Letting All Voices Be Heard: Libraries and Censorship

In the classic dystopian novel 1984 by George Orwell, the British populace is subject to a totalitarian government that seeks to provide order and stability by way of completely controlling every aspect of daily life, the media most especially. The members of the Ingsoc Party heavily censor every movie, television program, radio broadcast, newspaper article, book, and even historical document; they remove every statement that conflicts with their ideology, forcing allegiance by conformity of thought.

Thankfully we do not live under such a directly authoritarian government. The First Amendment protects the right of every American citizen to speak freely and openly, to present controversial opinions and test the boundaries of acceptable content in entertainment media. Everybody is protected by this amendment, not just those in the majority. However, that does not mean that there is no effort at all to practice some sort of censorship and control of materials that are publicly available through institutions that are publicly funded.

Libraries have often been the target of would-be censors and activist groups that express concern over the contents of books and other materials offered by the library to the public. Such organizations share the mindset of many private citizens: taxpayers have the right, if not obligation, to influence the operations of an institution that is supported by tax dollars (“Intellectual Freedom”, 257). Specifically, if an organization or citizen feels that a library (which is supported by tax dollars) is circulating material that they interpret as inappropriate for a public forum then they have the right to demand the material removed and to have that demand honored.

And contrary to popular opinion, socially and politically conservative groups are not the only representatives of such an idea. Censorship comes from all points along the political spectrum with any given group having its own distinct motivations and goals. Conservative religious organizations and individuals may seek the removal of materials on the grounds that the item in question is blasphemous, promotes anti-Christian attitudes, or is indecent; focus groups for cultural and ethnic minorities may find material objectionable due to the fact that it perpetuates outdated and offensive stereotypes and fails to promote social justice. However, since conservative groups tend to be better funded and more organized, they are also more visible and active in censorship campaigns (Nielsen, 245).

No matter what a patron’s personal beliefs or definitions of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” may be however, librarians have to allow for the equal access of any and all materials for the sake of encouraging the public to be informed, enlightened, entertained, and inspired. Statement II of the American Library Association Code of Ethics explicitly states that librarians are to “uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.”

Statement VII builds on this philosophy to say that librarians must distinguish between their personal convictions and professional duties and not let their beliefs hinder the aspirations of a library or the access to a library’s resources. Even librarians may want to selectively censor materials but to do so would be professionally unethical (which is not to say such censorship does not occur—according to Gordan Conable’s essay “Public Libraries and Intellectual Freedom” there are several sources of censorship from inside any given library).

The Wayne County Public Library in Goldsboro, North Carolina is not without its challenges from concerned individuals who would wish to have materials removed from the collection, but it is not an overwhelming and long-standing issue. According to Jane Rustin, the Director of the Wayne County Public Library system, there have been perhaps four instances of a patron finding inappropriate material in the library in the past twelve months, and overall challenged material is a very rare issue. “More often that not,” says Rustin, “the concerns are over children’s materials that challenges the beliefs of the parent.” While the book may be far removed from recent memory, Daddy’s Roommate is the most obvious and memorable example. It was about a young boy with divorced parents. The boy’s father, whom the main character of the story spent a great deal of time with, was homosexual and had a live-in boyfriend. The book portrayed the father and his partner engaging in activities many other couples do: having dinner, shopping, arguing with each other, and on many occasions spending time with the young boy. The main character’s mother at one point says that “Being gay is just one more kind of love” (Rev. of Daddy’s Roommate, 31). The book aimed to promote homosexuality as acceptable and normal and to instill tolerance and understanding in young people. Many parents who disagreed with homosexuality’s acceptance were appalled by the book’s content and did not want their children reading it. The book was the year’s most challenged book for both 1993 and 1994 (“Daddy’s Roommate”, 368) and was removed from several libraries. It was not removed from the shelves of the Wayne County Public Library but was placed in the special collection for books related to parenting and child-rearing (Rustin).

The challenging of a patron’s beliefs, as well as material that seemingly promotes immoral or intolerant behavior, are only a few reasons why some patrons seek to censor library materials. In the past, many censorship cases involved books assigned to a child for required school reading that a parent found objectionable, or a child checking-out a book from the library about sex that the parent though was not appropriate for a child’s age (Nielsen, 246-247). In all of these instances, individuals and organizations have tried to persuade the library to act in accordance with personal beliefs and morals that are representative of the individual or organization making the demand, having developed the notion that matters of religious belief or personal morality can be legislated (246). Doing so would undermine the function and mission of a public library: to make all materials available for all patrons and to encourage the exchange of information and ideas.

