Edited on 25/07/2025 to add reference to and discussion of the ALIA Code of Ethics – Cannot believe I missed this! 🤦‍♀️

I recently wrote the following piece to share my thinking and decision-making process with my students, following questions raised about the inclusion of an author’s work in a particular subject. I thought it deserved a more permanent home, so I have modified it slightly for my blog. Please note that this was initially written to encourage teacher librarian students to think critically; it is not a formal position paper.

Content Warning

The following includes references to allegations of sexual violence. No details of the specific allegations, beyond the name of the alleged offender, are mentioned. An article that lists additional examples of authors both alleged and convicted of several criminal acts is also mentioned, but the article and specific details are not included.

Please take care of yourself while reading and practice personal safety by skipping sections as needed. Sections that reference the above topics will be identified in the title with an asterisk *

The decision for the subject

The week before the 202560 session started, I was contacted by a student who brought to my attention the inclusion of A Calendar of Tales by Neil Gaiman as an example of interactive fiction. 

The Concern*

The reason this student alerted me to the inclusion of this work is because of the current allegations against the author. I am incredibly grateful to this student for bringing this to my attention. Before making any decisions about what to do with this work, I consulted with my colleagues, Dr Kay Oddone, Dr Kasey Garrison, Ms Marika Simon, and Dr Kit Kavanagh-Ryan. The following outlines the decision that was made, why it was made, and some points to consider should you find yourself with a similar decision to make in your school library. 

Disclaimer

Before I go any further, I want to be clear that what I am sharing here is not the only way to respond to a situation like this. I am not advocating for anything other than considered and informed decisions, made with integrity, and in the spirit of libraries.

The Decision

I have removed all references to Gaiman’s work in the subject. My decision to do this was based primarily on two things.

1. The item was dated, inaccessible and replaceable

The work itself had become dated and was no longer accessible through its original site. I also managed to find an alternative example, as well as other resources to support students in exploring interactive fiction. I acknowledge that many of the examples provided in 0.5 Exploring Digital Literature are dated, but they are considered foundational or seminal works. They are essential texts to engage with when learning about literature in the digital environment and will not be replaced. This was not the case with the removed work.

2. Minimising harm for students*

The main concern I had, and my primary motivating factor for removing this item, was the potential to cause students distress by including a work by a creator who is currently at the heart of some troubling and potentially re-traumatising circumstances. I was uncomfortable with the idea that students may encounter, without warning, something in the module content that would cause them to feel unsafe, particularly when that work can be replaced. 

Due to the online and self-paced nature of learning in this subject, I am severely limited in opportunities to discuss or even sensitively alert students to texts that may be distressing. If we had face-to-face classes, or if I were back in a school library, I might have made a different decision, given the other learning and teaching options available to me. However, as the digital learning environment and self-paced approach to education are key considerations in this subject, I did not feel that keeping this work contributed to a safe space for all students. Therefore, I removed the work as an example and screened the remaining modules to ensure there were no other references to works by this author. This was certainly not my only option, but it is what I felt was the best option at this time.

A brief discussion of the literature

When the student emailed me to alert me to the inclusion of this specific work, they shared their thoughts and feelings about the situation, noting that they were negatively affected by the alleged behaviour of this author, whom they had considered one of their favourites. In this email, the student shared an article that listed several other examples of authors proclaimed to be ‘horrible people’ facing all sorts of allegations, some of which were later confirmed. As disappointing as it can be to see familiar names accused of horrible things, it serves as a good reminder that authors are human and can make unethical or even malicious choices. The question that we face as teacher librarians (TLs) is whether and how much those horrible deeds should influence our decisions about what books to keep on our shelves.

