The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 49 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Systemic Oppression and the Contested Ground of Information Access for Incarcerated People
Open accessAbstract
Library and information science (LIS), as a whole, has not prioritized the information access of people inside of jails and prisons as a central tenet of library practice At the moment, there is growing attention given to states’ attempts to curtail book access for people inside of jails and prisons. Groups that provide free books to incarcerated people -- such as the numerous Books to Prisoners programs across the United States -- have been central to the discussions around access to information and resistance to censorship. These groups have drawn particular attention to the ways that Black, Indigenous, and people of color, as well as LGBTQ people, in prison experience ongoing oppression during incarceration because of limited access to materials relevant to their experiences. By identifying the types of information that are banned or limited, the difficulties people who are incarcerated face in seeking to access information, and the impact that access to information has in the lives of people who are incarcerated, this article explains prison censorship as a form of state-sponsored oppression, which is largely being combated by Books to Prisoners rather than LIS. The article ends by explaining LIS’ lack of attention to information access for people who are incarcerated.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This article argues that prison censorship is a form of state-sponsored oppression that limits information access for incarcerated people, especially Black, Indigenous, people of color, and LGBTQ people. It contends that Books to Prisoners programs, rather than library and information science (LIS), have largely shouldered the work of resisting censorship and providing requested materials.
Key findings
- LIS has not prioritized information access for people in jails and prisons as a central tenet of practice, despite ALA values and the Prisoners’ Right to Read; prison censorship instead operates through content-based bans and content-neutral restrictions such as “approved vendor” rules.
- Censorship disproportionately targets materials relevant to marginalized identities: North Carolina banned *The New Jim Crow* until public outcry reversed the ban in 2018; Wisconsin allowed *Mein Kampf* and *The Myth of the Twentieth Century* after review while treating nearly every publication about the Black Panthers as gang-related; Missouri rejected *Trans Bodies, Trans Selves* for pages 377 and 387 as “sexually explicit,” and an appeal did not change the ruling.
- The paper reports incarceration disparities: as of 2015, close to 2.2 million people were incarcerated in U.S. federal, state, and local facilities; nearly 10% of Non-Latino Black men and 3.9% of Latino men had been incarcerated at some point, compared with 1.6% of Non-Latino White men; 40% of incarcerated women are lesbian or bisexual; nearly half of all Black transgender people in the U.S. have been incarcerated at some point.
- More than 80,000 people are held in solitary confinement at any time; Black men make up 40% of the U.S. prison population but 45% of those in solitary confinement. Books to Prisoners programs provide requested books at no cost, affirm stigmatized identities, and create connection, as shown in correspondence from incarcerated readers.
Methods
- This is a practitioner-focused conceptual and reflective article, not an empirical study; the authors draw on their experience as Books to Prisoners volunteers (Charenko, Dillon, Lincoln) and as a librarian serving incarcerated people (Austin).
- The analysis uses examples from prison incoming-publication policies, court cases, news reports, public records requests by the Human Rights Defense Center in 2019 for banned-book lists, and personal correspondence with incarcerated readers and Books to Prisoners programs.
- The paper dissects banned-book lists for three states—North Carolina, Montana, and Wisconsin—as illustrative cases, alongside discussion of prison libraries, bibliotherapy, and LIS history.
Limitations
- The paper states that it is outside its scope to discuss the complicated and often racialized implications of the term “democracy,” and that it is beyond its scope to fully outline the confluence of information, whiteness, and power.
- The authors note that the impact of Books to Prisoners efforts is “immeasurable” and reflected in only “the few responses from incarcerated people included in this article.”
