Has the library profession met Berninghausen’s challenge to defend free inquiry for library users with vigor and effectiveness? Over the past 30 years, the library profession has greatly expanded its efforts in the fight for in- tellectual freedom.
Berninghausen tells us that intellectual freedom for library users was conspicuously absent from the American Library Association’s1939 Code of Ethics for Librarians. In contrast, the 1975 and 1979 Draft Statements said that respect for intellectual freedom should guide the library profession, as the library profession carries special obligations and responsibilities.
Berninghausen left us with a challenge to write a Code of Ethics that would declare it unethical for librarians to exclude expressions of beliefs or values with which they disagree. He went further by saying that librarians should not only avoid exclusion, but should affirmatively ensure equal access to
expression regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it. The very first responsibility of librarians, he wrote, is to provide users full and free access so that they may make individual judgments.
Castagna surveys the problems of censorship and intellectual freedom from ancient times through 1971. He notes that librarians in the United States dealt with censorship mostly on an individual basis until the late 1930s, when the American Library Association (ALA) first made intellectual freedom a major official concern for the organization.
Castagna then outlines the development of the ALA’s official actions: the Library Bill of Rights, the Intellectual Freedom Committee, theNewsletter on Intellectual Freedom, the Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF). These endeavors were largely in their infancy when Castagna described them in 1971. This section looks at their progress since that time.
A. American Library Association’s Code of Ethics
Does today’s American Library Association’s Code of Ethics meet Bern- inghausen’s challenge? Today’s Code (American Library Association, 1995), states as Article II:
II. We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources.
This text may not go as far as Berninghausen implored. Although it es- tablishes a defensive posture to censorship, it does not set forth a proactive responsibility to assure a diversity of viewpoints. Nevertheless, it forms a foundation that is supplemented by the Library Bill of Rights, its inter- pretations, and related statements.
Additionally, the Code expands on the privacy provision of the 1939 Code of Ethics for Librarians, which reads, ‘‘It is the librarian’s obligation to treat as confidential any private information obtained through contact with library patrons.’’
Today’s Code states as Article III:
III. We protect each library user’s right to privacy and confidentiality with respect to information sought or received and resources consulted, borrowed, acquired or transmitted.
Although similar in scope, today’s code uses the term ‘‘protect,’’ suggesting a greater guardianship of confidential information. This, in turn, is expanded upon in additional statements, guidelines, and model policies on privacy and confidentiality.
B. The Library Bill of Rights, Expanding Interpretations and Related Statements by the American Library Association
The Library Bill of Rights’ (LBR) genesis in 1939 was a response to attempts around the country in the late 1930s to censor John Steinbeck’sThe Grapes of Wrath. The Library Bill of Rights was rewritten and adopted in 1948 under the leadership of Berninghausen, who served as chair of the Intellectual Freedom Committee. In 1961, in response to the burning issue of segregation, the ALA set up a Special Committee on Civil Liberties, which led to a new Article stating that ‘‘the rights of an individual to the use of a library should not be denied or abridged because of his race, religion, national origins, or political views.’’ In 1967, ‘‘age’’ was added to that Article. In 1980, sex-linked pronouns were eliminated and the principle of equitable and non-discriminatory use of meeting rooms and exhibit space was formulated. In 1996, ‘‘age’’ was reaffirmed in the face of challenges to restrict Internet access to children and young adults.
1. Interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights
Berninghausen told us in 1979 that each ‘‘Interpretation’’ served as an ad- vance in the preservation of intellectual freedom for library users. The number of interpretations has more than doubled since that time.
Labels and Rating Systems(1951; amended 1971; 1981; 1990; 2005) was developed in response to pressures on libraries to label materials that ‘‘ad- vocate or favor communism,’’ such as the request from the Montclair, New Jersey chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution to label and segregate communistic and subversive materials. This LBR interpretation depicts labeling as a censor’s tool.
Challenged Materials (1971; amended 1981; 1990) was prompted by attempts to remove publications from libraries. For example, a library board in Groton, Connecticut was threatened with prosecution for violating a state obscenity law if it did not remove the magazineEvergreen Review.This LBR interpretation says that challenged materials should not be removed if the materials meet the library’s selection criteria.