If TLs had to remove all the books from their shelves that horrible people wrote, it’s entirely possible that there wouldn’t be much left on the shelf. In fact, you could argue that the idea of judging the value of a book and its place in a library collection in today’s context is becoming heavily influenced by increases in cancel culture, book banning, and censorship. TLs must reflect on and acknowledge our limitations in being able to truly judge all works for their potential to harm readers. After all, our knowledge is limited by our own experiences, which have shaped our worldview (Mulder & van den Berg, 2019, p. 287). Essentially, these experiences influence our ability to identify potential harm. For example, my worldview is heavily influenced by colonisation, internalised ableism, my experiences as a white woman, and my neurodivergent brain, all of which colour my perspective. I am continually learning to truly consider how readers from marginalised communities, with worldviews shaped by their diverse perspectives, experiences, and cultural histories (Bowling, 2025, p. 12), may feel about works, and how I can identify potential harm that isn’t immediately apparent to me. This does not only apply to the works by authors labelled as horrible people, but to all creative works. It’s important to acknowledge that just because a work is largely considered harmless and safe by the majority of readers, it does not mean that there aren’t problematic underlying or overt themes, messages, and representations regarded as incredibly unsafe for members of marginalised communities within them. I feel that Jimenez (2020) conveys two key points for consideration when beginning to unpack the foundations of our worldview:

1. What society considers normal and acceptable
2. What happens when readers start to question what they’ve been taught to accept as normal

To put a slightly more positive spin on it, the feelings of hurt, disappointment, and rage felt by fans of well-known authors alleged to have done horrible things provide us with an opportunity for a deeper reading of literature from a diversity and inclusion perspective that truly questions the underlying motives and messages behind our favourite literature. I do not think the solution is to remove all those works, because we would then lose a part of our cultural history. So, what do we do instead?

Before I discuss some suggested solutions, I acknowledge that the work that inspired this reflection may evoke more conflict due to its current relevance and prevalence in our media. The effect of proximity in time plays a part in how people feel about enjoying the works of horrible people. Many popular authors who have done terrible things are no longer with us, which makes it easier for the general population to continue appreciating their works. In a sense, our separation from these authors in time potentially lessens, or even removes, the feelings of guilt. Conversely, our favourite authors who are still with us and facing these allegations bring us into the story as active players, rather than passive observers. We vote with our money, our recommendations, what we keep on our shelves, and, most importantly, what we include in the reading lives of our students as their enabling adults (La Marca, 2004, p. 12), as well as what we encourage our students to read. It’s no wonder we’re asking the question: what do we do?!

One way to deal with this is to separate the author from the work. As a personal example, I have had to learn that I am not my work. Anyone who engages with something I create and share can bring their perspectives and experiences to the table when they read or interact with my creations (Rosenblatt, 1982, pp. 269-270). This is a powerful reminder that no two interpretations, experiences, learnings, or even impressions of my work will be the same, because readers will always bring something of themselves to the work, which will affect what they take away from it (Rosenblatt, 1982, p. 271). I also genuinely believe that once the work is out in the world for people to experience, it no longer belongs to its creator. It becomes its own ‘thing’ with its own influence, history, and story. Readers must always be on guard against the potential impact of a work to ensure they are not subconsciously absorbing the underlying concepts and themes associated with being a horrible person. After all, even horrible people can tell good stories. 