- Evident from the text: the argument relies on selected examples, public records, and non-systematic correspondence rather than a representative sample or quantitative analysis, so it does not establish prevalence or causal effects.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own interpretation · 32 Sources not found · 4 No basis given · 3 Not checked yet · 2 Own result · 1 Partly supported · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper states — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most recently available list for the Montana Department of Corrections indicates that the following materials have been banned:”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Prison librarians, who are constantly faced with the challenge of balancing professional values of serving patrons against constraints imposed by prison systems, have noted the prevalent racial bias in censorship which is aimed at behavioral control.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Personal correspondence with Books to Prisoners Seattle, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Orlofsky, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Library and information science (LIS), as a whole, has not prioritized the information access of people inside of jails and prisons as a central tenet of library practice”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“Despite ongoing organizing among people who are incarcerated and the work of long-standing community groups, library and information science (LIS) has not heavily grappled with the provision of library services to people who are incarcerated and the need to advocate for incarcerated people's access to books and other information.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vogel, 2009
- Not matchedcites Conrad, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As this article shows, it is not just access to any book that matters.Instead, it is access to books or information that are desired that provides a feeling of connection between people who are incarcerated and across the carceral institution's walls.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Rather, people who are incarcerated have been positioned as a special population requiring specialized, often”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Vogel, 2009
- Not matchedcites Conrad, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Nearly fifty years after those words were written, we are no closer to being provided with any such data”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yale Law Journal (1971)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These connections have consequences for the emotional well-being of people in prison.”
plainstates a causeSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The list of books banned by the North Carolina Department of Public Safety as of September 2019 suggests a pattern of censorship against other books that focus on racial inequality and Black history:”
hedgedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prison libraries actively participate in the efforts of the carceral institution (i.e., acting as an extension of the jail or prison rather than as a librarian providing services within an institution).”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet prison officials continue to censor and prescribe books in narrowly and externally constructed ideals of rehabilitation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 44
- Probably not a substantial claim. 31
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Practically every state and federal prison facility in the United States provides some access to reading material and information through prison libraries, although the level of access in local jails varies much more widely.”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lehmann, 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Development of Prison Libraries section says that practically all federal and state correctional institutions provide access to reading materials and information. It says access is also provided in most local jails, but that the level and quality of jail services are not easily ascertained; it does not say jail access varies much more widely. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Practitioners draw from their own experience communicating with people who are incarcerated about their information needs and desires to reveal that Books to Prisoners groups like those described in this article have been providing accessible and diverse material to those who are incarcerated.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged
“These groups are shouldering the burden of providing information and combating censorship within prisons, which should, ostensibly, fall within the professional purview of LIS.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The authors' communications with incarcerated people and their experience as Books to Prisoners volunteers are sufficient to reveal the information needs and desires of incarcerated people.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · hedged
In the paper
“Even if this is not the case across the board, communications between people who are incarcerated and Books to Prisoners groups reveal that prison libraries reaffirm many of the prejudices of librarianship while continuing to censor and modify behavior as called for by the logics of incarceration.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites personal correspondence
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The personal correspondence and communications with Books to Prisoners groups are representative of broader prison practices.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Finally, Wisconsin, which has some of the most demonstrably overreaching applications of its alleged gang-related materials (also termed”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“In 2010, a ban on Dungeons & Dragons by Wisconsin prisons was upheld on the grounds that access to manuals for this cooperative tabletop roleplaying game”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“Both Mein Kampf and The Myth of the Twentieth Century were allowed into prisons after review by this committee, which, by contrast, affirmed that nearly every publication about Black Panthers was declared gang-related material and therefore inadmissible.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Schwartz, 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of both content-neutral censorship and content-based censorship, Books to Prisoners programs encounter significant difficulties with providing materials as requested.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In corresponding with Pittsburgh Book 'Em, incarcerated readers have described: only having access to the library once or twice a week; having rapidly read through all the books by authors they enjoyed; not having access to the library at all because they were in a Restricted Housing Unit (RHU); and libraries not stocking the subjects that they sought to read.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites personal correspondence with Book 'Em, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Such obvious double-standards are, unfortunately, not unique.The Texas Department of Criminal Justice at one point banned The Color Purple by Alice Walker while allowing Mein Kampf into its facilities (Haag, 2017).”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · boosted
“It is clear that in prison censorship,”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Haag, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tager, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · boosted
In the paper