Free Access to Libraries for Minors (1972; amended 1981; 1991; 2004) resulted from a 1967 ALA preconference titled Intellectual Freedom and the Teenager. It states that it is the parents’ responsibility to advise their children and that librarians cannot assume a parental role. Librarians have a professional obligation to provide equal access to all library resources for all library users.
Evaluating Library Collections(1973; amended 1981) states that the ALA opposes ‘‘silent censorship,’’ such as using the weeding process as a conven- ient means to remove controversial materials.
Expurgation of Library Materials (1973; amended 1981; 1990) was sparked by a book publisher who objected to the Caldwell Parish (Louisiana) Library’s using white tempera paint to ‘‘diaper’’ nude young Mickey in Maurice Sendak’sIn the Night Kitchen.The Children’s Book Council brought the situation to the attention of the ALA, resulting in this LBR interpre- tation, which decries any deletion, excision, alteration, editing, or obliter- ation of any part of books or other library resources.
Restricted Access to Library Materials(1973; amended 1981; 1991; 2000;
2004) was adopted in response to an objection by the San Jose (California) branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to the bookEpaminondas and His Auntieas depicting a black child to look ‘‘completely idiotic and stupid.’’ The San Jose City Council placed the book on reserve. Soon afterwards, it returned the book to open stacks and also adopted the LBR as city policy upon recommendation by the city’s Library Commission. This LBR interpretation decries ‘‘closed shelf’’ and
‘‘locked case’’ designations for controversial materials.
Diversity in Collection Development(1982; amended 1990) states that cen- sorship includes removing or not selecting materials because some consider them racist or sexist, and not purchasing conservative religious materials or materials from non-mainstream political entities.
Library-Initiated Programs as a Resource (1982; amended 1990; 2000) resulted from challenges to controversial speakers and films appearing in libraries. For example, an Italian-American group objected to a library’s showing of ‘‘The Godfather’’ in the New Rochelle library, and parents’
groups lodged many objections to children’s programs emphasizing magic or the occult. This LBR interpretation states that topics, speakers, and resource materials should not be excluded from library-sponsored programs because of possible controversy.
Access to Resources and Services in the School Library MediaProgram (1986;
amended 1990; 2000; 2005) states that school library media professionals should promote an atmosphere of free inquiry, and that school media col- lections should represent diverse points of view and reflect the linguistic pluralism of the community.
Access for Children and Young People to Non-print Materials(1989; amended 2004) rejects library imposition of private rating systems on children’s viewing of audiovisual library materials.
Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards (1991; amended 2004) resulted from growing exhibit space controversies. The Ku Klux Klan sponsored an exhibit at a public library in North Carolina, and Turkish students at the University of California library at Berkeley protested against an exhibit on the early-20th century massacre of Armenians by Turks. This LBR
interpretation states that libraries should not censor exhibits or bulletin boards because some members of the community may disagree with their content.
Meeting Rooms(1991) was developed concurrently with the Interpretation on Exhibit Spaces and Bulletin Boards. It states that library meeting rooms should be made available to the public without regard to the subject matter discussed or the beliefs and affiliations of the users.
The Universal Right to FreeExpression (1991) was formulated by the ALA in response to a request by the Association of American Publishers con- cerning US sanctions. The sanctions kept books from entering South Africa.
The statement is based on Articles 18, 19, and 20 of the Universal Dec- laration of Human Rights and recognizes freedom to seek, receive, and impart information regardless of frontiers.
Access to Library Resources and Services Regardless of Sex, Gender Identity, or Sexual Orientation (1993; amended 2000; 2004) was sparked by Colorado Constitutional Amendment 2, which repealed civil rights legislation pro- tecting gays and lesbians. The statement affirms that librarians must resist efforts that systematically exclude materials dealing with any subject matter, including sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Economic Barriers to Information Access(1993) set forth principles opposing user fees at libraries that receive their major support from public funds.
According to Intellectual Freedom Committee Chair Candace Morgan, the draft was revised to address the ‘‘creeping acceptance, by governing bodies and funding sources, of the idea that libraries should be required to recover some costs through user charges, which have the potential to create barriers to access based on economic status.’’
