Recently Asked Questions

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?

My school district public library system just reviewed a new (April 25th, 2024) NY Education Department Decision by the Commissioner, addressing the proper procedure for evaluating school library books. What does this decision mean for school libraries and school library systems?

Within the context of recent regional school book challenges, much of the attention has been focused on print collections. However, librarians and school districts have started to look at digital content, too.

Sora is the K-12 platform used by many students and staff in NYS to access OverDrive content (as opposed to Libby, which is used by public library patrons). In Sora, content access levels can be implemented to restrict access to content.

Here is how OverDrive defines content access levels:

Content access levels let you control which types of users can view and borrow certain titles in your digital collection. Content access levels are customizable and can be different from the publisher-defined audience label.

Note: In the Libby app, users will be able to see all titles in your digital collection, regardless of content access levels. If a user tries to borrow a book that's restricted by content access level, the checkout won't be completed and the user will get an error message.

Content access levels are designed to let you manage access to titles based on age-appropriateness. Users are assigned a user type ("Adult," "Young Adult," or "Juvenile") when you set up authentication (for schools) or based on library card type (for libraries). Users can access titles at or below their access level:

"Adult" users can access all titles
"Young Adult" users can only access titles you label "Young Adult" or "Juvenile"
"Juvenile" users can only access titles you label "Juvenile"

A title's content access levels, which are assigned by you, may be different from the title's audience, which is assigned in its metadata by the publisher.
 

I am wondering if restricting digital access to content by grade level and/or to individual student could/would be another "creative work around" to limit access that may or may not be outside of board policy?

Is there professional insurance for librarians? Given the book-banning lawsuits, do librarians and library workers need additional insurance to cover possible lawsuits? Other states have passed laws fining library workers $10,000. Besides the library's D and O insurance, do librarians and library workers need additional insurance coverage?

A recent article appeared in a local newspaper that was describing the local efforts of a group called Moms for Liberty to have certain books removed from school libraries because the group consider the titles to be inappropriate for school age children. However, the language used and quoted in the article, including “#Porninschools Exposed" and that they found over 80 titles that should be given an "R" rating seems as if it could be construed as an accusation against school libraries that they are distributing materials to minors that are prohibited by law. The article also quoted the group as intending to get people "outraged" by posting excerpts from books they consider objectionable. I would like to know if the school librarians facing these kinds of accusations have any recourse to bring action against the organization or individuals within the organization making these kinds of possibly slanderous and libelous accusations.