Wade Stewart p.

LIS 701 Introduction to Library & Information Science

Professor: Diane Velasquez
Final Research Paper
Wade Stewart
Fall 2008

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 2

With my final research assignment in an Introduction to Library and Information Science,

I will “demonstrate an understanding of the philosophies, practices, and theories of library and

information science that incorporates an awareness of the legacies, values, and ethical

responsibilities of libraries and the information professions.” The premise of this paper is a

discussion on censorship and intellectual freedom issues that continue to challenge the public

library to this day. By providing a context on censorship, I will be able to examine what the

most significant aspects of the issues are as it relates to professional practice, thus identifying a

range of possible responses and solutions. Finally, through evaluation and analysis, I will

establish a set of recommendations and solutions, which I would fully advocate.

In order to gain the full spectrum of beliefs on censorship and intellectual freedom as it

relates to the public library system, I will examine journal articles and books from both sides of

the argument. By juxtaposing conflicting opinions with that of the American Library

Association’s (ALA) “Bill of Rights” and the “Intellectual Freedom Manual,” I will gain a sense

of what professional values and ethics inform various perspectives on the issue within the

profession. While my paper will primarily focus on the aspects of censorship in public libraries,

it is important to also discuss the over arching theme within this debate: the validity of

intellectual freedom and what we, as librarians, must do to ensure its survival at all costs.

One of the most difficult facets of being a librarian is the task of protecting intellectual

freedom given its seemingly endless controversy. It is our duty to hinder and prevent censorship

in libraries while also promoting absolute intellectual freedom. Unfortunately, these ideas seem

to be lost on those who view censorship in a positive light or as a necessary evil. These issues

stem from conflicting moral, ethical, personal, social, and legal responsibilities that serve to

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 3

either restrict or encourage access to library materials, completely dependent on which side of

the issue ones resides (Rubin, 2004).

It is easy to understand how one’s own personal values could lean towards the restriction

of access to information or the self proclaimed need to maintain the values of the community and

society at large. Perhaps it lies within the necessity to protect children from the dangers of

unfiltered information or the belief that this is the only way to safeguard the library from a

standpoint of survival.

As librarians in a democratic society we have been charged with the task of being the

gatekeepers of information and ideas as well as absolute access to them. We also have an

obligation to educate our children, which entails not shielding them from world. Swan (1986)

argues that one of the library's primary missions and responsibilities is to protect access to

information regardless of the political, moral, or ethical climate concerning the information being

preserved. Ensuring access to information even that which is extremely controversial is an

important mission and value for all librarians to uphold.

According to Rubin (2004), the “content” of an item is generally the sole reason we find

censorship in the library. The typical content, which is challenged and/or censored, is usually

information pertaining to sexual content, violence, religion (more likely anti-religious views), or

anything that could be perceived as racist or xenophobic. One of the major sources of censorship

stems from patrons challenging certain books or information items, which they deem

inappropriate, offensive or detrimental to society. Alternatively, librarians too can be accused

through a backdoor method, if you will, of censorship called selection. Asheim (1953) states that

the issue of censorship verses selection lies not within the matter of a library not stocking a book

that could not pass through customs or one that is considered illegal, but rather when a librarian,

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 4

through an act of personal judgment, refuses a book that has “every legal right to representation

on the shelves” (¶ 5). Asheim (1953) uses the James Joyce novel, Ulysses, as a primary example

of this debate, stating that through the act of government and law, prior to the 1930s, libraries

could not stock the book, however, in 1933, the US courts cleared the work for general

circulation, and yet librarians would make a collection related decision to not stock the book,

citing selection.

Asheim (1953) argues that selection “begins with a presumption in favor of liberty of

thought; censorship, with a presumption in favor or thought control” (¶ 28). My question is, as

the guardians of information and the protectors of intellectual freedom, who are we to decide,

even through the means of selection, what books we will shelve? I realize that there are space

issues in libraries, but we should be concerned with making sure that we provide opposing

viewpoints on all subjects. We cannot, through the act of selection or any other reason for that

matter, choose against shelving something like Hitler’s Mein Kampf just because the ideas it

contains are evil and dangerous. The justification, according to Asheim (1953), lies between

selection, which is viewed as a positive and functions to find the value of the book, and

censorship, which is seen as a negative and lacks any faith in the intelligence of the reader

against ideas or values, different from ones own.

So what, as librarians, can we do to protect our shelves from censorship and preserve the

intellectual freedom that is essential to our democratic society? After all, in the case of the

patron, it is their tax dollars, which breathe life into the library, so are we not at their mercy on

the issue of what should and should not be in the library? These questions put us on a slippery

slope but we have an obligation to defend and uphold the values of our profession.

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 5

Maloney and Morgan (2001) see the public libraries primary impasse is not necessarily

that of old fashioned censorship, but rather the difficulties in balancing access to legal materials

on the internet while still restricting the access to that which is illegal. While Internet access is

more of an intellectual freedom issue, it certainly has major effects upon current day censorship.

