This article is Part II of Gail Dickinson's article (SLMAM, Part I, January 2007) on dealing with resource challenges.

Why can't you just take it off the shelf because I say so? In truth, many resources are removed from the collection because one parent complained, or in some cases, because it was feared that a parent would complain. It is, therefore, helpful when questions are raised about a resource to clarify the circumstances. Here is one articulation of the different scenarios. More specific information can be found, along with a multitude of excellent support resources, at the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom web pages ( http://www.ala.org/oif ).

Questioned: A resource is questioned when a parent or citizen (and sometimes an administrator, teacher, or staff person) expresses concern. This concern may be quietly raised in an email, shouted from across a table in righteous anger, or publicly stated to a newspaper or television camera. The proper response to inquiries from the media about the resource at this point is that a challenge has not been filed. The materials can be discussed with the complainant, but the resource will not be removed in this stage because there is no challenge. In some schools, especially when materials are questioned by classroom teachers or administrators, this stage can be emotionally difficult for the library media specialist, but the administrator will need to be reminded that there is no challenge without the written form, and the challenged procedure cannot be initiated without it.

Challenged: A resource is challenged when the proper form is filled out and submitted. The district's board-approved challenged materials procedure then kicks into action, the committee is formed, and the resource moves through the process. The proper response to media inquiries during this scenario is that the district has an established process, and it is proceeding. The resulting decision is not yet known, but the administrator may note that the process is on schedule.

Banned: A resource is banned when the committee process is completed and the decision is made to remove the resource from the school. The option of limiting access to the resource should not be considered. Under normal access policies, instructional materials are open and accessible to everyone in the school community. Therefore, resources are in the collection or not in the collection, meaning they are either banned or they are retained. The proper response to media, parental, or student inquiries is that the school board has made a decision and the school will abide by it. Sometimes students can be extremely emotional when a resource is removed. It's a difficult lesson in the democratic process for them, but if the process was followed, the decision must be followed unless the process has room for appeal by another parent.

A resource can only be removed from the shelf when it is banned. Just because a resource is questioned by one parent does not mean that it should be removed. Petitions with long lists of names are good input for the committee, but the decision cannot be based on one group of parents, no matter how large or small. The question is indeed one of parental rights and most states require schools to honor parental requests for alternative educational experiences. For example, if a parent feels strongly about his or her child reading Macbeth, then another Shakespearean play may be substituted. When a parent formally challenges resources, however, he or she is not asking for an alternative experience solely for their child, but for all of the children in the school. Other parents do not have the opportunity to make the choice; it has been made for them. Usurping the rights of all parents in the school to have a say in their child's education should not be taken lightly. For that reason, the committee process is crucial.

There are also legal considerations. It is said that the only time administrators learn about library media centers in their preparation programs is in a course on School Law. The applicable cases, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) and Pico v. Island Trees (1982), provide the legal basis for why following the process is so important. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the right of students to due process was upheld with the phrase that notes constitutional rights do not stop at the schoolhouse door.

In Pico v. Island Trees, the U. S. Supreme Court affirmed that school boards could be sued for decisions made outside of board-approved processes. Pico is usually the basis for additional lawsuits in which administrators or school boards have removed materials at the questioning stage without allowing them to be formally challenged. In fact, in both Pico and a later case based in Olathe, Kansas, (Case v. Unified S.D. 1995) no formal challenge was ever presented. It is the role of the library media specialist to note to the principal that it takes only one student or parent to sue if the resource is removed without the process as outlined in the policy manual, and that precedent and case law does not favor the school district in that case.

What to Do NOW?

Schools are sometimes seen as impenetrable fortresses by those who live and work outside of its walls. Approaching school personnel with a complaint takes energy, and sometimes that energy is worked up to the point of explosion. Fear of "the run-around" only makes the situation more explosive. It is important that the information given to parents is accurate and consistent.

Setting the Stage

When the call, email, or frantic message from an administrator first comes, saying that a resource is being questioned or challenged, the library media specialist should have a set response—to immediately write "the memo." There is no need to know why the material is being questioned. The purpose of the memo is to present facts about the resource, not to defend against specific issues. The one-page memo to the principal or instructional supervisor regarding the resource should be formatted as follows:

Paragraph 1: Write a brief plot summary of the resource. If the library media specialist has not read, viewed, or listened to it, the plot can still be gleaned from summaries, review sources, or booktalk sites.

Paragraph 2: Embed the resource into the selection criteria. Quoting from reviews, explain factually how the resource meets selection principles, i.e., why it is accurate, authoritative, relevant to the curriculum, the four areas of appropriateness.

