A Censorship Language Primer: Book Censorship News, June 30, 2023
It has been years since talking about the meanings behind words used to discuss book bans and censorship. Although we might all think we’re using the words the same way, in many cases, the nuance and gravity of language can be lost when the wrong word is used. It might sound nitpicky, but it’s not. Clarity around language and meaning around book bans is important. To communicate the true extent of what is happening and on how many different levels, a shared understanding of words and their meanings is crucial.
This week, for example, an author talked on Twitter about how his book was being “soft censored” because a school board decided to pull the book from shelves before it could raise a concern from community members. Though it conveys the same thing, this is not actually what soft censorship is. This is textbook censorship, no softness about it.
Here’s a short introduction to the nuances of language around book bans, censorship, and more.
Censorship
This is used as both an umbrella term and one that is employed with specificity. We talk about censorship broadly as the intentional act of information suppression; this information can be a whole book, passages from a book, images from a book, and so forth. Materials are being withheld or changed when they’re made available to other people.
More specifically, censorship means that suppression is coming from a government body, a private institution, or other group with authority. These authorities are intentionally suppressing or removing information from those who do not have the same level of power or authority that they do.
Censorship is done knowingly. It is purposeful. There is a reason behind why someone wants the material changed, eradicated, or removed.
A school board, school administrator, city manager, mayor, president, librarian, politician, police force member, and others in roles which have some presumed level of authority may all engage in censorship. A school board that decides to not have a book on shelf because they think it might cause concern among some community members engages in censorship. A librarian who chooses to pull a book off shelf because they do not believe it should be accessible to anyone engages in censorship. A member of city council or the local police force demanding the removal of books is engaging in censorship.
Catholic Vote — via their “Hide the Pride” campaign — engages in censorship. Moms for Liberty, via their BookLooks database, provokes censorship (especially as they do not believe that meeting the legal definition of obscenity).
Soft/Quiet/Self Censorship
Defined with ample examples over here, this form of censorship happens not as a means of exerting authority or power. It happens instead at the ground level with those who have the power to make choices about access and availability of material. While educators or librarians may have real or perceived authority and power over many in their communities or classrooms, the “quiet”/”self”/”soft” part of this type of censorship refers to the fact that books that may fit the collection never get the chance to be there at all because the person in the position to make such choices either chooses not to include it. That choice comes not from wanting to wield their power but instead to protect themselves or others from facing the consequences of other people’s power.
A librarian may not purchase Gender Queer for their collection, for example, despite being on a best books for teens list. This is not because they cannot afford it, and it is not because the book does not fit their collection development standards. Their decision isn’t about not wanting young people to access the book. In fact, they might believe the book is a great fit for their students. But they choose not to buy the book for the collection because it’s among the most banned in America and they worry that if someone found out the book was in the collection, they would become a victim of online targeted hate by pro-censorship groups and/or have to defend their decision in ways that they are not prepared to do.
Often, soft/self/quiet censorship is about self-preservation. Librarians and educators do not make much money, and they’ve become punching bags in so many social and political circles, especially in the last half decade. They need to pay their bills and keep their health insurance. While they might defend the right to read to their core, if it comes down to choosing between potentially getting fired for having Gender Queer and being able to afford rent, the choice is sometimes not really a choice at all.
Self/soft/quiet censorship happens on the other end, too: books may “go missing” from shelves or be weeded as a means of protection.
Another layer to soft/quiet/self censorship is the slate of bills impacting teachers and librarians across the country. Because of how unclear much of this legislation is — the vagueness is a feature, not a bug — the onus of responsibility for what is in a collection falls on those with the least power in an institution like the teacher or librarian. This makes self/quiet/soft censorship flourish. If you’re in the position of buying the LGBTQ+ book but have no clear guidance on what might get you fired or sued, you’re in an impossible situation. Self-censorship is the safest route and that’s by no fault of the librarian or teacher. That’s the fault and rationale of the legislators ramming these bills through.
Soft/quiet/self censorship is the chilling effect in action.
In the example above, where an author called a school board deciding to remove a book soft censorship, the reason it is not is power. The school board has power and purposefully made a decision to withhold information in order to keep it out of the hands of people. Soft censorship would be the librarian never purchasing the book for fear of pushback from the board or community. (Note: examples like this one are why more boards want to have control over the library collections, as it gives them power to make every decision, wield that power, then claim self/quiet censorship as their rationale, as it is seen as a “lesser” form of censorship).
