1 Problem Statement Over the years the American Library Association has tracked the growing increase in book banning and censorship across the United States (2024). Through our studies and conducting surveys we would hope to learn how libraries are affected by these demanding changes and through our research we have been hoping to understand the effects of book banning and censorship on libraries. While for some authors having their books censored or banned could be taken as free advertising, the same situation would not apply to the libraries and their librarians that would need to balance their directives of providing information to all who ask, against vocal demands of groups, organizations, and political movements to remove or censor a large quantity of work with the goals of controlling the spread or flow and creation of ideas and information (Oppenheim, 2004). While the exact definition may vary, ultimately it is about controlling what people are allowed to know. Libraries often end up shouldering a large portion of the targeted hate from these groups if they do not capitulate to demands of removal or censorship. With the multifaceted campaigns, their ability to stay open comes under pressure, as these groups campaign and place favorable people to their goals in positions of school boards and local government (McArdle, 2023). They can also put pressure on other local officials to get funding redirected away from libraries that refuse to capitulate to their demands, resulting in the closing of the library. In 2023, Minnesota experienced 22 attempts to censor 45 titles (ALA 2023). In 2024, a bill had been proposed and approved by Minnesota legislation prohibiting book bans in public school libraries as a means of “curbing politicized campaigns against titles that focus on LGBTQ 2 and multiracial experiences” (Campuzano, 2024). Though this step has been lauded by many Minnesotans, others don’t believe such measures are necessary due to Minnesota not having as many issues with censorship as states such as Texas or Florida. As the Star Tribune article by Campuzano mentions, “While book bans in Minnesota have been few, there have been some recent notable efforts to ban books in school and public libraries in the state” (2024). Just because Minnesota may not have as many instances of book banning does not mean the state’s libraries are not potentially still affected by the overall rise of censorship and that is what we’d like to explore through our research. After diving into our literature review on the topic of censorship and book bans, the research question we developed from these studies is "How has censorship impacted the operations of public libraries in Minnesota?” In this direction of inquiry we would hope to develop a better understanding if banning and censoring books has affected public libraries within Minnesota and if so, how have these institutions been affected. Literature review *For complete synthesis matrix, please see page 13 Censorship is a topic often discussed in the library world. Steele (2020) mentions how censorship is a longstanding issue in libraries across the United States, going back centuries. They describe how censorship cases could be viewed throughout history, with supreme court rulings such as the case Rosen v. United States from 1896. This ruling was regarding obscenity laws at the time and what could be legally sent through the mail. Steele reminds readers that though laws such as this one were created, the first amendment of the constitution has been used to try to protect from censorship because it describes the freedom of speech but also the right to access information. 3 The definition of censorship varies slightly depending on the source. The American Library Association describes censorship as “a change in the access status of material, based on the content of the work and made by a governing authority or its representatives. Such changes include exclusion, restriction, removal, or age/grade level changes'' (2016). Oppenheim and Smith (2004) agree in their article that censorship is using power to suppress a work. Oppenheim and Smith argue that the definitions may vary, but the heart of the issue is the power to access information. Asserting and retaining power over the information leads to an imbalance where people are not able to access information freely. Censorship of books is often thought of as taking the physical books from shelves. Huertas (2023) describes that this is a version of censorship and what is often portrayed, but it can be more nuanced than that. They elaborate that censorship can also be making books less accessible. Moving books to different areas so they are harder to find or requiring permission slips to gain access to the materials are what Huertas calls soft censorship. Huertas explains that soft censoring still censors the material by creating barriers so people cannot access them easily or at all and impacts the author whose voice is being silenced. The ALA (2024) reported the trends of 2023 in terms of book banning and censorship attempts across the United States. 