When Librarians Help Censorship Without Realizing It
The Myth of Neutrality, and Why Silence Is Still a Choice
On MLK Day, I keep coming back to Dr. King’s reminder that what harms communities is not only loud opposition, but the silence of people who know better.
This week, my dear friend and warrior Amanda Jones flagged a post for me in a librarians Facebook group. A fellow librarian was arguing that we need to “stay neutral” in our schools and libraries.
I replied because I could not let it sit.
My students are immigrants. Some are undocumented. Many are first-generation college students. They are working tirelessly to build a better life for themselves and their families. And I am a white, middle-aged, middle-class woman. I have protections that my students do not have.
So when I hear librarians say “neutrality,” I do not hear professionalism. I hear permission to stay quiet while students who are already vulnerable are told, directly or indirectly, that parts of who they are should not be seen.
That is not acceptable to me. And at this point, I am sick of watching librarians unintentionally hurt the cause while claiming they are protecting kids.
Because neutrality is not the same thing as doing your job.
The Hard Truth: Censorship Is Not Just “Concerned Parents”
I also need to be clear about where this pressure is coming from.
A lot of people want to frame censorship as a series of isolated parent complaints. That is not what the data shows. According to the American Library Association’s 2024 reporting, 72% of demands to censor books are coming from pressure groups and government entities, including elected officials, board members, and administrators. Parents account for 16%. The remaining 12% comes from “other” challengers, including individual library users, teachers, librarians, and staff.
So no, librarians are not the main drivers of formal book challenges.
But we are still part of the problem when we make censorship easier, quieter, and more effective by cooperating with it.
“Neutrality” Sounds Safe, Until You Realize What It Requires
Here is what people mean when they tell librarians to “stay neutral,” even if they do not say it out loud.
They mean:
Stop buying certain books so no one gets upset.
Stop displaying certain books so no one complains.
Stop talking about certain topics so no one accuses you of bias.
Stop acknowledging certain students so you do not become a target.
That is not neutrality.
That is compliance.
Neutrality becomes a leash that gets pulled by the people in power who decide a group of students is “controversial.”
Not Mentioning Students Does Not Protect Them
One of the most common claims I hear is: “All students should feel safe, so politics, sexual orientation, and other topics should not be mentioned in schools.”
That sounds reasonable until you sit with it for more than ten seconds.
For LGBTQ students, sexual orientation is not “politics.” It is their life. For students from immigrant families, immigration is not “politics.” It is their reality. For students from different religions, faith is not a debate topic. It is their home.
When schools treat identity as something we are not allowed to acknowledge, students do not feel safe. They feel erased.
And yes, librarians contribute to that erasure when we participate in the culture of silence.
Representation Is Not “Emphasis.” It Is Service.
Another argument that gets thrown around is that “emphasizing one group may ostracize another group.”
But representation is not emphasis. It is a basic service.
A school library collection is not a political platform. It is not a personal belief statement. It is a reflection of the community we serve and the curriculum we teach.
When a student sees a book with a family that looks like theirs, that is not indoctrination. That is belonging.
When a student learns about a culture they are unfamiliar with, that is not bias. That is education.
When a student checks out a book that helps them make sense of their identity or their family, that is not “adult politics.” That is literacy and development.
If the presence of someone else’s humanity makes a student feel threatened, the solution is not to remove the book. The solution is to teach respect, set expectations, and hold the line.
Neutrality Is Not Evenly Applied, and We All Know It
This is the part librarians need to stop pretending we do not understand.
Books with straight families are everywhere, and no one calls it “sexual orientation.”
Books with Christian holidays are everywhere, and no one calls it “religion in school.”
Books centered on whiteness have been treated as “normal” for generations, and no one calls it a bias.
But the moment we include books that reflect LGBTQ lives, immigrant families, or non-Christian faiths, suddenly it is “political.” Suddenly it is “too much.” Suddenly it is “indoctrination.”
That is not neutrality.
That is a double standard.
