Competency A
"Articulate the ethics, values and foundational principles of library and information professionals and their role in the promotion of intellectual freedom."
Introduction
As the nine year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center approached in 2010, Dove World Outreach Center, a nondenominational Christian church, in Florida planned to burn the Quran as a form of protest (Russell, 2010). While controversy swirled around both the free speech and hate crime fronts and the probable danger to military personnel overseas in Islamic countries, the president of the American Library Association (ALA) released this statement, “‘Free people read freely…That is a fundamental principle of the American Constitution and a basic mission of public libraries. We don’t burn books, we read them’” (Kniffel, 2010). Librarians planned a public reading of the Quran in front of the ALA headquarters in Chicago in protest against the Dove World Outreach Center’s planned book burning. The plan for the burning was eventually disbanded.
The Quran burning is but one example of the many censorship attempts that have been condemned by librarians.
In May 1933, Nazis and German students burned “un-German” books. Many Americans responded with outcry over the burnings. An essay by curator Guy Stern (1985), in which he writes about the groups of people who kept the Nazi book burnings on the consciousness of the American public over the years, reads:
The librarians of American were, if anything, even more unforgetting and relentless in condemning the destruction of the books. Writing in 1940 in the American Library Association Bulletin Flora B. Ludington drew, in her article "Books and the Sword—Symbols of our Time" an anatomy of the "indoctrinated" German libraries and librarians, but used "the infamous burning of twenty-five thousand books" as her point of departure. Another librarian, Fanny Goldstein of the West End Branch of the Boston Public Libraries addressed herself repeatedly to the subject of the book burning, inserting rare emotions into historical surveys of past bibliocaust: "Hitler's fanaticism has rendered extermination policies and autos-da-fé of the past but a smoke curtain," she wrote in the Boston Globe and added similar pejoratives against Germany's new rulers in an essay for the B'nai Brith Magazine. (Stern, 1985)
In the Cold War era, censorship attempts were also made against communist writings or the works of those who were accused or considered to be “un-American.” Librarians also responded with outcry. In 1953, during the McCarthy era, the Freedom to Read statement was adopted by the American Library Association and the organization currently known as the Association of American Publishers; it was last amended in 2004. The document concludes:
We here stake out a lofty claim for the value of the written word. We do so because we believe that it is possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society. Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours. (ALA, 2011a).
The corollary to the Freedom to Read statement, the Freedom to View statement was first adopted by the ALA and the organization currently known as the American Film and Video Association in 1979 (ALA, 2011b).
As members of the library profession, we hold a deeply-rooted belief that people should be able to read or view materials from all viewpoints if they so choose. The primary purpose of the library profession is to provide communities with the materials and tools to access information to help people imagine, expand their knowledge base, and allow them make their own, informed decisions. If knowledge is power, as librarians who choose, organize, and manage information, our role is also one of immense power and must be guided by ethical principles and a belief in the free flow of information to allow our communities to flourish. Indeed, the ALA Code of Ethics, which was first adopted in 1939 and most recently amended in 2008, reads, “We significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom to access of information” (ALA, 2011c).
The Library Bill of Rights, first adopted by the ALA in 1939 and most recently amended in 1996, supports anti-censorship efforts and policies, strives to provide people with materials which “present all points of view” and opportunities for groups, regardless of their beliefs or ideas, to meet in community rooms available in libraries. The Library Bill of Rights indicates that “[a] person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views” (ALA, 2011d).
These documents also express our duty to protect the privacy and confidentiality of library users. We must protect their reading and Internet usage records and reference interactions from forces that seek to embarrass or infringe upon the rights of people to read and view information. The Code of Ethics reads, “We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted” (ALA, 2011c).
Evidence
As evidence for meeting competency A, I am submitting assignments from LIBR 200 Information and Society, LIBR 204 Information Organizations and Management, and LIBR 210 Reference and Information Services.
