In the Intellectual Freedom Manual, published by the ALA, Candace Morgan writes that the goals of United States libraries are shaped by the Constitution and other writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who wanted to guarantee liberty for individual citizens. Jefferson and Madison believed that an educated population is the only way to fight a tyrannical government; freedom to ask and speak are necessary to find truth; and all ideas, even those which are not true, need to be available for inspection and dialog for truth to be discovered. Speaking of the first and fourth articles in particular, Morgan states, “the Bill of Rights serves to protect both individual liberties (private purpose) … and to support an informed, educated citizenry with access to the open dialog necessary for democracy (public purpose).” (Morgan, 2006, p. 7) US libraries are the only public agencies that meet both these purposes of the Bill of Rights. (Morgan, 2006)
The Bill of Rights was created in part as a response to Adolph Hitler’s book burnings in the 1930s, Louise Robbins writes in Censorship and the American Library. The book burnings raised the awareness of librarians who then realized they had a unique role to play in preserving Americans' right to read in a democratic society. (Robbins, 1996) In 1938, Bernard Berelson, a library educator, wrote an article urging librarians to take an active role in educating Americans about social problems and making a stand against censorship. In response, the Des Moines Public Library produced a Bill of Rights in 1938 because of “growing intolerance, suppression of free speech and censorship” around the world. (Robbins, 1996, p. 11) The following year the ALA adopted a modified version which became the first Library Bill of Rights (LBR). http://ala8.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm
At this same time, The Grapes of Wrath was widely censored because of perceived immorality and socialist views. While some Libraries did ban the book, others claimed they weren't censoring it, just choosing not to purchase it. So the ALA formed a committee to study censorship which found censorship often began with the librarian. This committee eventually became the Committee on Intellectual Freedom (IFC). (Krug, 2006)
After WWII, with the onset of the Cold War, Soviet expansion behind the “iron curtain” caused fear to rise. Librarians faced censors who believed they were protecting the American way of life. The ALA and IFC took a more active role in promoting intellectual freedom. (Robbins, 1996) They developed new statements and policies to help libraries combat censorship attempts, including the Great Issues program, which provided book lists on current topics and PR material, asking librarians to use the library as venue for debate. (Preer, 2007) Leaders spoke more about intellectual freedom at conferences and they reexamined library education in general. 1953 saw the publication of the first Freedom to Read Statement. http://www.lewisandclarklibrary.org/pdfs/Freedom_To_Read_Statement.pdf
In 1954, Columbia University celebrated their bicentennial with an exhibit entitled "Man's Right to Know." Jean Preers writes in a 2007 Library Trends article that, "while not part of the original bicentennial plan, libraries became emblematic of its message. As librarians strengthened their commitment to intellectual freedom, libraries throughout the United States and abroad hosted the Bicentennial Panel Exhibit documenting with quotations and illustrations the worldwide quest for knowledge. Using books, film, recordings, and discussion groups on the bicentennial theme, libraries at the height of the Cold War demonstrated their role in providing free access to information." (Preer, 2007, p. 623)
By this period in the mid1950s, the ALA moved from a position of selecting only books that librarians perceived as quality books to one of actively promoting intellectual freedom and they began to focus on putting ideology into practice. The fine line between selection and censorship was explored in 1953 by Lester Asheim in an article for the Wilson Library Bulletin. Other scholarly papers tying ideology to practice were also issued. (Robbins, 1996) Today selection continues to play a role in how librarians provide intellectual freedom to their communities.
One way for librarians themselves to avoid censoring materials is to follow a selection process when obtaining materials for their collection. Having a criterion set in place for libraries so they can select a wide variety of materials that better suits the needs of he community is essential. Libraries want to have a collection that promotes the basic fundamental mission of the library. Collection policies are set in place as a planning tool in order to guide selectors to ensure consistency among the library materials. It also is useful to have as a training tool for new employees. Above all, a collection development policy is very important to have because it can be used as a defense for challenged materials. Within a library’s policy it will cover topics such as authority, appropriateness, accuracy, collection fit, content, demand, and web source evaluation.