4,240 individual titles were challenged in libraries across the country. This data represents attempts made in public, academic, and school libraries. The majority of censorship attempts were at public libraries with 54% of attempts. The setting with the second most number of attempts was school libraries with 39%. The amount of titles challenged has grown 65% from the data presented in 2022. The ALA provides some key information to give context for this shift. They elaborate that many requests may have been generated by pressure groups. The ALA elaborates how censorship requests were mostly 4 generated by patrons, parents, and organized groups, making attempts 28%, 24%, and 21% respectively. Pickering (2023) offers insight as to a correlation between the uptick in censorship attempts and the content challenged. She describes how 76% of the organized groups tied to book ban attempts were formed in the year 2021 or after. McArdle (2023) describes how there was a shift in censorship requests coming from concerned parents to groups. They name one of these groups as “moms for liberty” and describe how these groups are fostering more of the censorship requests not just in their school districts but in public libraries as well. Blair (2024) comes from a different point of view on who is bringing these challenges to libraries. They present the argument that very few individuals are actually starting these challenges but will go after multiple titles. Blair uses an example of one parent leading the charge to ban 444 individual titles from one school district in Wisconsin. There are many reasons why books are challenged or are banned, and the reason for most of the challenges are due to themes of sexuality and obscenity, crude language, violence, and religious/political references. (Thomas 2020). In the 2023 report by the ALA, they present the books most targeted by censorship requests and offer reasoning as to why these books were challenged. The first five books out of the top ten most challenged titles had LGBTQ+ content. Another content that was reported to be the reason for challenges in the ALA report was the topic of race. Clark (2023) described the consequences of targeting specific identities and minority populations can lead to a precedent of legal prejudice. Book banning and censorship should stop as it seems that not everyone reads the books and just assumes they are bad or they do not want their kids to read this because of who the author identifies as vs what the book is actually about argues Sarles (2023). The ALA (2023) reports that the book Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe is one of the most banned or attempted to ban books in America. Lavarde (2023) 5 describes reasons for wanting this book banned as pedophilia, rape or some other unsavory subject that is misconstrued due to the book capturing a queer perspective. Gender Queer is about a person discovering who they are through life experiences. This book does not discuss rape or pedophilia but rather self discovery through life experiences. Lavarde goes on to explain how people ban books or want books banned simply because the author is bipoc, not heterosexual, or because it does not adhere to their personal identity or beliefs. McArdle reported similar instances in their article about how groups often tried to challenge books with LGBTQ+ content due to differences in political views and personal beliefs. This idea is similar to Clark’s position. Both authors describe how the challenger attempts to silence a voice that is different from theirs. Another place that is experiencing book bans or challenges at an increased rate is New York, according to Lavarde. This author shares a hopeful story of one library in New York combatting the bans. This initiative is called the “books unbanned” which is described as a group of five people at this library that made it possible for kids between the ages of 13 and 21 to have a library card. This allowed those individuals to have access to the extensive library collection, physical and digital so they can educate themselves and have more freedom with reading and it worked with an enormous amount of success. Lavarde finishes this example of libraries fighting against censorship with a note on how circulation of library materials increased because of the initiative. McArlde (2023) also mentions different ways that libraries and others are fighting back against the groups that are trying to go after books. Creating displays for banned book month or curating lists of books with bans or attempted bans has been used. McArdle explains how this brings awareness to censorship and helps get these books out in the hands of those who want to read them. Lavarde explains how banned books week has been around since the 1930’s 6 with the idea being to promote reading freely and spread awareness of the issues surrounding this freedom. D espite the increasing concern of books being banned, librarians are spreading awareness and encouraging readers to investigate for themselves. As we remove the stigmas associated with banned books through readership, the assurance of intellectual freedom and true information access is reaffirmed in libraries. When that voice is silenced, it does not just impact the author, but also the audience. The impact of censorship is felt deeply by those who are stopped from obtaining the information they want. Gilbard (2023) talks about the effects book banning and censorship has on the people, especially school children. The representation or perspectives that the titles often under attack offer is extremely important to young minds. Books get challenged or censored for differences on gender identity, sexuality, and race. Gilbard argues that with less representation, children will have a harder time learning about those ideas and may lose touch with their culture or be disconnected to their identity. The library in New York created a way to combat the constraints of censorship, but other libraries may have a more difficult time finding ways to fight for their patrons' rights to read freely. That