LIBR 200: Internet Filtering Discussion Post
The content of LIBR 200 focused on teaching students about the “roles and responsibilities of information organizations and the values and ethics of information professionals.” Class assignments involved a number of readings and discussions about different library foundational principles and topics, including information policies, ethics and standards, and Internet filtering. In regards to internet filtering, the discussion question posed to the class asked for our perspective of the issues involved—“What do you find to be the most persuasive arguments for or against [I]nternet filtering in a public library setting?” My response at the time, in light of reading sections of the ALA Policy Manual, the Library Bill of Rights, and a report by Houton-Jan that indicates that in California there is no legal definition of pornography, was black and white—Internet filtering “undermines information seeking” and does not have a place in public library terminals.
Real world library environments, however, do not operate in such restricted terms. There are many social, political, and economic pressures to protect children from harm. Richard Rubin (2004) presents a four-part framework to help librarians guide their decisions, which includes balancing social utility, survival, social responsibility, and respect for the individual. Our instructor explained that in regard to social utility, web access “is an important facet” for meeting “the educational, informational and recreational needs of the community” in today’s world, but that conflicts about limiting specific content, such as pornography, do arise. Regarding survival, sometimes libraries may be faced with funding cuts by the community “unless particular materials or services are curtailed or eliminated.” Social responsibility is related to the library’s mission as an organization designed for the public good. If the library is “recognized as a champion for literacy and for providing a safe environment which encourages children to learn to read… the library may take steps to block certain Internet content….that endangers the learning environment, especially for children. Finally, the fourth factor asserts that individuals must be treated with respect and dignity. In our filtering scenario, an individual's right to privacy might require privacy screens at particular monitors to meet the general public's needs and attempts to balance competing interests” (Boyd, 2010).
LIBR 204: Management Case Study Scenario on Ethics
While LIBR 200 focused on the foundational principles in the library and information science profession, LIBR 204 focused on basic management principles in library and information science settings in which ethical situations can and do arise. Throughout the course, I worked on a team with three other students on a variety of projects. One assignment called for us to compose a management scenario for another group to analyze and present what they would do as managers in the situation. For our scenario, we based it on the real-life story of a library in Massachusetts which was informed by the FBI that the group planning to meet on its premises was a white supremacist group with a history of violence from its members and protestors of the group. While we changed the name of the library and the names of library employees and did not include the name of the controversial group, the background information we included in our scenario is intact. In the scenario, we painted a picture of the conflicting values: upholding the white supremacist groups’ First Amendment rights and right to meet in libraries while also providing the community with access to library services the day the meeting was to be held. This library decided that the day of the meeting, the library would be closed to the public. After the meeting, library management discussed how the situation could have been handled better. We posed three questions to the group assigned to our scenario to answer.
By researching this dilemma, my teammates and I closely read the various documents that guide the library profession’s stance for free expression, legal rights, and also read many library policies which require that groups using meeting rooms pay a fee or provide proof of insurance that covers any and all damage to library facilities. Some policies even indicate that meetings that disrupt normal services will not be permitted. This scenario, in particular, shows that where free expression/censorship is concerned, it is not always an easy, clear value to uphold in real library settings.
LIBR 210: Privacy and Confidentiality in Digital Reference Discussion Post
In LIBR 210, one unit focused on ethical concerns that occur in reference interactions. In the unit, we were given many issues to consider, such as the balance between “protect[ing] the right of access or to protect individuals/society from harm; issues related to equity of access to information [charging fees for services]; [whether it is] ever appropriate to violate the confidentiality or privacy of library patrons; [and whether] children have the same rights to information as adults” (Simmons, 2011).
One of the readings assigned for the unit was Paul Nehaus’ (2003) article “Privacy and Confidentiality in Digital Reference.” Although the article is a little dated in regard to the technological aspects of software programs (the author also points out this time-sensitivity), Nehaus poses many concerns librarians should have with regard to the privacy of library users and confidentiality of library records. For the unit’s discussion assignment, I connected Nehaus’ article to an article by Brice Austin (2004) I had read in LIBR 200 that discussed arguments for whether the library profession should enjoy a privileged relationship with library users as doctors share with their patients and lawyers share with their clients.