By examining the role of the public library in regards to providing information to the public and

the role that information plays in a democracy, Maloney and Morgan (2001), discuss the

practical realities that the public library system faces and how libraries walk a fine line between

protecting the rights of the patron while also the rights to receive information. Time and time

again the central focus of the access to information argument continuously returns to the to the

following concern: children. Maloney and Morgan state that libraries are constantly juggling the

prevention of infringement of the First Amendment and compliance with provisions of the law.

Maloney and Morgan (2001) view technology, in the realm of intellectual freedom, as a

constitutional solution.

However, Johnson (2007), an avid supporter of the “not censorship but selection” issue,

believes that our profession is trying to stand up for a single title rather than defending what he

views as a reasonable and open process from selecting and retaining materials in the library.

Johnson’s position is that censoring books through the concept of selection is completely valid so

long as due process has been followed in the decision-making. Johnson (2007) outlines a series

of ideas, which he believes should be the way that professionals deal with the selection of and

potential censorship of information:

1. That all materials challenged or is up for selection has been read and reviewed.
2. That all materials be selected based on their organization’s selection policy and that
also considers the philosophy of the community, value of the book itself, resources
relative to controversial issues, resources representative of the many religious, ethnic,
and cultural groups in the community, and finally placing principle above opinion and
reason above prejudice.

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 6

3. That all materials only be selected based on authoritative and reliable review sources
4. That if they are asked to remove an item, that they will do so under the policies of
that organization.
5. That once a resource has been selected, its use must not be restricted.

Johnson (2007) argues that the library has lost its fundamental understandings of selection,

reconsideration, and intellectual freedom, however, it also seems that he wishes to live in a world

where selection is not censorship.

Oppenheim and Smith (2004) view the relationship between librarians and censorship as

disconcerting because information professionals generally think that access to information,

regardless of content or conflict with their own personal values, should be provided at all costs.

The complexity of the issue arises in the obligation of the librarian to the communities, patrons,

and governing bodies that they serve and are funded by. Oppenheim and Smith (2004) believes

that collection management and the legal aspects of information is the most problematic and that

public librarians have not always supported access for all and/or to all publications. Oppenheim

and Smith (2004) label librarians as having “been as irrational and discriminatory as other

censors and at times for the same uncomfortable reason: personal taste, as well as submitting to

the practice of censorship due to pressure from external bodies” (p. 159).

Oppenheim and Smith (2004) address censorship by explaining the two types of

censorship such as “regulative” censorship and “constitutive or existential” censorship. They

define regulative censorship as a means to stop the expression of ideas, which are perceived as

threatening or detrimental to the principles or standards of religion, personal morality or even

protection of the state (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004). It is said that this is the most common and

visible form of censorship. On the other hand, constitutive or existential censorship, according

to Oppenheim and Smith (2004), is tacit and therefore more disturbing because those in power

invoke censorship to “create, secure, and maintain their control and by monopolistic domination

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 7

in which the public access to some forms of knowledge and information is either subverted or

denied” (p. 160). From there the debate goes even deeper into the arena of censorship,

discussing two different arguments within the subject: 1) whether censorship should exist or not

and 2) that censorship must exist but is over what should be censored and in what way it should

be applied (Oppenheim & Smith, 2004). Perhaps the biggest epiphany that Oppenheim and

Smith (2004) offer is that censorship is an infinite problem and that rather than going away, it

just changes its form. They believe that we, as librarians, should aim to create a greater

awareness that all information is and should be accessible to everyone.

In a juxtaposition of the ideas of Maloney and Morgan, Johnson, and Oppenheim and

Smith with that of the ALA’s Bill of Rights and the Intellectual Freedom Manual librarians can

develop professional values and ethics, which serve to inform the various perspectives on

censorship in our profession, both from the outside and within. The ALA’s Bill of Rights states

that, “all libraries are forums for information and ideas.” The ALA drafted the following basic

articles to guide service and protect the greater good of the library and the information it holds:

1. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest,
information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library
serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background,
or views of those contributing to their creation.
2. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points of
view on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed or
removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
3. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility
to provide information and enlightenment.
4. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with
resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
5. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of
origin, age, background, or views.
6. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the
public they serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis,
regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting
their use.

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 8

As librarians we must cherish and protect those policies. They are the lifeblood of our

establishment. I strongly feel that anyone who’s personal values in any way conflicts with the

six articles above should not be a librarian. Hitchcock (2005), in an examination of the second

article of the ALA Bill of Rights, states that the ambiguity of the article itself is a cause for

concern because he claims it is “indefensible in theory and unusable in practice” (p. 2).