No library can make everything available, and selection decisions must be made. Selection is an inclusive process, where the library affirmatively seeks out materials, which will serve its mission of providing a broad diversity of points of view and subject matter. By contrast, censorship is an exclusive process, by which individuals or institutions seek to deny access to or otherwise suppress ideas and information because they find those ideas offensive and do not want others to have access to them. There are many objective reasons unrelated to the ideas expressed in materials that a library might decide not to add those materials to its collection: redundancy, lack of community interest, expense, space, etc. Unless the decision is based on a disapproval of the ideas expressed and desire to keep those ideas away from public access, a decision not to select materials for a library collection is not censorship.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/basics/intellectual.cfm#ifpoint13
While the Patriot Act seems extreme to us today, this is not the first time the US government has limited individuals’ intellectual freedom rights. Often during times of war, protection of citizens was cited as a reason to limit intellectual freedom. Geoffrey Stone detailed six of these times at a recent ALA convention. Several occurred before the foundation of the ALA, such as the Sedition Act, which made it a crime in 1798 to speak out against the government, and Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, but the ALA did respond to McCarthyism in ways mentioned above. The Patriot Act is the most recent example of the US government restricting in intellectual Freedom. (Oliver, 2005)
In the post 9/11 political climate intellectual freedom is often challenged. Information that is deemed dangerous to the public safety, or that espouses views that are “suspicious” are often monitored by the government. There has been an outcry for more censorship by many, the idea that if information is stopped being shared that this will somehow make us safe. Patriot Act specifically states that"production of any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities, provided that such investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely upon the basis of activities protected by the first amendment..."
The Patriot Act, passed after September 11th has effected intellectual freedom in many ways. The surveillance acts in particular often concern librarians that their patrons privacy may be violated. Patron records are protected by law and require a court order to access, but the internet provided by libraries has become a gray area. As of 11/2007, the patriot act states that “electronic communication service” as “any service which provides to users thereof the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications,” and the FBI, according to the Library Journal interprets this literally, including libraries as communications providers. This enables the FBI to “compel “communications providers” to provide assistance in the warrantless surveillance of non-U.S. persons abroad” While this particular problem is specific to patrons abroad, intellectual freedom, specifically surveillance of the internet is a primary library concern.
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6497278.html?rssid=220
“ALA: Warrantless Searches Wrong Library groups want revision of laws regarding surveillance of users” By Norman Oder -- Library Journal, 11/15/2007
According to Stone, the consequence of the Patriot Act is that even though people know they’re not likely to be targeted because of the books they check out, the possibility that they can be targeted inhibits choices they make at the library, which then limits their ability to gain information. Stone maintains that the primary difference between the Patriot Act and other historic instances of government limits on intellectual freedom is that previous administrations realized their errors and made corrections, but the current administration refuses to admit error and won't reverse the Act because they insist they still need this power. (Stone, 2005)
Another concern that includes intellectual freedom and the Internet is the access of information by minors in public libraries. The Internet has revolutionized the way that information is stored and accessed, and allows people from every part of the world, and of every opinion and belief to communicate with each other instantly. Information of all types is easier to access than ever before and location and income are not as detrimental to intellectual freedom and information sharing as they have been in the past. Social networking utilities such as facebook, myspace, and others allow anyone with access to the internet to come together and discuss a wide range of topics and to share wide ranges of information. This is a valuable information medium. However, minors are often made to use filters while searching.
Julian Aiken stated in a recent American Libraries journal article, that according to a survey he conducted in October of 2006, 50.9% of public library directors answered in the affirmative when provided with questions that measured censorship of access to internet content provided to minors. He further explains this group should be protected under the Library Bill of Rights Article V. In his closing he calls for action saying, “ALA has a role to play in all of this. The results of the survey indicate that there is some ground to be made up if library directors are to be convinced of the importance of implementing the Library Bill of Rights.”
