Lis 701 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 1

LIS 701 Introduction to Library & Information Science Professor: Diane Velasquez Final Research Paper Wade Stewart Fall 2008

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 2

With my final research assignment in an Introduction to Library and Information Science, I will “demonstrate an understanding of the philosophies, practices, and theories of library and information science that incorporates an awareness of the legacies, values, and ethical responsibilities of libraries and the information professions.” The premise of this paper is a discussion on censorship and intellectual freedom issues that continue to challenge the public library to this day. By providing a context on censorship, I will be able to examine what the most significant aspects of the issues are as it relates to professional practice, thus identifying a range of possible responses and solutions. Finally, through evaluation and analysis, I will establish a set of recommendations and solutions, which I would fully advocate. In order to gain the full spectrum of beliefs on censorship and intellectual freedom as it relates to the public library system, I will examine journal articles and books from both sides of the argument. By juxtaposing conflicting opinions with that of the American Library Association’s (ALA) “Bill of Rights” and the “Intellectual Freedom Manual,” I will gain a sense of what professional values and ethics inform various perspectives on the issue within the profession. While my paper will primarily focus on the aspects of censorship in public libraries, it is important to also discuss the over arching theme within this debate: the validity of intellectual freedom and what we, as librarians, must do to ensure its survival at all costs. One of the most difficult facets of being a librarian is the task of protecting intellectual freedom given its seemingly endless controversy. It is our duty to hinder and prevent censorship in libraries while also promoting absolute intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, these ideas seem to be lost on those who view censorship in a positive light or as a necessary evil. These issues stem from conflicting moral, ethical, personal, social, and legal responsibilities that serve to

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 3

either restrict or encourage access to library materials, completely dependent on which side of the issue ones resides (Rubin, 2004). It is easy to understand how one’s own personal values could lean towards the restriction of access to information or the self proclaimed need to maintain the values of the community and society at large. Perhaps it lies within the necessity to protect children from the dangers of unfiltered information or the belief that this is the only way to safeguard the library from a standpoint of survival. As librarians in a democratic society we have been charged with the task of being the gatekeepers of information and ideas as well as absolute access to them. We also have an obligation to educate our children, which entails not shielding them from world. Swan (1986) argues that one of the library's primary missions and responsibilities is to protect access to information regardless of the political, moral, or ethical climate concerning the information being preserved. Ensuring access to information even that which is extremely controversial is an important mission and value for all librarians to uphold. According to Rubin (2004), the “content” of an item is generally the sole reason we find censorship in the library. The typical content, which is challenged and/or censored, is usually information pertaining to sexual content, violence, religion (more likely anti-religious views), or anything that could be perceived as racist or xenophobic. One of the major sources of censorship stems from patrons challenging certain books or information items, which they deem inappropriate, offensive or detrimental to society. Alternatively, librarians too can be accused through a backdoor method, if you will, of censorship called selection. Asheim (1953) states that the issue of censorship verses selection lies not within the matter of a library not stocking a book that could not pass through customs or one that is considered illegal, but rather when a librarian,

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 4

through an act of personal judgment, refuses a book that has “every legal right to representation on the shelves” (¶ 5). Asheim (1953) uses the James Joyce novel, Ulysses, as a primary example of this debate, stating that through the act of government and law, prior to the 1930s, libraries could not stock the book, however, in 1933, the US courts cleared the work for general circulation, and yet librarians would make a collection related decision to not stock the book, citing selection. Asheim (1953) argues that selection “begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor or thought control” (¶ 28). My question is, as the guardians of information and the protectors of intellectual freedom, who are we to decide, even through the means of selection, what books we will shelve? I realize that there are space issues in libraries, but we should be concerned with making sure that we provide opposing viewpoints on all subjects. We cannot, through the act of selection or any other reason for that matter, choose against shelving something like Hitler’s Mein Kampf just because the ideas it contains are evil and dangerous. The justification, according to Asheim (1953), lies between selection, which is viewed as a positive and functions to find the value of the book, and censorship, which is seen as a negative and lacks any faith in the intelligence of the reader against ideas or values, different from ones own. So what, as librarians, can we do to protect our shelves from censorship and preserve the intellectual freedom that is essential to our democratic society? After all, in the case of the patron, it is their tax dollars, which breathe life into the library, so are we not at their mercy on the issue of what should and should not be in the library? These questions put us on a slippery slope but we have an obligation to defend and uphold the values of our profession.