“People in prison occasionally report not receiving books that were sent to them and never receive notice of a content-based rejection per policy (personal correspondence with Book 'Em, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites personal correspondence with Book 'Em, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Many other states' censorship lists are troubling, particularly New Hampshire, which maintains a list just two pages in length yet finds room to ban a significant number of books on the lived experience of prisoners (Jensen, 2019).”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“The first state to be examined is North Carolina, which was banning The New Jim Crow --Michelle Alexander's acclaimed examination of the racial roots of mass incarceration --in prisons until public outcry reversed the ban in 2018 (Bromwich, 2018)”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Jensen, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Bromwich, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
In the paper
“A formal appeal by a Books to Prisoners' group did not change the ruling and Trans Bodies, Trans Selves remains off limits to those incarcerated in Missouri, as well as several other states (Missouri Department of Corrections personal correspondence with LGBT Books to Prisoners, 2016).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Missouri Department of Corrections personal correspondence with LGBT Books to Prisoners, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an associationSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections has produced promotional materials demonstrating that people in their facilities are limited to a maximum of 90 minutes of library use each week, yet has attempted to frame that as a generous amount of time (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Podcast, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Podcast, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Recent cases of highly publicized prison censorship have exposed some of these biases.Prisons in New Jersey and North Carolina were banning The New Jim Crow until legal and public intervention overturned the bans in 2018 (Bromwich, 2018).”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“In 2011, a prisoner in Alabama sued over censorship of a Pulitzer prize-winning”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“Also in 2019, Howard University School of Law challenged the Michigan Department of Corrections' ban on Frantz Fanon's classic examination of colonialism, Black Skin, White Masks.The book was banned by the prison system for allegedly”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bromwich, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Robertson, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Sekeran 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
In the paper
“Content-based bans restrict the content of individual publications, often for sexual or violent content, but, as is explained below, content-based censorship often extends to books that deal with racism, injustice, civil rights, and LGBTQ experiences of incarceration (Tager, 2019).”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“Content-neutral bans restrict the outlets which can provide publications, restricting book deliveries to”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tager, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For any given prison system, these restrictions are codified by incoming publication policies that are written and maintained by prison administrators; the policies are therefore reflective of the biases and prejudices built into the foundation of incarceration.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“However, individual policies are written with broad language in regard to acceptable and prohibited content.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
In the paper
“Broadly speaking, prison censorship manifests in two forms: content-based bans and content-neutral bans.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · boosted
“Both forms of censorship drastically limit the scope of information that can be accessed by people who are in prison (Tager, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tager, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · boosted
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“People who have been incarcerated have described the role of books in changing and saving their lives, providing a means to maintain themselves under terrible conditions, and providing a feeling of community both with others who are incarcerated and with the outside world (Gross, 2018;Schwartz, 2018;Sweeney, 2010).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gross, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Schwartz, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Sweeney, 2010 source
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“As Vaidya Gullapalli (2019), senior legal counsel at The Justice Collaborative, writes, Bans of books based on their content (or perceived or assumed content-sometimes deduced from a glimpse at a single page), seems to stem from an awareness that an understanding of history, oppression, and liberation can alter a person.When prison officials target books about slavery, about race and racism, about”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Vaidya Gullapalli (2019)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The social control inherent in the disproportionate policing and incarceration of disabled people, LGBTQ people, Black, Indigenous, and people of color, and people who experience extreme poverty continues behind prison walls through the selective limitation of information intended to support these individuals.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These recent attempts are situated within a longer history of state oppression through acts which limit access to information.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The extensive, and often arbitrary, reasons utilized to justify censorship efforts on the part of carceral facilities reflect their investment in maintaining systems of social privilege and oppression that have shaped, and been shaped by, terrains of information access.”
- Also stated in: § 3 Providing Information to Incarcerated People · plain
“In this way, LIS has acted in the interests of the already powerful to maintain existing social hierarchies of power through controlled and diminished information access.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3 Providing Information to Incarcerated People · plain
In the paper
“These are impossibly nebulous criteria.Prison authorities manipulate this imprecision to justify bans on any material that they may find personally unacceptable.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · boosted
“Fears of overreach by prison authorities on the basis of ambiguous publications policies are fully justified by historical practice.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lipper, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · boosted
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Groups that provide free books to incarcerated people --such as the numerous Books to Prisoners programs across the United States --have been central to the discussions around access to information and resistance to censorship.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“Groups that provide free books to people in jails and prisons --such as the numerous Books to Prisoners groups across the United States --have been central to the discussions around access to information and resistance to censorship.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Volunteers who work with these programs are therefore in relatively direct and constant contact with incarcerated readers and are situated to understand both the persistent prison library shortages and the changing landscape of prison censorship.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Ongoing censorship efforts in Florida, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Michigan were the results of well-established mailroom policies.”