In both of the instances mentioned above the necessary provisions to provide intellectual freedom are already within the Library Bill of Rights. These rights need addressed and instated. As with so many other historical issues that have challenged intellectual freedom in the United States it is important to consider the individuals challenging these freedom’s and what their concerns are. Sometimes the only way to view a situation with clarity is to get an outside perspective. In this case, we are fortunate to have a group member , Kimberly Gaeth, who has very unique viewpoint to share concerning our freedoms in the United States. The following short account is what she provided to our group:
During my two years living in China, many people there told me that they would like to live in or visit the United States. When I asked them why, I got various answers. Some said because it was very rich. Others said because the culture was so different and interesting. Most of all, at least part of their reason was because the USA has freedom. China, like some other countries in the world, uses heavy censorship in their media, institutions, and most famously on the Internet. For some Chinese people who realize that what they see, hear, and learn is being so heavily censored, and understand what intellectual freedom Americans have, it makes them admire America and its freedoms. However, sometimes the amount of freedom Americans have is notviewed as a positive thing.
When I mentioned the censorship to some of my students and friends in China, they told me that the censorship was a good thing, because it protected people from some “bad things.” There is a short article in the New York Times in which the author expresses her disgust at the focus of Chinese censorship by foreigners, and that the censorship that the Chinese feel is not very much.
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/25/censorship-in-chinese-media/?hp
Overall, the countries of the world understand that one of the most important aspects of America is the freedoms that are found there. Intellectual freedom is one of the basic freedoms found in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Of the people who want to immigrate to America, they want to in order to have a better life. Along with higher wages and a better standard of living, being able to have freedom, including intellectual freedom, is a major reason for becoming a US citizen, especially if the people are from countries with high levels of censorship. In fact, for several of my Facebook contacts, who live in India, China, and Nepal, freedom and education are the number one reasons for wanting to go to America.Below is a chat transcript between a Tibetan friend currently studying in America, and myself:
Kimberly: I am working on my homework [and] I was wondering if you could help me with it. Questions about America
Tibetan Friend: What is it?
Kimberly: and what people from other countries think about it
Tibetan Friend: well, 1' freedom !!!gooddddd
Kimberly: is there a certain kind of freedom that is more important?
Tibetan Friend: freedom of speech , freedom of religion, that's very important. I think that's why many people want to come to the U.S
Kimberly: You are in the US now. Is it different than what you expected?
Tibetan Friend: not really. it is a bit difficult because my English is not so good that I can express all of my thoughts without hastate but other than that I don't find much difficulties
Kimberly: When you go back, what will you say about America?
Tibetan Friend: I like the country and if I was not a Tibetan, I wouldstay there for my life
----------------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Aiken, J. (2007). Outdated and irrelevant: rethinking the Library Bill of Rights. American Libraries, 38(8), 54-56.
American Library Association. (2006). Intellectual Freedom Manual (7th ed.). Chicago: Morgan, C. D. and Krug, J. F.
Larue, J. (2007). The new inquisition: Understanding and managing intellectual freedom. Connecticut: Libraries Unlimited.
Oliver, K. L. (2005) Intellectual Freedom: a casualty of war? Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 54(5), 242-253.
Preer, J. L. (2007). Man’s Right to Knowledge: Libraries and Columbia University’s 1954 Cold War Bicentennial. Library Trends, 55(3), 623-637.
Robbins, L. S. (1996). Censorship and the American Library: The American Library Association’s Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939-1969. Greenwood Press: Westport, Connecticut.
Rubin, R. E. (1998). Foundations of Library and Information Science. Neal-Schuman Publishers, Inc.: New York.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion Points
- How do the intellectual freedom ideals impact librarians and library users on a day to day level?
- Does the average library user realize when she signs permission for her elementary aged child that the child is then permitted to check out rated R videos because of the ALA's policy on freedom of access to minros? Parents can monitor what they see the child bring home, but what if they take it to a friend's house and view material the parent doesn't approve of such as a gory horror film?
- What if the child from an Orthodox Jewish family or Muslim family unknowingly checks out a novel by a conservative Christian author because the book is not labeled, due to the library following the library bill of rights?
- Do librarians have to remain neutral when selecting books?
- Is it possible to give all subjects equal exposure? If a libray stocks books on evolution, does it need to contain an equal amount of books about creationism?
- How does the corporate world impact library selection in terms of not only what gets published, but which reviews librarian read when making selection choices?
- How do librarians maintain neutrality when they are also expected to make decisions about good and bad material?
