The creation of impactful Literary Activism stories is a rigorous process, demanding significant time, energy, and meticulous effort. Not every instance of book censorship or library challenge warrants inclusion in the weekly link roundup; each story undergoes careful vetting to ensure it provides maximum context and insight. For reported news, this involves extensive research, which can encompass on- or off-the-record interviews, background investigations that may not appear in the final narrative, and, where feasible, the utilization of public records obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

This investigative diligence has often illuminated stories ripe for publication. Conversely, research can also lead to dead ends or necessitate a complete reorientation of a narrative. A notable example from the previous year involved an inquiry into a library worker reportedly terminated for displaying "too much" material for Pride celebrations in the children’s section. Further investigation, including a consultation with the community’s legal counsel, revealed the situation to be a human resources matter, devoid of censorship, and thus unsuitable for publication in this context.

Last week’s Literary Activism news roundup featured a link and accompanying context that highlighted a complex situation involving the New York Public Library (NYPL). While an unedited screenshot of the relevant post was provided, a clarification was necessary regarding the NYPL’s collaboration with Brooklyn’s Books Unbanned initiative. The initial phrasing suggested a broader partnership than reality allowed; the NYPL does not provide digital access to its collections to young people nationwide through the Books Unbanned digital card program. However, the NYPL has indeed engaged with Books Unbanned, participating in events such as the National Day of Action and Freedom to Read Rally in the fall of 2024. An updated version of the original piece can be accessed for further details.

Unraveling the NYPL’s Transparency Paradox

The narrative surrounding the New York Public Library’s transparency practices began to coalesce at the American Library Association conference last month, where numerous sources alluded to instances of censorship. Following a standard investigative protocol, a list of keywords was compiled from these conversations, initiating a deep dive into publicly available information. The initial approach focused on the library’s website to understand its FOIA, or in New York State, Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), request procedures. As a publicly funded institution, this was presumed to be the most direct route to accessing any documented information. The principle that public records serve as a critical tool for public scrutiny of publicly funded institutions remains fundamental. While FOIL laws vary by state and some requests may incur minor costs for extensive documentation, the general accessibility of records from public institutions is a cornerstone of open governance.

However, the attempt to file a FOIL request with the NYPL revealed a significant impediment: the library, despite receiving public funding, is structured as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. This dual funding model, drawing from both taxpayer dollars and private contributions, positions the NYPL as a partner with the city rather than a direct governmental division.

A legal memorandum from 2003 clarifies that due to its designation as a non-governmental nonprofit entity, the NYPL is not subject to state FOIL laws. This finding represented a significant hurdle in verifying the initial reports of censorship through traditional public records requests. It also highlighted a broader issue: the largest municipal public library in the United States operates outside the purview of public records laws, a fact that has been previously noted by others.

The Challenge of Verifying Allegations Without Public Records

This lack of access to public records created a vacuum in substantiating the allegations heard at the conference. The investigative path shifted to exploring whether any public reporting or commentary had addressed these concerns. The courage required for individuals, particularly library workers, to speak out about censorship, often fearing professional repercussions, cannot be overstated.

The situation gained further traction when a carousel post by the Prison Library Support Network, detailing alleged censorship at the NYPL, was circulated multiple times, with requests for verification through FOIL records. The response to these inquiries involved two key actions: first, informing requesters that the library’s non-subject status to FOIL laws precluded public record investigations; and second, a careful decision on whether to include the link in the Literary Activism weekly roundup.

Given the alignment of the carousel’s content with some of the reported concerns, its dissemination through multiple credible sources, and its action-oriented nature—encouraging community engagement on library issues—inclusion in the roundup was deemed appropriate. This decision-making process mirrors the standard methodology for incorporating any link and for reporting on library workers without revealing their identities or locations. The call to action within the carousel directly aligned with the core mission and purpose of the Literary Activism column. The weekly link roundups, initiated in 2021, have occasionally featured follow-up information or responses to previously shared links.

NYPL’s Response and the Distinction Between Public Relations and Public Records

Within hours of the latest Literary Activism roundup post being published, an email was received from a spokesperson in the NYPL’s communications department. This outreach, unusually directed to a personal email address, expressed frustration at not being consulted and requested an "urgent" phone call.

The power of public records lies in their capacity to present unvarnished documentation and discussions from public institutions, free from curated narratives. Public relations, conversely, serves to showcase an organization’s achievements and act as a conduit for inquiries. While public relations materials are designed for public consumption, public records are intended for independent public assessment. This fundamental distinction explains why, in the absence of FOIL access, an initial outreach to the NYPL’s communications team was not pursued for this specific inquiry. The focus remained on the inability to access public records, not on engaging with the library’s public relations apparatus.

An offer was extended to share any statement the NYPL wished to provide in response to the carousel link. The spokesperson subsequently requested the removal of the link and again sought personal contact information. The link was not removed, although the offer to publish any official public statement remained open. It is crucial to clarify that Literary Activism, and indeed most media outlets, do not retract or censor content in their link roundups to accommodate responses from individuals or entities featured. Such responses are typically addressed in subsequent roundup editions where appropriate.

On Saturday afternoon, the NYPL spokesperson provided an unlinkable statement via email, refuting the claims presented in the Prison Library Support Network’s carousel. This statement, delivered as plain text to a personal email rather than a publicly accessible press release, did not include links to the NYPL’s official press information page.

Implications of Limited Transparency

The NYPL’s exemption from FOIL laws has significant implications for transparency. It means that the public cannot formally request to review email exchanges or documents that inform decisions regarding book lists or directives issued to frontline staff concerning library representation. Without access to these records, independent verification of internal library operations and decision-making processes becomes exceedingly difficult.

In such circumstances, reliance shifts to the press office, which has no obligation to disclose requested records. The press office’s function is to manage institutional messaging, not to facilitate public access to internal deliberations. It is not standard practice for media outlets, including Book Riot, to engage with press offices or public relations departments when FOIL requests are the primary investigative tool. These functions serve distinct purposes, and in situations involving potential censorship, a press office inherently operates to safeguard the institution’s interests, not necessarily the public’s.

Demanding censorship of a news outlet in response to a link addressing potential institutional censorship represents a strategic choice. Engaging with the press office on such matters would yield responses framed by public relations considerations, not the objective assessment of public records.

While awaiting a formal public statement from the NYPL for a potential follow-up link, a correction was made regarding the library’s collaboration with Brooklyn’s Books Unbanned program, specifically acknowledging participation in the National Day of Action and Freedom to Read Rally in the fall of 2024.

The fundamental issue remains unaddressed: the inability to FOIL the NYPL precludes any definitive method for substantiating or refuting the claims presented in the carousel, thereby perpetuating a lack of transparency surrounding these sensitive matters. This situation underscores a critical tension between the operational autonomy of certain non-profit entities and the public’s right to access information concerning institutions that receive public funds and play a vital role in community life.