Paragraph 3: Review briefly the board-approved process for challenging materials, explaining each step.

Paragraph 4: Explain to the principal why the challenged materials process must be followed. The short answer is, of course, so that the district does not end up as a footnote in a school law text. The tone must be subtle, but factual. Court cases should be mentioned by name. The administrator should be familiar with Tinker and may have heard of Pico.

If the challenge becomes a media frenzy, which sometimes happens, pieces of the memo will be heard being calmly read on the evening news time and time again. The esteem of library media specialists will rise dramatically from the perspective of the principal and superintendent.

In the Lion's Den

When dealing with emotionally explosive situations, it helps to provide written documentation of school policy and procedures. If nothing else, it may provide an opportunity for a small window of time to explain the procedure. Almost all school boards have passed an approved selection policy and a procedure for challenging materials. This process usually begins with a form for concerned citizens to fill out. Although the policy or procedure that a district has approved may be flawed, it is the only allowable procedure. The case law surrounding challenged materials almost always is because the school or district did not follow the board-approved procedures. It may be informative and beneficial to the library media center to have a file of policies and procedures from other districts even though they should not be used in your district. If challenges end up in the legal arena, the degree to which board-approved procedures were followed is a key component. Using another school's policy because "we liked this other one so much better" is not going to carry much weight.

Keep multiple copies of the school-board approved selection policy and challenged materials procedure in a desk drawer. Make sure that each of these has the date and policy number showing that they are official school board documents. Take copies, if appropriate, to a meeting with the complainant. Explain the process, and offer to let the complainant take the documents with them to read over.

Make the Call

We really do not know the number of questioned, challenged, or banned materials because most challenges are not reported, and sometimes the material is simply removed without incident. It is, however, the professional responsibility of library media specialists to report challenges. Without this documentation, the top ten challenged materials list will continue to inaccurately reflect the number and titles of resources that are questioned, challenged, or banned.

What We Don't Know

One interesting point that is raised occasionally and whispered about in corners is how long materials that are removed from the collections stay removed. Is it an eternal banishment? Or can removed materials be quietly replaced after several years, and after the challenging parents'children have safely moved on to another school?

Another question that is unanswered is how a new library media specialist knows what has been banned in the past. There may not be a process to document past challenges. Think of this likely scenario. A new library media specialist receives a request to update the biography section to include more diversity. He or she notices that the classic and often-studied I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou is not present. The new library media specialist orders it, completely unaware that a public and rancorous challenge occurred the previous February.

There is little evidence in discussion lists or in the literature that any of the above occurs or is a problem if it does occur. Time rolls on, and even the most publicized challenge furor soon dies for lack of continued energy.

Challenges cannot be prevented, and they cannot be predicted. Concerned parents are probably not aware of nude rock stars on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, and instead challenge Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. An elementary library collection will be watched carefully to see if Harry Potter has made his insidious way onto the shelves, but other works making the top ten challenged lists every year such as Schwarz's Scary Stories to Read in the Dark, will be checked in and out with nary a ripple.

Because of this, it is useless for library media specialists to deny students access to graphic novels, popular works, or specific topics and titles on the grounds that they are avoiding a challenge. They aren't, and instead they have diminished another bit of social capital for children who are in desperate need of the level playing field that schools are supposed to provide. True, some students and parents will buy resources that library media centers refuse to provide, but others won't, can't, or don't. Very few authors and speakers at a library conference stand with tears in their eyes and reminisce, saying, "_____was the best librarian.. .refused to purchase any resource any kid would remotely be interested in, wouldn't let us read anything above or below our AR level, and golly.. .if we had one overdue book, our check-out privileges were totally gone. "

Fear of a challenge is not one of the selection principles. Lester Asheim said, "Censors look for what is wrong about a book; Selectors look for what is right"(1953). All schools and districts have censors that we may have to face, but the mirror may be where we face the strongest censor.

The role of the library media specialist in this process is to gather the facts, share the importance of the school board approved process, defend the process, let the committee process work, and, hardest of all, accept the results.

References

Asheim, Lester. "Not Censorship but Selection." Wilson Library Bulletin 28, no. 1 (1953): 63-67.

Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District no. 26 \ Pico, 73 L.Ed.2d 435 (457 U.S. 853, 102 S.Ct. 2799 1982).

Case v. Unified School District no. 233, 908 F.Supp. 864 (D. Kan. 1995 1995).

Dewey, John. The School and Society. McClure, Phillips, and Company, 1905.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 21 L.Ed.2d 731 (393 U.S. 503, 89 S.Ct. 733 1969).