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 5

Maloney and Morgan (2001) see the public libraries primary impasse is not necessarily that of old fashioned censorship, but rather the difficulties in balancing access to legal materials on the internet while still restricting the access to that which is illegal. While Internet access is more of an intellectual freedom issue, it certainly has major effects upon current day censorship. By examining the role of the public library in regards to providing information to the public and the role that information plays in a democracy, Maloney and Morgan (2001), discuss the practical realities that the public library system faces and how libraries walk a fine line between protecting the rights of the patron while also the rights to receive information. Time and time again the central focus of the access to information argument continuously returns to the to the following concern: children. Maloney and Morgan state that libraries are constantly juggling the prevention of infringement of the First Amendment and compliance with provisions of the law. Maloney and Morgan (2001) view technology, in the realm of intellectual freedom, as a constitutional solution. However, Johnson (2007), an avid supporter of the “not censorship but selection” issue, believes that our profession is trying to stand up for a single title rather than defending what he views as a reasonable and open process from selecting and retaining materials in the library. Johnson’s position is that censoring books through the concept of selection is completely valid so long as due process has been followed in the decision-making. Johnson (2007) outlines a series of ideas, which he believes should be the way that professionals deal with the selection of and potential censorship of information: 1. That all materials challenged or is up for selection has been read and reviewed. 2. That all materials be selected based on their organization’s selection policy and that also considers the philosophy of the community, value of the book itself, resources relative to controversial issues, resources representative of the many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups in the community, and finally placing principle above opinion and reason above prejudice.

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 6

3. That all materials only be selected based on authoritative and reliable review sources 4. That if they are asked to remove an item, that they will do so under the policies of that organization. 5. That once a resource has been selected, its use must not be restricted. Johnson (2007) argues that the library has lost its fundamental understandings of selection, reconsideration, and intellectual freedom, however, it also seems that he wishes to live in a world where selection is not censorship. Oppenheim and Smith (2004) view the relationship between librarians and censorship as disconcerting because information professionals generally think that access to information, regardless of content or conflict with their own personal values, should be provided at all costs. The complexity of the issue arises in the obligation of the librarian to the communities, patrons, and governing bodies that they serve and are funded by. Oppenheim and Smith (2004) believes that collection management and the legal aspects of information is the most problematic and that public librarians have not always supported access for all and/or to all publications. Oppenheim and Smith (2004) label librarians as having “been as irrational and discriminatory as other censors and at times for the same uncomfortable reason: personal taste, as well as submitting to the practice of censorship due to pressure from external bodies” (p. 159). Oppenheim and Smith (2004) address censorship by explaining the two types of censorship such as “regulative” censorship and “constitutive or existential” censorship. They define regulative censorship as a means to stop the expression of ideas, which are perceived as threatening or detrimental to the principles or standards of religion, personal morality or even protection of the state (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004). It is said that this is the most common and visible form of censorship. On the other hand, constitutive or existential censorship, according to Oppenheim and Smith (2004), is tacit and therefore more disturbing because those in power invoke censorship to “create, secure, and maintain their control and by monopolistic domination

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 7

in which the public access to some forms of knowledge and information is either subverted or denied” (p. 160). From there the debate goes even deeper into the arena of censorship, discussing two different arguments within the subject: 1) whether censorship should exist or not and 2) that censorship must exist but is over what should be censored and in what way it should be applied (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004). Perhaps the biggest epiphany that Oppenheim and Smith (2004) offer is that censorship is an infinite problem and that rather than going away, it just changes its form. They believe that we, as librarians, should aim to create a greater awareness that all information is and should be accessible to everyone. In a juxtaposition of the ideas of Maloney and Morgan, Johnson, and Oppenheim and Smith with that of the ALA’s Bill of Rights and the Intellectual Freedom Manual librarians can develop professional values and ethics, which serve to inform the various perspectives on censorship in our profession, both from the outside and within. The ALA’s Bill of Rights states that, “all libraries are forums for information and ideas.” The ALA drafted the following basic articles to guide service and protect the greater good of the library and the information it holds: 1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation. 2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval. 3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment. 4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas. 5. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views. 6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 8