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
“In Kansas, public attention to these policies had resulted in the elimination of banned-book lists and the establishment of new processes that people who are incarcerated can use to appeal censorship decisions, although little has changed for those who are incarcerated (Associated Press, 2019;Smith, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Associated Press, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Smith, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These groups have drawn particular attention to the ways that Black, Indigenous, and people of color, as well as LGBTQ people, in prison experience ongoing oppression during incarceration because of limited access to materials relevant to their experiences.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The justifications for censorship offered by prison officials are, far too often, skewed through the lens of power and control and frequently manifest as censorship of materials pertaining to marginalized identities.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“Commonly censored categories of books include Black history and fiction; Indigenous and Latinx publications; LBGTQ fiction and self-help; and publications written by and about incarcerated people (Tager, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Tager, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Books to Prisoners programs cater to the needs and interests of people in prison in a system that routinely removes agency.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the racialized and gendered nature of policing and incarceration in the United States, this silence reveals a historical tradition within LIS that has yet to be unmoored from contemporary library practice.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: As a profession, LIS embraces narratives of information access and resists censorship in its professional materials, public declarations, and coordinated programming.
- Rests on an assumption: Despite awareness-raising by individual librarians, there has been little coordinated professional-level response to censorship attempts.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These connections are particularly important for LGBTQ people in prison, many of whom lost family when their families became aware that they are LGTBQ.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Many library collections in carceral facilities are small, and face limitations related to collection development due to institutional constraints and censorship, a lack of guaranteed funding (most library collections in prisons are funded through the Inmate Welfare Fund, which is sourced through commissary sales, and those funds are split between programs in the prison --Conrad, 2017), and some”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Conrad, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Books provided to individuals through Books to Prisoners programs help to connect those who are incarcerated with the larger community.”
- Also stated in: § 7 Recognition and Connection: Books to Prisoners programs · plain
“Books to Prisoners groups renew these bonds by building connections between those who are incarcerated and those in the free world.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Carceral practices routinely separate incarcerated people from their communities and break social bonds by physically removing them, limiting visitation and phone calls, and isolating them within prison.
- Also stated in: § 7 Recognition and Connection: Books to Prisoners programs · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, that the lack of information access for people who are incarcerated has likely been made possible due the LIS' normatively-centered attention to some patrons and disregard for others.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Books to Prisoners programs fill the requests made by people who are incarcerated for particular subjects, genres, authors, or titles at no cost to the person making the request.Most of these organizations rely primarily on book donations from their surrounding communities, so requested publications are not always in stock.Many Books to Prisoners groups utilize wish list tools to source”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A statement the paper makes itself — it cites no source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Access to a prison library is mediated by prisons' rules on having a certain number of staff for movement (the carceral term for escorting people who are incarcerated), correctional facilities' policies on regulating types of materials, and whether or not the person desiring a book is detained in an area of the prison that limits movement between locations (for example, administrative segregation,”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rather it is to note that many librarians, in and outside of prison, perpetuate the whiteness of the field in their everyday library practice and decision making.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Rather than upholding these values, prison libraries largely reaffirm the state's logic of censorship and behavioral control (Bouchard and Winnicki, 2000;Coyle, 1987), even as they may try to emphasize access (Higgins, 2017).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bouchard and Winnicki, 2000;Coyle, 1987
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Higgins, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a system which censors, marginalizes, policies, and denies these identities, books help with self-actualization of identities that may not be supported by the state and which may be rejected by the logics of bibliotherapy.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By providing a full range of books on individuals' own terms, which may have little to do with the neoliberal logics of books as cultivating a”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“And like other institutions, librarianship plays a role in creating and sustaining hegemonic values, as well as contributing to white supremacy culture.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ettarh (2018)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One of the most pernicious patterns of censorship in prisons is the frequency of banned materials that address Black and Indigenous history and political organizing as well as anti-racist texts.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · hedged
