David Sibley

LIS 748

August 14, 2016

Selection or Self-Censorship: Comparing the Two

Censorship. It a word that has come to be used as a weapon and a rallying cry. In

libraries, bastions of free thought and expression, often have to face the challenges brought by

those who oppose materials chosen for a collection. Librarians often decry censorship as

unethical. Yet in some cases librarians are responsible for censorship in one of its most insidious

forms, the act of self-censoring. There may be many reasons that a librarian commits this act,

from controversy of a material to the lack of self-realization. Self-Censorship within libraries

constitutes a very serious danger both the library as a protect and guarantor of information and to

our patrons who rely on us for their information needs.

In collection development there is a very thin and some blurred line between the selection

process and censorship. According to Peggy Johnson the selection process is both an art and a

science(Johnson, 2014). This really means that the selection process is a large part of

experience and intuition. Johnson then describes the selection process as a four step process that

incorporates identification, evaluation, decision and ordering (Johnson, 2014). The selection

process also necessitates an understanding of the professional guidelines provided by the

American Library Association to help make ethical decisions. Self-Censorship is the knowingly

or in some cases, unknowingly, choosing to ignore or remove materials based on personal bias or

on external reasons to avoid controversy. Librarians are limited to what they can add into their

collections based on funding and therefore some materials cannot be added to a collection simply
because they are not relevant enough to the collection. Lester Asheim said it best when he wrote

selection, is democratic while censorship is authoritarian, and in our democracy we have

traditionally tended to put our trust in the selector rather than in the censor (Asheim, 1953).

A very clear example of where self-censorship is evident is in the selection of materials

for underrepresented populations. One of the populations is the lgbt+ community. Jennifer

Downey wrote an excellent article about this subject. In it she discusses the different traps that

Librarians can fall into for justifying avoiding adding lgbt+ content to a librarys collection. One

of the common myths about lgtbt+ materials is that they do not circulate as well within a

collection. Downey points out that while this may be true, most often young lgbt patrons are

what are referred to as stealthy or under the radar browsers (Downey, Antell, & Strothmann,

2013). Unfortunately, there are still librarians who harbor prejudice against the lgbt+ community

and allow that prejudice influence their selection of materials (Alexander & Miselis, 2007). As

of the writing of this paper one of the most challenged books this year is David Levithans book

Two Boys Kissing due to the fact that it features homosexuality and condones public displays of

affection (ALA, n.d.).

There are several ways librarians can prevent self-censorship. One of the easiest ways is

to have clearly defined procedures and policies in place. For librarians working in school (and

public) libraries this can involve having formalized ways of dealing with parent challenges to

books within a collection (Mosher, 2010). Doing so would help alleviate the stress and fears of

bringing in controversial materials into the collection. All libraries should also have selection

procedures and processes in place. Part of having a strong selection process is being aware of

the professional review sources and, according to Rebecca Hill, a strong readers advisory to
book selection is critical and will increase the comfort level about books available in the library

(Hill, 2010).

While many think self-censorship pertains to books, it also can pertain to the soft-ware

filters on the internet materials. Lester Asheim writes that the real question of censorship

versus selection arises when the librarian, exercising his own judgment, decides against a book

which has every legal right to representation on his shelves (Asheim, 1953). Software filters

that block access to websites are a form of censorship. Asheim would agree. Unless made illegal

by legislature or court, blocking access to information infringes on the first amendment. While

some filters do block out internet pages that would be legally deemed vulgar they also can

block websites that are beneficial or otherwise useful. June Pinnell-Stephens also agrees that

Asheim would have taken issue with software filters. She writes that software filters are used to

prevent users from having access to potentially objectionable materials, not to seek and include

potentially valuable and useful material (Pinnell-Stephens, 2002).

The line between selection and self-censorship is blurred and librarians must always be

aware of this. Selection is the process by which we add to our collections based on materials

usefulness to our collections. Self-Censorship is that which is used to deny access to information

for varying different reasons because of personal reservations and fear of controversial works

and the challenges that can result from them. In the end, it is up to each librarian to be aware of

their libraries selection process which is one way which we can prevent ourselves from

practicing self-censorship. Librarians also must be mindful of Asheim when considering

whether to use filtering software in their collections, since this software is designed to keep

patrons from accessing information. By preventing access based on something that could be

deemed objectionable is one of the hallmarks of could be censorship. By being mindful,

libraries can continue to be the guarantors of information access and protect the rights of all of

our patrons, not just those who shout the loudest.

 Bibliography

ALA. (n.d.). Frequently Challenged Books. Retrieved from

http://www.ala.org/bbooks/frequentlychallengedbooks
Alexander, L. B., & Miselis, S. D. (2007). Barriers to GLBTQ Collection Development and
Strategies for Overcoming Them. Young Adult Library Services. Retrieved from
https://dom.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=lls&AN=502914462&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Asheim, L. (1953). Not Censorship But Selection. Retrieved August 14, 2014, from
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/censorshipfirstamendmentissues/notcensorship
Downey, J., Antell, K., & Strothmann, M. (2013). Self-Censorship in Selection of LGBT-
Themed Materials. Reference & User Services Quarterly. Retrieved from
https://dom.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db
=lls&AN=93246701&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Hill, R. (2010). The Problem of Self- Censorship. School Library Monthly, 27(2), 912.
Retrieved from
http://ida.lib.uidaho.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=aph&AN=54462784&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Johnson, P. (2014). Fundamentals of Collection Development. ALA Editions.
Mosher, A. M. (2010). Challenging Self-Censorship: A 21st-century vision for an ethical future.
Library Student Journal, 5, NP. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.wisc.edu/lisa/docview/855901729/C431F3A247
0A445DPQ/1?accountid=465
Pinnell-Stephens, J. (2002). Lester Asheim in Cyberspace: A Tribute to Sound Reasoning |
Offices of the American Library Association. Retrieved August 14, 2016, from
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/basics/lesterasheim