Since the American Library Association (ALA) established its Library Bill of Rights in 1939, librarians have held themselves to be the purveyors of intellectual freedom. Now in 2004, public librarians especially see themselves supporting citizens’ basic right to read—Banned Book Week celebrations are held across the U.S. to highlight controversial books that have been challenged and now hold places of honor in the public library. Banned Book Week and news within the library community all seem to focus on censorship and book challenges by parents or citizens—what of censorship by librarians? Censorship by librarians isn’t nonexistent, it is simply not publicized because it is hard to confirm. Public librarians have since the inception of public libraries had certain overarching democratic goals that have led them to their current responsibilities with intellectual freedom. Librarians’ responsibilities can and have been undermined by librarians who, sometimes purposefully and sometimes accidentally , censor their collections—but the key to overcoming censorship by librarians lies within the librarians themselves.

In the early days of the American public library, it was commonly assumed that it was important to educate people through public schools and libraries so that they could be educated voters. The “strongest threat to democracy” was thought to be the uneducated masses who would vote for the wrong reasons. “America would be the victim of its own humane spirit if it did not educate and inform its ‘illiterate blacks and foreign born’” (Ditzion 65). Public libraries had an important position in the ideal democracy—that of continuing education. “By continuing the educational process where the schools left off and by conducting a people’s university, a wholesome, capable citizenry would be fully schooled in the conduct of a democratic life” (Ditzion 74). When Ditzion is referring to the “peoples’ university”, he is referring to the public library—and such was the mentality. It was only until later in the public library’s history that entertainment came to be as important as education, and that is a point that could still be contended, but not in this paper.

An important factor in the establishment and proliferation of public libraries in the United States was the desire to educate the public, as an educated public is an important factor to a strong democracy. A library that will properly educate the public is one that is rich with perspectives and ideas. Ideally, a library’s collection should represent many perspectives. It should be full of a variety of intelligent, coherent opinions and viewpoints—enough viewpoints that people will find something they both agree with and something that requires them to rethink what they thought they knew.

Sometimes, the books that patrons will find make them rethink too many of their previous notions are the one’s that many will debate should not be in the public library. Let us consider Darwin and his controversial work, Origin of the Species;

“Had this information been destroyed or censored by people who saw the provision of truth rather than access to information as their mission, history and intellectual thought would not have been what it is today… In the fight to preserve truth, the worst thing that librarians can do is censor such material since that only has the inevitable effect of destroying truth as some important ideas whose significance may not yet be understood will inevitably be lost in this way. Librarians should be fighting to preserve all literature—scientific or otherwise” (Emery 65-66).

If the key to a strong democratic society is an educated public, the ideal forum for educating that public beyond public schools is the “people’s university”, the public library. And to maintain the strength and purpose of that library it should represent thoughts and works of all kinds, controversial or not. As Emery says, librarians need to be the ones fighting for all kinds of literature to fulfill the public library’s ultimate purpose.

Librarians cannot discriminate against books because they personally feel they might be false. This inhibits the free flow of ideas that is a point of pride for public libraries. “The first book they [librarians] deem untrue and therefore unworthy of inclusion in library collections, sets a precedent for excluding other materials and places librarians in the dangerous position of gatekeepers for what society can and cannot read or think” (Wolkoff 88). Like a domino effect, the more books that are censored, the more that will be censored. Threats to the stability of public libraries come from all sides and should be fought vehemently by librarians. And currently they are, hence Banned Book Week and other movements within the ALA. Unfortunately, not all forms of censorship come from outside sources; librarians need to be constantly watching themselves to be sure that they are creating the best, balanced collection possible for their community.

“When libraries and schools cease to allow controversy and diversity, then they cease to have educational value and become mere tools in the hands of special interests. When libraries and schools cease to present multifaceted visions of many people of all natures searching for many aspects of truths, then they become mere collections of books and people, nothing more” (Donelson 18).

Librarians should strive to create for their communities libraries that are free and open to all ideas; if not, they have failed in one of their ultimate purposes and goals. Today, the world is more corporate driven than it was fifty years ago and much of what is promoted or sold is determined by what corporations think people want to read and buy; libraries are a valuable and important resource that allows for the dissemination of unpopular or unprofitable books and materials. Providing all of these materials represents in some way the American ideals of freedom and equality. A true, democratic culture does not come from a library that consists of one viewpoint, but a library with many. Librarians need to create libraries that enable the free dissemination of new ideas.