“Through the accompanying reasons that may be listed for each censored publication, these lists also exemplify how overbroad language about security, race, and gangs in incoming publications policies is weaponized to exclude publications that could offer empowerment and solidarity to readers.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Neoliberal rationales for book access are predicated on economic arguments or arguments that presume aspirations toward a lifestyle centering on higher education and a 9-to-5 career that drives an economic engine of the community.Reading for pleasure or true self-actualization is de-emphasized.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Sociologist Brittany Friedman has suggested that prisons disproportionately target books that promote resistance to carceral logic and this is why critical race pedagogy is targeted (Black Agenda Radio, 2019).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Black Agenda Radio, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While still having to adhere to state guidelines, Books to Prisoners programs have long been addressing some of the shortcomings of prison libraries and calling out state oppression.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Recent attempts on the part of the profession to create more culturally competent and critically aware library services have led to some intercessions, but these do not address the ways in which the field has been structured toward whiteness, heterosexuality and cisgender experience, and middle class belonging.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a profession, librarianship has often been unwilling to incorporate criticisms or models that have not reaffirmed the connection between information, whiteness, and power.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Reading was a primary reformative tool for criminals from the beginnings of the penitentiary in the late 18th century, but prison administrators usually gave their charges what they deemed edifying, not what the convicts wished to read.From early in the 19th century to the present, prison administrators have prohibited reading material considered harmful to good, middle-class mores.Prison”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Sullivan, 2000
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Beyond restricting library access on an individual level, prisons regularly deny access to a large population of extremely vulnerable people: those being housed in solitary confinement.Although some prisons offer limited alternatives for those being housed in solitary to access books, including allowing individuals to submit request forms to the library administrators or mobile book carts, these”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Conrad, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By providing books and a personal note to these individuals, Books to Prisoners programs affirm stigmatized identities while building a community of LGBTQ people and allies who will support each other regardless of sexual orientation.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Censorship is so widespread in prisons because of a general lack of either internal and external oversight in most states.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“In some states such as North Dakota, the final authority on censorship is a single mailroom official, who adjudicates whether each incoming publication is admissible.A rejection must be appealed by the person who is incarcerated and the deputy warden at each facility is the only reviewer for those appeals, should a book be appealed at all (personal correspondence with Human Rights Defense Center,”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
“In Pennsylvania, publications can be formally reviewed by the Office of Policy, Grants and Legislative Affairs after being rejected by the mailroom, but only after the person who is incarcerated files a formal grievance or the publisher appeals the rejection (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2018), still leaving the main decision-making power in the hands of mailroom employees.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites personal correspondence with Human Rights Defense Center, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Where book access is a tool of control, controlling the content becomes imperative.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The prison bibliotherapy model presupposes both that a person enters the facility deficient in some vital knowledge, and also that the choices offered by the prison are inarguably correct and corrective.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“yet censorship persists in ways that increasingly target and isolate Black, Indigenous, and people of color and LGBTQ people in prison.”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“restricting the information access of incarcerated people has a much larger social effect.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Books to Prisoners groups make access to these types of materials possible.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In addition to the paucity of typical library access in most facilities, individual library access may be restricted by prison officials as a disciplinary action.This restriction may come from prison library administrators when library policies are perceived as not being followed, by correctional officers for behaviors unrelated to the library or books, or because prison staff are trying to”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Conrad, 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Books that affirm gender, racial, and sexual identities communicate care.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“Prison officials may also justify censorship by twisting the catch-all concern about”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · hedged
“The ACLU rebutted that the hypothetical reader would be making a choice to read this book and that it would be a reflection of their self-expression; the excuses about protection made by the DOC were therefore reductive, self-serving, and moot (ACLU of Washington, 2018).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites ACLU of Washington, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many prisons will not allow hardcover materials, which means that newer releases are unavailable within carceral facilities.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Censorship is often targeted at populations for whom English may not be the primary language or for whom solidarity is rooted in ethnic identity.In California prisons, multiple Nahuatl texts and Nahuatl-English dictionaries are banned.”
