In my reference class this semester, we recently tackled the topic of ethics in the profession. As one of the authors we read for this unit noted, the library profession is unique because its Code of Professional Ethics is unenforceable, exactly the opposite of other professions like law and medicine: "the ethical conduct of attorneys and physicians has been heavily regulated by individual states and informed by national associations, most notably the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association...ALA, however, lacks any such mechanism" (Sturgeon, 2007, p. 57). Since the profession has several controversial challenges, including user privacy rights and intellectual freedom rights, this makes things rather murky. There can be a lot of grey area. I took some time to reflect on this and responded to the issue with the following post to my class's discussion board (citation information has been added to for readers' benefit here):
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ethics to me is such a complex issue, and we can easily get tangled up in it, especially in the position we have as library professionals. Our professional and personal ethics don't necessarily have to be separate (and for many of us, we may find that there is a lot of cross-over); however, it doesn't automatically follow that they will always be parallel either. There are many situations, some of which have been highlighted by our readings this week, where these two sets of ethics may potentially come into conflict and we are presented with a choice that requires courage to follow either way: which code (personal or professional) do we choose? It's a Catch-22 situation--damned if you do, and damned if you don't. My personal feelings about this issue is that it will require a lot more thought and reflection on my part before I am satisfied and confident of my ability to choose for myself when that time comes (and I know inevitably it will).
Katz's (1992) quote “Find all requested material. The librarian is not in the position of being a judge” is in part highlighted by Dowd's (1989) study. [Dowd did a study where he told 13 librarians at different libraries "I want to learn how to freebase cocaine."] To some extent, I can see the logic in this, and I think Dowd (1989) provides a compelling argument as to why we can't restrict information--we have no way to intuit exactly the reason why a person asks a question, and as Dowd (1989) explains in response to his own question he posed librarians, a medical student and a writer could both have equally harmless reasons for requesting to know how to freebase cocaine. One thing that it's important to note--and something that Dowd (1989) did not explicitly state in his article--the information itself is not illegal. Having the information breaks no laws (as far as I am aware). It's what is done with the information that may be criminal or harmless, and librarians have no reasonable and reliable means by which to make that judgment. So, as Katz (1992) implies, we shouldn't judge in the first place.
I think Foskett's (1962) statement “No politics, no religion, no morals” is another way to look at the same thing Katz (1992) was arguing for. If we let go our own political, religious, and moral bias, it becomes easier to withhold judgment of those who approach us to find controversial information. McMenemy's (2007) article quotes Foskett as stating that librarians "must be the reader's alter ego, immersed in his politics, his religion, his morals" (p. 178). By putting aside our own bias and "accepting" those of the patron, we attempt to find those resources in the best interests of the patron and not ourselves. I put quotations around accepting because I mean it more in terms of understanding and accepting where the patron is coming from more than truly making their biases our own.
Ethics truly is a tangled web, an issue with many sides that provoke many (often heated) debates. However, in order to fulfill our duty as librarians, it is one that I truly believe we all must examine and reflect on.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As you can see from the dates of the sources, this is not a new topic, but it's one that the profession continues to struggle with. And I understand that from this exposure that it will be something I may struggle with myself in the future from time to time when controversial questions and inquiries for "questionable" information present themselves.
On a slightly different tangent, a classmate posted some interesting current events about libraries that I thought I would share. The first is a video on Youtube done by Librarian in Black, a fairly well-known blogger who comments about current issues in the profession. Her video is a call to action and commentary about some of the not-so-good aspects of the recent Amazon agreement to provide libraries with digital materials through the Overdrive service. The next is an article about the People's Library that has been created in the Occupy movement in New York. According to the article, other similar libraries seem to be forming at other Occupy locations across the nation, including in San Francisco, Portland, and Boston.
With two big papers done and turned in, I'm hoping to return to a more "business-as-usual" schedule with future posts.
References:
Dowd, R.C. (1989). I want to find out how to freebase cocaine or yet another unobtrusive test of reference performance. Reference Librarian, 25/26, 483-493.
Foskett, D.J. (1962). The creed of a librarian: No politics, no religion, no morals. Library Association Occasional Papers No. 3. London: Library Association.
Katz, B. (1992). Introduction to reference work. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McMenemy, D. (2007). Librarians and ethical neutrality: Revisiting the creed of a librarian. Library Review 56(3). 177-181.
Sturgeon, R. (2007). Laying down the law: ALA's ethics codes are enforceable rules needed for information professionals? American Libraries 38 (10). 56-57.
