Intellectual Freedom is “[t]he right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution of any person to read or express views that may be unpopular or offensive to some people, within certain limitations (libel, slander, etc.)” (Reitz, 2010). The other notable legal limit on free speech is obscenity, defined as a work that, taken as a whole, includes offensive sexual content (according to community standards) and lacks serious literary or other merit (Preer, 2008). A few seminal American Library Association (ALA) and Canadian Library Association (CLA) documents define intellectual freedom in libraries. The application of intellectual freedom in libraries has been, and continues to be, a source of tension.
No matter the profession, “the essence of profession is service to society” (Preer, 2008, p. 3)—for the library profession, service has always been central, but the understanding of how best to serve society has evolved. Furthermore, while service is the most important ethical precept governing librarians, it is not the only precept, and other precepts inherently conflict with service. Professional codes define the meanings and practice of ethical precepts and help arbitrate when precepts conflict. An examination of the ethical codes of the American Library Association (ALA) and the Canadian Library Association (CLA) reveals the meaning of service in their constituent institutions.
The changing information technology available to society and shifting missions and institutional settings of libraries combine to determine the character of library service. Primordial librarians were bookkeepers for academic, religious, or political institutions (Rubin, 2004). The first ethical obligation in libraries was that of stewardship, protecting the collection from harm. Because the information technology of the time did not yet allow cheap printing and distribution of materials, the ethical precept of service, while existent, was necessarily subservient to that of stewardship (Preer, 2008). The invention of the printing press marked a fundamental shift in information technology, though it would take centuries before relatively inexpensive books became the norm. This new norm provoked the rise of new types of libraries in the United States (Rubin, 2004). In the 18th century, social libraries—formed “to assist self-improvement and the search for truth” (Rubin, 2004, p. 275)—and circulating libraries—with a mission to earn profit by distributing popular works—introduced the service models of education and meeting the public demand for entertaining materials, respectively (Rubin, 2004).
Continue reading Ethics Paper: On Service
I fell way behind on posting this semester, for reasons you might expect. Here are some of my comments from the course of the past few months–I need to rescue them before the courseware deletes them forever.
Continue reading Leftovers from Ethics class
I was thinking this morning about conflicts between ethical values and how they are resolved within librarianship. Preer emphatically states that, A, service IS access, and B, the profession completed this profound shift in values around the 1975 Statement on Ethics. My only problem with Preer’s narrative is the Determinism that underlies it. After [...]
I’m only a few weeks into this semester’s Ethics class but I have to say, I think it’s the single most important class I’ve taken. Jean Preer’s Library Ethics is an excellent primer on the topic. I wager I’ll have lots more to post in the coming months.
Some of my responses to Rubin’s chapter on ethics. All quotes from Rubin, R. E. (2004). Foundations of Library and Information Science (2nd ed.). New York: Neal-Schuman Publishers.
Ethics in Leadership
“Most of the time, librarians do not think consciously about the ethical ramifications of what they do. As with ethical conduct generally, our [...]