In his book Freedom versus Suppression and Censorship, Charles H. Busha outlines four major causes of censorship: psychological, political, paternal, and social. He claims that the psychological reason for censorship is that some feel a need to prevent others from having and perhaps sharing ideas which they do not wish to see disseminated. Political reasons are those in which governments seek to restrain information or ideas, which might be contrary to their status, causes, and positions. Paternal censorship is that in which caregivers want what they consider to be most appropriate for those in their care. And finally, social censorship is motivated by those who endeavor to encourage their own views and morals on society in an attempt to, for example, lower crime (Busha 28).

Busha articulates, rather concisely, some of the many reasons people may feel motivated to prevent access to some materials. In each of these examples the censor is motivated by good intentions. Even if a censor was working under political reasons, they are censoring under the assumption that they, as a governing group, know what is in the best interests of those they govern. When librarians censor, they are also working under the assumption that they, as the educated professional, know what is best for their patrons and for their communities. This is no better than any other form of censorship, and in fact, can be more harmful because of the trust set aside in the basic founding of the public library. Librarians are the guardians of the freedom to read and cannot censor based upon personal bias.

So, if librarians are the guardians of freedom, why do they censor? In the beginning, American public librarians were motivated by social reasons; they did not want people to read improper literature. Frederick Beecher Perkins circa 1876 said once that, “All such baneful literature should be as inexorably excluded from the public library as arsenic and laudanum and rum should be refused to children” (Geller 22). A beautifully written quote with an insidious meaning, Perkins implies that the wrong kind of books will hurt or poison a patron; perhaps even kill them.

This Perkins quote is just one example of the mentality of the era. One specific example is a librarian named James Hubbard, who, in 1881 published his proposal to protect youth. Firstly, he espoused that all harmless books should be labeled so it was apparent which were proper to read. Secondly, he urged librarians to create a separate children’s card catalog for these labeled children’s books. Finally, he encouraged the establishment of a board of censors to screen material for these special collections. At this time children were not the favored constituency of a public library, in fact the “children” allowed in libraries for 14 and older. Nonetheless, through persistence, Hubbard succeeded in having his demands met for what he considered to be the good of the community (Geller 33).

Of course, both Hubbard and Perkins lived long before the Library Bill of Rights and their ideas may seem arcane to the modern reader. A more modern example is of a public librarian in Montgomery, Alabama, who in 1972 sold some books from the library that had been hidden by a previous director, because she felt that the community had no need for them. The books in the hidden collection were nonfiction books on “sex, marriage, birth control, and biology” (Busha 51). In 1972, this would have been a librarian who should have been well aware of the ALA’s position and should certainly have heard of the Library Bill of Rights but did not act upon it. Other modern examples of censorship by librarians are difficult to find, though. The ALA has a systematic method for submitting complaints and book challenges, but no way of systematically submitting censorship by librarians. If the ALA did have such a system, it probably would not be used—few librarians are likely to turn in themselves for censorship; in fact, they may not even know they are censoring at all.

But, how exactly do librarians censor? Librarians throughout history have had different ways of censoring their collections. Some librarians would set aside certain books they felt should not be available to all patrons, sometimes in a locked case, behind the check-out desk, or perhaps by placing questionable juvenile non-fiction in the adult fiction area.

“To say the books are shown in the card catalog and are available at the desk on request still places a barrier between book and patron. Nearly 80 percent of public library patrons do not come to the library to obtain a specific book; hence the book which cannot be found by browsing through the open selves is lost to the overwhelming majority of library patrons” (Merritt 17).

In this quote, Merritt accurately shows the inherent opposition to intellectual freedom that is involved in segregating books in a collection. Although, not as harmful and banning a book from the collection entirely, less people are likely to read a book that is set aside than one that is in front of their nose. It is difficult enough for librarians to get patrons to come into their libraries; few patrons would go that extra mile for one particular book.

The process of labeling books has also been used by librarians as a way to protect their patrons. Librarians can and have labeled certain books: books that they believe contain questionable material, books that they believe are only suitable for patrons of a certain age, and books that contain coarse language. The ALA is strongly opposed to the procedure of labeling books and has a “Statement on Labeling: Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights”, which says, “Some find it easy and even proper, according to their ethics, to establish criteria for judging publications as objectionable. However, injustice and ignorance rather than justice and enlightenment result from such practices, and the American Library Association opposes the establishment of such criteria” (ALA “Statement on Labeling”). Some might consider labeling questionable materials to be an easy answer to a difficult question, but labeling makes decisions for the patron about a book and does not allow them completely free access to the information. Although some commercial institutions may decide to make those decisions for customers, the public library should be a place where people are free to have their own opinions about books and materials.

