Read Irresponsibly - unshelved.com

With this being the end of the quarter, here is a grand reflection on my experience in the course.  This is only my second quarter in the MLIS program, that means I have a lot left to learn.  This course has provided me with a primer on: collection development, library policy development, library staff training and communication, library staff-patron relations, and so many other aspects of librarianship that I am certain I will get to learn a lot more about.  Of course, what I have largely learned about were the many aspects of intellectual freedom and how I can begin to prepare myself for responding to challenges.

The next step?  This blog was a great assignment.  Even if I didn’t keep up with it, I was constantly aware of the potentiality of post-worthy material.  It definitely got me looking around the web for sources of information related to intellectual freedom, and so many of the sites I have stumbled upon I will continue to visit and read regularly.  My two new favorites are Future Librarians for Intellectual Freedom and Banned Librarian.  I think I’ll keep reading… as irresponsibly as possible.

After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers’ commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light.

However, an earlier Texas policy had already limited what could be read by some Texas citizens: prisoners. Many of the banned books are celebrated classics that most would feel prisoners should be encouraged to read. According to The Statesman:

Novels by National Book Award winners Pete Dexter, Joyce Carol Oates, Annie Proulx and William T. Vollmann have been banned in recent years. Award finalists Katherine Dunn and Barry Hannah are on the Texas no-read list, too, as are Pulitzer Prize winners Alice Walker, Robert Penn Warren and John Updike.

There also appeared to be no rhyme or reason to why some books were banned while others were allowed. The Houston Press asked for a year’s worth of correspondence between Texas Department of Criminal Justice mailrooms to find out what criteria was being employed. What they found was termed “Bizarro World.” While one of the books rejected was called Naughty Bedtime Stories, what was accepted was the book’s sequel, Naughtier Bedtime Stories. Apparently, it was not actually naughtier. Other inconsistencies included rejecting the titles Pre-Raphaelites: Inspiration From the Past and Vintage Aircraft Nose Art because they were deemed to have “sexually explicit images” and former Senator Bob Dole’s book World War II: An Illustrated History of Crisis and Courage because it was claimed to have a picture of a “nude child.”

A friend of mine commented,

“Texas should be very careful about how they alter the textbook standards in their state. If the decisions made in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice are the result of previous education standards, dumbing down the material even further could pose a serious problem.”

Although is seems that these book restrictions seem to be placed on personal copies sent to prisoners, it must follow that these titles would also not be allowed to circulate in prison libraries.  It would seem that with a system like this, a prison librarian in Texas would effectively have very little control over their own collection development.  This very much takes me back to my post on the Prisoners Right to Read statement that is in the process of being revised (no updates on that, unfortunately).  I would also be very interested to look into the operations of prison libraries in Texas – I find it interesting that was not a consideration of the news reporting.  I would also be interested to know how this was impacting non-English speakers in Texas prisons.

PrivacyRevolution.org

A new initiative of the ALA’s Office of Intellectual Freedom is PrivacyRevolution.org.  Christopher Harris at School Library Journal sums it up nicely:

Proudly declaring “I am not an open book” on its front page, the new site offers privacy-related news, as well as related tips and tools for libraries and patrons. The site is still evolving, but, already has a great selection of videos and content from “privacy allies,” such as author and blogger Cory Doctorow and the Freedom to Read Foundation.

What else does a new education and advocacy campaign like this bring us?  A holiday, of course.  Well, in this case, a week of awareness: the first-ever Choose Privacy Week is coming soon!  This May 2–8, 2010 we can look for (or plan!) events around the issue of our privacy rights in a digital age.  Within out libraries we are surrounded by issues of privacy for our patrons – this effort seems to be merging those issues with the many that individuals face when having a presence on the Internet.

Barbara Jones’ recent post on the OIF Blog provides some great examples of privacy hot topics right now, including: privacy and the census, kids and social networking, and cyberbullying.  These came up in discussion during her awesomely titled workshop, PRIVACY RIGHTS IN A DIGITAL AGE: The Role of Libraries in a “Peep Culture.”

Be sure to check out PrivacyRevolution.org, or their Fan page on Facebook, or follow Privacy Revolution on Twitter to stay in the know!  What is the library near you planning?

