Monday, September 29, 2008

THE LIBRARIAN’S ROLE IN INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM

The Library Bill of Rights provides that it is the responsibility of libraries and librarians to provide unbiased and uncensored information that encompasses all points of view. Because of this responsibility, it is essential that libraries and librarians do not try and push their views on their patrons and they must make choices on what items to purchase based on need and interest of the community rather than on feelings about whether or not a book is “bad” or should be censored. Libraries are a “neutral provider of information from all points of view.” (Intellectual Freedom and Censorship Q & A). This is the standard for every library and this is what we in the profession need to strive for.

One of our greatest and often tested Intellectual Freedoms is the freedom to read. In fact, it is so important that the ALA issued “The Freedom to Read Statement.” It is the librarian’s responsibility to protect this freedom. Libraries are pivotal to the idea of Intellectual Freedom as the place to obtain unbiased and uncensored information that includes all points of view. Furthermore, the job of a librarian is to make information available to everyone. There have been some libraries that have demonstrated what might be considered censuring behaviors to members of lower social classes. As libraries have opened their door to the public, this permits people of all socio-economic backgrounds to have access to its materials. However, signs have been observed in some public libraries that provide that no public bathing is allowed. Although access to the materials is not necessarily denied, is this ban on public bathing a passive-aggressive attempt at limiting one’s access to materials? How do you react to a person who does not have a permanent address but would like to check out materials?

As stated in The Freedom to Read Statement, “Books are the major channel by which the intellectual inheritance is handed down, and the principal means of its testing and growth. The defense of the freedom to read requires of all publishers and libraries the utmost of their faculties, and deserves of all Americans the fullest of their support (ALA, 2004).” The ALA proclaims that the freedom to read is important to our fundamental beliefs. “The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools to label ‘controversial’ views, to distribute lists of ‘objectionable’ books and authors, and to purge libraries. We, as individuals devoted to reading and as librarians and publishers responsible for disseminating ideas, wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read.” As librarians we must be impartial and be careful not to censor new or controversial ideas, or even condone them. The responsibility of the library is to provide a diverse array of information and materials, so that individuals can learn without feeling they will have repercussions or lack of privacy.
The Freedom to Read Statement, part 6 provides:
It is the responsibility of publishers and librarians, as guardians of the people's freedom to read, to contest encroachments upon that freedom by individuals or groups seeking to impose their own standards or tastes upon the community at large; and by the government whenever it seeks to reduce or deny public access to public information. It is inevitable in the give and take of the democratic process that the political, the moral, or the aesthetic concepts of an individual or group will occasionally collide with those of another individual or group. In a free society individuals are free to determine for themselves what they wish to read, and each group is free to determine what it will recommend to its freely associated members. But no group has the right to take the law into its own hands, and to impose its own concept of politics or morality upon other members of a democratic society. Freedom is no freedom if it is accorded only to the accepted and the inoffensive. Further, democratic societies are more safe, free, and creative when the free flow of public information is not restricted by governmental prerogative or self-censorship.

Challenges are not just presented by government officials. As LaRue states, there has been an influx of patron-initiated challenges to materials and services found in our public libraries in our generation (LaRue, 2007). He describes these challenges as having two distinct causes. The first, LaRue states, is a generational dynamic, manifesting itself in one of these three means: (a) a liberal or “politically correct” movement; (b) a conservative or “family-friendly” movement; or (c) a “parental profile among the nation’s largest demographic of protectiveness, or even over-protectiveness.” (LaRue, 2007.) The second is the birth of the World Wide Web, which has greatly expanded access to human experience (LaRue, 2007).
Liberal groups have been documented as attempting to ban materials deemed racist or patronizing toward minorities and women’s group since the 1960’s. ("City Mayors Education,") These so-called “Left-Censors” have criticized the use of racist and sexist language, and work to books containing said language to be removed from school textbooks and libraries (Pincus, 1983). This presents a special problem, whereas it would seem to advance the curricula if such materials were removed for presenting racist or sexist views, yet this is still considered censorship. Pincus suggests that there is almost an ironic nature to these liberals as they oppose censorship, but also oppose the use of materials deemed racist, sexist, etc. Conservative groups, on the other hand, have been proponents of censorship of materials they view as portraying immoral, anti-Christian, and anti-American (Pincus, 1983). How would you react if faced with a challenge from a particular group? What if your opinion coincides with that of the group?

9 comments:

Nate Palmer said...

Interesting question about “How do you react to a person who does not have a permanent address but would like to check out materials?” Libraries are technically not free. Patrons pay through their taxes and state and federal funds. If a patron does not have a valid address then I would wonder if they pay their taxes. I think part of protecting library users is making sure people support their library in some way. If not it doesn’t seem fair to those who do pay to use the library.

Jeehan said...

