Librarians are often faced with the unpleasant, challenging, and undesirable task of being asked or required to censor material found in the library. What responsibilities (or lack thereof) do librarians have to protect intellectual freedom? What ethical requirements do librarians experience? In order to take on this task, Megan Schliesman (2008) states librarians “must understand the principles of intellectual freedom and how those principles are applied in the real world.” Therefore, we as librarians have the responsibility to truly consider intellectual freedom and the role it will play in our library.
An ethical consideration for librarians to consider is how their personal opinions affect intellectual freedom decisions. It may be easy to agree censoring or banning a book that contradicts your personal beliefs. However, as Schliesman (2008) explains, librarians “must be willing to acknowledge their own biases and fears in decision making, and then move beyond them.” This presents an ethical challenge for librarians to leave their personal feelings out of intellectual freedom debates.
Please visit the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights, to view their stance on the role of libraries, intellectual freedom, and ethics.
1. Do you agree that librarians need to balance local values and intellectual freedom?
2. Do you agree that librarians have to a duty to expand the views of their community?
3. Do you think it would be difficult to defend a book that you personally disagreed with?
4. Have you (or personally know others that have) struggled with personal beliefs v. intellectual freedom? Would you like to share these experiences?
5. What is a book/topic that would be difficult for you to support if challenged in your library?
References
American Library Association. (1996). Library bill of rights. Retrieved
19 comments:
I think that, to a certain degree, librarians need take into consideration the local values of the community, and for several reasons. First, the role of the library is to serve the community's information needs (needs which are often a result of their values). If the public desires certain types of information based upon their values, it is really the library's responsibility to give them what they want. Second, the library is relient upon the public for financial support - ignoring the local values is a sure way to alienate the library from the community, which could lead to decreases in funding. However, it is important to remember that not everyone in a given community will have the same values - nor should they. The library needs to have materials that satisfy everyone's needs, not just the majority's.
I share Adrienne P.'s point of view. We all form the community and have our different views of life. Definitely what pleases me will not always please another and doesn't have to.
That not withstanding, man as a social being should share their ideas and opinions. Abook in my library that i will not mix feeling s about is one which makes the adverse pleasant. An example will be any book that encourages Homosexuality or lesbianism. i will not hide the fact that I do not see it good for who ever. But however, i know i can not impose this on anyone because someone could be reading just for peasure though it could influence adventure. So i will let a patron know what i think about the book but let them take the decision.
Adrienne and Njang, your comments reflect the reality of living in a community with many views and values. I agree. As the community funds its local library, librarians should make sure they stock books reflecting the values of that community. Librarians can do this by making sure requested books are purchased for the system, and that enough copies are requested to fill requests in a timely manner. As stated in other posts, selection policy guides librarians in choosing resources that will keep a collection well-rounded.
As far as the question about our struggles upholding intellectual freedom. I remember distinctly having a problem between my own personal convictions and the patron's right to check a certain VHS tape out. The movie was 9 1/2 weeks, and one of our young patrons had requested it. When he came in to pick it up, I was working the desk, and I told him my opinion regarding the viewing of the movie. I knew as I made my opinion known to him that I really had no right to impose those opinions on him, but I could not stop myself, I did not want him to put those visions in his mind. He checked out the movie, then went upstairs to look for other materials. When he came back down, he handed the movie back in. I told him then that I had not been within my rights to stop access to the movie, but he said he had thought about it and agreed with my reasoning. I'm not proud of myself for doing that, and it probably didn't stop him from just requesting the movie at a different library where the staff was not familiar with him, but I feel better that he didn't take the item from me.
Re: Censorship and First Amendment Rights: Nobody said it would be easy
While exuberantly proclaiming my intellectual adherence to First Amendment rights this is not always easy for me. Having spent most of my adult life working in the area of human rights, social justice and equality, I am personally repulsed and angered by hateful speech and images. This includes derogatory depictions of people such as women (I’m not talking about nudity or erotica but rather out and out misogyny—as exposed in the National Film Board of Canada’s excellent documentary “Not a Love Story: A Film About Pornography”)
http://www.nfb.ca/collection/films/fiche/?id=13558&v=h&lg=en
as well as racial, ethnic, disability-related, religious, and anti-gay, etc., slurs and images.
Also, coming from Canada where there is a “hate propaganda law” I have been used to, shall we say, a more ‘nuanced’ approach to freedom of speech. For more information on the Canadian law, click on (or copy and paste) the URL provided below—See Canadian Criminal Code, Hate Propaganda ADVOCATING GENOCIDE (Section 318); PUBLIC INCITEMENT OF HATRED (Section 319); and WARRANT OF SEIZURE (Section 320).