fight may take the form of confrontations while working in a library. Confrontations from patrons are something library workers also experience with bans increasing. Houde (2023) created a survival guide of sorts that details strategies for these interactions. Some of the strategies are directed at controlling mannerisms and tone of voice because they can be used to diffuse any anger. Houde and Clark both display a concern for library workers in the midst of these censorship attempts. It may be more than just a request for reconsideration of a title in many cases. Clark explains many cases where librarians were being threatened in person or online. Clark specifically speaks of one librarian who was harassed online with claims of child 7 grooming for not removing certain titles containing LGBTQ content from the collection. The unsafe conditions many library workers are being put in does not stay at an individual level. Donovan (2024) reminds readers that many state legislatures are creating laws and legal recourse to be in favor of censorship. He explains that seven states have created laws to charge librarians with felonies listed under sex crimes and obscenity statutes. These charges come with threats of up to six years in jail and fines of $10,000. Methodology Design & Data Collection Rationale To determine the difference in impact censorship has on the operations of Minnesota public libraries, we hope to conduct an exploratory study consisting of a survey of quantitative and qualitative questions to understand how these libraries have been affected by the rise of censorship and book bans. Surveys stood out as a research method due to few different factors. Firstly, the survey method allows us to hear directly from respondents regarding their knowledge and experience of how censorship may have affected their library by using predetermined close-ended and open-ended questions that are the same in every survey. Though we’d also be able to get this personal perspective from in-person interviews, surveys allow us to do so in a more time-efficient and by extension reaching manner. Taking into consideration being student researchers, surveys (especially online survey systems such as Google Forms) allow us to reach more libraries than we otherwise would be able to do in person. We can also send surveys out to multiple different libraries at once whereas interviews would require scheduling out the individual phone, zoom, or in-person within our allotted research time frame. In turn, we will be able to get a broad overview of data from libraries across 8 the state without having to worry as much about time or monetary constraints (as there would be less of a need for travel and online surveys can be sent without cost via email sharing). Additionally, there will be less of a time commitment for respondents–who will be able to complete the survey at their own time and work convenience rather than needing to schedule a meeting in or outside working hours. In short, we found this research method to be appropriate for answering our survey question due to being able to get perspectives from directly from library workers, using a predetermined questionnaire, gathering data efficiently, being able to reach more libraries, and providing low commitment concerns for survey respondents. Variables Considering our research questions, the main variables that we would be dealing with are censorship and library operations (dependent variable). For this study, censorship, we would be looking at the frequency and type of censorship (whether it is merely attempted through book complaints/ban requests or if books have been banned). For library operations, we’ve operationally defined this variable as the policies and services provided to patrons and their community which includes aspects such as collection development, circulation, & library programming. The questions included within the survey will be a mix of close-ended & open-ended, which both general library operations that may have been impacted by censorship as well participants' personal experiences in this regard, some example questions include: ● Have you noticed an increase in censorship challenges over the past year? (Yes/No) ● Has your library changed its collection development policies or practices due to censorship challenges? (Yes/No) ● If yes, please describe the changes. (Open-ended) 9 ● Have you ever had to deal with a complaint or ban request for a book? (Yes/No) ● If yes, please describe how you handled the situation. (Open-ended) These are just a few examples of questions that could be included in the survey. To measure what types of impacts censorship has had on the libraries, censorship incidents as well as changes to library operations as a result of this being determined during data analysis through the questions–with these being noted from the close-ended questions as well as qualitative responses being taken into account as well to determine the prevalence of censorship impacts. Sampling Procedures The population of this study includes public libraries from across the state of Minnesota. A convenience sampling method will be employed to select participants, aiming for at least one respondent per library. Though additional personal anecdotes and insights would be beneficial, for questions relating to library operations only one respondent per library may be needed to cover this information. To recruit participants, we will compile a list of public libraries in Minnesota using available directories and contact information. The survey will be distributed via email, with a link