References
ALA. (2011a). Freedom to read statement. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.cfm
ALA. (2011b). Freedom to view statement. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/rts/vrt/professionalresources/vrtresources/freedomtoview.cfm
ALA. (2011c). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm
ALA. (2011d). Library bill of rights. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/index.cfm
Austin, B. (2004). Should there be “privilege” in the relationship between reference librarian and patron? The Reference Librarian, 87/88, 301-311.
Boyd, R. (2010). Week 9 ethics & standards_Professional practices in library and information science [Lecture notes].
Kniffel, L. (2010, Sept. 8). Fighting fire with free speech: ALA will protest book burning with 9/11 Qur'an reading. American Libraries. Retrieved from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/inside-scoop/fighting-fire-free-speech-ala-will-protest-book-burning-911-quran-reading
Neuhaus, P. (2003). Privacy and confidentiality in digital reference. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43(1), 26-36.
Rubin, R.E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.
Russell, L. (2010, July 30). Church plans Quran-burning event. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07- 29/us/florida.burn.quran.day_1_quran-burning-florida-church-terry-jones-american-muslims-religion?_s=PM:US
Simmons, M.H. (2011). Lesson 7 [Lecture notes].
Stern, G. (1985). The book burning, the exiles, the American public. Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/bookburning/stern1.php
As the nine year anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center approached in 2010, Dove World Outreach Center, a nondenominational Christian church, in Florida planned to burn the Quran as a form of protest (Russell, 2010). While controversy swirled around both the free speech and hate crime fronts and the probable danger to military personnel overseas in Islamic countries, the president of the American Library Association (ALA) released this statement, “‘Free people read freely…That is a fundamental principle of the American Constitution and a basic mission of public libraries. We don’t burn books, we read them’” (Kniffel, 2010). Librarians planned a public reading of the Quran in front of the ALA headquarters in Chicago in protest against the Dove World Outreach Center’s planned book burning. The plan for the burning was eventually disbanded.
The Quran burning is but one example of the many censorship attempts that have been condemned by librarians.
In May 1933, Nazis and German students burned “un-German” books. Many Americans responded with outcry over the burnings. An essay by curator Guy Stern (1985), in which he writes about the groups of people who kept the Nazi book burnings on the consciousness of the American public over the years, reads:
The librarians of American were, if anything, even more unforgetting and relentless in condemning the destruction of the books. Writing in 1940 in the American Library Association Bulletin Flora B. Ludington drew, in her article "Books and the Sword—Symbols of our Time" an anatomy of the "indoctrinated" German libraries and librarians, but used "the infamous burning of twenty-five thousand books" as her point of departure. Another librarian, Fanny Goldstein of the West End Branch of the Boston Public Libraries addressed herself repeatedly to the subject of the book burning, inserting rare emotions into historical surveys of past bibliocaust: "Hitler's fanaticism has rendered extermination policies and autos-da-fé of the past but a smoke curtain," she wrote in the Boston Globe and added similar pejoratives against Germany's new rulers in an essay for the B'nai Brith Magazine. (Stern, 1985)
In the Cold War era, censorship attempts were also made against communist writings or the works of those who were accused or considered to be “un-American.” Librarians also responded with outcry. In 1953, during the McCarthy era, the Freedom to Read statement was adopted by the American Library Association and the organization currently known as the Association of American Publishers; it was last amended in 2004. The document concludes:
We here stake out a lofty claim for the value of the written word. We do so because we believe that it is possessed of enormous variety and usefulness, worthy of cherishing and keeping free. We realize that the application of these propositions may mean the dissemination of ideas and manners of expression that are repugnant to many persons. We do not state these propositions in the comfortable belief that what people read is unimportant. We believe rather that what people read is deeply important; that ideas can be dangerous; but that the suppression of ideas is fatal to a democratic society. Freedom itself is a dangerous way of life, but it is ours. (ALA, 2011a).