However, I am gradually coming to terms with this and moving into the purely “free speech zone”—at least in my thinking. Charles Levendosky (2001) makes a very good argument as to why “Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Restricted.” He notes, for example, that “the British Crown could have considered the Declaration of Independence a form of hate speech.” He also mentions that, ironically, “[w]hen the Supreme Court of Canada adopted the Catharine MacKinnon/Andrea Dworkin thesis that pornography is harmful to women, the very first groups to be targeted by the Canadian government were gay and lesbian bookstores. Two of Andrea Dworkin’s own books (Woman Hating[,] and Pornography: Men Possessing Women) were seized at the Canadian border by customs officials. The books were adjudged to be ‘pornography’ and thereby harmful to women.” He also provides other US examples.
Another friend, similarly committed to human rights and equality, has pointed out that, in his view, it is better for these ‘hate-mongers’ (my words) to expose themselves so we know who they are. Good point.
Regardless of my personal views and occasional internal conflicts, the ALA Code of Ethics makes it clear what my professional stance should be. It obliges those within the LIS profession to adhere to its Code. As such, I will do so. If I can not, I would be wise to look to another profession.
Canadian Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 )
PART VIII
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON AND REPUTATION
Hate Propaganda, Sections 318, 319 and 320
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/showdoc/cs/c-46/bo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318//en#anchorbo-ga:l_VIII-gb:s_318
Levendosky, C. (2001). Hate Speech on the Internet Should Not Be Restricted. In Tamara L. Roleff (Ed.), Current controversies: Hate crimes. San Diego: Greenhaven Press.
It most certainly would be difficult to defend a book I personally disagreed with. I can't think of any title in particular, but one subject I have little to no tolerance for is misogyny. So if there are books out there whose message is along the lines of "how to put your woman in her place", or "patriarchy is non-existent and just a word that feminazis use to take rights away from men", I have a problem with it. However, I have come to terms with the fact that there will always be hateful speech out there, and there will always be people with opinions I heartily disagree with.
The question of defending a book I personally disagree with brings to mind the quote often attributed to Voltaire (though never actually said by him):"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Librarians need to adopt a similar mantra: "I disapprove of what you read, but I will defend to the death your right to read it".
So whenever that day comes in the future where I have to help someone find a resource whose message goes against everything I believe in, I'll try to gather all the willpower I have so as not to impose my beliefs upon them. It won't be easy, and I'll be honest and say it may not work, but I'll try to keep my opinions to myself nonetheless.
I would have trouble with any book/topic that promotes hate/discrimination of any form. For instance, a book promoting the KKK or Holocaust deniers would offend standards that I believe in. However, as a librarian, I have to follow the Library Bill of Rights and stand up for access to all information, no matter my beliefs. Even offering my opinion on the book as they check it out is a form of censorship as my views may influence their actions (even though in these such cases I may want that dearly). Restricting access to information, any information, is simply censorship and against the code of ethics.
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree that librarians need to take into account both intellectual freedom and local values. As I mentioned in an earlier post, material that typically offends library users isn't likely to be used often and therefore may be a waste of resources. I also think that it is unethical to intentionally buy incendiary material with the objective of creating controversy in the name of "broadening" the minds of the locals. Doing this is imposing our values on the community just as much as censoring would be. However, I believe that there is a duty to help educate communities, especially isolated ones. This should be done in a way appropriate to the community and by purchasing materials that will appeal to them and be used.
Personally, I wouldn't find it difficult to defend a book that I personally disagreed with. I may struggle with materials such as a book promoting a religious cult, but I can think of few other scenarios that would bother me. I believe that values are often strengthened, not weakened, by examining alternative viewpoints, contrary to what fear-mongers would have us believe.
I have struggled with the tension in this issue in my current job as a teacher, dealing with students who want to research controversial topics for their research papers. Sometimes, taking away a topic that is important to a student because it is controversial removes all of their motivation to complete the project. Getting a student to read and engage with something they care about is valuable, and heaven knows I can't get them to give up Marilyn Manson by banning their research paper. I allow more topic freedom than most teachers in my department, but I have also had administration-involved controversies, so there is a price to pay.
I don't believe it would be difficult to defend a book that I don't personally agree with. By choosing to become a librarian, I am choosing a life of information.
I don't agree with every book or article that I have read, but I appreciate the value of it. According to Richard E. Rubin in Foundations of Library and Information Science, "in order to make good citizens, the library must provide a variety of ideas. It is a premise of democratic societies that opposing points of view are aired, not suppressed, and that it is up to the people to make a decision." (187).
I believe defending a book would be the same way. It doesn't matter that it is a book I don't personally agree, what is important is that it is a book that SOMEONE does agree with. I've chosen to serve them, so if they agree with the book's message, then as a keeper of information and a public servant, it is my duty to fight for it.
Jessica Kay-Oosterhouse
Rubin, Richard E. Foundations of Library and Information Science (2nd ed). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers, 2004.
I love Kelly's quote "I disapprove of what you read, but I will defend to the death your right to read it". I believe that sums up how I feel also on books that I may disapprove of but have no say in what others may read. I know personally I have checked out books on subjects I do not approve on just to learn more about the subject and be able to discuss and form an educated opinion.
