Banning Books 101

The first step to becoming a good journalist (or scholar, critic, average citizen, etc.) is the ability to comprehend what you are reading or hearing. The second step is understanding which direction causation runs and how it can sometimes differ from a simple correlation. No one expects students to intuitively understand the difference between correlation and causation, it is something that needs to be taught and then honed as a critical thinking skill. So please do not read the following as an attack, the intent is to clarify and assist.

During research on banned books week in the news, I came across a story from LA VOZ WEEKLY,
"The voice of De Anza College since 1967." This appears to be a student newspaper for the college, written by students most likely preparing for a career in journalism. At least, this is what I hope La Voz is, a training and practice center and not a serious publication. Otherwise, the headline:

Banning books threatens First Amendment rights

Has some real problems. The writer is certainly correct that the idea of banning books is contrary to the spirit of the First Amendment. And it is anathema for a "free" society. Where the writer stumbles on comprehension is in this passage:

Despite opposition from free-speech organizations, the American Library Association’s website has a form that anyone can fill out in order to challenge or ban a book.

In the first place there is no link to this form in the story, making further investigation more difficult. But from this assertion the writer moves on to state:

Forms submitted to the ALA website are reviewed by the Office for Intellectual Freedom, which then decides if a book should be banned or not.

 From here, the rest of the article makes it sound like ALA and the OIF are the bad guys here, arbitrarily removing books on a whim. This is of course not the case. There is a form individuals can fill out on the OIF's website, but it is meant to report a challenge made by someone else to a book or other materials in a library. Because, while the possibility of stopping a book from being published is extremely difficult, anyone can challenge the inclusion of a book in a specific library's collection. And this happens quite often, which is why Banned Books Week is an important event that brings attention to censorship. Challenging a book in the library is common enough that policies and procedures exist to regularize the process.

For whatever reason, there are many people in the United States who are just not hip to the idea that others should have access to materials that they don't happen to approve of. Defending the rights of those others to read what they want is what the Office for Intellectual Freedom does. See how this misunderstanding can color the perception of someone reading La Voz's article? The way it is written, the line of causation goes: Concerned parent fills out form at ALA; ALA decides on the worthiness of a book and; swoops in with a powerful, bureaucratic hand to remove the book.

The actual line of causation is that a concerned parent challenges a book at their local library. Then the policies and procedures at that local library kicks in to hear the objections, which vary from community to community. Then the library or local government decides whether to remove or retain the book. Where ALA and OIF step in is the teacher or librarian involved fills out the "reporting a
challenge" form to let the professional organization know that there is censorship going on. Then OIF writes letters to the parties involved to support the library, librarians and teachers, and lobby to retain the materials. Sometimes it is local politicians, library boards, or school principals within a library system that remove materials. In that case OIF will urge them to restore those materials and take reasonable steps to defend the rights of patrons and their freedom to read.

Either way, the ALA is not the cause of censorship. There is a correlation between book challenges and bannings, and the ALA but it is not the way the writer of the article implies. Stronger reading comprehension could have made this an accurate report and active critical thinking could have built a stronger understanding of how an organization called "The Office for Intellectual Freedom" would be related to banning books.