18 comments:
Thanks for this cogent introduction to the concept of intellectual freedom. This is an issue that is near and dear to me, as an adviser of a high school newspaper. I have had to deal first hand with a school principal censoring the work of students writing for the newspaper, and have helped to write legislation that would prevent that from happening in the future. It seems that as I move into my second profession, intellectual freedom issues will remain a part of my professional experience.
I am from the school of thought that holds that the more availability to information, the more freedom to express opinions and to discuss them, the better off this nation will be. It seems to me that, without fail, those in favor of limiting access to information are those in positions of power. It is the weak (those with limited access to funds, those with limited education, minorities, those with beliefs outside of the main stream) that find themselves squelched, and find their road to increased stature in the community cut short as a result. These same people are the ones most likely to make use of libraries, a fact that makes limiting access to certain materials that much more distasteful.
Your description of efforts through history to limit certain types of books, certain types of viewpoints, certain types of ideas, does a good job illustrating what a gross abuse of power censorship is. The ramifications of censorship actions, in addition to limiting the Constitutional rights of the individuals immediately effected, are lasting and damaging. In Nancy Maxwell's look at the higher purpose of librarians and libraries, "Sacred Stacks," we see that a key roll of the library is to act as a collective memory for society. Libraries offer authors and thinkers an immortality that they would not otherwise have had - their ideas are allowed to be passed on in an orderly fashion for generations to come. Taken in a broader context, then, libraries offer immortality to the entire culture. They capture, like a snapshot, the beliefs, concerns, and joys of a society and preserve them. Limiting the ability of libraries to select books and catalog them limits the ability of our society to preserve its own culture, which in turn curtails the degree to which future generations can learn from our successes and failures.
In that light, it is critical for libraries, as they create collection policies, to always remember the weak. Library collection policies should push for inclusion of works that represent all segments of society - the good and the bad - in order to ensure that all elements of our culture are not forgotten.
jvh is me, Jeremy Van Hof, sorry.
I agree also that this is a well-rounded discussion on intellectual freedom and censorship. I deeply value the ideas contained in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States. I am grateful to the librarians at the ALA who preceded us and found it necessary to create a similar Library Bill of Rights.
I appreciate the discussion concerning the Patriot Act and while I acknowledge that there have been times in US history when basic freedoms have been limited or restricted I must say that I am deeply uncomfortable with it. I am concerned that when one freedom is restricted does it become easier to restrict others? When and where does it stop? At what point are the freedoms returned? The Nazis first burned books and then burned people. And although that is a horrific example it is one that we should remember.
And yet while we take our basic liberties for granted most of the time, many countries still do not have even the most basic rights. The battle for freedom of expression in all forms and access to those expressions is still being fought in many parts of the world. In 2002 the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) prepared The Glasgow Declaration on Libraries, Information Services and Intellectual Freedom which can be read at http://www.ifla.org/faife/policy/iflastat/gldeclar-e.html
Also interesting to read are the statements on intellectual freedom from other countries and these can be found at http://www.ifla.org/faife/ifstat/ifstat.htm
Finally, I am a YouTube addict and love the "bad" librarian video. What library created it?
Susan
After reading your post and the history of the US and government censorship, I'm really interested to know your group's reaction to the article "Outdated and irrelevant" in our e-reserve reading. Do you think any part of the Library Bill of rights are outdated? In the article they stated "ALA appears to be alarmingly out of touch with many of its members." I am wondering if it isn't the other way around: if it isn't the members and librarians who are out of touch with ALA and the library bill of rights. Not only that, but if we are out of touch with the library bill of rights, are we then out of touch with our nation's Constitution?
First off, let me say kudos on the format of the blog itself, I think it is designed well. Also, good work in the reviewing of the history of your topic and bringing it into present day.
One of the points of conversation the author's posed had to deal with parents and their children's access to "mature" material from the library. Well in this case the issue of censorship vs. intellectual freedom will change from each individual parent. Some parents may never be aware that their child has such an opportunity while others may total intellectual freedom. Still, others may take an extreme censorship stand and disallow their child from even going to the library.
Personally I believe this issue would not be a concern if the proper parenting was in place. A child who is instilled with the values a parent desires, and that has a healthy relationship with their parents would not need imposed censorship. This child would either choose to not view the questionable material or already have the ability to put the art into its correct context in the world. Similar to the arguments of censorship in music and other media, censorship in libraries is not needed if proper parenting is established.