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · hedged
“In August 2014, the Washington Department of Corrections updated its Unauthorized Mail policy to include wording that indicated that publications could now be rejected for content in multiple languages or any non-English language (Washington Department of Corrections, 2014).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hansen & Tlapoyawa, 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Washington Department of Corrections, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4 Curtailing Diversity through Censorship · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given the state's near-complete control to determine which information those in prison are able to access, books become an exclusive tool available to prison authorities, granting power to shape behavior in whatever ways preferred by the system.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The state has near-complete control over which information incarcerated people can access.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yet, if trends continue, these groups, primarily volunteer-based and community organized, may not have the social and political power needed to resist ongoing censorship attempts on the part of carceral facilities across the country.”
hedgedstates a possible cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Missouri's decision fits into a broader pattern identified by prisoner advocates, who believe that prisons”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gaines, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
The banned book lists and censorship examples from selected states are representative of prison censorship practices across the United States.
“This paper dissects lists for three states as particularly outstanding examples of biased censorship.”
“Many other states' censorship lists are troubling, particularly New Hampshire, which maintains a list just two pages in length yet finds room to ban a significant number of books on the lived experience of prisoners (Jensen, 2019).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The authors' communications with incarcerated people and their experience as Books to Prisoners volunteers are sufficient to reveal the information needs and desires of incarcerated people.
“Practitioners draw from their own experience communicating with people who are incarcerated about their information needs and desires to reveal that Books to Prisoners groups like those described in this article have been providing accessible and diverse material to those who are incarcerated.”
“The authors of this article draw from their extensive experience as Books to Prisoners program volunteers (Charenko, Dillon, Lincoln) and as a librarian serving people who are incarcerated (Austin) to bring attention to how carceral facilities maintain social hierarchies through information censorship.”
The paper relies on this without support.
When policies are in place, those systems depend on prison officials following proper procedures and submitting rejection notices to recipient and sender of the publication.
“When there are policies in place, those systems also depend on prison officials following proper procedures and submitting rejection notices to recipient and sender of the publication.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Prison librarians generally lack the skills and background knowledge needed to provide meaningful information access to Black, Indigenous, and people of color, people who are poor, people with disabilities, and LGBQ and transgender and gender non-conforming people.
“Like many trained librarians, prison librarians also generally lack the skills and background knowledge needed to provide meaningful information access to Black, Indigenous, and people of color, people who are poor, people with disabilities, and LGBQ and transgender and gender non-conforming people (i.e. the groups of people most likely to be surveilled, policed, and incarcerated).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The personal correspondence and communications with Books to Prisoners groups are representative of broader prison practices.
“Even if this is not the case across the board, communications between people who are incarcerated and Books to Prisoners groups reveal that prison libraries reaffirm many of the prejudices of librarianship while continuing to censor and modify behavior as called for by the logics of incarceration.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The state has near-complete control over which information incarcerated people can access.
“Given the state's near-complete control to determine which information those in prison are able to access, books become an exclusive tool available to prison authorities, granting power to shape behavior in whatever ways preferred by the system.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Carceral practices routinely separate incarcerated people from their communities and break social bonds by physically removing them, limiting visitation and phone calls, and isolating them within prison.
“Carceral practices routinely separate people from their communities by physically (re)moving people, at times considerable distances, from their support networks, limiting visitation and phone calls with those on the outside, and isolating people within the prison itself.”
“prisons and jails routinely break these social bonds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
As a profession, LIS embraces narratives of information access and resists censorship in its professional materials, public declarations, and coordinated programming.
“As a profession, LIS embraces narratives of information access and resists censorship, especially in its professional materials and coordinated public declarations, and coordinated programming (such as Banned Books Week).”
The paper relies on this without support.
Despite awareness-raising by individual librarians, there has been little coordinated professional-level response to censorship attempts.
“Yet, despite the awareness-raising attempted by individual librarians within the field, there has been little coordinated professional-level response to censorship attempts.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People who are incarcerated in America today feel the impact of a present lack of recognition as a patron base within the field.
“First, that people who are incarcerated in America today feel the impact of a present lack of recognition as a patron base within the field.”
