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?