The most common form of censorship among librarians, self-censorship, is the hardest to discern. Self-censorship is insidious because at times librarians are unaware of their participation. “Self-censorship has been variously described by researchers as ‘a secret practice [that is] the least obvious but arguably most powerful and pervasive form of censorship which is informal, private, and originates with the decision maker’” (Coley “Moving Toward a Method”). When a librarian participates in self-censorship they, in the process of book selection, either inadvertently or purposefully choose not to add certain titles to their collections that are controversial or somehow deemed unworthy, regardless of their quality. Sometimes a librarian may read a book review that says such-and-such is an excellent book for young adults; it contains strong characters and an entertaining storyline, but has a chapter with violent sexuality. If the librarian decides not to acquire the book solely because of the violent sexuality, they are participating in self-censorship.

Ken P. Coley in his 2002 article, “Moving Toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School Library Media Specialists,” analyzes many past studies on self-censorship and summarizes the impressions of these researchers as to why librarians self-censor. Some librarians feel that certain types of literature conflict with their own personal beliefs, be it religious or simply a bias against the literature, and hence do not add the books to their collections. Likewise it has been claimed that librarians as a whole, self-censor because of low self-esteem—that because librarians feel they deserve more respect from society in general they will do what they think will grant their profession greater respect. Some say that the reason is that librarians believe that they are fulfilling the desires of the community. The most commonly accepted reason for self-censorships in librarianship is that librarians fear the potential for book challenges if they add a controversial book to their collection (Coley “Moving Toward a Method”). Regardless of the reason, it has been proven in numerous studies that librarians do, indeed, participate in self-censorship and that self-censorship violates the citizens’ right to read.

Since 1881, checklist-based research has been done to determine whether or not certain libraries are participating in self-censorship. A checklist-based study will typically consist of a questionnaire in which a list of selected books that are usually considered controversial but have good written reviews, this list is read and the library responds as to whether or not the books are in their collection. Margaret Fiske did a study on self-censorship for librarians in California in the 1950’s. Not checklist-based, she used an in-depth questionnaire and interviews that many considered to conclusively show the existence of self-censorship. Fiske’s study sparked a wave of checklist-based studies to enhance and expound upon her findings (Serebnick 37-40).

Checklist-based research is a starting point for looking at self-censorship in libraries, but it is in no way conclusive. There are some inherent problems with checklist-based research, the most prominent being the books selected for the list. In some studies the reasons for selecting the books remains unclear and sometimes studies require that all books in the selected list be represented (Serebnick 50-51). Also, some libraries with smaller budgets will not be as likely to have as many controversial titles simply because the size of the collection does not allow for them. Book selection should focus on quality, not controversy, and checklist-based research could compel many librarians to add certain books to their collections simply because they are controversial and not because they are books that the community actually needs or wants.

So, if we cannot use checklists to consistently show whether or not we are self-censoring, then how do we know? Lester Asheim wrote an article in 1953 entitled, “Not Censorship but Selection”. Asheim discusses the fact that libraries simply cannot hold every book ever made even with unlimited monies, and argues that libraries must select books. Problems arise when these selections happen for the wrong reasons and books get excluded, not because of budget or quality but because the author’s intent is considered “pornographic or treasonable”, a subjective idea of literary excellence, or the presumed harm done to a reader. At the end of his article, Asheim makes a convincing argument for the freedom to read that must have resonated with librarians during the McCarthy era.

“Selection then, begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship with a presumption in favor of thought control…Selection seeks to protect the right of the reader to read; censorship seeks to protect—not the right—but the reader himself from the fancied effects of his ready…In other words, 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 67).

Considering Asheim’s arguments then, the one true way to discern whether a librarian is censoring or not can only be answered by that librarian. Librarians must be open to all books being in their collections whether they think them morally abhorrent or just plain, bad literature. When selecting, a librarian should know if they are selecting for the wrong reasons and they should try to work to understand why they are feeling the need to select in that manner and should try to find another way to express those opinions (as such they are).

If a librarian has failed to carefully consider their selections and have kept some books form their collections for malicious reasons, this ultimately harms the patron because they cannot have access to all ideas and all opinions. Selection should not be performed with the attitude of preventing books from harming people, but rather on the good a particular book can do them. Merritt points out that librarians should not censor because there is no desire for a particular book within their community, it just means that there is no known desire for a particular book within their community (Merritt 22).

