By Anita Brooks Kirkland
Over the past few years we have witnessed an alarming number of organized calls to remove books from public and school library collections. These calls for censorship are typically from or inspired by groups that are rooted in intolerance, and their targets are books that feature LGBTQ+ characters or people of colour. Books are an easy target when the real objective is to attack representation. Censors are becoming emboldened, and many blatantly state that the objection is the representation of people or communities whose rights they do not recognize. More frequently the argument that is presented states that the book in question is not “age-appropriate”, or that the inclusion of certain resources is “harmful” to students.
Censorship has been institutionalized in several US states. Florida’s Parental Rights in Education act, for example, prohibits classroom instruction or discussion about sexual orientation and gender identity and bans access to associated resources. Now in the early weeks of 2025, diversity, equity, and inclusion have been declared “harmful”, and associated initiative killed by executive order.
A newer and troubling trend is emerging, particularly in school systems, when well-intentioned educators eager to defend diversity, equity, and inclusion unintentionally adopt the language of the censor when making decisions about library and instructional resources. Calling a book harmful carries a lot of baggage, no matter the motivation. We must consider this within the ethics of librarianship and education, and ensure that our own practices do not in effect constitute censorship.
Understanding the Principles of Collection Development
Collection development is a cyclical process, including the selection of new resources according to sound criteria, and the removal of resources that no longer meet those criteria. It is a mandate of the school library to support an inquiry approach to learning, providing current, quality, professionally-selected resources to inform deeper inquiry into topics in the curriculum and also inquiry driven by personal interest. Library collections must also serve the diverse needs of all learners. “The ethical foundations of librarianship are based on advancing principles of democracy and human rights, by making information and learning accessible to all. Diverse collection development is a fundamental value of librarianship. Equity and inclusion are fundamental values in public education.” (Canadian School Libraries Collection Diversity Toolkit).
Weeding, or de-selection, is the removal of resources that no longer meet current selection criteria, and is an integral part of collection development. It is a continuous and ongoing process that is critical for keeping the resource collection current, relevant, and appealing. The most important criteria for weeding non-fiction resources are that they are factual inaccurate, or contain obsolete information. Decisions about the selection and de-selection of resources are based on sound educational criteria unbiased by personal, political, social, or religious views.
Weeding Cannot Be Used as a Vehicle for Censorship
Selection and de-selection guidelines are for professionals, and professional judgement is the most important element in making associated decisions. Most guidelines include copyright markers for assessing various sections of the non-fiction collection, based mostly on the rate of progression in knowledge in a particular area. For example, scientific knowledge expands and evolves rapidly. Lack of weeding can quickly render this collection outdated and useless. Guidelines typically suggest that pure science and technology resources be assessed against criteria five years after publication. History doesn’t change, but perspectives on history change radically over time as more is uncovered and more voices are represented. In 2025 we find ourselves in the midst of major shifts in understanding of historical perspectives on the colonial and modern history of Canada. It is critical that student inquiry is not misinformed by overtly colonial perspectives or the subtle or even overt racism that may be represented in outdated publications. Ongoing and systematic weeding is essential to keeping collections current and relevant.
Many resources in the non-fiction collection deal with thought-provoking issues or controversial topics. Fear of controversy should never drive decisions about collection development. Denying students access to a resource that deals with a potentially controversial issue because it might offend some members of the community may demonstrate to students that suppression is an acceptable way of responding to controversial ideas and images.
Date markers are not useful when assessing fiction and literature collections. The purpose of the collection is to engage readers, and it should reflect the interests of today’s students. While many fiction titles may lose their relevance and appeal over time, stories are eternal. A book published twenty years ago may not have enduring appeal, or it may have become one of the most popular books of the modern era. Sound selection criteria emphasize the importance of the diverse perspectives revealed through stories.
Literature offers a window into the diversity of human and social experiences and values, past and present. It is those very complexities that make literature appealing and relevant. It is sometimes those complexities that draw the attention of censors. Resources should be chosen because the balance of positive qualities far outweighs potential negative qualities, and this should be the primary consideration when making decisions about weeding. It is very important that the school library continue to provide access to a wide-ranging fiction and literature collection, and that the weeding process not be used as a vehicle for censorship. (CSL Collection Diversity Toolkit)
Recognizing the Language of Censorship
Parental Rights: When objecting to books, censors frequently claim parents have a right to choose what their child should read. Of course parents do have rights concerning their own children, but they do not have the right to restrict access to resources for other people’s children. “Parental rights”, when used in the context of these challenges to library resources, has become code for handing over control of professional educational decisions to a group of parents with a particular agenda. “We should be clear on the stakes. When parental rights organizations attack libraries, they are attacking one of the last public institutions committed to intellectual freedom.” (Ira Wells, 2025)
Age-Appropriate: Age-appropriateness is a familiar reason given for challenges to library resources. But claims of resources being inappropriate based on age almost always mask other concerns. Analysis of longitudinal data about book challenges collected by the American Library Association revealed that books challenged on the grounds of age-inappropriateness overwhelmingly had themes related to sexual orientation or gender identity and books where the main characters are people of colour. (ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom)
There is precedence in case law in Canada when age-appropriateness is used as a reason for restricting access to books. In 2002 a Kindergarten teacher applied to the Surrey School District in British Columbia for permission to use three picture books depicting same-sex couples. Ultimately the Supreme Court of Canada found that school board trustees had acted inappropriately when they refused that permission. “Tolerance is always age-appropriate”, commented the chief justice in the court’s decision.
