In order to survive one must have a plan and I think
it is not only insightful, it is necessary (Asato, 2011). I’m not sure how often censorship matters
come up in the public library setting today.
When I was working in a public library, we didn’t have many
controversies, at least ones I can remeber.
However, as I posted previously, the Fifty Shades of Grey caused quite a
stir in some Florida counties this past year.
So it may be easy to say “I would stand for intellectual
freedom,” but could we today as we navigate our lives during the worst financial
crisis in generations? It’s a point
worth thinking about for our institutions and ourselves. We have mortgages, car payments. Some of us have children. We all have bills to pay. Would we really be expected to lose our jobs
over a Fifty Shades of Grey? Would we be
willing to sacrifice public funding over Fifty Shades of Grey? Is this book “important” enough or do we pick
our battles and wait for “better literature”?
We can look to the past for guidance. Two areas of censorship are fascinating and possibly
quite disturbing. The first occurred
immediately after World War II in response to the growing “Red Scare” and the
rise of McCarthyism. The second involves
the post-9/11 threat and the removal of GPO documents.
During the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the New York Public
Library and its librarians often came under attack because of the content of
its holdings or because of some associations it had with scholars (Francoeur,
2011). The library was able to weather
these storms and “survive” by taking a pragmatic approach. When its personnel was attacked using
“red-baiting techniques” it vigorously defended them. Many times, however, when general attacks
were levied in the press, it would use the influence of its powerful board
members to obtain relief, usually through retractions. When interest groups challenged its holdings,
the NYPL would hide behind bureaucratic language in giving a vague
response. Lastly, when controversy
appeared to be on the horizon, the NYPL would quietly change its conduct to
avoid drawing its attention to itself and its “questionable” holdings
(Francoeur, 2011).
So in this drastically repressive age, the NYPL survived by
being flexible. It should be noted that
the library never destroyed or banned any of its “questionable” material. It just hid them.
More recently are our experiences with the USA PATRIOT Act
(USAPA). After the events of 9/11, the
federal government sought expanded surveillance powers. In casting its net, the USAPA targeted
libraries as an area of concern because of the availability of computer
terminals for public use and the nature of the library as a repository of
information, some of it governmental.
Libraries were uniquely aware of such situations after the
problems with the Library Awareness Program
(Matz, 2008). They challenged
such governmental invasions of privacy as required by the ALA Code of Ethics
(ALA, 1996, 2004, 2008). In 2002, the
ALA had adopted guidelines for dealing with government requests for
information. When the ALA raised issues
with the USAPA, Attorney general John Ashcroft dismissed them as “breathless
reports and baseless hysteria” (Matz, 2008, p. 77).
Unfortunately, in 2005, breathless and hysterical librarians
in Connecticut were issued with a request for information that included a gag
order, prohibiting them from discussing the case or even the fact that they
were litigants in Doe v. Gonzales, the style of the case after the Connecticut
library consortium decided to challenge the request. Eventually the consortium was successful in
court.
The response of the Connecticut library consortium was
helped by the fact that the ALA had guidelines in place for government requests
and had been constantly educating its membership regarding the USAPA. It took a lot of personal courage by the
librarians because if they violated the gag order, they were subject to
criminal penalties (Matz, 2008).
However, could we do the same if the stakes were not so
high? What if it didn’t involve such
weighty constitutional issues? Would we
be willing to lose our jobs for a romance novel? Perhaps the answer isn’t black and white, but
“grey”.
References
American Library Association. (1996). Library Bill of
Rights, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/ intfreedom/librarybill, accessed on
November 7, 2012.
American Library Association. (2004). Core values of
librarianship,
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/statementspols/corevaluesstatement/corevalues,
accessed on November 17, 2012.
American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the
American Library Association,
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics, accessed on
November 17, 2012.
Asato, N. (2011). The Origins of the Freedom to Read
Foundation: Public Librarians' Campaign to Establish a Legal Defense against
Library Censorship. Public Library Quarterly, 30(4), 286-306.
doi:10.1080/01616846.2011.625598
Francoeur, S. (2011). Prudence and Controversy: The New York
Public Library Response to Post-War Anti-Communist Pressures. Library &
Information History, 27(3), 140-160.
Matz, C. (2008). Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act: Values
in Conflict. Journal Of Library Administration, 47(3/4), 69-87.
No comments:
Post a Comment