However, in April 2008 POPline decided to make the word “abortion” a stop word that would prevent any information from appearing in the search. In response to criticism POPline’s Debra L. Dickson stated:

Yes we did make a change in POPLINE. We recently made all abortion terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now. In addition to the terms you’re already using, you could try using ‘Fertility Control, Postconception’. This is the broader term to our ‘Abortion’ terms and most records have both in the keyword fields.

After an e-mail campaign by many concerned librarians and women’s groups POPline announced that they would be reversing their policy. Michael J. Klag, Dean of John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health released a statement reading:

USAID, which funds POPLINE, found two items in the database related to abortion that did not fit POPLINE criteria. The agency then made an inquiry to POPLINE administrators. Following this inquiry, the POPLINE administrators at the Center for Communication Programs made the decision to restrict abortion as a search term. I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the POPLINE administrators restore “abortion” as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction.

The limitation of information because of an action like this is staggering: an advanced search within past 5 years found 1844 records with the keyword “abortion.”  This is far more than many of the “Instant Searches” offered on the databases homepage.  Indeed, it is significant that this controversial, but highly researched and written about, topic is not present at all in the listing, not even as “Fertility Control, Postconception.”

America (The Book)

Reflecting back to our previous assignment on reporting on a challenge, it was a tough choice to decide what to write about.  I finally decided to write about a collection decision made in Mississippi to not put America: The Book out into circulation at the end of 2004.  This was a decision made by the library director after it was publicized that Walmart would not be stocking the book in their stores.  I remember how excited I was to get my hands on that book – I was living in the lovely swing-state of Ohio during the 2004 presidential elections, and “The Daily Show” was one of the things that had been helping me cope with the insanity of the campaigning that surrounded me on all sides.

One thing that I did not write much about in my report but that I have considered more after the fact is that there was seemingly little outcry by the community, or there was little reported about it if there was.  It was reported that a patron had asked for the title and was told the reason that it was not on available (the doctored nude photograph of the Supreme Court judges was found to be offensive), but she was not reported to be concerned about this at all (maybe she was not as excited about the book as I had been?)  Perhaps this was just faulty reporting.  Perhaps the community was not sure how to counter this.  Some community members did speak at the Board of Directors meeting in defense of the book the following January, which convinced the Board to reverse their support of not circulating the book, but it still seems odd that more community voices were not heard or reported on.

Banned Book series

I also wanted to note a great book series that I came across in completing my research, in case others did not: the Banned Books series published by Facts on File.  My paper necessitated the Literature Suppressed on Sexual Grounds edition by Dawn B. Sova (2006), but you can also find the Political Grounds, Social Grounds, and Religious Grounds editions.  It provides an overview of banned books and then a “Censorship History.”

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”— Article 19 of the United Nations Universal declaration of Human Rights.

In continuing to look into international issues of intellectual freedom, I discovered FAIFE.  As a core activity of The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA), the Committee on Free Access to Information and Freedom of Expression (FAIFE) works to:

defend and promote the basic human rights defined in Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The FAIFE Committee and Office furthers free access to information and freedom of expression in all aspects, directly or indirectly, related to libraries and librarianship. FAIFE monitors the state of intellectual freedom within the library community world-wide, supports IFLA policy development and co-operation with other international human rights organisations, and responds to violations of free access to information and freedom of expression.

• Intellectual freedom is the right of every individual to both hold and express opinions and to seek and receive information.
• Intellectual freedom is the basis of democracy.
• Intellectual freedom is the core of the library concept.

On their International Intellectual Freedom Basics page, the ALA’s OIF also refers to Article 19 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  I highly recommend perusing the FAIFE site, particularly their World Report Series and learning materials for workshops.

By the way, anyone want to go to Sweden?  The World Library and Information Congress 2010, 76th IFLA General Conference and Assembly will be taking place in Gothenburg later this summer and their theme is “Open access to knowledge” which follows the IFLA’s Presidential Theme: Libraries Driving Access to Knowledge (A2K).

The librarian as advocate for access is something that we are running across again and again within our discussions of intellectual freedom in libraries and beyond.  Candace Morgan emphasized this multiple times in her interview for Module 4 and the IFLA Presidential Theme recognizes the importance of this role as well.  This role is one of the many ways that librarianship IS social justice work.