However, that is not to say that all materials available in a library are suitable for all age and maturity levels. Children and young people may lack the practical experience or cultural knowledge to place references to events or concepts in the proper context and could misconstrue an author’s intent; other works may make impressions on children that certain deplorable behaviors are acceptable or even trendy and fashionable. However, the library cannot act in loco parentis, enforcing controls and boundaries as if they themselves were the parents (Conable, 261). Likewise the library cannot base their collection solely on what is appropriate for children; doing so would limit the materials available to consenting adults. As Rustin says “the public has accepted the fact that adults are free to read what they choose.” Creating a collection of material strictly appropriate to children would undermine this ideal.
Complaints about material not being age-appropriate are well-intentioned but emotionally-charged; the parent is trying to protect their child from a perceived threat (261). Librarians are willing to assist the parent in selecting materials for their child without actually playing the role of parents themselves. At the Wayne County Public Library, books appropriate for younger readers in grade school are kept separate from books written for adults. Novels, graphic novels, and magazines that appeal to middle- and high-school students are also kept in a separate section. Other ways libraries have assisted parents in making responsible choices for their children are with reader’s advisory services and suggested reading lists (261).

Another motive for attempting to censor materials is much rarer but is also more difficult to handle and involve sophisticated political agendas. Well-organized individuals and or groups may challenge material that does not conform to their aspirations and goals (262) and may try to introduce material that does so. By showing even the slightest hint of favoritism of or unquestioned conformity to any one party, candidate, or specialized focus group the library is undermining its own vision and purpose. The library must remain a neutral place to find information from varying points of view about social and political issues, legislative and electoral processes, candidate and political party platforms, and the well-being of a community (Nielsen, 253).

With the motivations behind attempted censorship having been discussed and the reasons why a librarian cannot remove materials based on a patron’s personal opinion, it is important to keep in mind that these philosophies apply to the entire library collection and not just select materials. An ethical librarian cannot discriminate against material that is considered to be lacking in artistic or intellectual merit. For example, while a patron may not have a problem with a reference book on human reproduction having graphic descriptions or depictions of sex, they may take issue with a romance novel by a popular (yet badly reviewed) author having explicitly-written sex scenes. It would be far too easy to honor this complaint simply because the work may not contribute any great ideas or concepts to the public. However, a failure to defend seemingly meaningless or trivial literature shows a sign of not being able to defend any written or filmed work that may be challenged (Conable, 262-263). Again, a librarian cannot ethically remove any work from the collection on grounds of censorship; doing so would restrict free access to materials.

Just as selecting proper materials for a child to read falls on the responsibility of the parent, librarians are held accountable for upholding their principles and professional ethics. A patron at any library has the right to complain, and more often than not complaints about inappropriate material for minors were solved without an act of censorship taking place (Nielsen, 247). Patrons who find material in a book or any other work of art are not themselves censors; only when a person actually has influence to restrict access to a material are they censors in the most direct and literal meaning of the word (Conable, 266). The great irony is in fact that the same First Amendment rights that protect the author of the work challenged allow for the complaining person or institution to make known their opinion (Nielsen, 253).

The ultimate deciding factor in a case of censorship is indeed on the library and the librarians who facilitate it. No matter how vocal a protest may be, it is meaningless as long as the librarian does not comply to it, and truly ethical librarians will never bow to the demands of those wishing to censor materials that are freely available to the public. As Joanne Goldsmith, the Executive Director for National Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty has said:

The librarian who quietly removes a book from the shelf because of a noisy complaint is more guilty of restricting intellectual freedom than the complainant. The librarian has responsibility to a tradition, a body of law, and to the procedures established and approved for dealing with complaints. Worse, once the librarian has surrendered on a single occasion, he or she is the first target in future assaults. Extremism feeds on success. It is made bolder and more demanding by victory (qtd. in Conable, 263).

We may not live in a society where a governing body directly controls the information and entertainment that is accessible, but we do live in a society where all individuals, despite their political and religious beliefs or tastes in humor and recreation, can express their opinions and have their grievances addressed. While sounding utopian, such a society can also allow for a heavily-controlled flow of ideas and facts to come to fruition. Librarians are important guardians of intellectual freedom and freedoms of speech and expression. Those in this occupation should take this responsibility very seriously and remain ever-vigilant in their fight to retain our independence.

Works Cited

American Library Association Code of Ethics. Adopted by the ALA Council on June 28, 1995.

Conable, Gordon M. “Public Libraries and Intellectual Freedom.” 259-267.

“Daddy’s Roommate year’s most challenged book.” American Libraries Apr. 1995: 368.

“Intellectual Freedom: An All-Embracing Concept.” Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association. 257-258.

Nielsen, Carol. “Pressure Groups: Politics, Religion, and Censorship in Libraries.” Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association. 244-254.

Office for Intellectual Freedom of the American Library Association. Intellectual Freedom Manual. 5th. Ed. Chicago: American Library Association, 1996.

Rev. of Daddy’s Roommate, by Michael Willhoite. Book Links Jan. 2005: 31.


Rustin, Jane. Personal Interview. 28 Mar. 2006