CENSORSHIP IN SCHOOL LIBRARIES:
"DISTURBING STUFF"

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

DEFINITIONS

CHARACTERISTICS OF CENSORSHIP

Mackenzie (1995) makes reference to the matter of censorship by quoting Browning's poem "Curiosity" which refers to the Biblical Adam and Eve being expelled from the Garden of Eden for 'tasting the fruit of knowledge'. This is analogous to the 'censor's' concern that access to some types of information will have deleterious effects on the behaviour of readers or viewers.

Censorship is attempted by a variety of individuals or groups, and can affect all mediums. Gottlieb (1990) identifies three groups of censors that exist within a school scenario:
parents who hear about controversial material 'second-hand'
parents or community groups who 'react' to a book without having read it
local, state or national organisations that maintain lists of books and/or authors that they consider objectionable.

The human dynamics of censorship were examined by Fine (1996), resulting in the conclusion that those whose behaviour promoted censorship were most likely to be authoritarian in personality, with a need to exert control. Watterson (1997) notes that conflicts over censorship may cause major divisions within the school community, and urges that rapid and satisfactory resolution must occur. When dealing with individuals of the personality type described by Fine, this may be no simple matter.

In addition to the three groups identified by Gottleib, there are self-censoring factions (Small, 1987). Publishers exercise censorship (Reutzel & Larson, 1995; Aronson, 1997) in that they can choose what they wish to publish. Authors censor themselves by 'weeding out curse words and steering away from difficult areas' (Staples, 1996) in order to make their works more commercially viable.

Self-censoring is not an issue in schools, unless students elect not to access information solely on the basis of external pressures. Staples notes that one of the most insidious forms of censorship is that of 'stealth', (1996) where a teacher librarian 'quietly removes books' that are considered to be a potential source of controversy. The fact that this is done without consultation is of concern, but considering the 'defensive' motive quite understandable.

Previously cited (File Room Project, 1998) as 'grounds' for censorship have been:

• racial/ethnic content
• political/economic/social opinion
• behaviour
• language
• sexual/gender orientation
• religious
• sexuality
• nudity

Books are not the only material that has been the subject of censorship. The following have also been labelled 'controversial' and inappropriate (File Room Project, 1998)

• broadcast media
• visual arts
• performance arts
• moving image
• pr€int media
• literature
• public speech
• personal opinion
• public art
• digital information
• fashion design.

CONSIDERATIONS

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations, 1948), on which international law is based, states in Clause 19:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression: this right
includes freedom to hold opinions without interfernece and to seek, receive
and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

Whilst there is no mechanism to police this international policy, most western culture's judicial systems will defer to this governance in the event of insufficient legislature.

Williams (1997, 14) discusses the legalities governing access to information in Australia, and notes that there is no equivalent to the American Constitution which guarantees 'freedom of speech'. The Australian Constitution, formulated in 1901, does not provide an intellectual freedom clause. Rather, this matter is governed in Australia under 'our common law heritage'.

In Australia, the Federal government has the authority to control the importation of material, whilst state governments control the release and sale of resources. Within states, statutory bodies such as the Departments of Education may deem material not suitable for school use. For example, the Child Protection Act forbids the use of certain types of information. In a memorandum to school principals, Boston (1997) directs the action of teachers in this regard, and warns against 'exposure...to sexually explicit material, other than prescribed curriculum material'. There are considerable implications for library collection development restrictions under this directive, in regard to the library's responsibility in being responsive to user requirements.

At an individual school level, there is the possibility of imposing personal standards in the formulation of the Collection Development Policy for material in the school's library, whilst individual faculties in secondary schools determine their own resource selection.

In regard to Internet-based material, attempts have been made in Australia to introduce legislation to control content on a national basis (EFA Media Release, 1997). However, Ali & Biskup (1996) note the impracticalities of this venture. One cannot help but note the Canute-like analogy in 'stopping the sea'.

Litigation is ongoing in America. There are an increasing number of cases being heard that involve disputed material in school libraries. The judicial system must weigh the 'Freedom of Free Speech' against the 'Rights of the Parents' (Winch, 1993). So complex is the issue that the final judgments are varied, with no single precedent having been set (Hopkins, 1993).