to a Google Form, and participants will be informed about the study's purpose and their right to withdraw. All participant information will be kept confidential, and informed consent will be obtained. For this survey would attempt to gather information from as many libraries as we could but taking into consideration feasibility and manageability, we’d be aiming for a more the merrier type of approach. This study seeks to gain a general overview of the impacts of censorship on public libraries as a whole so the more perspectives we can gain will provide a greater pool of information. Alternatively, a smaller scale version of this study could instead focus solely within the perimeters of the public libraries within the Twin Cities. Participants would be recruited the same 10 way. With this alternative version of the study, the sample size would be a smaller and more realistically manageable survey sample that focuses on understanding the impacts of censorship solely on this area of the state and provides a greater representation of these impacts. IRB Requirement This study will likely be considered "review for exempt" according to the IRB. This study provides minimal risk to participants with little to no personal data being collected outside of responses to survey questions. Participants and their responses will be confidential and anonymous outside of surveyors with any reports removing or not specifically identifying respondents. A voluntary consent form will be included with the survey but as it does not involve vulnerable persons, it will not require an assent form. 11 Citations: Academic, Peer Reviewed 1. Thomas, D. (2020). Book Censorship and its Effects on Schools. Torch , 94 (1), 16–20. https://web-p-ebscohost-com.pearl.stkate.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&sid=6df 652ec-c4b4-4424-ba37-aa60463a139a%40redis (Aisha) 2. Sarles, P. (2023). Book Banning in the USA. Young Adult Library Services , 20 (3/4), 23–28. https://web-p-ebscohost-com.pearl.stkate.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&sid=6df 652ec-c4b4-4424-ba37-aa60463a139a%40redis (Aisha) 3. Laverde, A. (2023). Librarians of New York Take a Stand Against Book Banning. Young Adult Library Services , 20 (3/4), 29–31. https://pearl.stkate.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=aph&AN=173135398&site=ehost-live (Aisha) 4. American Library Association. 1996-2004, Challenge Support. https://www.ala.org/tools/challengesupport (Avery) 5. Donovan, James M. (2024). More than Censorship: The Harm of Libricide , 8(1) LIBRARIES: CULTURE, HISTORY, AND SOCIETY 1-21 https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1778&context=law_facpub (Avery) 6. Steele, J. (2020). A History of Censorship in the United States. Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy . 5(1). https://journals.ala.org/index.php/jifp/article/view/7208/10293 (Avery) 7. Oppenheim, C., & Smith, V. (2004). Censorship in libraries. Information Services & Use, 24(4), 159–170. https://pearl.stkate.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=llf&AN=16872297&site=ehost-live (Avery) 8. Pickering, G. (2023). “Harmful to Minors”: How Book Bans Hurt Adolescent Development. Serials Librarian, 84(1–4), 32–45. https://doi-org.pearl.stkate.edu/10.1080/0361526X.2023.2245843 (Avery) 9. Houde, L. (2023). Censorship Attempts in the Public Library. Young Adult Library Services, 20(3/4), 45–47. https://pearl.stkate.edu/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tr ue&db=llf&AN=173135401&site=ehost-live (Avery) 10. Clark, K. (2023). The Fight for Intellectual Freedom for LGBTQ+ Youth. Library Philosophy & Practice, 1–21. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=15165&context=libphilp rac (Avery) 12 Citations: Non-Peer Reviewed 1. Blair, E. (2024, April 16). Report: Last year ended with a surge in book bans . NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/04/16/1245037718/book-bans-2023-pen-america (Aisha) 2. Gilbard, M. (2023, September 6). What You Need to Know About the Book Bans Sweeping the U.S. Teachers College - Columbia University; Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2023/september/what-you-need-to-know-about-the- book-bans-sweeping-the-us/ (Aisha) 3. Huertas, E. (2023, August 30). Banning Books is an Act of Censorship and it Can Take Many Forms – Here’s How to Spot it. | ACLU of New Jersey . Www.aclu-Nj.org. https://www.aclu-nj.org/en/news/banning-books-act-censorship-and-it-can-take-many-for ms-heres-how-spot-it (Aisha) 4. Kaur, H. (2023, November 16). LeVar Burton used to encourage kids to read books. Now he’s telling adults not to ban them . CNN. https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/16/style/national-book-awards-2023-ceasefire-book-ba ns-cec (Aisha) 5. McArdle, E. (2023, November 6). Book Bans and the Librarians Who Won’t Be Hushed | Harvard Graduate School of Education . Www.gse.harvard.edu. https://www.gse.harvard.edu/ideas/ed-magazine/23/11/book-bans-and-librarians-who-wo nt-be-hushed (Aisha) 6. American Library Association. The State of America’s Libraries 2024: A Report from the American Library Association . 2024.The State of American Libraries. https://live-alaorg.