Often soft/quiet/self censorship has no paper trail. It is nearly impossible to track.
Book Challenge/Complaint
These are formal or informal complaints by someone about a book perceived to be in a library or classroom collection. An informal complaint might happen in passing — a patron saying that the Pride display is inappropriate but not doing anything else about it — or it can happen formally through a form provided to patrons for that very purpose. A book challenge form protects the First Amendment Rights of all, which is why having policies and procedures in place for them is crucial.
The difference between a challenge/complaint and a ban is what happens when the complaint is filed. Anyone has the right to a book complaint or challenge; whether or not it goes through the formal process is determined by the library’s policy on whether non-community members can have input in an institution to which they have no affiliation or financial ties.
Book Restriction
Book restrictions happen when the book is available on shelf, but it cannot be accessed without permission. In some Florida schools, for example, books have not been removed from library shelves but in order to use them, students need parental permission. This is not popular.
Book restrictions can be on a title-by-title basis — so you can’t borrow, say, an Ellen Hopkins book without mommy or daddy saying you can (but you can go sign your life away to the military recruiters at lunchtime without it!). It can also happen on an age basis, such that if you’re in middle school, you cannot borrow any books from the high school library (so hopefully you don’t want to borrow a work of classic literature). It can also happen in a blanketed way, as the Florida examples show.
Book restrictions are censorship, but they are not book bans. They are indeed a “clever” way to get around enacting book bans.
Book Ban
A book ban is when a book is removed from the shelf. Period.
Too many argue that a book is not banned if it’s removed for review following a complaint. This is not true. If the book is not on the shelf, it is inaccessible, and when it is inaccessible, it’s been banned from those who may wish to use it. A complaint or challenge does not give the right of removal unless the book has gone through the formal reconsideration process and has been officially deemed unacceptable for the collection.
Yes, moving the books behind a desk or to a secret room only accessible via asking a librarian is a book ban. This may be called “book removals,” but it is a book ban.
Choosing not to purchase material because of budget constraints, not filling a need in the community, or information contained within the material is patently biased, false, misleading, or dangerous is not a book ban. Libraries offer information; were they to purchase, say, subscriptions to right-wing “news” like the Epoch Times, they would not be doing their job. They should, budget willing, provide actual news that might lean right, such as The Wall Street Journal.
Book bans are censorship, and they may be temporary or permanent.
Of note: there is a difference between a book ban and a curriculum update. It’s a popular argument from the right that “leftists” are banning books like To Kill a Mockingbird. This is false; changes in curriculum are part of keeping a curriculum up to date, and even if TKAM is no longer used as a primary text, it is not removed from shelves or made unavailable to students.
Fascism
Last, let’s throw in the term fascism, since it’s relevant and pertinent when talking about book bans right now. Fascism is a political movement of authoritarianism. One figure or set of figures gets to determine what is and is not acceptable, and anything outside of the sphere of okay is deemed dangerous and worth oppressing. As we ride the waves of fascism in America, it is crucial to understand that the now 3-years-deep “war” over “parental rights” and “book curation” in this country is little more than an attempt of the far-right to determine what books and information people are allowed access to.
Censorship is fascism in action.
—
One word not included above but worth an honorable mention here is reshelving. What “reshelving” means depends entirely on the context. If it’s, say, in the context of hundreds of books being pulled from shelves to be moved from the teen section to the adult section because of a few loudmouth citizens, then that’s a form of censorship.
If it’s removing all of the comics from the teen section and putting them into the adult section because of some complaints? That’s a form of censorship.
These are not book bans, per se. But they are perfect examples of censorship since they suppress access to information. If the books disappear completely or are removed from shelves for weeks as the library decides where to put them, then those are book bans.
But if it’s moving all of the teen comics and putting them into the adult section because the library is out of space and needs to make some, and thus, all graphic novels are just going to be shelved together, then that’s making use of the space you have, so long as that’s the real reasoning behind it.
Book Censorship News: June 30, 2023
Note: I did not include links to news updated on legislation that takes effect July 1, but know that several states, including Indiana and Iowa, will now be subject to restrictive, draconian new laws about what can or cannot be in a library. We will see a greater rise in books being removed, though whether or not we read a story about it remains to be seen. When there is legal recourse, why would individuals alert the media? We’re entering a major wave of censorship that will never be reported and thus, never recorded for history.
Copyright
© Book Riot