And librarians who repeat the “stay neutral” message are reinforcing that double standard, whether they mean to or not.
Librarians Don’t Have to Start Challenges to Cause Damage
Even if a librarian never files a book challenge, we still cause harm when we:
stop ordering books we know students need
hide books behind the desk “for safety”
remove displays because we are worried about backlash
label certain books as “controversial”
tell students to be careful about what they check out
avoid recommending books that might trigger a complaint
That is how censorship wins without ever announcing itself.
ALA names this reality clearly as “censorship by exclusion,” including when library workers are pressured, prohibited from purchasing books, or required to restrict access due to fear of controversy.
This is why I am done tolerating the “neutrality” narrative from inside our own profession.
What Professional Librarianship Actually Looks Like Right Now
If you are a librarian reading this and feeling defensive, I’m not asking you to become a political commentator.
I’m asking you to do your job.
Professional librarianship in 2026 looks like:
building curriculum-aligned collections that reflect your student population
following written selection policies, not personal comfort levels
using reconsideration policies when concerns arise, not panic removals
respecting parent choice for their own child, without allowing one family to restrict access for everyone
protecting student privacy, especially around reading choices
standing up when administrators or boards try to rewrite your collection through intimidation
You do not need to share your voting record to defend intellectual freedom.
You do not need to argue politics to refuse to erase kids.
You just need to stop pretending silence is neutrality.
Bottom Line
Censorship does not only succeed because extremists are loud.
It succeeds because professionals get quiet.
It succeeds because librarians talk themselves into thinking that shrinking access is “balance.”
It succeeds because we convince ourselves we are protecting students, when we are really protecting ourselves.
But being “a decent human being” is not enough. That is the baseline. It is the starting point.
Librarianship requires judgment, courage, and clarity, especially when the pressure is coming from every direction.
Our students are watching what we protect.
And they can tell when we are protecting ourselves instead.
Thank you for this excellent commentary. In CA we have a law that says that our collection MUST represent ALL students. That is how I think of selection - am I representing ALL of my students. I run demographic reports and make sure to include all in my ordering - as long as I can find those materials. Sadly, publishing is still not keeping up with the diversity of our student populations. Of course I also consider age-appropriateness, interest, curriculum, etc. But what I do not consider - the very few loud voices who stand and scream at our school board, those who want to erase anything but their own limited perspectives from our schools. The arc of history will continue to bend toward freedom, regardless of those who want to suppress others.
What is your source for this statement:
"Here is what people mean when they tell librarians to “stay neutral,” even if they do not say it out loud.
They mean:
Stop buying certain books so no one gets upset.
Stop displaying certain books so no one complains.
Stop talking about certain topics so no one accuses you of bias.
Stop acknowledging certain students so you do not become a target."
I ask because I'm in 100% agreement that none of those are neutral, but that's not what I understand it to mean.
Instead, what I have heard that phrase to mean (and what I mean when I use it) is, generally:
- Ensure the collection has a balance for the viewpoints represented.
- Ensure there is at least one book that challenges the viewpoints or beliefs of a user, along with one that reflects their viewpoints or beliefs.
- Ensure deselection practices enable the collection to maintain its balance for viewpoints and subject matter.
- Ensure that the collections serves the informational needs of all of its users, to the best that can be accomplished within the limitations of space and budget.
Basically, the meaning of "stay neutral" to me, today, is generally in line with what you wrote about what professional librarianship looks like now.
"Neutrality" is not a passive position to me; it requires effort and consideration to implement.
I agree that when librarians act unprofessionally, there are harms, as stated in the post. There's certainly pressure that school librarians face from boards, administrators, and parents with respect to school collections.
If we're talking about neutrality in terms of a position between non-librarians that wish to exert control a collection vs a librarian exerting their professional judgement over the inclusion/exclusion of material, then a "neutral" position is nothing less than the surrender of professional judgement. If that's what we're really talking about, then I'm much more inclined to agree with the post.