Jeremy, it sounds like you have experience in one area we didn’t cover much which is schools. According to the ALA schools are allowed to act in place of the parent, so it seems like it puts them in a more difficult place than public and academic libraries in terms of parent pressure to limit materials.
But like Jessica mentioned about the “outdated” article, the statistics show that public librarians are censoring a lot and are out of touch with the Library Bill of Rights. At the end of the article the author recommends communication as a remedy to the problem, and I think that would help. Library directors need to be reminded of the importance of the LBR and then make sure that their employees know and understand the policies of the library and are following them. But I’m sure that in a lot of communities there is pressure from parents to prohibit access to some material for minors, and that’s where another piece of communication needs to happen.
Which leads to Matt’s response to my discussion point about children checking out R movies, a real question I have about our public library’s policy. In Ann Arbor, every second grader goes on a fieldtrip to the library and parents are asked to sign a permission form for the children to get a card during the fieldtrip. I did for both my children and I never noticed anything saying that from then on they would be allowed to check out anything the library owned. Personally I don’t think I have unhealthy relationship with my sons or that they haven’t learned good moral values, but last year I was surprised when my eleven year old brought home Little Miss Sunshine after a trip to the library on his own. I didn’t mind; I’d researched the content online and knew the reasons why the movie was rated R and thought it was something he could handle watching with us present to talk about whatever he had questions about. But I did wonder why he was allowed to bring it home and did not realize why until I read the LBR for this project. I now completely agree that access shouldn’t be limited and that we don’t want the library to regulate access because every family has different ideas about what’s appropriate. The next time he went he brought home Nightmare on Elm Street, which he’s sure everyone else in his class has seen, and I said no. So I am able to use my parental rights to regulate. But I still think the library needs more transparency in their policies. I’m not sure if they’re afraid fewer people will get library cards if that’s in the literature or if they don’t have many complaints in Ann Arbor.
Susan and Matt both, thank you for the other sources. I haven’t seen “Sacred Stacks,” but it sounds very interesting, and the international site that lists other country’s policies is really interesting. I noticed references to the UN Human Rights Declaration which I also I read about in some articles for my wiki, which looks at a book that is trying to get libraries to not hide behind neutrality but actually make sure intellectual freedom is available to everyone.
Thanks for reading and responding to our blog.
Jodi
First of all, this is a really great-looking blog, great job on that. I loved how complete of a discussion all of you have provided for us.
I think that now more than ever Intellectual Freedom is an extremely important issue. Like Susan, I am deeply concerned with any of my freedoms being limited and worry that once one is restricted, it will be easier to restrict others. I am always surprised that many in our country are both quick to condemn countries with fewer freedoms and to give up their own freedoms for "national security."
I also agree with Matt when he says that the "issue" of intellectual freedom would be less of one if parents actually parented. If only more kids were lucky enough to have moms like Jodi, recognizing the importance of intellectual freedom and still exercising parental rights.
Finally, I would just like to stress the importance of history in terms of intellectual freedom, because if we collectively do not learn from history (and a good place to do so would be at the library :-)), then we are doomed to repeat it.
Cheers everyone! Have a great weekend!
Wonderful blog!
I agree with the others when they say that it is up to the parents to communicate with their children as to what types of materials are acceptable in their house. This is not the librarian's job. The job of the librarian is to make information/materials available to the public.....period.
I guess the larger issue is the worrying thought that many parents view open access to information as a way to subvert their own personal teachings, values, and moral. Providing informaton and instructing someone that the information is either true/false or positive/negative are two very different things. Accessing information does mean mean that the user/reader is a believer. It simply means that they are learning.
It is not the librarian's job to "protect" children. If that is what parent's want, then they must step up to the plate.
I had a question about letting anyone check out and R rated film from the library. Movie theatres, movie rental stores, and other stores that sell movies are supposed to check IDs and not sell R rated films to minors or let them see an R rated film without parental consent. Why is it that it is not allowed in those public places and it is allowed in the library?
Parents should be censoring the content of their children's pursuits and not librarians. All too often parenting of ones children is left up to other people, people who may not share the same thoughts about what the child should or should not do, read or should not read.