Citations
Cites
Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015
Kaeble, D., & Glaze, L. E. (2016) · University of North Texas Digital Library (University of North Texas) · Cited by 1,624
Normal Life: Administrative Violence, Critical Trans Politics, and the Limits of Law
Spade, D. (2011) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 1,049
Reentry and the Ties that Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism
Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2010) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2010.498383 · Cited by 580
Captive Genders: Trans Embodiment and the Prison Industrial Complex
Wexelbaum, R. S. (2012) · Cited by 493
Inmate Social Ties and the Transition to Society
Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008) · Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency · doi:10.1177/0022427808317574 · Cited by 465
Social Support, Gender, and Inmate Adjustment to Prison Life
Jiang, S., & Winfree, L. T. (2006) · The Prison Journal · doi:10.1177/0032885505283876 · Cited by 334
Meyer, I. H., Flores, A. R., Stemple, L., Romero, A. P., Wilson, B. D. M., & Herman, J. L. (2016) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2016.303576 · Cited by 205
Prejudices and antipathies: A tract on the LC subject heads concerning people
(1993) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/0099-1333(93)90552-g · Cited by 181
Social Justice as Topic and Tool: An Attempt to Transform an LIS Curriculum and Culture
Cooke, N. A., Sweeney, M. E., & Noble, S. (2015) · The Library Quarterly · doi:10.1086/684147 · Cited by 108
White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS
Hathcock, A. M. (2015) · DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · Cited by 105
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- Associated Press. (2019). Kansas prisons chief abolishes list of 7,000 banned books. Lawrence Journal-World. Retrieved from https://www2. ljworld.com/news/state-region/2019/aug/22/kansas-prisons-chief-abolishes-list-of-7000-banned-books/
- Geary, M. (2003). Trends in Prison Library Service. Bookmobile and Outreach Services, 6(1), 79-91.
- Hansen, M. P., & Tlapowaya, K. (2016). Aztlán and Mexican transnationalism: language, nation and history. In S. Brunn & R. Kehrein (Eds.), Handbook of the Changing World Language Map. Springer.
- Jones, P. A. (1999). Libraries, immigrants, and the American Experience. Contributions in Librarianship and Information Science, 92. Greenwood Press.
- Robbins, L. S. (2000). The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown. University of Oklahoma Press.
- Smith, S. (2019). Human Rights Defense Center: Kansas Still Unfairly Bans Books in Prison. The Topeka Capital-Journal. Retrieved from https://www.cjonline.com/news/20191202/human-rights-defense-center-kansas-still-unfairly-bans-books-in-prisons
- Sullivan, L. E. (1989). Between Empty Covers: Prison Libraries in Historical Perspective. Wilson Library Bulletin, 64, 26-28.
- Sullivan, L. E. (2000). The least of our brethren: Library service to prisoners. American Libraries, 31(5) , 56-58.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barriers Experienced by First Nations Deaf People in the Justice System
Elder, B. C., Soldatić, K., Schwartz, M. A., Barney, J., Howard, D., & McGee, P. (2024) · The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education · doi:10.1093/jdsade/enae021 · Cited by 3
LGBTQ+ Books on Library Shelves: The Predicaments of Libraries in Africa
Bouaamri, A., & Otike, F. W. (2023) · The Reference Librarian · doi:10.1080/02763877.2023.2291638 · Cited by 1
Marquis, M. (2024) · Journal of Intellectual Freedom and Privacy · doi:10.5860/jifp.v8i2.7928 · Cited by 1
Ndumu, A., & Park, H. (2025) · The Library Quarterly · doi:10.1086/735796 · Cited by 1
Austin, J., & Jacobson, E. (2021) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s0065-283020210000049015 · Cited by 1
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Austin, J., Charenko, M., Dillon, M., & Lincoln, J.
- Affiliations
- San Francisco Public Library (US)
- Michigan State University (US)
- Books to Prisoners, Seattle, WA United States
- Book ‘Em, Pittsburgh, PA United States
- Corresponding author
- Austin, Jeanie
- ORCID
- Charenko, Melissa
- Venue
- Open Information Science
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- Published
- 2020-12-06
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 169-185
- ISSN
- 2451-1781 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3113010494
- Semantic Scholar
- a2e957458e84631d624109e8165e3436b4b52be2
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 3.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Open Information Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Library Science and Administration
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Information Science and Libraries
- Keywords
- prisoners, access to information, book bans, resistance to censorship, prison libraries
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-30, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-30 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Systemic Oppression and the Contested Ground of Information Access for Incarcerated People. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1515/opis-2020-0013
- The paper
- Austin, J., Charenko, M., Dillon, M., & Lincoln, J. (2020). Systemic Oppression and the Contested Ground of Information Access for Incarcerated People. Open Information Science. https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2020-0013