Access to Electronic Information Services and Networks(1996; amended 2005) was developed as the national information infrastructure rapidly grew in importance. This LBR interpretation and its accompanyingQuestions and Answers(1997; revised 2000), as well as Guidelines and Considerations for De- veloping a Public Library Internet Use Policy(1998; revised 2000; 2005), state that users should not be restricted from expressing or receiving constitution- ally protected speech, that user fees should not be imposed by libraries that receive their major support from public funds, and that libraries should not require parental permission before allowing children access to electronic networks.
Intellectual Freedom Principles for Academic Libraries (2000) recommends that faculty senates and similar bodies endorse the principles in theLibrary Bill of Rights.
Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights (2002) and its ac- companying Questions and Answers (2002; revised 2005) affirm that rights
of privacy are necessary for intellectual freedom and are fundamental to the ethics and practice of librarianship.
The full text of these interpretations, as well as their history, can be found in the Intellectual Freedom Manual (American Library Association, 2006). Updates can be found at the American Library Association web site (American Library Association, 2005).
2. Statements Related to the Code of Ethics and the Library Bill of Rights
In addition to the Code of Ethics, the Library Bill of Rights, and its official Interpretations, the American Library Association has issued a number of statements that embrace intellectual freedom principles.
The Freedom to Read Policy Statement (1953; revised 1972; 1991; 2000;
2004) grew out of a 1953 conference co-sponsored by the American Library Association and the American Book Publishers Council. The conference fo- cused on obscenity, pornography, disloyalty, and subversive materials. This document has been endorsed by many organizations outside the library world, from the American Booksellers Association to the American Feder- ation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) to the National Board of the Young Women’s Christian Association of the United States. It states that the freedom to read is essential to our democracy, and that most attempts at suppression rest on a denial of the fundamental premise that the ordinary citizen, exercising critical judgment, will accept the good and reject the bad.
Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records Policy (1971; revised 1975;
1986) is a statement in response to US Treasury agents who demanded circulation records from libraries in Milwaukee, Ohio, California, and Georgia. The ALA issued an emergency advisory statement urging all li- braries to make circulation records confidential as a matter of policy. David K. Berninghausen, Intellectual Freedom Committee chair at the time, stated that, ‘‘when a government takes action to control what its citizens are thinking, it is a telltale sign that all is not well in that society.’’
Policy on Governmental Intimidation(1973; revised 2004) is a two-sentence statement encouraging resistance to government intimidation of free ex- pression. This was prompted by FBI agent intimidation of librarians Zoia Horn and Patricia Rom and subpoenas to testify during the Vietnam War.
Policy Concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library Users(1991; revised 2004) was a response to the FBI Library Aware- ness Program and an Oregon case where law enforcement officials took fin- gerprints from library materials as part of a criminal investigation. It states
that the ethical responsibilities of librarians, as well as statutes in most states and the District of Columbia, protect the privacy of library users.
Statement on Library Use of Filtering Software(1997; revised 2000) stated that filtering software in libraries blocks access to constitutionally protected speech and violated the LBR.
Libraries: An American Value(1999) differs from the LBR primarily in its target audience. This statement is aimed at informing the public about the role of the library in the community in the face of accelerating change and uncertainty. It is a very short statement affirming the rights of all individuals to use the library’s resources and services in privacy.
C. Intellectual Freedom Committee
Castagna tells us that the ALA Council created the Committee on Intel- lectual Freedom in 1940 as an advisory body and was not set up to take action. The Committee invited librarians to report censorship attempts, and took the lead in formulating the ALA’s first LBR Interpretation: the State- ment on Labeling (listed above).
In 2005, the Committee recommended intellectual freedom policies to the ALA Council. The Committee works closely with the Office for Intel- lectual Freedom and with other units and officers of the Association in matters touching intellectual freedom and censorship.
D. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom
The Intellectual Freedom Committee began the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedomin early 1952 with a grant from the Fund for the Republic. In the 1970s, the Office for Intellectual Freedom took over the writing, editing, and production of the newsletter after the untimely death of LeRoy C. Merritt. Today it reports on attempts to remove materials from school and library shelves across the country. It is published bimonthly in print and online (at www.ala.org/nif/) by the Intellectual Freedom Committee. Each issue includes:
Censorship Dateline: A state-by-state survey of challenges, bannings, and burnings.
From the Bench and Is It Legal?: Developments in federal and state laws affecting librarians, teachers, students, authors, journalists, and artists.
Intellectual Freedom Bibliography: A guide to current articles and books on freedom of expression in America.
