Under Communicating Effectively, the OIF provides information on how to deal with the challengers themselves, and the media attention that the challenge may draw. For an individual challenger, it is important to speak to them politely and convey a sense of understanding, but it would be ill-advised to speak to them using "library jargon" or by citing documents that they've likely not heard of (Library Bill of Rights). While it is important to convey the message that freedom of speech and the freedom to read are essential to the community at large, if someone is angry about something, they are unlikely to take it well. The OIF reminds us that we need to keep even footing between the library and the challenger. This is accomplished by remembering not to talk down to them with library-specific terms, nor in an overly defensive manner. It is essential to be respectful of their feelings and of the delicate situation at hand. When we are at the receiving end of a material challenge, it can be quite easy to get emotional or protective. Regardless, we have to remember that there is a time and place for everything. For a classroom assignment on intellectual freedom, it's easy to cite the Library Bill of Rights or the First Amendment to win the battle, but in the face of a person, in real time, the results would likely be off-putting, to say the least.
Say the hypothetical challenge your library faces attracts media attention. While it may be possible to keep news of a challenge small, and within the confines of your library, there likely will be an individual (or a group) that takes their cause for book banning to the streets. If the media tries to get involved, how do you respond? Politicians face similar obstacles when campaigning--you watch your words carefully and try to be as neutral as possible, especially if you are not the library's appointed spokesperson. The idea of assigning the responsibility of discussion to a sole staff member, and politely refusing questions otherwise, can help diffuse a media riot before it even becomes one.
While school library media specialists must adhere to in loco parentis (acting "in place of the parents"), public librarians serve an entire population consisting of varying ages, as well as values. The OIF addresses several sample questions that could be posed by parents and other community members, which prove useful in those unpleasant situations. Regarding their right to use the library as they see fit, the OIF suggests:
I pay tax dollars to support the library. Why shouldn’t I be able to control what my kids are exposed to?: You can control what your children are exposed to simply by going with them to visit the library or supervising what they bring home. The library has a responsibility to serve all taxpayers, including those you may not agree with—or who may not agree with you. We believe parents know what’s best for their children, and each parent is responsible for supervising his or her child.This is a debate that comes up even in the absence of book challenges. While patrons' tax money does contribute to the library's services, one person's contribution does not entitle them to total control. By (gently) reminding patrons that they share the library with the rest of the community, which may or may not share those values and opinions, you are better able to make your case. Public libraries must defend the rights of the entire population, and not bend to the will of one person or group without consideration of the rest. Avoiding solipsistic arguments from patrons by encouraging their participation in the selection of materials for their families is a healthy and much-preferred alternative.
