In the midst of current economic, political and environmental uncertainties what is the responsibility of libraries and librarians in promoting and informing the conversation? Can/should libraries remain neutral on issues related to community progress?
This is no easy question to answer, and it is no easy question to be answered because it has been answered differently by librarians throughout history. Vestiges of these answers remain and are often in conflict with one another. Because the major topic to be discussed is the function of libraries in aiding community progress, it is necessary to look back at how the core value of Intellectual Freedom has evolved throughout the past 100 years.
The Progress of Intellectual Freedom
"In 1896, The American Library Association sponsored a roundtable discussion on contemporary fiction. Controversy centered around several contemporary authors of the naturalist school. More than half the librarians present agreed that Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage and The Damnation of Theron Ware should not be included in the next ALA Catalog supplement. In keeping with this attitude, authors like Zola, Daudet, and de Maupassant were not cited in either the 1893 Catalog or its 1904 Supplement.
“Because the ideology of reading dictated the exclusion of bad reading as well as the inclusion of good reading, turn-of-the-century public librarians willingly assumed the role of censor as a part of their professional credo. St. Louis Public Library Director Arthur Bostwick had no reservations about using the word censor in the title of his presidential address before the American Library Association in 1908. The values and attitudes that gave rise to adoption of a 'Library Bill of Rights' by ALA in 1939 had not yet evolved in the first decade of the twentieth century." Wiegand, Wayne. An Active Instrument for Propaganda: The American Public Library During World War I, 1989, p. 4.
“[David K.] Berninghausen shared Higgins’s judgment that librarians did not embrace intellectual freedom as a tenet of the profession. If pressures to censor occurred in their libraries, most librarians quietly acquiesced. . . . Librarians, Berninghausen stated, ‘must protest against all attempts at censorship and all legislation or acts of government which could threaten intellectual freedom . . . The time for deliberate, well-directed, constructive action by the American Library Association has come.’” Robbins, Louise S. Censorship and the American Library: The American Library Association’s Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939-1969. 1996, pp.29-33
“The Subcommittee on Social Responsibilities of the American Library Association (ALA) issued a report in January 1970 arguing that “if libraries exist to promote the progress of meaningful democracy, then the apparently nonlibrary problems of the disadvantaged, and more acutely the problems that cause disadvantage, are library problems. They have an information component. Libraries have a role to play in helping communities reach ‘a state of political effectiveness where they can demand proper, self-tailored library services and be sure of getting it’” (Raber 2007, 684-5). Taken from “Radical Reference: Socially Responsible Librarianship Collaborating With Community” Reference Librarian; Oct-Dec2009, Vol. 50 Issue 4, p371-396, 26p
“In the November 1972 issue of Library Journal, he (David K. Berninghausen) published ‘Social responsibility vs. the Library Bill of Rights,’ which was immediately followed up by nineteen rejoinders gathered together as ‘The Berninghausen debate’ in January 1973. Berninghausen advanced his first major premise by stating that the raison d’etre of ALA is, among other things, not any of the following:
1. To eradicate racial injustice and inequities and to promote human brotherhood
2. To stop the pollution of air, earth, and sea
3. To build a United Nations capable of preventing all wars
“’Vital as these issues are, it is not the purpose of ALA to take positions as to how men must resolve them [emphasis in the original].’ Interestingly, Berninghausen failed to explain the actual purpose of ALA, and, given the nature of the debate, the purpose of the ALA did not go without saying. Further, Berninghausen’s assertion begged the question: if it were not the purpose of ALA to take a stand on social issues such as those mentioned above, then just whose purpose was it? As Betty-Carol Sellen, one of the rejoinder authors, explained: ‘if librarians decide that the issues vital to society are irrelevant to librarians as librarians, then society may find that librarians are irrelevant to it.’” Joyce, Steven. “A Few Gates Redux: An examination of the Social Responsibilities Debate in the Early 1970s and 1990s.” Questioning Library Neutrality, 2008, pp. 42-43.
Jason Openo, BA, MLIS
Manager, Whitemud Crossing Branch
Edmonton Public Library
Posts