The corollary to the Freedom to Read statement, the Freedom to View statement was first adopted by the ALA and the organization currently known as the American Film and Video Association in 1979 (ALA, 2011b).
As members of the library profession, we hold a deeply-rooted belief that people should be able to read or view materials from all viewpoints if they so choose. The primary purpose of the library profession is to provide communities with the materials and tools to access information to help people imagine, expand their knowledge base, and allow them make their own, informed decisions. If knowledge is power, as librarians who choose, organize, and manage information, our role is also one of immense power and must be guided by ethical principles and a belief in the free flow of information to allow our communities to flourish. Indeed, the ALA Code of Ethics, which was first adopted in 1939 and most recently amended in 2008, reads, “We significantly influence or control the selection, organization, preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom to access of information” (ALA, 2011c).
The Library Bill of Rights, first adopted by the ALA in 1939 and most recently amended in 1996, supports anti-censorship efforts and policies, strives to provide people with materials which “present all points of view” and opportunities for groups, regardless of their beliefs or ideas, to meet in community rooms available in libraries. The Library Bill of Rights indicates that “[a] person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views” (ALA, 2011d).
These documents also express our duty to protect the privacy and confidentiality of library users. We must protect their reading and Internet usage records and reference interactions from forces that seek to embarrass or infringe upon the rights of people to read and view information. The Code of Ethics reads, “We protect each library user's right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted” (ALA, 2011c).
Evidence
As evidence for meeting competency A, I am submitting assignments from LIBR 200 Information and Society, LIBR 204 Information Organizations and Management, and LIBR 210 Reference and Information Services.
LIBR 200: Internet Filtering Discussion Post
The content of LIBR 200 focused on teaching students about the “roles and responsibilities of information organizations and the values and ethics of information professionals.” Class assignments involved a number of readings and discussions about different library foundational principles and topics, including information policies, ethics and standards, and Internet filtering. In regards to internet filtering, the discussion question posed to the class asked for our perspective of the issues involved—“What do you find to be the most persuasive arguments for or against [I]nternet filtering in a public library setting?” My response at the time, in light of reading sections of the ALA Policy Manual, the Library Bill of Rights, and a report by Houton-Jan that indicates that in California there is no legal definition of pornography, was black and white—Internet filtering “undermines information seeking” and does not have a place in public library terminals.
Real world library environments, however, do not operate in such restricted terms. There are many social, political, and economic pressures to protect children from harm. Richard Rubin (2004) presents a four-part framework to help librarians guide their decisions, which includes balancing social utility, survival, social responsibility, and respect for the individual. Our instructor explained that in regard to social utility, web access “is an important facet” for meeting “the educational, informational and recreational needs of the community” in today’s world, but that conflicts about limiting specific content, such as pornography, do arise. Regarding survival, sometimes libraries may be faced with funding cuts by the community “unless particular materials or services are curtailed or eliminated.” Social responsibility is related to the library’s mission as an organization designed for the public good. If the library is “recognized as a champion for literacy and for providing a safe environment which encourages children to learn to read… the library may take steps to block certain Internet content….that endangers the learning environment, especially for children. Finally, the fourth factor asserts that individuals must be treated with respect and dignity. In our filtering scenario, an individual's right to privacy might require privacy screens at particular monitors to meet the general public's needs and attempts to balance competing interests” (Boyd, 2010).