The concept of viewing a beloved work through a critical lens is not new, but it is gaining popularity. This is particularly evident in large fandoms dedicated to works whose authors have since been outed as having or even promoting a worldview that is not in alignment with human rights or ethical beliefs. Bucher and Chipperfield (2021, pp. 71-72) debate their perceptions and experiences as participants in one such fandom, agreeing that the fandom holds meaning for them due to nostalgia and a connection with other fans, which makes leaving the fandom a difficult decision. The concept of cancel culture and the “consequences of liking art created by fallible people” (Bucher & Chipperfield, 2021, p. 72) is discussed as a key consideration for their ongoing engagement with and devotion to the fandom. Additionally, the idea that the author’s label of ‘problematic’ has the potential to be transferred to the fandom is discussed (p. 74). The possibility of implied horribleness by association for fans who have supported or liked the works of problematic authors at some point in their lives creates complicated feelings. No reasonable person wants to be seen as supportive of horrible individuals, but striking a balance between reactionary cancel culture (Jurg et al., 2025, p. 59) and finding ways to appreciate the work while uncovering, acknowledging, and discussing its flaws is delicate. Questions about our rights as consumers of art to sentence creators to social punishment, ranging from individual disengagement to online mobs, demand reflection (Lim, 2025, pp. 11-12). However, the practices involved in critically analysing and evaluating texts to make informed decisions about whether or not we will continue to engage with an author or their work must be taught. This is where TLs and school libraries have an opportunity to model this practice so that students can be equipped with the necessary skills needed to make informed decisions about their right to read.

As TLs, we must maintain a delicate balance between having items on our shelves that are both appropriate and appealing to our readers while also ensuring we adhere to high standards of child protection and the school’s values. Hartsfield and Kimmel (2020, pp. 420-421) argue that educators must navigate the line between pre-emptive censorship and purposeful selection. While the easier choice is to remove the work from public access, it does raise some interesting questions:

• Should history be rewritten entirely to remove celebrated works because of the actions of their authors?
• Can we keep these stories in our libraries and use them as learning and teaching experiences?
• Does the question of whether the author is currently alive or not play into our feelings about whether we’re ‘allowed’ to enjoy their work or not?
• What about the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, and how do we balance support for victims with the rights of the accused?

TLs are in the best position within their schools to ensure that items in their collection are selected based on merit across a range of criteria, rather than deselected or passed over entirely. This is vital to ensure that we guard against pre-emptive, or even subconscious self-censorship, when developing and managing our school library collections. It’s not easy, but it is vital.

I truly believe that because this particular author is still under investigation for the alleged crimes, the situation is further complicated because it’s not resolved. There are real victims whom we want to support. There is also the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. However, we also do not want to look back on history and see that we associated with, even accidentally, horrible people. Instead, the presence of their allegations in our present means we are constantly reminded of their actions. We are forced to read about the allegations and the counter-lawsuits, all of which I believe are making us feel guilty about ever enjoying the creative works of a horrible person, due to the uncertainty and potential disappointment in our creative heroes. This is a prime example of how preemptive censorship enters into the decision, creating a battle between protection and freedom.

All of this makes situations like this incredibly complicated, especially when, as a TL, I am responsible for facilitating access to reading material without bias, prejudice, or conscious or subconscious censorship. I think all TLs must reflect on these issues and try to unpack their own reasoning for the decisions they make about materials created by horrible people. I am not a judge of the law, but I am the keeper of the books and a champion of the right to read. I must always do what I believe to be in the best interest of my community.

Suggested action in school libraries

It is certainly not my place to tell you what is right or wrong when it comes to whether a book belongs in your collection or not. There’s no denying that this particular situation is complicated, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth reflecting on. I have included the following points for your consideration when deciding whether to select or deselect these types of works for your school library collection. Hopefully, reflecting on these will help you make the decision that’s best for your school community.

Minimising harm for YOUR students

You know your students, your school, the wider community, and your collection best. Trust your instincts here. I truly believe that TLs have one of the hardest jobs in the library sector when it comes to collection curation. There are many things to consider, but the most important thing is the “duty of care” they owe to their library patrons. Every school is different, and whether the TL agrees with the school’s approach to education or its ethos does not matter. At the end of the day, the TL is there to serve their school community as best they can within the parameters of their education environment. So, I think it’s good to ask yourself the following questions:

• What does your gut say about this author, their works, and your school community?
• What impact does the age of your students have on their ability to understand, or even be aware of, the situation? Should this matter?
• Are they likely to see value in the work and be ok with it on the shelves?
• Can this be a learning experience?
• Do the works need to be moved or identified in some way to ensure potential readers are forewarned? Do they even need to be warned?