What if librarians are censoring not out of religious opinion or personal preference, but rather out of fear? Stopping the threat of censorships by others will help librarians to have the confidence to pick quality books for their collections that might happen to be controversial. Many claim the key to this confidence is in a solid collection policy. Once a librarian knows how to handle a challenge and has a basis with which to defend their selection decisions, they can do what is best for their community without fear.

One method for librarians to gain confidence is to give the community opportunities to voice their opinions during the book selection process. And if complaints about materials should arise, the patrons should be given the opportunity to fully voice their grievances. Staff, the library board, and the general public should all be aware of the library’s policy so that the library will have their complete support should any controversy arise (Belk 280). Once a library has a selection policy, it is important to continually evaluate it so that it can be improved and changed as the community’s needs themselves change.

It has also been suggested that another effective way of preventing book challenges is to reach out to groups within your community that are likely to make the challenges. A librarian in Oregon had success by asking for input on books from a Christian group, and was able to inform them that 80% of the books they wanted in the collection were already in circulation (Belk 281).

To fight censorship by librarians the librarians themselves need to stop fearing challenges. Understanding what to do should a challenge happen, and being prepared with set arguments and responses helps significantly. The ALA has a considerable amount of resources on its website for just this reason; a whole web page with multiple links is dedicated to these resources, entitled “Dealing with Challenges to Books and Other Library Materials.”

Once the fear of facing book challenges for a controversial book selection is gone—it should no longer be a reason for self-censorship. Of course, it still may be, but only the librarian doing the selecting knows this. To prevent other forms of censorship, librarians should become aware of any personal biases they, themselves, may have. It is essential that public librarians remember that it is not their library, but rather the community’s library. Librarians cannot make their book decisions based on what they want; they must base their decisions on what the community wants. Self-censorship in libraries happens when librarians have too much personal investment in the collection. A more unbiased view when selecting books can open up the world for a patron. Unbiased book collections create the libraries that allow patrons to learn and to ultimately become better citizens, voters, and neighbors.

Librarians have always held their profession in high regard, and yet have always been plagued by low self-esteem for what they see as a lack of respect for their profession by society. As public libraries have progressed, librarians, and public librarians in particular, have come to see themselves as the protectors of the freedom to learn and read. As protectors and guardians of that freedom to learn and read we need to be careful with our book selections lest they become a form of censorship. The thin line between selection and censorship might cause some to lessen the implications of the threat of censorship, especially self-censorship, but librarians today have an obligation to speak out and fight for citizen’s intellectual rights in all arenas. Librarians cannot simply limit themselves to protecting patrons from each other. If librarians cannot say, without a doubt, that their libraries are representations of the wealth of human knowledge, then they have no right preaching intellectual freedom in other arenas.

Works Cited

American Library Association. “Statement on Labeling: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights”. 26 June 1990. 24 November 2004.

<http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/statementlabeling.htm>.

American Library Association. “Dealing with Challenges to Books and Other Library Materials” 2004. 26 November 2004.

<http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/challengesupport/dealing/dealingchallenges.htm>.

Asheim, Lester. “Not Censorship but Selection”. Wilson Library Bulletin. 58:1 (1953): 63-67.

Belk, Norman. “Know Your Community”. Public Libraries. 36 (1997): 280-281.

Busha, Charles H. Freedom versus Suppression and Censorship: With a Study of the Attitudes of Midwestern Public Librarians and a Bibliography of Censorship. Littleton, CO: Libraries Unlimited Inc., 1972.

Coley, Ken P. “Moving Toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School-Library Media Specialists”. School Library Media Research. 5 (2002). <http://wilsontxt.hwwilson.com/pdfhtml/06511/2X544/VSI.htm>.

Ditzion, Sidney. Arsenals of a Democratic Culture. Chicago: American Library Association, 1947.

Donelson, Kenneth L. “Shoddy and Pernicious Books and Youthful Purity: Literary and Moral Censorship, Then and Now”. Library Quarterly. 51:1 (1984): 4-19.

Emery, Judith. “A Critique of the Principles of Censorship”. Collection Management. 18:3/4 (1994): 63-69.

Geller, Evelyn. Forbidden Books in American Public Libraries, 1876-1939: A Study in Cultural Change. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1984.

Merritt, LeRoy Charles. Book Selection and Intellectual Freedom. H.W. Wilson Company, 1970.

Shera, Jesse H. Foundations of the Public Library. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1949.

Wolkoff, Kathleen Nietzke. “The Problem of Holocaust Denial Literature in Libraries”. Library Trends. 45:1 (1996): 87-96.