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/2024-04/state-of-americas-libraries-r eport-2024-accessible-web-version_0.pdf (Avery) Additional Citations - Campuzano, E. (2024, May 16). Minnesota legislature approves bill prohibiting book bans in public schools, libraries. Star Tribune https://www.startribune.com/legislature-approves-bill-prohibiting-book-bans-in-public-sc hools-libraries/600366522. (Abigail) 13 Literature Review Synthesis Matrix Topic: Book Censorship Intellectual Freedom Academic Libraries Public Libraries Patron Impact Social Justice Judicial Historical Precedents Thoma s , D (2020) Discusses topic of First Amendment; “The primary defense for any challenged book is always freedom of expression”(94.1) References to textbook decisions as source of censorship(94.1) Censorship on the basis of “race relations” References, Toni Morrison’s The Blue Eye and Kahlil Gibran’s The Prophet(94.1) - Texas, 1960s: Mel and Norma Gable attempt to ban academic texts books on the basis of Christian Fundamentalism -2013 Ohio State School Board Education Ruling decree against banning specific titles(94.1) Sarles, P (2023) -First Amendment right upholds student’s right to intellectual freedom and right to freedom of expression (constitutional right) (p.2) -Student’s have constitutional right to access of information (p.4) - Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589 (1967), observed that `students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding.’ - Student illiteracy rates potentially rise (p.3) - Rise in student illiteracy rate s (p.4) -Reference to Maia Kobabe’s Gender Queer: A Memoir as most banned book of 2021 (p.1) -Transgender censorship: The Pants Project by Cat Clarke -Surge in conservative propaganda impacting access (p.7) -1982 Supreme Court case, Island Trees v. Pico (p.3) -1967 Keyishian v. Board of Regents (p.3) Laverd e, A. (2023). -New York Library Association (NYLA) continue to uphold “intellectual freedom” 2022 Smithtown Library Board of Trustee sought to remove Pride Flags, NYLA states “firmly -The NY Office of School Librarians (OLS) reaffirms stance on against censorship via training programs to school librarians, teachers, administrators through building equitable and accessible -LGBTQ Issue: All Boys Are Blue Memorie , George Johnson ban in Cuyahoga County, 2021 9p.1) -213 BCE Imperial edict in China as reference to first known record of book censorship (p.1) -Passage of Senate Bill (S-6350-A, New York) to “enact the freedom to read act.”(p.2) 14 Intellectual Freedom Academic Libraries Public Libraries Patron Impact Social Justice Judicial Historical Precedents opposed to the restriction, removal...in any attempt to limit the freedom to read or obstruct intellectual freedom.”(p.2) collections which affirms all students and promoting diversity(p.2) Donov an, J. (2024) -Term “libricide” refers to the intentional destruction of entire libraries;” used in reference to undermining intellectual freedom and implies total erasure of the collective memory of a culture/community (p.3,6) -Distinction between “censorship”(target s books) and libricide (targets libraries) -Idea of the library as a place beyond, the repository of books (p.80) -1914 Burning of Belgian University Library (p.7) -1992 Destruction of The National Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina (p.7) -At risk, Public libraries no longer able to provide essential services and collections to patrons which creates emotional safety and sense of familiarity to one’s community (p.7,8) -reference to dismantling LGBTQ issues as greatest threat to libraries (p.5) -destruction of National Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina (predominantly Muslim artifacts) (p.7) -The burning of the Library of Congress in 1813 offers a glimpse into one of the earliest retrospective accounts of possible libricide in the new United States. (p.6) -1914 (Belgium) burning of Louvain University Library by German Army as clear instance of libricide (p.7) Stelle, J. (2020) -Basis for intellectual freedom in libraries resides in the first amendment, as it relates to freedom of expression and access to information (5.1) -1976 to 2006, the General Social Survey asked randomly selected participants if they would support removing a book -Between 1893 and 1917 wave of immigrants coming to the US altered the demographics of Public libraries which were traditionally “white, upper class, educated males, who were often the public library’s target demographic”(5. 1) -1889-1907, -1859, When Boston Public Library did not provide popular stories the public valued, “whether or not they were deemed valuable by librarians or other cultural authorities,” circulation would decrease (5.1) - Issues of race persist in public libraries as evidenced by 1901, Readers’ Guide to Periodical Literature . The Readers’ Guide which omitted marginalized groups (5.1) -1975 Island Tree School Board sought to remove books perceived as “anti-American, anti-Christian, -1896 Obscenity case, Rosen v. The United States cited as an early example of censorship in books. (5.1) -1873 passage of Comstock Act by Congress which made it illegal to knowingly mail obscene material; use of governmental bodies censoring items (5.1) -1973, Miller v. California describing 15 Intellectual Freedom Academic Libraries Public Libraries Patron Impact Social Justice Judicial Historical Precedents spouting racist beliefs targeted at African Americans from the public library; the overwhelming majority did not support it.