LIBR 204: Management Case Study Scenario on Ethics
While LIBR 200 focused on the foundational principles in the library and information science profession, LIBR 204 focused on basic management principles in library and information science settings in which ethical situations can and do arise. Throughout the course, I worked on a team with three other students on a variety of projects. One assignment called for us to compose a management scenario for another group to analyze and present what they would do as managers in the situation. For our scenario, we based it on the real-life story of a library in Massachusetts which was informed by the FBI that the group planning to meet on its premises was a white supremacist group with a history of violence from its members and protestors of the group. While we changed the name of the library and the names of library employees and did not include the name of the controversial group, the background information we included in our scenario is intact. In the scenario, we painted a picture of the conflicting values: upholding the white supremacist groups’ First Amendment rights and right to meet in libraries while also providing the community with access to library services the day the meeting was to be held. This library decided that the day of the meeting, the library would be closed to the public. After the meeting, library management discussed how the situation could have been handled better. We posed three questions to the group assigned to our scenario to answer.
By researching this dilemma, my teammates and I closely read the various documents that guide the library profession’s stance for free expression, legal rights, and also read many library policies which require that groups using meeting rooms pay a fee or provide proof of insurance that covers any and all damage to library facilities. Some policies even indicate that meetings that disrupt normal services will not be permitted. This scenario, in particular, shows that where free expression/censorship is concerned, it is not always an easy, clear value to uphold in real library settings.
LIBR 210: Privacy and Confidentiality in Digital Reference Discussion Post
In LIBR 210, one unit focused on ethical concerns that occur in reference interactions. In the unit, we were given many issues to consider, such as the balance between “protect[ing] the right of access or to protect individuals/society from harm; issues related to equity of access to information [charging fees for services]; [whether it is] ever appropriate to violate the confidentiality or privacy of library patrons; [and whether] children have the same rights to information as adults” (Simmons, 2011).
One of the readings assigned for the unit was Paul Nehaus’ (2003) article “Privacy and Confidentiality in Digital Reference.” Although the article is a little dated in regard to the technological aspects of software programs (the author also points out this time-sensitivity), Nehaus poses many concerns librarians should have with regard to the privacy of library users and confidentiality of library records. For the unit’s discussion assignment, I connected Nehaus’ article to an article by Brice Austin (2004) I had read in LIBR 200 that discussed arguments for whether the library profession should enjoy a privileged relationship with library users as doctors share with their patients and lawyers share with their clients.
References
ALA. (2011a). Freedom to read statement. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/ftrstatement/freedomreadstatement.cfm
ALA. (2011b). Freedom to view statement. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/mgrps/rts/vrt/professionalresources/vrtresources/freedomtoview.cfm
ALA. (2011c). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm
ALA. (2011d). Library bill of rights. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/index.cfm
Austin, B. (2004). Should there be “privilege” in the relationship between reference librarian and patron? The Reference Librarian, 87/88, 301-311.
Boyd, R. (2010). Week 9 ethics & standards_Professional practices in library and information science [Lecture notes].
Kniffel, L. (2010, Sept. 8). Fighting fire with free speech: ALA will protest book burning with 9/11 Qur'an reading. American Libraries. Retrieved from http://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/inside-scoop/fighting-fire-free-speech-ala-will-protest-book-burning-911-quran-reading
Neuhaus, P. (2003). Privacy and confidentiality in digital reference. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 43(1), 26-36.
Rubin, R.E. (2004). Foundations of library and information science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Neal-Schuman.
Russell, L. (2010, July 30). Church plans Quran-burning event. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07- 29/us/florida.burn.quran.day_1_quran-burning-florida-church-terry-jones-american-muslims-religion?_s=PM:US
Simmons, M.H. (2011). Lesson 7 [Lecture notes].
Stern, G. (1985). The book burning, the exiles, the American public. Retrieved from http://www.ushmm.org/museum/exhibit/online/bookburning/stern1.php
Files
Below are the files to my pieces of evidence.
LIBR_200_internet_filtering.pdf | |
File Size: | 70 kb |
File Type: |
LIBR_204_management_case_study_scenario_on_ethics.pdf | |
File Size: | 97 kb |
File Type: |
LIBR_210_privacy_and_confidentiality_discussion_post.pdf | |
File Size: | 89 kb |
File Type: |