Formerly titled “Expurgation of Library Materials—An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights.”
The December 1971 issue of School Library Journal (page 7) carried the following report submitted by one of its readers:
Maurice Sendak might faint but a staff member of Caldwell Parish Library [Louisiana], knowing that the patrons of the community might object to the illustrations in In the Night Kitchen, solved the problem by diapering the little boys with white tempera paint. Other libraries might wish to do the same.
In response, Ursula Nordstrom, publisher of Harper Junior Books, sent a statement to more than 380 librarians, professors, publishers, authors, and artists throughout the United States:
[The news item sent to School Library Journal] is representative of several such reports about Maurice Sendak’s In the Night Kitchen, a book for children, that have come out of public and school libraries throughout the country.
At first, the thought of librarians painting diapers or pants on the naked hero of Sendak’s book might seem amusing, merely a harmless eccentricity on the part of some prim few. On reconsideration, however, this behavior should be recognized for what it is: an act of censorship by mutilation rather than by obvious suppression.
The text of the interpretation is published in the Intellectual Freedom Manual, ninth edition (2015), part II, chapter 2, and on the ALA website.
More than 425 persons signed the statement of protest circulated by Nordstrom. The expurgation of In the Night Kitchen was brought to the attention of the Intellectual Freedom Committee by the Children’s Book Council in June 1972. During its meeting at the 1972 ALA Annual Conference in Chicago, the committee decided that expurgation was covered by the Library Bill of Rights and that a statement should be issued specifically on that topic. During the 1973 Midwinter Meeting in Washington, D.C., the committee approved a statement on expurgation of library materials and sent it to the ALA Council for approval. The document, which was adopted by the council as an ALA policy on February 2, 1973, read as follows:
Library materials are chosen for their value and interest to the community the library serves. If library materials were acquired for these reasons and in accordance with a written statement on materials selection, then to expurgate must be interpreted as a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. For purposes of this statement, expurgation includes deletion, excision, alteration, or obliteration. By such expurgation, the library is in effect denying access to the complete work and the full ideas that the work was intended to express; such action stands in violation of Article II of the Library Bill of Rights, which states that “no library materials should be proscribed or removed from libraries because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.”
The act of expurgation has serious implications. It involves a determination by an individual that it is necessary to restrict the availability of that material. It is, in fact, censorship.
When a work is expurgated, under the assumption that certain sections of that work would be harmful to minors, the situation is no less serious. Expurgation of any library materials imposes a restriction, without regard to the rights and desires of all library users.
In 1981, during the review of all the interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights, the IFC reviewed the policy on expurgation and made several changes designed to add clarity to and strengthen the document. Most important, the IFC recommended basing the argument of the interpretation not only on Article II of the Library Bill of Rights but on Articles I and III as well. The revision was adopted by the ALA Council on July 1, 1981, and read as follows:
Books and other library resources are selected for their value, interest, and importance to the people of the community the library serves. Since books and other library resources are acquired for these reasons and in accordance with a written statement on materials selection, then expurgating them must be interpreted as a violation of the Library Bill of Rights. Expurgation as defined by this interpretation includes any deletion, excision, alteration, or obliteration of any part(s) of books or other library resources by the library. By such expurgation, the library is in effect denying access to the complete work and the entire spectrum of ideas that the work intended to express; such action stands in violation of Articles I, II, and III of the Library Bill of Rights, which state that “Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation”; that “Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval”; and that “Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.”
The act of expurgation has serious implications. It involves a determination that it is necessary to restrict complete access to that material. This is censorship. When a work is expurgated, under the assumption that certain portions of that work would be harmful to minors, the situation is no less serious.
Expurgation of any books or other library resources imposes a restriction, without regard to the rights and desires of all library users, by limiting access to ideas and information.
At the 1989 ALA Annual Conference in Dallas, the interpretation “Expurgation of Library Materials” was revised in accordance with the request of the Minority Concerns Committee for review of the Library Bill of Rights to ensure that discrimination on the basis of language and economic status would be addressed. The IFC adopted a revised version, which was subsequently circulated for comments. At the 1990 Midwinter Meeting, minor editorial changes were made, and the new draft was adopted and recommended to the ALA Council. On January 10, 1990, the interpretation became ALA policy.
In 1999–2000, “Expurgation of Library Materials” was carefully reviewed by the IFC and no changes were recommended. “See also” references to other policies were added during the 2004–5 review of interpretations.
At the 2008 Annual Conference the committee recommended and the ALA Council approved an amendment of the interpretation to improve clarity and logical order. This revision also incorporated two additional examples of expurgation that violate the Library Bill of Rights:
The decision of rights holders to alter or expurgate future versions of a work does not impose a duty on librarians to alter or expurgate earlier versions of a work. Librarians should resist such requests in the interest of historical preservation and opposition to censorship. Furthermore, librarians oppose expurgation of resources available through licensed collections.
During its 2013–14 review of ALA intellectual freedom policy statements, the Intellectual Freedom Committee made two revisions to the interpretation. It replaced the word “materials” with “resources” in the title and elsewhere, and it changed the second sentence by expanding the list of parties who may be responsible for expurgation, including administrators, governing authorities, and third-party vendors. The revisions were approved by the ALA Council on July 1, 2014.