Reconsideration Policy for Book Challenges

Submission Date:

Friday, September 27, 2024

Question:

We were recently reviewing our reconsideration procedure and form. One of my trustees has completed a training on book bans and challenges. The presenter (Jamie LaRue) recommended that the library requires the book (or item) have been read (viewed or listened to) fully by the patron in order to submit a request.

It made sense to my trustee (and, personally, me) that, since we would now have to put in the time to read it fully, they should too. But, I was concerned if we could require that.

So, initially I checked with other directors, and I think only one said that they required it. Most, if not all ask, as we do. Another said they use the patron’s answer to help inform their own decision. Another said no, the patron would probably just lie. Another director wrote: “ALA OIF [Office for Intellectual Freedom] routinely advises libraries that: ‘The reconsideration process should be completed in its entirety and not subverted or ended prematurely, leaving the library open to legal challenge.’ So requiring that might open the library up to accusations of not completing the process, especially if that point was not explicitly covered within the reconsideration policy.” So, what are your thoughts?

Answer:

This question threw me into an existential spiral.

Unlike most existential spirals I get hit with these days,[1] this one was fairly pleasant; I got to think about New York State Education Law, due process, and library plans of service.

Here is how it went down:

Well, sure, it’s only natural to want to require a person to read a book before they exercise their right to kick off a costly and time-consuming evaluation process of it.

But yep, the ol’ OIF knows it’s business… having a threshold test to exercise a right creates a legal bone to pick. Best to avoid it if you can.

But hey… if part of the challenge process is a bone, is the whole thing a body? If it’s a body, who gets to inhabit it? What forces govern it? Are they in the library’s control?

If it’s in the library’s control… why enable challenges at all? What’s the point? Is it even required? What is it really for?

IS THERE ANOTHER WAY?

At this point, I started thinking about the recent wild scrambles to batten the hatches and make sure libraries have clear and well-developed collection management policies, so they are ready for book challenges.

Over those years,[2] when I was asked from time to time, “Do we have to have a reconsideration policy?” my answer was, “No, there is no requirement.”[3]

My answer to the inevitable follow-up question was, “While not required, having a reconsideration policy creates a channel for community engagement and feedback, so concerns about collection items have a procedural path to follow. A good policy will ensure the path for evaluating the concern reinforces the ethics of the library and abides by the First Amendment.”

I stand by that reply, but as an innovator, I do want to say: having a “reconsideration” policy for library collection materials isn’t the only way a library can do this.

Consider the current regulatory requirements of public, association, and Indian libraries, each of which must assure the New York State Education Department that it:

(1) is governed by written bylaws which define the structure and governing functions of the library board of trustees, and which shall be reviewed and re-approved by the board of trustees at least once every five years or earlier if required by law;

(2) has a community-based, board-approved, written long-range plan of service developed by the library board of trustees and staff;

(3) provides a board-approved written annual report to the community on the library’s progress in meeting its mission, goals and objectives, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service;

(4) has board-approved written policies for the operation of the library, which shall be reviewed and updated at least once every five years or earlier if required by law;

(5) annually prepares and publishes a board-approved, written budget, which enables the library to address the community’s needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service;

(6) periodically evaluates the effectiveness of the library’s programs, services and collections to address community needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service;

(7) is open the following scheduled hours:

Population	Minimum weekly hours open
Up to 500	12
500 - 2,499	20
2,500 - 4,999	25
5,000 - 14,999	35
15,000 - 24,999	40
25,000 - 99,999	55
100,000 and above	60

(8) maintains a facility that addresses community needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service, including adequate space, lighting, shelving, seating, power and data infrastructure, and a public restroom;

(9) provides programming to address community needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service;

(10) provides a circulation system that facilitates access to the local library collection and other library catalogs; and provides equipment, technology, and internet connectivity to address community needs and facilitate access to information;

(11) provides access to current library information in print and online, facilitating the understanding of library services, operations and governance; information provided online shall include the standards referenced in paragraphs (1) through (5) of this subdivision;

(12) employs a paid director in accordance with the provisions of section 90.8 of this Part;

(13) provides library staff with annual technology training, appropriate to their position, to address community needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service; and

(14) establishes and maintains partnerships with other educational, cultural or community organizations which enable the library to address the community’s needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service.

As shown by the highlighted language, a library is required to periodically evaluate the ability of its collection to meet community needs.

With that ongoing obligation in mind, just for fun, imagine this: instead of a “reconsideration” process as part of a collection management policy, a library continually solicits input via a “Collection Effectiveness Assessment” policy.

Rather than say (in essence), “If you don’t think a particular book belongs on our library, you can file this request for reconsideration,” a Collection Effectiveness Assessment policy could say:

YOUR INPUT MATTERS

As required by state regulations, the NAME Library regularly evaluates the effectiveness of the library’s programs, services, and collections to address community needs, as outlined in the library’s long-range plan of service.

As part of that ongoing evaluation, the library welcomes your input on our programs, services and collections.

Input on specific services, programs, and collection items will be considered in the context of library’s obligations to a) provide a circulation system that facilitates access to the local library collection and other library catalogs; b) provide programming that meets community needs; c) provide equipment, technology, and internet connectivity to address community needs and facilitate access to information; d) provide access to current library information in print and online; and (e) facilitate the understanding of library services, operations and governance.

Input may be submitted by cardholders at [INSERT METHOD].

Once a year, the library will aggregate and assess this input and will factor it into the evaluation of the long-range plan of service and policies that inform the library’s programs, services and collections.

Please provide your input, and it will be evaluated as part of the [YEAR] evaluation cycle.

Of course, a library that used this “give us your input” approach would want to be intentional about how the information is collected and scrupulous as to how the input is assessed and incorporated. The backend of such a system would take some thinking.[4]

But if done with proper attention to detail, this “routine evaluation” rather than a “ad hoc reconsideration” approach could ratchet down in-the-moment pressure to remove books on the basis of their content (which is a First Amendment no-no), while soliciting ongoing (and voluminous) input about library collections in the context of the needs of the community.

Such an approach could also control the pace at which public library boards react to that input, changing it from ad hoc panic[5] to an annual, well-planned, deliberate ritual.

The Collection Effectiveness Assessment approach solicits and empowers individual input but enters it in the context any library must operate from—its duty to meet the overall needs of the public, rather than the perspective of one member of the community. The potential result is input that may go beyond a request to remove or relocate a book; it allows for input on the strategic decisions and policies that select and catalog the books.[6]

So, at the end of all this, what are my thoughts?

I think that if there is a reconsideration policy, it must have clear parameters for who can use it (such as only cardholders or residents of the served community) and after that—as advised by OIF—as few barriers to use as possible.

But I also think there are other ways, rooted in a public library’s regulatory requirements, to empower community members to offer input on collection materials, while minimizing an individual’s ability to initiate a wasteful ruckus.[7] A holistic look at how a library is soliciting feedback might provide an opportunity to shift the library’s approach on this.

Thank you for walking on this existential spiral with me. I hope it was not too dizzying.

Tag:

Policy, Book challenges, Intellectual Freedom, Templates