E. Office for Intellectual Freedom
Castagna called it ‘‘a momentous event’’ back in 1968 when the Office for Intellectual Freedom was established and Judith F. Krug was appointed its director. Its chief purpose then and now is to defend intellectual freedom.
Today the Office has expanded to a staff of seven. It offers assistance to librarians throughout the country who request assistance to fight censorship efforts. It gives training to librarians who chair their state library associ- ations’ intellectual freedom committees. In recent years, it has initiated a successful Lawyers for Libraries program to train attorneys throughout the country on the legal precedents protecting intellectual freedom in libraries.
According to Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom, the lawyers who complete the training have become very involved in helping libraries craft sound policies as a proactive measure to prevent problems down the road.
F. Freedom to Read Foundation
Newly established when Castagna wrote his chapter, the FTRF had yet to mount any legal challenges. The first case that was fully funded by the FTRF, Moore v. Younger(1976), arose in the 1970s. This tortuous case wound its way through state and federal courts.
Everett Moore, then associate librarian of the University of California, Los Angeles and Vice President of the FTRF, was the lead plaintiff, chal- lenging a state ‘‘Harmful Matters’’ statute in California. In January 1975, the Los Angeles trial court exempted libraries from the statute. The librarians appealed that decision, wishing to void the statute as unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, but, in January 1976, the state appellate court ruled that they lacked standing, as the trial court had ruled in their favor.
The Freedom to Read News (Spring, 1976) wrote: ‘‘We have won the first legal precedent ever for the Library Bill of Rights, and we have won it in one of the most respected court systems in the United States.’’ Further, it noted that the Foundation had gained expertise during the case to defend any li- brarian or library in the United States charged with violating an obscenity law.
The FTRF uses the following factors to evaluate whether it will take a case:
GUIDELINES FOR PARTICIPATING AS A PARTY IN A LITIGATION OR SUB- MITTING AN AMICUS BRIEF
The following factors are deemed relevant in determining whether the Freedom to Read Foundation should participate as a party to a litigation and/or submit an amicus curiae brief in an existing court case. Any of the listed factors may be deemed persuasive in a given circumstance.
Factor One: How directly the case or governmental action at issue implicates the freedom to read, including the creative process and the right to receive reading materials.
Comment: A case should be examined not only for its facts, but on the importance of the legal doctrines at issue with respect to the freedom to read.
Factor Two: The significance of an adverse result in the case, both with respect to the situation at issue and the precedential implications of the decision.
Comment: Decisions from state supreme courts and federal appellate courts carry the greatest weight in terms of precedential value.
Factor Three: The perceived impact of an amicus submission by the Freedom to Read Foundation or its participation as a party and the costs of such participation.
Comment: Where a case specifically involves libraries, the Freedom to Read Foun- dation may be the only organization with a primary interest in the case and a willingness to incur the costs of briefing. Even where a case provokes interest from a broad coalition of groups, there is a benefit to be gained from presenting a united front of organizations known to the interested in preserving free expression.
Factor Four: Where the Freedom to Read Foundation is joining a brief written by another organization, whether the contents of the brief and its quality accord with the principles and standards of the Freedom to Read Foundation.
The key court cases that the FTRF has taken on are discussed in Section III;
they includeBoard of Education v. Pico,Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, and United States v. American Library Association.(All cases in which the FTRF has been involved are listed in theFreedom to Read Foundation Time Line (n.d.)).
In addition, the FTRF has been a successful plaintiff in challenging
‘‘Harmful to Minors’’ Internet laws in Arizona, Michigan, and Virginia. It is currently a plaintiff challenging Ohio’s ‘‘Harmful to Juveniles’’ statute and an Internet censorship bill in Utah.
G. Initiatives since the 1970s 1. LeRoy C. Merritt Fund
Castagna discussed the desire to support librarians who fight censorship battles at the risk of losing their livelihoods. In 1970, the Leroy C. Merritt Fund was established to this end. Merritt was one of the library profession’s staunchest opponents of censorship and the editor of the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, from 1942 until 1970. He became the FTRF’s first benefactor by donating the entire $500 cash award that he received as the first recipient of the Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award.
2. Banned Books Week
Initiated in 1982 after a tremendously successful display of banned books in padlocked cages at the American Booksellers Convention in Anaheim,