Hitchcock (2005) asserts that the message the second article of the ALA Bill of Rights conveys

is one that is puzzling. Not only does Hitchcock believe that the second article should be

revised, but that it should be completely rewritten from scratch. However, I disagree with

Hitchcock. The second article has the tendency to fail because we allow it to, either because we

cave into the requests of the patron as the taxpayer or to our own personal principles, which

could be a cause of conflict. Generally the issues of book challenges and censorship are in

relation to children, but it is not the libraries responsibility to police what children are reading;

that is the job of their parents/guardians and them alone. It is not our place to ask why a patron

requests any given book. We, as librarians, cannot and should not distinguish between literature

involving cars, homosexuals, modern American fiction or the Anarchist’ Cookbook. We are

strictly the guardians of information.

The Intellectual Freedom Manual, like that of the Bill of Rights, is another important

doctrine of our profession. The manual’s aim is to provide answers to the practical questions

that challenge librarians in the application of the principles of intellectual freedom to library

service. The manual elucidates the meaning of intellectual freedom in library service and how

the broad concept of intellectual freedom evolved from opposition to book censorship,

presenting an overview of the issues and challenges we face today (ALA, 2006). Swan (1986) in

order to illustrate the issues facing the mission of the modern library, juxtaposes defamation

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 9

suits, banned library exhibits and books, and historical positions on access to information with

documents such as the Library's Bill of Rights and the ALA's Intellectual Freedom Manual. It is

not a library’s purpose to determine truth and untruth but rather to be the stewards of information

and to preserve the freedom of right to this knowledge. Complete knowledge of one’s idea of

truth is derived from a full understanding of what is untruth (Swan, 1986).

Above all else, over the opinions of Johnson and the convictions of Maloney and

Morgan, I believe that Oppenheim and Smith best follow the ideals and principles that we, as

librarians, must fight for. As a burgeoning librarian, in regards to censorship, Oppenheim and

Smith best exemplify what I believe. They assert that,

what is considered to be controversial changes with time, and the definition of

censorship remains ambiguous…the role of the librarian is to facilitate access to
information, be that controversial or not, and not to obstruct or hinder that
access…the management of this can be difficult and cause conflict…it may also
take public librarians outside of their environment and outside the public
perception of the librarian (p. 169).

We must at all costs create a greater awareness that all information is attainable and available to

everyone, no matter the content or substance of the material and that we must sustain this belief

with audible and visual action. It is important to the fight against censorship. I believe that the

only solution to censorship is to buy into the convictions of the Library Bill of Rights and

Intellectual Freedom and to protect it, just like the information within the walls of the library.

Censorship, as Oppenheim and Smith state, will always challenge us in different shapes, sizes,

and forms; however, it will only prevail if we let it.

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 10

References

ALA. (date). Intellectual Freedom Manual of the American Library Association. Retrieved
November 28, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/iftoolkits/ifmanual/intellectual.cfm

ALA. (date). Library Bill of Rights of the American Library Association. Retrieved November
28, 2008, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.cf
m

Arns, J. (2007, July). Challenges in governance: The leadership characteristics and behaviors
valued by public library trustees in times of conflict and contention. Library Quarterly,
77(3), 287-310.

Asheim, L. (1953). Not censorship but selection. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from
http://staging.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/basics/notcensorship.cfm

Bell, B. W. (2001). Filth, filtering, and the first amendment: Ruminations on public libraries’
use of internet filtering software. Federal Communications Law Journal, 53(2), 191-237.

Hitchcock, L. (2005, April). An Examination of article two of the Library Bill of Rights. Public
Library Quarterly, 24(2), 1-18.

Johnson, D. (2007). Don’t defend that book. Library Media Connection, 26(1), 98.

Jones, B. M. (1999). Libraries, access, and intellectual freedom: Developing policies for public
and academic libraries. Chicago: American Library Association.

Maloney, M. J., & Morgan, J. (2001). The public library’s dilemma in providing access to legal
materials on the internet while restricting access to illegal materials. Hamline Law
Review, 24(2), 199-223.

Oppenheim, C., & Smith, V. (2004, October). Censorship in libraries. Information Services &
Use, 24(4), 159-170.

Rubin, R. (2004). Foundations of library and information science (2nd ed.). New York: Neal-
Schuman Publishers, Inc.

Swan, J. (1986, July). Untruth or consequences. Library Journal, 111(12), 44-52.

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper

Wade Stewart p. 11

Wade:

The paper was excellent. The paper was well researched and you did an excellent job in

supporting your position.

There were a few grammatical errors but nothing huge.

There were some APA errors as can be seen above. ALA would be the author for the

Library Bill of Rights and Intellectual Freedom Handbook. Journal volume numbers should be

italicized. Two of your sources were not cited so they should not be on the reference list.

Overall, awesome job.

Paper grade: 14.5/15

Participation: 17/20

Course grade: 90% = A-

It was great having you in class. Have a great holiday.

Diane Velasquez

LIS 701-02 Final Research Paper