The original of the new draft begins by stating,

“When a society, living under the rule of law, decides to segregate certain of its members—for the safety of society, for the protection or treatment of the person, or to correct the behavior of the person—the right to read, to access knowledge and information, does not disappear on the institution’s doorstep.”

Additionally, it points out that,

“Unfettered access to information is essential those who wish to prosper within a democratic society. As unfettered as practical access to information is even more essential to persons held against their will, if they are to restore themselves whole to society. Suppression of ideas does not prepare the incarcerated for transition to freedom.”

I find the revision to be a great improvement over the old – it is much more detailed, descriptive, and inclusive in its recommendations, and it addresses the access of information on the Internet. In reading through the comments on the ALA Connect page, there are some good suggestions to add to the draft, including a call for addressing different literacy levels and (dis)abilities.  Some of the commenters  also had poignant reflections:

“I am not sure if folks on this listserv are aware that many youth in detention/prison have no library access whatsoever, which makes statements regarding censorship only part of the agenda.”

“I wonder if the privatized prisons are even worse at supplying librarians and reading materials to inmates.”

While this guiding document can not ensure that youth in detention facilities have access to library materials, it is still a strong statement to be made and to consider as we think about intellectual freedom.  What other groups are not served easily or at all by community libraries?  How do our own identities guide how we think of intellectual freedom? I think this document can push all of us to think about expanding our notions of accessibility.

Books to Prisoners

If you are interested in helping prisoners gain access to information, Books to Prisoners is a volunteer organization working to fill the book requests of prisoners.  They function with the guiding premise that “books are tools for learning and opening minds to new ideas and possibilities,” and, I think, stand in agreement with one of the commenters on the ALA statement revision page who noted, “When a person is imprisoned, even if the stated purpose is for ‘punishment,’ the institutionalization itself  — not the right to read — is the punishment.”

**A final note: Upon graduation, don’t forget to take advantage of free membership to the ALA’s Freedom to Read Foundation (or a one-year extension to your already existing membership.)

Considering intellectual freedom in a global context, I discovered the Amnesty International campaign seeking to call attention to issues of censorship and persecution related to online freedom of expression.  The campaign’s site points out that,

“People are persecuted and imprisoned simply for criticising their government, calling for democracy and greater press freedom, or exposing human rights abuses, online.”

The campaign calls on individuals to sign a pledge of their commitment to freedom of online expression.  This is actually an older campaign, with an initial action of delivery of petition signatures occurring in late 2006, so it was started pre-Twitter, but there are still active news postings going up on the site.  We have definitely continued to see instances of persecution (or the real fear of persecution) related to internet communications and expression.  Some of the instances in the past year have included the arrest of activists in Moldova on accusations of inciting/organizing protests using the internet, as well as the show of solidarity of Twitter users across the world with Iranians attempting to subvert government censorship in order to document information related to the uprising over election results via the microblog.  In the U.S., we saw the arrest of Elliot Madison on charges related to using Twitter to notify other activists about police activity during protests against the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh last fall (the charges have since been dropped).  This instance finds the complexities of balancing civil liberties and freedom of expression with law enforcement in the U.S.  Madison’s lawyer, Martin Stolar notes,

“Essentially we have Elliot accused of taking publicly available information and giving it to another person in the public and then being charged with a crime for doing so.”

Intellectual freedom is an issue of civil liberty.  From the choice of what to read, to the choice of what to write, to the choice of what to say, intellectual freedom is necessary for a free and equitable society.  With this blog, I hope to continue to highlight the connection of intellectual freedom to social justice, and hopefully I will continue to gain eloquence in my articulation of these issues as I further my understanding of them.

One final note related to the Irrepressible Info campaign, as it also acknowledges companies that have enabled such censorship and persecution to occur: What will Google do? In the latest news, Google is (re)negotiating (taking a stand?) with China.  As published in the San Francisco Chronicle,

“The company said it would stop censoring search results in China even if that means it’s forced to leave, after disclosing a sophisticated cyberattack on the e-mail accounts of advocates of human rights in the nation.”

Google originally stated that its “decision to self-censor searches…would benefit the Chinese people by expanding access to information.”  I end this post with this question for discussion (or a future post): What is behind Google’s change of heart?  Is it as simple as a human rights line was crossed?