Librarians censorship of materials gives too much power to librarians over the control in the flow of information, especially when it is their job to distribute it in an efficient and unbiased manner.
Either way some people will be angry: for not screening enough or for screening too much. All we can do is to choose a view and defend it.
Steph Miller
Thank you for the historical perspective on intellectual freedom. For me it is a reminder that there have been challenges in the past, and that the Patriot Act is just the most recent example.
"Public Libraries Allow Minors to Check Out R-rated Movies" is the headline of an expose done by a Phoenix, Arizona TV station this summer (www.abc15.com). The reporter sent minors in to check out R-rated movies from Phoenix area libraries. The parents were shocked that in most cases the kids were allowed to do it. The reporter then asked each library for its policy on checking out materials to minors. I would like to know why the TV station did the story in the first place. Was it to prove that libraries are not watching out for our children (or that libraries have no morals which is kinda like Stephen Colbert and his expose on libraries being communist hide-outs).
There are so many things I would like to know about this story, including whether minors' access to the internet is filtered. Were the parents shocked because they expect libraries to make decisions about whether material should be checked out to a minor or were they shocked because internet access to minors is filtered so they assume the library would also "filter" other materials?
In the library system I work for minors can check out whatever they want, but when they log onto the internet with their library card number which is a "youth" card the internet is automatically filtered. Adults can choose whether they want their internet access filtered. I don't know how many parents are aware of this aspect of thier childrens' cards, but maybe libraries need to be clearer on parental responsibilites and library responsibilities concerning minors' access to all materials including internet. Maybe its easier to keep it murky to avoid community dissatisfaction with library policies.
In the TV expose one library said it would have a formal policy to its library board at the next meeting,and another library said it had not ordered fiction DVDs since 2004. I would like to know whether both of these actions were done out of fear of community reaction. Not obtaining fiction DVDs since 2004 seems extreme, but what a way to eliminate worries about community censorship. Now I am making assumptions about why this was done.
Should the library be consistent in granting access to minors? I personally am fine with minors being unrestricted because I know what my kids check out, and I trust them to make good choices. I also trust them on the internet. I don't believe public libraries should be nannies who tell people, including kids what they can and cannot check out or have access to. Not all parents want to worry about whether to allow their kids access to one thing or another, but are shocked when someone draws attention to something that they know their kids probably shouldn't see. All a library can do is decide on a policy and stick with it, and using the LBR is a good platform to build on.
Sherri McConnell
I agree that it’s not the libraries responsibility to monitor what a minors checks out. The responsibility is on the parents to have good communication with their children. The library where I work this issue comes up almost daily. Parents often want to know what their child has checked out. Our policies do not allow the release this information and the Michigan Privacy Act supports the policy. We also have a heavier filtering system on the youth computers. One of the problems with this is some families cannot afford a computer or the internet and the children rely on the library for their access to the internet. When this relates to school work and group projects these student sometimes run into difficulties. Many times sites are blocked and email accesses is not allowed so this hampers a student’s right to intellectual freedom and interferes with their ability gain the needed information and knowledge. This can be solved by giving equal internet access to all library clients.
After reading your blog, I got to thinking about the privacy aspect of intellectual freedom (IF). Since we cannot sit in class face-to-face and discuss these issues, I am taking the liberty of stating things that have been weighing on my mind during last week's focus on IF.
I was disturbed by some of the comments made in "The Future of Privacy" article written by Daniel J. Solove. (This was one of the e-reserve articles for last week.) I found it very disquieting that the government would/could make predictions about a person's "likelihood" to engage in criminal or terrorist activity based on what that person might read, or search for on the Internet, or purchase. That the government's determination could place you on a "watch list" or even jeopardize your airline flight plans seems totally "un-American" to me. I first heard about this just this last summer when a child was refused an airflight because his name was on a "watch list." Apparently someone with this child's same name had done some things that warranted his being "watched" by the government. Even though it was realized that it must be an older person, his flight was still refused. So much for "innocent until proven guilty."