Consult the Collection Development Policy (CDP)

I know that not all schools have a CDP, but if you do, consider the selection and deselection policies, as they may provide the answer. Your CDP may even have a “challenged materials” section for you to consult. Is there a Collection Management Procedures Document somewhere that offers more details about what your school requires the TL to do in these situations? These documents could already hold the answer for you! 

ALIA Code of Ethics

In addition to your school documents, there are also some great resources available from various organisations in the Library and Information Services (LIS) sector. One of these is the Australian Library and Information Association (ALIA) Code of Ethics, which was launched in the first half of 2025. This resource includes essential ethical statements for the LIS sector, specifically as a tool for ethical decision-making to support consultation and collaboration. For example, you could refer to the first core value, Access to information, which champions not only the “right to use resources” but also the “opportunity” to access them. When making difficult decisions, this should be one of your first points of consultation as a key document!

Consult and collaborate

As much as I would love to proclaim that the TL is the owner of the school library, this is simply not true. The reality is that the school library belongs to the community. All the resources, staff employed, management, and maintenance of the space are dedicated to the members of the school community. The TL is simply the guardian, protector, and champion of the school library in their service of the school community. While that might sometimes bring feelings of frustration because you might have to jump through some hoops to achieve your goals or are fighting several battles to ensure your school library is the best it can be for your students, in situations like this, there is can be a sense of strength and solidarity with the school community, because the community itself can help you make these kinds of decisions. 

There is no shame in reaching out to other members of your school community for their opinion on whether books by authors facing allegations should be in the library or not. Of course, who you ask is important. Those you consult must be people who can bring a point of view that reflects the school’s beliefs, values, and ethos. They must be able to evaluate and discuss the situation in an informed way, and they should be aware of the purpose of libraries. After all, libraries are places of information, free from discrimination. Of course, as previously acknowledged, school libraries do have that added responsibility associated with the duty of care to consider. Still, they are essential in facilitating access to and modelling evaluation of resources with as much integrity as possible. So, choose your people carefully, but consult on matters such as this, because the library belongs to the community, and the community deserves to have input on decisions like this.

References

Australian Library and Information Association. (n.d.). ALIA Code of Ethics for the Australian Library and Information Services Workforce. ALIA. Retrieved July 25, 2025 from: https://www.alia.org.au/Web/Web/About-Us/Code-of-Ethics/ALIA-Code-of-Ethics.aspx

Bowling, R. L. (2025). “They don’t even know how ethnocentric they’re being”: Comparative approaches to Worldview Diversity Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 0(0), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/10283153251316925

Bucher, M. & Chipperfield, G. (2021). How to be a fan in the age of problematic faves. Life Writing 18(1), 67-78. https://doi.org/10.1080/14484528.2021.1864090

Hartsfield, D. E., & Kimmel, S. C. (2021). Supporting the right to read: Principles for selecting children’s books. The Reading Teacher, 74(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1954

Jimenez, L. M. (2020, September 14). Blackall’s bland as blah …. Booktoss. https://booktoss.wordpress.com/2020/09/13/blackalls-bland-as-blah/

Jurg, D., Tuters, M., & Picone, I. (2025). “Alex, DO NOT BACKPEDAL ON SANDY HOOK!”: Reactionary fandom, cancel culture, and the possibility of ‘audience capture’ on YouTube. Television & New Media, 26(1), 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/15274764241277473

La Marca, S. (2004). An enabling adult: The role of the teacher-librarian. Orana, 40(3), 4–13.

Lim, J. E. (2025). Do we have the right to punish each other? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-025-10499-8

Mulder, A., & Van Den Berg, B. (2019). Learning for Life: A Hermeneutical–Communicative Model for Worldview Education in light of white normativity. Religious Education, 114(3), 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344087.2019.1602465

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice, 21(4), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848209543018