Reflections from the Chair

Melora Ranney Norman

As I approach the end of my term as IFRT Chair, it's time to reflect on who we are and what we have accomplished, both within the round table and as part of the IF community.

Our web site says:

The Intellectual Freedom Round Table (IFRT) is a forum for discussion of intellectual freedom issues for libraries and librarians, and a channel of communication on intellectual freedom matters.

This year, our committees have chosen recipients for our awards. Two of them, the Oboler and Immroth, are named after former chairs; then, there are the SIRS-ProQuest State and Regional Intellectual Freedom Achievement Awards.

We've planned our annual conference program and laid the groundwork for next year's; explored and developed partnerships with other units; published this report; publicized the Merritt Fund; and participated in discussions on the IFRT e-list.

These are worthy accomplishments--and they are part of a proud heritage.

In the past few months, I've had the occasion to experience the amazing depth and breadth of our profession's wisdom on intellectual freedom twice: as acting IFRT liaison to the annual Spring IFC meeting, where we reviewed the Intellectual Freedom Manual and as chair of an effort to form a New England Library Association IFC.

The Library Bill of Rights . . . Freedom to Read Statement . . . Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records . . . Libraries: An American Value . . . it is a privilege to find oneself in the presence of such depth of thought and professionalism, as in the very first line of The Library Bill of Rights:

"Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves."

How often we hear the words "the community" invoked as a reason to censor. We are told "the community" disapproves of something and wants us to hide it from view.

However, it strikes me as perfect that the very first line of policy in our primary IF document highlights that the interests of "all people of the community" are important--not just the majority, or the vocal minority.

These documents tell us that even those individuals who cannot find the courage to speak up about it when their interests are denied or devalued are to be championed and protected by librarians. Even young people who are curious. Even people who don't think to ask why when a message flashes "access denied."

How do we best serve a society overwhelmed by information--besieged, beset, intruded upon by pop-up ads and unwanted email?

If librarians want to stay relevant, we have to redefine our niche. To help people overwhelmed by data, we can:

            Recommend good sources

            Teach information literacy skills

            Provide intuitive access points and descriptors

These are not new--but in some ways, the environment is. Where do we go from here?

The Intellectual Freedom Manual begins with the Library Bill of Rights . . . and ends with the Code of Ethics, which states:

VII. We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.

"We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties . . ." what a task!

Can any of us believe that it is our professional duty to censor the information that comes into the library based upon our personal convictions? Can any of us believe that just because our personal convictions seem to be in line with the opinions of a moral majority (or a vocal minority) in the community, that we can and should pass moral judgement upon the interests of some of our patrons? Are we gatekeepers as well as providers?

"The government's interest in library use reflects a dangerous and fallacious equation of what a person reads with what that person believes or how that person is likely to behave." (From Policy concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library Users)

We are not what we read or view. Murder mysteries are wildly popular in all formats--but the vast majority of people who like them are quite harmless.

If librarians don't remind themselves of this constantly, we can fall into a trap, because we do in fact have the opportunity every day to be gatekeepers and control information – to censor, suppress, judge; to inflict our own personal preferences upon others.

Here's another excerpt from an ethics statement:

I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, political beliefs, aspirations, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminals, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities. From Law Enforcement Code of Ethics (revised, 1991) <http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/cje/html/lece-r.html>

Police enforce the law; in doing so, they must sometimes use force. Their ethics statements remind them that because power corrupts, the use of force may sometimes lead to violence, which must be avoided at all costs.

Librarians provide information; in doing so, they must sometimes make selections. Their ethics statements remind them that because power corrupts, their use of personal judgement in selecting information may sometimes lead to censorship, which must be avoided at all costs.

Are any of us perfect?

Of course not.

However, we can--and do--create documents that remind us of our ideals, and that inspire us to do the best we can.

To quote Carrie Gardner, past chair of IFRT, we can think of our association as "The North Star"-- to guide us; to light our way.