Hello everyone!
Just a forewarning, this is a heavy subject, but one that I really want to hear back from you on.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Today I wanted to talk about the second important attribute of libraries that must be maintained, whether on or offline, and that is Safety.
Safety you say? What can you possibly mean by that?
As mentioned before, libraries have the ability to form a 3rd place between the home and the classroom where students can learn. Feeling safe and free to explore, congregate, and socialize at leisure is an experience that virtual libraries need to also embrace.
So how can a website or chat room still provide safety to patrons and students?
To me this means Cyber-bullying must be watched for on library forums on chat rooms, while at the same time some level of freedom and creative expression has to be maintained. If it isn’t, then student won’t feel safe being themselves for the opposite reason, fear of censorship and reprisal.
Beyond that though, is the need to ensure that users of an online resource feel safe to contribute to a discussion or exploration, without fear of being belittled or silenced. This can be a much harder goal to achieve, but internet chat, learning, and meeting can provide a natural medium where there is the right mix of connection, and anonymity, for participants.
However, there is one more aspect of safety that I think libraries need to provide, and it’s a BIG one.
A casual Google search of “Libraries + Safe spaces” and any number of qualifiers such as ‘creating’ etc. yields a wide range of results. Some talking about anti-bullying and safety from violence and unwanted attention, while others are actual documents outlining libraries ‘Safety Codes’.
Stuck in the middle of all of that though, is the idea that libraries are safe spaces for children and people of different lifestyles. This may be stepping into a quagmire, but the topic itself needs to be broached. There is already discussion about ‘self-censorship’ ongoing, and to what extent are libraries responsible for embracing all backgrounds and lifestyles.
One hit from McGill University highlighted an event discussing just this point, with some very interesting data. Over 73% of public and school librarians confessed they made conscious choices not to buy books that were supportive or in favor of the LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer/questioning) lifestyles. This included books that were award winners or best sellers, and was largely due to the fear librarians had of parental backlash.
Decisions such as this have been given the label ‘self-censorship’, and the concept is quickly becoming one of the hot button topics in librarian science circles.
For the digital and online capacities of libraries, it also carries several important questions:
– With the ease of lending and loaning that was previously discussed as a potential option in our last post and discussion, to what extent will digital libraries be able to overcome the self-censorship that is quite clearly prevalent in physical library spaces today?
– Conversely, will the lack of an actual physical copy of books make it easier for this type of censorship to continue, and in fact to be buried under the mountains of e-books and publications that would be flooding a suddenly immense online collection?
While the concept of self-censorship is one that could be discussed at great length, I would like to try and keep things focused more generally on the topic of creating libraries that are safe places of students and children, and in particular, how technology could assist in doing so. I must admit though, that I find myself of two very distinct minds when I consider how technology could play into all of this.
As hinted at above, the freedom and ease of access that an online lending system creates should make it far easier for patrons of all ages and backgrounds to be part of the library. Additionally, at the same time perhaps this would shield the libraries, schools, and librarians themselves from criticism and backlash from parents and community members who may not agree with such a policy.
On the other side though, isn’t the mere idea that such actions take place a clear indicator that it is not technology that will solve this problem? That we are dealing with a fundamental issue of liberty and freedom here? If people really don’t want something around, then they will always find a way to keep it hidden or buried, right?
I suppose at the very heart of all of this should be the idea that children and students need to find the library a place where they can feel safe and not judged; and that extends beyond the obvious ideas of cyber-bullying and violence. So far, the majority of libraries seem to be failing these students, and that is heartbreaking.
If the goal of education is to give children and students voices so they can be heard, then any action which takes away those voices, or works to silence them, is a crime of the highest order.
Finding our way along this path will obviously take time and effort, but it is a task that stands in great need of being taken up. I truly feel that the technological potential that libraries are beginning to embrace could, and should, provide a medium for all voices, lifestyles, and children. Furthermore, it should work towards the ideal of libraries being spaces of learning, and safety, for all children.
It may be difficult, but the reward would be another step down the path to creating a safe environment where all students can learn, experience online communities, and flourish.
Ryan
Addendum’s:
I found a good, but short, blog post from someone who attended the conference at McGill here, and another very brief librarian blog post here as well. Sadly, it appears that they didn’t follow up on this topic very much, but I still found some of their opinions interesting.
I also highly recommend the PowerPoint file on the linked McGill website
Finally, for a further introduction to Self-Censorship, I recommend the CCBC (Cooperative Children’s Book Center) article.
Ryan, you have a way of finding my hot-button issues. Thanks for that!
I’m of two minds, or maybe three or four on this too. First of all, I think it is worth thinking about what we mean by safe. Safe from what? Safe from abuse? Safe from other people? Safe from ideas? Each of these, and probably 100 other types of safe are out there, and each has consequences. The physical and emotional safety issues I get, especially where people are involved in directly threatening the safety of others. I’ve got no sympathy for cyber-bullying or any other kind of aggressive act that happens person to person or even computer to computer. But are authors doing this through their writings?
I’m a flat out raging libertarian when it comes to access to ideas. I don’t want anyone making decisions about what is appropriate for me (or you) to read, even if it is hidden behind the cloak of self-censorship. I can self-censor myself, thanks, and I’ll ask for help if I need it. When I was a teenager, I wanted to read “Catcher in the Rye” and I had to go to great lengths to get my hands on a copy, I presume because censorship was more prevalent in those days. And I did get it, and I did read it, and I could have used some help understanding it. However, that kind of help was even harder to find than the novel.
But, of course, kids need to be kept safe from making bad choices for themselves, and I think we need to pay much stronger attention to media literacy skills. Kids and adults alike need to be able to make reasoned, intelligent choices for themselves, so it falls to us to help them become discerning consumers. Yes, I think books can come with a labelling system that identifies what kind of content the consumer will encounter. Please help me make an informed decision, and clear markers can help. Now, I know the situation is different for school libraries vs. public libraries. The mandates are different.
But don’t keep Catcher in the Rye out of the library because some group finds it offensive. After all, there’s a lot of murder and sex in Hamlet. Oscar Wilde was gay. Richard Dawkins offends every religious group on the planet. Harry Potter celebrates mysticism. Animal Farm is about revolution. The Grapes of Wrath shows the devastating effects of poverty and class. To Kill a Mockingbird decries racial stereotyping. Lolita… ah, Lolita … well you get the idea.
Now I know it isn’t that simple, or that black-and-white. I realize there are very real dangers in going to the extremes of any issue. But I do think we need to stand on principles when we confront these kinds of issues, and that should happen before we decide what to do about them.
When we talk about censorship, we must remember that it is an incredibly fluid mechanism that changes and adapts as society continually under goes changes. The same can be said for library resources and various forms of media. For example, John Calvin had his theological writings “The Institutes of the Christian Religion” were banned because of their controversial nation. In a more modern example, it was in the early 1990’s that the television show “The Simpsons” were once decried by George Bush senior as a form of media that was responsible for the denigration of America’s morality and he wanted it censored from television. However, now a days, the Simpsons as a form of media has exploded into print, video, audio, ect, and become a global phenomenon.
Yes, there needs to be safety for the children, especially as they look and are learning to make choices that are in tune with the moral compass. However, that comes down to parents and guardians of these children. Clearly, no matter what you censor or don’t censor, someone will not be happy and debate the decisions the library makes. However, the library whether online or in person is supposed to be a microcosm of our society, with information and resources in regards to all walks of life. Thus, it comes down to the discerning individual to make choices that are in line with their values