access to certain content poses a big obstacle for individuals who do not have home Internet access. Their research can be viewed as “incomplete” simply because much of their access is denied, and these individuals rely on public computers for much or all of their school work in this digital age.

This article was not written with the intention of swaying thoughts on the benefits of filtering software. There is indeed a need for this kind of software to prevent access to malicious and pornographic content. But administrators need to be mindful and really reconsider the filtering process. Simply put, there is no need to deny students the opportunity to learn. Progress and innovation are key these days. Students understand that in order to be successful, they need to be tech savvy and have access to a multitude of credible information. Mary Beth Hertz, technology coordinator at Science Leadership Academy at Beeber, adds that they “also have a basic understanding of oppression and the idea that limiting access to the Internet limits people from opportunity. We sometimes think too much about the content that we block, and we forget [that] when we cut kids off [from social media] we limit their opportunities to succeed, explore their passions, and discover their strengths and talents.”[6]

References

[1] “Children’s Internet Protection Act,” Federal Communications Commission, November 3, 2015.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Melinda D.  Anderson, “How Internet Filtering Hurts Kids,” The Atlantic, April 26, 2016.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Mary Beth Hertz, ibid.

The post The Dangers of Internet Filtering first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

The debate over porn on the Internet in public libraries has been going on for years. Orland Park residents are just the latest spoke in the wheel of this conversation. When reading some of the coverage there was one word that stood out for me. Obscene. Therein lies the heart of the debate. Who gets to decide what is obscene?

Many people that support the unfiltered Internet cite the First Amendment, and raise an interesting issue of what may come from this debate. If you ban one type of information access then what is next?   In the end, whether or not something is “obscene” is in the eye of the beholder.  It may be impossible for every patron and every library council to agree upon what is and isn’t acceptable, and so this may come down to a question of segregation. Perhaps if Orland Park chooses to continue its practice of unfiltered Internet Access for adults there needs to be a separate space where anyone under 18 is not allowed to enter.  What are other libraries doing to address this type of situation? Leave your comments below.

References

Anderson, Taylor W. “Orland Park mayor enters library porn dispute.” Chicago Tribune, November 17, 2013. http://www.infodocket.com/2013/11/05/illinois-battle-of-orland-park-librarys-internet-porn-policy-heats-up/

The post Who Defines Acceptable Material? first appeared on Public Libraries Online.

In the July/August 2013 issue of Technology Review (vol 116, no. 4), there is a brief article “Reading the Tea Leaves of Censorship,” by Tom Simonite. The article explains how scientists, monitoring censorship on Chinese social media sites, can predict political events happening (or about to happen) within that country. This article intrigued me.

Censorship is a touchy subject for many librarians.  We often view preventing access to information or removing material from the library, simply because some one wishes it so,  as “bad” censorship. However, as librarians we  engage in censoring decisions daily. When we make choices  about what materials to purchase, what to recommend, what site to refer to, etc.  we also are engaging in censorship to a degree. It is, in effect, the suppression of material, even if our motives are justified and our intentions pure. 

The fact that we are not —  not purchasing, not recommending, not referring, may in fact be indicating something just as strongly as what we do reference. Recommendation and censorship are to me two sides of the same coin. Likewise, they each have grand effects.  Recommended books can create author celebrities, while often the un-recommended, un-purchased novel’s author remains obscure.

So my curiosity about the implications of this article linking censorship or, to my mind for libraries, choices of inclusion and exclusion, with social media grew.  I wonder, if what does or does not get published on social media sites in China can predict politics, can what does or does not get published on social media sites of libraries predict anything anywhere?  There must be limits, but surely this kind of predictive quality is not geographically specific, or limited to political actions?  Do posts of material increase circulation?  Do moderated complaints affect policy?

This train of thought has led to a great number of questions swirling around the issues of censorship, social media, and libraries.If a library moderates posts on its social media site, should this be included in discussions of censorship? Can analyzing our social media content help us make policy decisions? And what is our social media content telling the world?

It is now common for employers to review social media sites, checking on potential and existing employees.  Of course, the same is true of the potential employee reviewing the employer. What does your social media content tell people about your library? I recently surprised a potential employer by noting that I knew their library had morale issues.  The potential employer seemed none too happy that this cat had escaped the bag.  However, for me, it was readily apparent based on their social media content.

I am not a big fan of social media.  I, personally, would like to see a lot more self-censorship in this area.  The idea that social media is indexed and mined for data[i] and available for all, represents a lack of privacy that I find disconcerting.  Still, one cannot argue with the possible benefits, uses, and results that may come of tracking trends in social media — it seems even trends in the spread of disease can be tracked via Twitter.[ii] 

The post Censorship, Tea Leaves, and Social Media first appeared on Public Libraries Online.