Oregon Intellectual Freedom Clearinghouse

WOW!
I know that this was assigned reading, but I feel that it is worthy of a blog post due to the complexity of the site and the depth that they choose to use in exploring the issue. I would imagine that one of the most daunting tasks that faces somebody when responding to an issue relevant to this topic is where do they derive their primary authority? If you are in a library system that has not quite defined this avenue or has not yet had to implement this type of policy, the OIFC is a great place to start.
As I was reading the list of 2009 challenges, I was not to surprised at some of the titles and the subject matter that they dealt with. I know that this report does not go into the depth necessary to understand both a patron and library point of view, but some of the challenges seemed fairly far-fetched. 17 of the 18 challenges for the reporting period were retained without any revision to their original classification. The one item that was removed was done so as a result of inaccurate factual information.
One thing that troubles me - why would the OIFC choose to identify one of the challenges as being initiated by a religious organization and the rest as 'patron challenges?' There is no way that you can tell me that the 17 other challenges were exclusively made by individuals who somehow stated explicitly that there challenges were not because of religious motives. Granted, the one that was identified probably did so formally, but by singling it out in their report, the OIFC intentionally creates an unnecessary form of animosity. I would like to know more about this reporting decision...