Another thing that bothered me in that article was that some search engine companies, businesses, and airlines just handed over their data without waiting for warrants. Thankfully, most librarians protect our rights to privacy and wait for the warrants. I receive several "Privacy Policy" mailings from various companies on a consistant basis. It really makes me wonder how diligently they work to keep their clients' information private when it comes down to the wire.
As a school media specialist and computer teacher, I know that I need to teach my students about Internet safety. They are so trusting and ready to give out any information. Sadly, in today's world they need to be taught to keep personal information private, and why that is so important.
Our local public library (Petoskey) had a wonderful display in the children's area this year about Intellectual Freedom. They had posters, brochures, books, and so forth, to help children (and parents)understand these issues and how they affect kids. They even distributed brochures entitled "Kids, Know Your Rights!" which was created by the Intellectual Freedom Committee (part of ALA). See http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/divs/alsc/issuesadv/intellectualfreedom/kidsknowyourrights.pdf for the brochure.
They briefly explore the First Amendment, censorship, privacy and confidentiality, and respecting the opinions of others. The 4th page is an annotated bibliography of nonfiction and fiction titles for further reading. It is a great resource for kids. The colorful designs and graphics are bound to catch the eye of upper elementary and middle school readers.
If you are interested in how movies get rated, check out the documentary "This film is not yet rated" but wait til your kids go to bed.
We recently had a kid bring back an R rated movie that he had checked out 10 minutes previously - his mom made him bring it back. So there are some good parents out there:)
This past Friday at our monthly staff meeting, the Library Bill of Rights came up as a discussion, particularly if it was "outdated" or not. This was a great opportunity, because my first posting here, as a question to the group, was whether or not they felt the bill of rights was outdated.
I was very disheartened to hear that a few of my staff members think is that it is outdated. But those who shared this view, sad to say, are not incredibly fond of "dealing with" the public in general.
And yet, while I disagree with them (and feel that public libraries should be more in touch with the Bill of Rights), I cannot help but wonder about having the "fresh, bright-eyed" perspective of a library student. Many of us are reading the Library Bill of rights for the first time, and because we are learning ideals of course everything sounds wonderful, and we respond to things with an impassioned "yes!" When we go out to work in libraries for the first time, because the "ideals" of libraries are fresh in our minds, we come across flaws in our real-world libraries and we (at times zealously) want to "fix" them.
I guess what I’m wondering is can the idealism of enthusiastic newcomers ever be truly realistic (I hope that it is!) or is there a certain amount of reality that needs to set in for ideals to be made ‘reasonable’ and capable for implementation? Should ideals be doomed to merely “guidelines” instead of practice?
There is another Information Freedom perspective I’d like to bring up: the blurred line of selecting books for the library without censoring.
My personal view is that even if you are serving a community that is predominantly one color, predominantly one faith, and predominantly of one persuasion or another, I feel it is the duty of the library to provide even at least 1 book that offers alternative viewpoints in an effort to serve A.) the community as a whole to provide a resource to expose them to new ideas other perspectives, and B.) the minorities in the community who may share this perspective – even if it’s just one or two people, if their tax money goes toward the library, then their needs and interests should be served as well.
Because of a limited budget, if books are requested by patrons, our written policy involves Amazon ratings and Journal book reviews. But there have been books either ordered by a department librarian or requested by a patron that fits this written policy, but have been refused or sent back because a supervisor did not want a title to result in problems or complaints from other users, or else they (personally) did not think it appropriate. Such books have included YA fiction that mentions Wicca or witchcraft (although Harry Potter was allowed), and age-appropriate titles about puberty and physical changes.
How do you feel censorship issues should be handled when a book is not being challenged by a patron, but by a supervisor, department head, or higher?
I, too, am very interested in the history of Intellectual Freedom, not just because it’s a good story (that must be the history major in me!), but also because I think it has a lot of relevance for what is going on today. When I was doing research for my Library Leader paper, I learned a lot about the early days of the ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee. The subject of my paper was Ralph Ulveling, who served as the Director of the Detroit Public Library from 1941 to 1967. Ulveling took a strong stand on the issue of whether or not propaganda should be segregated within public libraries. He felt that propaganda was simply too dangerous to be kept in the general reading section of the library, that it was in fact a weapon “second only to military strategy” and should be kept in a separate reference section which only “researchers” could access (Robbins 149). This proposal directly challenged the ALA’s 1951 Statement on Labeling, and it set off a veritable firestorm of debate within the ALA. In May of 1952, nearly a year after the inception of this debate, the IFC ultimately rejected Ulveling’s proposal. The general consensus within the IFC was that “there is no such thing as wise censorship” (Dix and Bixler 124). Even so, the definition of censorship, and the line between “censoring” and “selecting” continues to occupy us today.