American court rulings have generally tended to favour teachers' rights in matters concerning controversial material (Cook, 1984), especially when the inclusion of this material is supported by school or district policy. Further, court proceedings may be instituted against teachers on the grounds of 'negligence' (Williams, 1997) in failing to teach 'the full curriculum' by withdrawing material that is controversial. There are numerous documented instances of this litigation proceeding in Australia.

A search of legal data bases indicates there have been no court cases in Australia concerning disputed material the time of writing, with the exception of a university newspaper article The Art of Shoplifting . However, considering the proclivity of Australian culture to mirror that of America, it appears that it is only a matter of time before this eventuates.

The Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) is an organisation to which eligibility for membership is a prerequisite for appointment as a teacher librarian in a NSW government school (DET Staffing Directorate). Thus it is reasonable to assume that compliance with their policies is a forgone conclusion. The ALIA statement on professional ethics states that:

"...material must not be rejected on the grounds that its content is controversial
or likely to offend some sections of the library's community."

The Handbook for School Libraries, containing mandatory policy for NSW government schools, includes the Australian School Library Bill of Rights (1996:96). This document provides broad guidelines for the inclusion of material that could be considered controversial.

Similarly, the Statement on Freedom to Read (1996:97) instructs librarians - and by extension, teacher librarians - to "resist attempts by individuals or groups...to determine what library materials are to be...available for users of the library". However, this document recognises that the guidelines it provides may be in contravention of legislation, and recommends that where conflict arises action should be taken to 'move for an amendment of these laws'.

Development of critical reading skills will develop through the use of controversial material (Sadler, 1995). In discussing the selection of texts for the Victorian English Senior Syllabus, Hayes (1993) notes that the review board examines the literary content of the books before recommending them for inclusion in studies.

The Hobart Declaration (MCEETYA, 1989) states in part that when student leave school, they should:
"...be active and informed citizens with the ability to exercise judgment
and responsibility in matters of morality, ethics and social justice; and the
capacity to make sense of their world, to think about how things got to be
the way they are, to make rational and informed decisions about their own
lives...."

Without access to information which may potentially be disputed, this outcome would be difficult to achieve.

The issue of censorship itself is one of educational value. Instruction in this matter within the curriculum (Blair, 1996) is recommended. Similarly, Jones (1991) cites the judicial rulings [in America] that indicated the appropriateness of teacher librarians 'preparing students to meet challenges to their intellectual freedom'. Van Sickle (1983) cites that the study of controversial material 'can promote positive, democratic political attitudes'.

As trained educationalists, teachers are formally instructed as to which resources best suit the information requirements of students. This may well be of the nature of controversial material. However, parental rights must be respected (Layne, 1995) in reference to individual pupils. A difficulty arises when an individual parent attempts to remove access to specific information from the whole student body.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that many instances of censorship have been promoted by societal perceptions that exposure to controversial material will cause an imitation of the behaviour portrayed therein. However, Resnick et al (1997) conducted a national longitudinal study involving 90,118 adolescents and found that ultimately there was no harmful effect from exposure to controversial material.

SUGGESTIONS

McDonald (1994) and Willard (1996) both suggest that an appropriate policy to cover matters relating to censorship will provide access, equity and protection in the event of a conflict (Foley, 1991). Williams (1997:11) suggests that access to Internet based material may be restricted where deemed necessary both technological means (eg filtering software, specialist service providers) and organisational procedures (eg supervision, acceptable use policies, contracts).

The establishment of a review committee is recommended (O'Reilly, 1984) as being necessary to fairly deal with controversial material. This group can examine the objections to the material, assess its value in educational terms, and make recommendations as to the resources ultimate fate.

CONCLUSION

In view of the increasing concern over controversial issues, the conflicting legislation regarding this matter, and the possibility of litigation, it is necessary to construct a school-based policy to address the issue of controversial material which may be subject to censorship. The construction of this policy should be actioned at the earliest possible opportunity in order to circumvent any future possible contention. Thus, access to information by members of the school community can be preserved.

BIBLIOGRAPHY