If faced with a challenge from a particular group I would indeed try to be as unpartial as possible. It is only fair to the patrons and community members whom I serve. If the librarian is even slightly influenced by groups then they will not have upheld their duties as librarians to uphold the Library Bill of Rights. To me it is simple, people who choose to go into such a profession should be open-mided and as unpartial as possible. Imagine if a particular county, city, or state had a large number of judges who did not like someone based on their religion,race, or sexual orientation. What would happen to the legal system? It will be flawed ,unjust, and there would absolutely no respect for the profession or the legal system. The same goes for a librarian. There is this agreement between librarians and the patrons. It is an agreement in which librarians will provide ANY and ALL information they can to the patrons based on their (the patrons) needs. The Library Bill of Rights should be as important to the Librarian as is the Hippocratic oath to doctors. Unfortunately, I also know that people go into this profession so that they can have an their influence on society, the community which they serve etc.

MG said...

If challenged by a particular group I would remind them that the library aims to supply patrons with various conflicting viewpoints. I would stress that in order to be of service to the community various materials are required some of which are considered offensive. Hopefully the dissatisfied patron would be reminded that the information they like, information which the library stocks, may be offensive to others.
The feelings of the librarian must be put aside when stocking the shelves because the rights of patrons come first. This is also the case in terms of releasing materials. A librarian should not judge a patron by outward appearances they should treat all with the same great service.

Casey Bolton said...

A great example of this that's relevant is providing both sides of the election. There are so many McCain and Obama books being publishes that are flying off the shelves as voters thirst for further knowledge on the both presidential canidates. It would be horribly unethical for a librarian to push his or her own political leanings on the masses by only providing them with either left or right wing books. They need to purchase with not bias an provide patrons with information on both sides of the struggle. It's the only ethical course for librarians.

Katherine said...

I found the beginning of this post particularly meaningful due to a situation I encountered this past summer. My local public library is in an affluent neighborhood located near some poorer neighborhoods. As I was entering the library one afternoon, an elderly woman in the parking lot asked me to complain about the fact there was a "smelly woman with messy hair stinking up the reading room" and a "greasy man spreading his germs on all the computers." She was quite upset that these apparently homeless people were being allowed to use the library, and told me they must only be there because of the air conditioning.

I responded to her by saying I was glad they had somewhere to cool off and learn at the same time, and she walked off in a huff. I understand that libraries aren't technically free, but we don't deny public schooling to children who are homeless. If anything, a library could be instrumental in helping a homeless person find employment, shelter, and a hot meal. Why would a library deny someone that opportunity?

Stephanie Y said...

I understand and value the role of the librarian to be neutral and non-biased. Im the case of communities protesting books I'd like to state that if something causes you to be so upset to go out of your way and cause a stink, you must be very fearful of people that have differing opions than you. On that note, as a librarian, how do you decide whether or not to put a controversial book on your shelves? As nate pointed out, taxpayers fund libraries. If you know the views expressed in the book would not be popular in your community, and have not been requested, are you not wasting thier money on something that may cause damage? As opossed to buying materials that would be helpful and useful to your patrons? Given these circumstances, would the librarian be acting as a biased advocate for "the right to write whatever you want, whomever it may harm?" I think it would be very interesting to talk to a librarian that has experienced some such situation.

Alicia Dyer said...

Thinking about Nate's comments and Katherine's comments regarding homeless patrons. Both make good points. It would be difficult to allow someone to check out materials from the library without an address, but at the same time, I think persons of lower socio-economic means could benefit greatly from the services of a public library. I would have to say I am in favor of providing services to the pubilc, to those who seek it, without discrminating against them.

Carin Monticello said...

If faced with this challenge from a group I would respond by trying to explain that the library’s goal is provide information on a variety of topics and diverse view points. While the information on the shelves many not reflect my personal views or that of the libraries directors, it is still important to put this information out there for patrons to have access to and decide for themselves. I think by censoring the material that is available a librarian would be doing a disservice to the community. A contributing member of the community could be excluded from the service the library provides if their views conflicted with those of the majority.

JimV said...

How would you react if faced with a challenge from a particular group?

In an article published in School Library Media Activities Monthly, Adams (2008) states "A formally approved materials selection policy with review procedures is the legal basis for selection and reconsideration of all instructional materials used within a school including library media center resources." I believe that this concept can be extended beyond the school library, and that such a formal policy can define procedures to be used in the event of a challenge to library holdings by a particular group.


What if your opinion coincides with that of the group?

Proposition 2 of the ALA Freedom to Read Statement makes this comment about librarians:
"It would conflict with the public interest for them to establish their own political, moral, or aesthetic views as a standard for determining what should be published or circulated."
...and consistent with this statement, I feel that my personal opinion should not play a role in my reaction to a challenge to library materials by a particular group.


Helen R Adams (2008, March). The Materials Selection Policy: Defense against Censorship. School Library Media Activities Monthly, 24(7), 28. Retrieved October 4, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 1429798101).

http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.cfm