Dix, William S., and Bixler, Paul, eds. Freedom of Communication: Proceedings of the First Conference on Intellectual Freedom, New York City, June 28-29, 1952. Chicago: American Library Association, 1954.
Robbins, Louise S. “Segregating Propaganda in American Libraries: Ralph Ulveling Confronts the Intellectual Freedom Committee.” The Library Quarterly (Chicago) 63 (1993): 143-165.
First, let me say that I agree with the general consensus here, that the library is not and should not be expected to act as a parent. At the same time, however, I don’t think that it’s so easy just to say that the problem would be solved if only parents were more involved in their children’s activities. The sad truth is that while there are engaged and knowledgeable parents, many other parents are either too busy or too out-of-touch to know what’s going on with their kids. Obviously, this is not ideal, but it is the truth. Unfortunately, this just isn’t a clear-cut issue. If libraries decide to leave the parenting to the parents and adhere to the Library Bill of Rights as it is written, it’s quite possible that they will upset many people (and some of these people will undoubtedly express their displeasure at the polling place). On the other hand, it is a very slippery slope once you start restricting materials, for once that line is crossed, it’s difficult to know when to stop.
What then, is a library to do? One good starting place would be to do what Dianna’s library has done, bring this issue out in full view, set up an Intellectual Freedom display and get the conversation started. It’s so important to maintain open lines of communication and let people know about their library’s policies and their own rights. If they don’t have the knowledge, how can we expect them to take responsibility for themselves and their children?
Like everyone else has mentioned, I too find the topic of intellectual freedom very interesting. It's also one of my rights as an American that I treasure greatly. I think, like the ALA statement spells out, that some form of censorship is inevitable simply because there isn't a library in the world who can offer absolutely everything to its patrons. This is why I believe it's imperative for a library to have collection development guidelines to follow, so that it doesn't become a personal matter of what is or is not appropriate to an individual librarian.
When it comes to censoring "to protect the children", I fall to the argument of personal accountability. If I'm a parent and I don't want my child viewing/reading certain materials, then that is my job to ensure that doesn't happen. Of course parents cannot do everything alone as their children do have access to the outside world, but I really don't buy that "it takes a village." I think what it takes is responsible and attentive parenting and it is not, or at least should not be my job as a librarian to monitor what someone else's children are viewing/reading.
I also wanted to touch on the discussion about the Patriot Act. I really don't think it's unreasonable for the government to have criteria for creating predictions if many of the criminals have similarities. I think it's smart. I remember right after 9/11 when people were in an uproar because the some of the terrorists in the flight schools didn't want to learn how to land the plane and how come nobody paid attention to that. If there is something we can come up with that shows a correlation between someone's searching and criminal activity, why wouldn't we want to take advantage of that?
I'm quite intrigued by the discussion of children being allowed to check out materials that may or may not be appropriate for their age. A question that was recently brought up in my reference class was that of reproductive health texts. A classmate had recently purchased books on the suggestion of a parent that discussed sexual reproduction and sexual health in age appropriate terms. The library director insisted that books not be shelved in the children's section but rather kept with the "dummy" books where only adults could access the content.
When I Googled “sexual reproduction, censorship and libraries” to help me discuss libraries and sexual reproductive health I came across Vida Juozaitis's article "Sex and Censorship in School Libraries" in School Libraries in Canada. While her article only scratched the surface for what I searching, her bibliography of books and articles provided answers to some of my questions. Specifically it led me to Judy Bloom’s website and her written answer to censorship. I think that we, as adults, forget that children crave intellectual freedom. Children crave the ability to think more than adults. A letter to Bloom highlights that need: Dear Judy, I don't know where I stand in the world. I don't know who I am. That's why I read, to find myself. Elizabeth, age 13.
Post a Comment