(5.1) Carnegie grant established 1,679 public library buildings in 1,412 US communities to enable colored branches in segregated locales. (5.1) -Most integration of public libraries took place after WW2 (5.1) -Suggests most issues of censorship in Public Libraries associated with religious organizations (in particular Catholic) (5.1) -Accusations by Joseph McCarthy infer public libraries spreading communist ideology which causes many librarians to withdraw “related” items from circulation (5.1) -LGBTQ teens seek public libraries as place of refugee and accessing materials(5.1) anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy,” which included, Slaughterhouse Five , Best Short Stories of Negro Writers , Go Ask Alice , and Down These Mean Streets (5.1) -LGBTQ literature still faces censorship in libraries on the basis of potential dissemination to children (5.1) obscenity when, “ the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value” -1954 Brown v. Board of Education enabled libraries to integrate fully (5.1) -1938 National Organization for Decent Literature (NODL) was established to combat the publication and sale of “lewd” items -1982 Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School District No. 26 v. Pico ruled in favor of students first amendment right to access books deemed inappropriate by religious groups (5.1) -2003 Counts v. Cedarville School District (Arkansas) ruled students needed a sign permission form to access Harry Potter books on the grounds of witchcraft 1998 Mainstream Loudoun v. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library rules internet policy on restricting access invalid (5.1) Oppen heim, C., & Smith, V. (2004) -Collection management source of censorship; Librarians do not always promote access to information or promote intellectual Librarians exhibit censorship of materials due to personal and external forces -“censorship in public libraries is as old as the public library - Issues of patron privacy threatened because of the 2001 Patriot Act implementatio n - Claims censorship falls into 4 categories (political, sexual, social or religious) (p.161) -Cold war era initiated change in censorship (p.161) -2001 Patriot Act limits access to information and privacy issues -1986 Public Order Act (UK) prohibits dissemination of 16 Intellectual Freedom Academic Libraries Public Libraries Patron Impact Social Justice Judicial Historical Precedents freedom: Self Imposed Censorship (p.163) -Examination of the extent to which a Librarian should promote access to information -2001 Patriot Act source of hindrance of intellectual freedom and weakens individual privacy rights -Most important trend impacting public libraries associated with filtration of internet access movement itself” (Thompson) - 2 questions associated with Public Libraries: 1) should censorship exist or not; 2)if censorship is to exist, what should be censored and in what way it should be applied. (p.161) -difficulty of overcoming the gap between “the ideal”and the practice in a public library of fully promoting information access “hate” materials which impact potentially controversial items in a library. Pickeri ng, G. (2023) -1939 ALA creation of Committee on Intellectual freedom (p.33) -2022, HB147 (Florida) requires media specialists to review books (censor) prior to being shelved in school libraries. (p.35) -Argues adolescents from marginalized groups are most impacted by book banning (p.32) -Pre 20th century, children’s lit moral focus and perception of innocence; 20 - 21st century focus on individualism among children; reference to Catcher in the Rye (p.33) -lack of literary diversity in -underlying cause of book banning and non-christian agenda associated with Regan and Trump and further misunderstanding of 1)critical race theory, 2) COVID-19 panic, 3)Return to in-person schooling (p.34) -50 years prior, book bans focused on language. Focus shifted toward social issues in the 21st century;more broad and far reaching - predominately “bodies and sex”. (p.34) -”In a survey in 2018, 13% of -1939 ALA created Committee on Intellectual Freedom - later strategy for book banning (p.33) -Historical analysis focus on WW2 forms of banning German propaganda and later communist literature (p.33) -2022, HB1467 (fFlorida) requires a “media specialist” to make determinations of book acceptability in pubic school (p.35) 17 Intellectual Freedom Academic Libraries Public Libraries Patron Impact Social Justice Judicial Historical Precedents children’s books negatively impact their development (p.38) -differentiation in children’s literature inspires empathy (p.39) librarians reported not purchasing a book featuring a diverse character because they feared a book challenge “(p.36) Houde, L. (2023) -Discusses navigating patron complaints against the tenets of Intellectual Freedom in libraries. (p.45) -Offers steps for addressing patrons who object to items incongruous to their personal beliefs; notion of upholding the beliefs of all patrons (p.46) I -Patrons can potentially hinder the pursuit of intellectual freedom in libraries (p.45) Clark, K. (2023) -Issue of intellectual freedom threatened as people seek to undermine teens exploring LGBTQ issues and identity (p.2) -2018 American Association of School Librarians (AASL) “Defending Intellectual Freedom: LGBTQ+ Materials in SchoolLibraries” (p.5) -New Jersey Public School Librarians Martha Hickson, -reference to controversy of, Queer Memoir by Maia Kobabe and All boys aren’t blue by George Johnson. (p2) -Primary focus on LGBTQ issues for censorship (Clark) -Establishment of “book sanctuaries” can alleviate threats to issues of social justice (p.12) -1999, Emily Sund v. City of Wichita Falls, Texas enacted the “Altman Resolution” which allowed 300 library card holders to make the decision to remove objectionable items into the adult section. (p.4) 18 Intellectual Freedom Academic Libraries Public Libraries Patron Impact Social Justice Judicial Historical Precedents Amanda Jones and Clara Chance Credited with intellectual freedom advocacy. (p.7-10)