I am wondering why we all instantly (myself included) steer our minds to a situation in which intellectual freedom and local values are mutually exclusive. It is a sad indication of the state of our society when we our 'local communities' are unable to importance of free and open expression for all. When we censor and try to silence all views that are different from our own, or that might cause us to think and re-evaluate what we already beleive to be 'true' it is a sad day indeed. This article from the BBC takes this argument to the extreme in the case of pornography. It is an interesting argument:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1986869.stm
1. Balancing local values and intellectual freedom: There is no reason to limit the library's purchases because of a single group's bias on a subject.
2. Expand the views of their community: I think the librarian should provide access to the information their patrons need to enhance their knowledge of any area of interest. The library should provide ample information about different perspectives of issues. It is the patron's choice whether they want to open their mind to new ideas.
3. Defending a book that I personally disagreed with:
Why am I defending it? People can read whatever they want...
4. Personal beliefs v. intellectual freedom? People are free to believe whatever they like. I may be inclined to disagree with them. I might also question their powers of logic and reason.
5. What is a book/topic that would be difficult for you to support if challenged in your library? Intelligent Design. It's not science. It's not religion. It's some sort of nonsense attempt to reconcile two opposing viewpoints that don't need reconciliation. One is science. One is myth.
It is important to take into account Intellectual Freedom and local values. However, it is an important part of the process for the librarian not to censor a book. By leaving it up to the public to challenge it and then to follow with a public discussion about the pro's and con's of the book the community will at least be educated about the issue and can then make a decision that is right for that community.
I don't think that I would have too much difficulty defending a book that I disagreed with. Everyone has the right to read, whatever they may want. I don't have to agree with it and may even be disgusted by it but it is part of being a librarian helping people find books they want or need to read. Again we don't have to read the book.
Thank you to everyone who participated in the blog! If you have any questions about this post after this evening (I believe that is the official end of this portion of the blog) feel free to email me. Again, thanks for your participation!
2. Do you agree that librarians have to a duty to expand the views of their community?
It’s a librarian’s job to provide information and materials, to help patrons find what they need, etc. A librarian could provide lectures, forums, presentations, etc. that are educational in nature. For instance, they could have two speakers come in and give opposing viewpoints on a topic and then open the floor for discussion and questions. Librarians can’t be pushy or preachy though. If a patron wants to learn and to expand their views, then a librarian should assist him. However, I honestly don’t think that a large proportion of the community wants this from their library. I think people are more interested in the (free) entertainment a library provides.
3. Do you think it would be difficult to defend a book that you personally disagreed with?
I can’t think of any books that I would have difficulty defending. I can find something of merit in every book, even if I disagree with the content. For example, I, like most sane people, don’t agree with the views presented in Mein Kampf. However, I realize that it is an important historical work. It provides insight to the mind of an incredibly cruel dictator.
I really liked Kelly W’s mantra “I disapprove of what you read, but I will to the death your right to read it.” Those are words to live by. Kudos Kelly!
Although I believe a library should support local values, I do not think they should limit itself to just that. All viewpoints on a subject should be represented. Everyone has the right to have access to varieties of information, not just what is popular in the community. Providing a large variety of books is a librarian’s duty and in doing so you can’t help but to expand the community’s point of views. Many people seem under the impression that just because you read a certain book means that you agree with its point of view. This is not always the case. The public may just want to understand a subject and to truly understand a subject you have to know all sides of it.
When it comes to defending any book whether you agree with it or not, it is important to have the support of professional reviews and other sources that can help to explain the importance of that particular book. Even explaining the selection process could aid in the patron understanding how each book is carefully considered before purchasing. It is necessary for the librarian to have "proof" as to why they believed a book would add to the collection. Personal beliefs should not get in the way of defending the collection as a whole. Easier said than done in some situations however.
2. Do you agree that librarians have to a duty to expand the views of their community?
Absolutely. While it is very important that citizens see themselves reflected in the literature available in their library, it is also important for them to understand their position in the greater scheme of things and also to learn about other cultures and communities. Unbiased knowledge leads to understanding and appreciation of other ways of life. I think a great majority of social problems are caused by ignorance and stereotypes. Wouldn't it be great if libraries helped to break down the barriers that exist in our schools, neighborhoods and in our society as a whole?
3. Do you think it would be difficult to defend a book that you personally disagreed with?
I think that upholding the rights of everyone regardless of whether I agree with them or not is very important if I want to enjoy the same rights. If I do not agree with the content of a book, I should still fight for the right to read it, because I want the freedom to read the books I want to, even if people want to protest it for whatever reason.
2. Do you agree that librarians have to a duty to expand the views of their community?
Yes, I do. Patrons should have resources available that can expand their views. If one is not interested in the view, then they don't have to agree with, or find more information on the topic. As many others I'm sure, I believe in being a well-rounded person. It's important to know about the views of others, even if you don't agree.
3. Do you think it would be difficult to defend a book that you personally disagreed with?
Who wouldn't. I'm not sure what I would do if this situation arrised. I guess I would have to read credible reviews on the book to find good reasoning for the literature. It would definately be a challenge!
Post a Comment