My first response after reading the results of SLJ’s 2016 self-censorship survey: 100 percent of school libraries should have a book challenge or reconsideration policy, not (as the survey showed) 81 percent of public schools, 59 percent of private, and some regions more than others. A book challenge policy, along with one relating to collection development, is among the most basic foundations for the operation of a library. The absence of those is an immediate and urgent liability, and deserves prompt attention from school district media coordinators—or in cases where there are no school librarians, by regional system or state library staff. The American Library Association’s (ALA) Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) is eager to assist school librarians as they create these policies and field challenges. Here are a few good places to start:

• Sample form: Request for Reconsideration of Library Resources
• Applying the rules of intellectual freedom in libraries
• Preparing for challenges
• Helping everyone understand the reconsideration process

My second response: Choosing what titles are “age-appropriate” is part of librarians’s professional responsibility. Consulting reviews, examining the material itself, and even seeking some input from the community, are all reasonable approaches for collection development. On the other hand, when almost three out of four high school librarians avoid books solely because of “controversy” (some sexual content and language issues), according to the survey, this begins to look less like “selection” and more like “self-censorship.” The absence of sexual content and profanity doesn’t mean that a book is good, and their presence doesn’t necessarily mean that a book is bad. Meanwhile, the courts have already decided that in some cases, requiring parental permission for students to check out certain books is an unconstitutional restriction on the rights of minors to receive information and ideas (see Counts v. Cedarville School District, 2003). The increase in school libraries that require parental permission in some cases signals a decrease in respect for the intellectual freedom of youth—and the law. Third, the rise of labeling shown in the survey—not labeling for the purposes of cataloging, but to warn readers about certain types of content—has also been addressed by ALA. The difference between the two types of labeling is this, according to that statement: “Viewpoint-neutral directional labels are a convenience designed to save time. These are different in intent from attempts to prejudice or discourage users or restrict their access to resources. Labeling as an attempt to prejudice attitudes is a censor’s tool. The American Library Association opposes labeling as a means of predisposing people’s attitudes toward library resources.” Finally, it’s hard not to see these survey results as a sign of school libraries in trouble. Certainly, intellectual freedom is under attack. Too many school libraries still lack fundamental policies; there are growing restrictions to access; and by their own admission, people responsible for material selection are more concerned about avoiding controversy than supporting the curriculum or student needs. I suspect much of the problem is that there just aren’t as many school librarians as there used to be, so there are fewer people to argue for professional standards and to defend the intellectual freedom of minors. But it’s also clear that our remaining school librarians are under a lot of pressure. Despite what some over-cautious parents and school administrators may believe, our nation’s children are not reading too much. We need more books, not fewer. We need less fear—and more trust in the resilience and intelligence of our children. Jamie LaRue is executive director of ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom and executive director of the Freedom to Read Foundation.