Harmful: Claims are frequently made by censorship groups in the United States that schools are harming students by including resources that tell the story of the Black experience in America. They reason that these resources portray white people as oppressors and racial minorities as the oppressed. It is considered “harmful” to students to understand their nation’s history. Stereotypes are reinforced and intolerance normalized when these claims are acted upon.
When educators use the word harmful it is often because they are defending equity, diversity and representation. They may not recognize that using that loaded and subjective term may have the same effect of discouraging rather than encouraging critical thinking. When a large school district in Ontario recently issued instructions that teachers should no longer use author Lawrence Hill’s acclaimed novel, The Book of Negroes because it contained the “N-word” and would therefore be “harmful” to students, the author responded. Mr. Hill explained the cultural and historical context of the word, and the danger of shielding students from literature that uses the word. “It denies our children access to a wide range of challenging (and thrilling!) literature, and it will exacerbate the widespread tendency to ignore Black history, Black culture, Black literature, and Black people.”
Commenting on the rise in the removal of books from collections and books being declared “unteachable” over the past few years, author Ira Wells (2025) comments that, “Not all these phenomena constitute ‘banning’ per se, but they all fall under what we might call the new ‘censorship consensus,’ in which books are called upon to justify their existence through demonstrations of their moral value.”
Transparent Practice and Effective Communication
Weeding is a frequently misunderstood process. Members of the school community who are unfamiliar with the reasons for weeding are sometimes alarmed to see books being removed from the collection. Poor communication fuels this alarm, and consequently the process may be viewed as wasteful in the least and censorious in the extreme.
Concern is amplified when school districts enter into large-scale weeding projects. When a superintendent in a large school district in Ontario answered a question about the routine weeding of elementary libraries, he used the word “harmful”, which legitimately raised concerns in the community, and unfortunately may have fueled the fire of organized groups that went on to attack library resources that they considered inappropriate because of diverse representation. When another school district’s equity weeding project included the date marker of 15 years, the alarm bells were raised once again, within the system itself and in the public. While little was mentioned about the removal of older non-fiction informational texts, a huge misunderstanding arose about using the date marker for fiction. I have it from “inside sources” that the date marker was not the major criteria for assessing fiction, but teacher-librarians and library technicians in the district were caught in the middle. A more transparent internal and external communications strategy on the part of the school district may have mitigated some of the concerns and also ensured consistent practice across all schools.
Stand Up for School Libraries
Library professionals should always be prepared to explain and defend collection development practices, including the value of weeding. If there ever was a time for Canadians to stand up for freedom to read and against censorship that time is now, as the tsunami of intolerance now gripping the United States threatens to flood across the international border. Author Ira Wells puts it quite succinctly. “Attacks on school libraries are, among much else, future-oriented attacks on liberal democracy and its vital institutions.”
References
ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom. Banned and challenged books. Accessed at: https://www.ala.org/advocacy/bbooks
Canadian School Libraries. Collection Diversity Toolkit. Accessed at: https://www.canadianschoollibraries.ca/collection-diversity-toolkit/
Hill, Lawrence (Dec. 6, 2024). About that word, and about those books. Globe and Mail.
Wells, Ira (2025). On Book Banning: Or, How the New Censorship Consensus Trivializes Art and Undermines Democracy. Biblioasis.
Please take time to view this timely video from the Ontario Library Association. No More Bubble-Wrap: Teens, Tough Themes, & Open Discussions. This panel discussion is about giving teens the freedom to think, question, and grow. It also explores how we can move forward with book bans and challenges on the rise. Why do teens need the freedom to read?
Anita Brooks Kirkland is a founding member of the CSL Board of Directors. As Chair of CSL from 2016 to 2024 Anita was project leader and a contributing writer for the CSL Research Toolkit, the Collection Diversity Toolkit, and the guideline Foundations for School Library Learning Commons in Canada: A Framework for Success. She also co-edited CSL Journal and was a lead organizer for Treasure Mountain Canada symposiums. Over the past two years, she has frequently represented CSL in the media regarding book challenges and censorship in school libraries. Anita served as president of the Ontario Library Association in 2014 and the Ontario School Library Association in 2005.