Information Literacy and Intellectual Freedom at the Nexus of Social Justice #KRIK

The second day of the KRIK conference in Zagreb started with a quick summary of day one from co-chair Dijana Šobota, and then a short presentation from Arne Sannes Bjørnstad, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Norway to the Republic of Croatia in Zagreb (acknowledging a Norwegian funded sister project of KRIK). Bjørnstad emphasised the importance of countering misinformation and he stressed the value of libraries, both in that role and in helping to improve reading and literacy. 

Then we had the third keynote: Information Literacy and Intellectual Freedom at the Nexus of Social Justice: Imagining a Path Forward by Laura Saunders (Simmons University, USA).
She started by reflecting on the importance of teaching library and information workers about intellectual freedom, whereas in information literacy we may be telling people to look for the "good" information, so there could be a tension there. Saunders gave the caveats that she is not a philosopher or a lawyer and also she doesn't have the "correct" answer. 
She gave IFLA's definition of intellectual freedom. There is political support for intellectual freedom, obviously varying between countries (in constitutions, laws etc.). Also these political/legal statements may cover freedom of expression, freedom of the press and access to information. Saunders emphasised that access to information is more than just physical (including digital as well as physical). So the first question is whether information exists. However, we also have to be able to make sense of it for it to be of any use. Therefore we need to think of cognitive and social access. As an example she talked about, as someone raised as a Catholic, coming across the book the Last temptation of Christ on her father's bookshelves and being shocked, with her reaction and (lack of) engagement being conditioned by her background. Information literacy should address these three elements of access to information (physical, cognitive, social).
Saunders went on to talk about the challenges to intellectual freedom. One is the issue of governments refusing access to information (or effectively doing so by delaying access or charging huge amounts of money). She showed the Reporters without Borders map of freedom of information. Research has also shown that social media platforms obstruct access to information. In the USA there have been vastly increased challenges to material in libraries (4235 unique titles challenged in 2025; 23,000 challenges in school libraries). There are also changes in the nature of challenges. There is also a move from individual to collective challenges. AI and social media is making this easier, and there is now state sponsored support for these challenges. Saunders gave an anecdote of someone is Texas having to publish a list of books they intended to buy. Also there is the pressure on academic institutions in terms of syllabi, reading lists etc. being monitored. Legislation is also being brought in to ramp up definitions of what is harmful or criminal.
Saunders pointed out that it is difficult to defend intellectual freedom if you take a "neutral" stance. There is a lack of theoretical guidance and there can be a tendency to take yes-or-no approaches (rather than more nuanced one). There can also be a tension with social justice (in that this might say you exclude some views, rather include all views).
Saunders felt that the word "neutrality" was sometimes abused, in that intellectual freedom was seen as "viewpoint neutral", whereas it could also be seen as "objective" (which implies standing back in an informed position). [Apologies, I'm not sure I have captured this part correctly]
Looking at the lack of a cohesive theoretical or philosophical base to all this, she went on to say (for example) that when we restrict access, it is because we anticipate that it will produce a particular reaction (upset them, lead them to violence etc.). However, we can't know these assumptions are correct.
Saunders proposed a framework focusing on the three facets of access. In terms of physical access we would provide whatever access we can, resisting censorship, regardless of our opinions, and also acknowledging that this does not mean we endorse the material.
When it comes to social access, it would be a matter of bridging neutrality and objectivity. This means avoiding assumptions, respecting cultural views and understandings, facilitate new understandings and offer our expertise while acknowledging our own limits. So this can involve dscussion about what is most trustworthy.
In terms of intellectual access, we need to evaluate, offering guidance, and facilitating development of information literacy. This puts IL at the intersection of physical, social and intellectual access. Saunders felt that not enough attention had been give, in particular, to the social access aspect.
Saunders went back to potential clash between social justice and intellectual freedom (e.g. a hate group wants to use your library, what do you do?) It is a question that she hasn't been able to give a definitive answer to, but it is important. She told a story that illustrated that by removing what you think might be offensive, you may be taking away someone's agency to make their own decision about the material or person. She finished by referencing Dante, who identified the person who remained neutral (possibly Pontius Pilate) as one of the damned!
Photo by Sheila Webber: mural in Zagreb, September 2026