As librarians we must cherish and protect those policies. They are the lifeblood of our establishment. I strongly feel that anyone who’s personal values in any way conflicts with the six articles above should not be a librarian. Hitchcock (2005), in an examination of the second article of the ALA Bill of Rights, states that the ambiguity of the article itself is a cause for concern because he claims it is “indefensible in theory and unusable in practice” (p. 2). Hitchcock (2005) asserts that the message the second article of the ALA Bill of Rights conveys is one that is puzzling. Not only does Hitchcock believe that the second article should be revised, but that it should be completely rewritten from scratch. However, I disagree with Hitchcock. The second article has the tendency to fail because we allow it to, either because we cave into the requests of the patron as the taxpayer or to our own personal principles, which could be a cause of conflict. Generally the issues of book challenges and censorship are in relation to children, but it is not the libraries responsibility to police what children are reading; that is the job of their parents/guardians and them alone. It is not our place to ask why a patron requests any given book. We, as librarians, cannot and should not distinguish between literature involving cars, homosexuals, modern American fiction or the Anarchist’ Cookbook. We are strictly the guardians of information. The Intellectual Freedom Manual, like that of the Bill of Rights, is another important doctrine of our profession. The manual’s aim is to provide answers to the practical questions that challenge librarians in the application of the principles of intellectual freedom to library service. The manual elucidates the meaning of intellectual freedom in library service and how the broad concept of intellectual freedom evolved from opposition to book censorship, presenting an overview of the issues and challenges we face today (ALA, 2006). Swan (1986) in order to illustrate the issues facing the mission of the modern library, juxtaposes defamation

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 9

suits, banned library exhibits and books, and historical positions on access to information with documents such as the Library's Bill of Rights and the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Manual. It is not a library’s purpose to determine truth and untruth but rather to be the stewards of information and to preserve the freedom of right to this knowledge. Complete knowledge of one’s idea of truth is derived from a full understanding of what is untruth (Swan, 1986). Above all else, over the opinions of Johnson and the convictions of Maloney and Morgan, I believe that Oppenheim and Smith best follow the ideals and principles that we, as librarians, must fight for. As a burgeoning librarian, in regards to censorship, Oppenheim and Smith best exemplify what I believe. They assert that, what is considered to be controversial changes with time, and the definition of censorship remains ambiguous…the role of the librarian is to facilitate access to information, be that controversial or not, and not to obstruct or hinder that access…the management of this can be difficult and cause conflict…it may also take public librarians outside of their environment and outside the public perception of the librarian (p. 169). We must at all costs create a greater awareness that all information is attainable and available to everyone, no matter the content or substance of the material and that we must sustain this belief with audible and visual action. It is important to the fight against censorship. I believe that the only solution to censorship is to buy into the convictions of the Library Bill of Rights and Intellectual Freedom and to protect it, just like the information within the walls of the library. Censorship, as Oppenheim and Smith state, will always challenge us in different shapes, sizes, and forms; however, it will only prevail if we let it.

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 10 References

ALA. (date). Intellectual Freedom Manual of the American Library Association. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/iftoolkits/ifmanual/intellectual.cfm ALA. (date). Library Bill of Rights of the American Library Association. Retrieved November 28, 2008, from http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cf m Arns, J. (2007, July). Challenges in governance: The leadership characteristics and behaviors valued by public library trustees in times of conflict and contention. Library Quarterly, 77(3), 287-310. Asheim, L. (1953). Not censorship but selection. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from http://staging.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/basics/notcensorship.cfm Bell, B. W. (2001). Filth, filtering, and the first amendment: Ruminations on public libraries’ use of internet filtering software. Federal Communications Law Journal, 53(2), 191-237. Hitchcock, L. (2005, April). An Examination of article two of the Library Bill of Rights. Public Library Quarterly, 24(2), 1-18. Johnson, D. (2007). Don’t defend that book. Library Media Connection, 26(1), 98. Jones, B. M. (1999). Libraries, access, and intellectual freedom: Developing policies for public and academic libraries. Chicago: American Library Association. Maloney, M. J., & Morgan, J. (2001). The public library’s dilemma in providing access to legal materials on the internet while restricting access to illegal materials. Hamline Law Review, 24(2), 199-223. Oppenheim, C., & Smith, V. (2004, October). Censorship in libraries. Information Services & Use, 24(4), 159-170. Rubin, R. (2004). Foundations of library and information science (2nd ed.). New York: NealSchuman Publishers, Inc. Swan, J. (1986, July). Untruth or consequences. Library Journal, 111(12), 44-52.

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart

p. 11

Wade: The paper was excellent. The paper was well researched and you did an excellent job in supporting your position. There were a few grammatical errors but nothing huge. There were some APA errors as can be seen above. ALA would be the author for the Library Bill of Rights and Intellectual Freedom Handbook. Journal volume numbers should be italicized. Two of your sources were not cited so they should not be on the reference list. Overall, awesome job. Paper grade: 14.5/15 Participation: 17/20 Course grade: 90% = AIt was great having you in class. Have a great holiday. Diane Velasquez

LIS 701-02

Final Research Paper