Library Juice 1:24 - July 16, 1998
Special Issue on Intellectual Freedom Contents: 1. Bibliographic Tools for the Alternative Press (letter announcing website) 2. Response to above from a listserv participant (alaoif) 3. Proposed revisions to "Libraries: An American Value," ALA's new statement 4. Issues of Inside Censorship and the ALA Quote of the day: "Today, as the United States appears to become ever more conservative and to retreat from the values of pluralistic democracy on which American librarianship's intellectual freedom ideology is grounded, the American library profession, which historically has embraced the dominant ideology, may be faced with more fundamental choices concerning its very identity than ever before." -Louise S. Robbins, from the introduction to her book, _Censorship and the American Library: The American Library Association's Response to Threats to Intellectual Freedom, 1939-1969_. ___________________________________________________________________________ 1. Bibliographic Tools for the Alternative Press "Bibliographic Tools for the Alternative Press," from Counterpoise, the review joural published by the Alternatives in Print Task Force, is now on the web, at <http://www.jessamyn.com/srrt/AIP/bibtools.html>. I am cc-ing this to alaoif because I think it's clear that the alternative press is the key to intellectual freedom in the current era of control of the publishing and broadcast media by ever larger corporate entities with a vested interest in controlling the information environment. I am optimistic about the possibility of ALA's intellectual freedom bodies beginning to take on these issues aggressively, and to begin supporting the AIP's efforts under the intellectual freedom banner. ALA's history in defense of intellectual freedom is not such a long history that the lack of precedent for explicit advocacy of alternative media through the OIF should prevent a turn in this direction. I think it makes sense to ask ALA to respond to changing times and to recognize and respond to a trend that is a great threat, and perhaps the greatest threat, to intellectual freedom, despite its being more subtle than the pattern of small-scale, outright censorship attempts. The hidden censorship within the publication, marketing and review process is insidious and a very real threat to democracy. The alternative press, which is the most excellent example of the benefits of living in America that can think of, would have a better chance of being an effective answer if it were given more than lip service by librarians. ___________________________________________________________________________ 2. Response to above letter from a listserv participant (alaoif) Dear Rory, I would like to thank you for voicing what is perhaps my biggest beef with ALA's Intellectual Freedom statement and most of the current debate about censorship and intellectual freedom: the failure to acknowledge a greater and more commonplace threat than mere, OVERT censorship by government. It is the lack of outlets for alternative or "un-homogenized" points of view that is the real problem in this country right now, and yet it is an issue that is hardly ever brought up. It is an issue that becomes even more pressing in relation to its potential effect on library collections. We say we advocate intellectual freedom, knowledge is power, etc., and yet what do we offer? What we get from our vendors, and vendors offer what is published by the big publishing houses, now owned by fewer and larger conglomerates whose criteria for publication does not emphasize the quality of a potential publication, but its sales potential, its potential for promoting other products under the corporation's aegis, and its unlikelihood of threatening the interests or reputation of that corporation. Liana Markley ___________________________________________________________________________ 3. Proposed revisions to "Libraries: An American Value," ALA's new statement This message invites you as individuals to support the revisions to the proposed ALA intellectual freedom statement, "Libraries: An American Value," just now submitted by Carol Reid, Sandy Berman and me. I have sent the text to June Pinnell-Stephens, chair of the presidential task force, which published a draft statement to ALA members in March 1998 and held a follow-up hearing at ALA in Washington last month. Ann Symons has made intellectual freedom the focus of her ALA presidency. The presidential task force will prepare a final text this Fall and will submit it to ALA Council at Midwinter for acceptance as official ALA policy. This statement is intended to be an important policy document for the 21st century, designed to be adopted by libraries nationwide. If you support our more forceful, revised text -- or if you want to make other revisions of your own -- please write to June Pinnell-Stephens <JuneP[at]muskox.alaska.edu> IMMEDIATELY. Waiting until the next SRRT Action Council meeting in January 1999 will be too late. --Charles June Pinnell-Stephens Chair Presidential Task Force on Intellectual Freedom American Library Association Dear Ms. Pinnell-Stephens, Thank you for your courtesy when I spoke at the hearing on the draft of the new ALA intellectual freedom statement held by the Task Force at the ALA conference last month. Subsequently, SRRT Action Council, pressed for time, was unable to reach agreement on a specific, revised text. Instead, Carol Reid, Sanford Berman, and I as individuals are submitting for your consideration the following proposed revisions (in caps) written by Carol and modified slightly by Sandy and me. Carol Reid, editor of the NYLA IFRT Newsletter, former NYLA IFRT coordinator, and former ALA/SRRT Newsletter editor; Sanford Berman, Coordinator, ALA/SRRT Hunger, Homelessness, and Poverty Task Force; and Charles Willett, Coordinator, ALA/SRRT Alternatives in Print Task Force. LIBRARIES: AN AMERICAN VALUE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT ALA INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM STATEMENT JULY 1998 Libraries in America, whether public or special, academic or school, IDEALLY are a cornerstone of the communities they serve and are essential to the preservation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Libraries SHOULD provide the ideas, resources and information imperative for education, work, recreation and self-government. Libraries are a legacy to today's generation, offering them the heritage of the past and the promise of the future. To ensure that libraries flourish and have the freedom to promote the public good in the 21st century, we believe certain principles must be guaranteed. To that end, we affirm this contract with the people we serve: We defend the constitutional rights of ALL individuals to obtain and use the library's resources WITHOUT REGARD TO AGE, SEX, RACE, CLASS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, OR ABILITY TO PAY FOR LIBRARY MATERIALS AND SERVICES; We value our nation's diversity and strive to offer TO MEET ITS NEEDS BY developing and providing resources and services to the communities we serve, AND, BECAUSE THEY IMPEDE DIVERSITY AND ACCESS, WE OPPOSE CENTRALIZED SELECTION AND THE OUTSOURCING OF COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT AND CATALOGING; We support the rights of all individuals, including children and young adults, to determine which resources are appropriate and necessary for themselves, AND WILL ACTIVELY RESIST ALL EFFORTS AT CENSORSHIP AND ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT FREE AND EQUAL ACCESS; We UPHOLD the responsibility of all parents to guide their own children's use of the library and its resources and services, AND OPPOSE RESTRICTED ACCESS BASED ON AGE; We connect people and information by assisting INDIVIDUALS in identifying and effectively using resources, EMPLOYING SPECIALIZED BIBLIOGRAPHIES AND INDEXES TO BOTH MAINSTREAM AND ALTERNATIVE RESOURCES; We protect each individual's privacy and confidentiality in the use of library resources and services BY EDUCATING STAFF, THE PUBLIC, AND GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ABOUT THESE LEGAL GUARANTEES AS THEY APPLY TO LIBRARY USERS; We protect the rights of individuals to express their concerns about library resources and services BY PROVIDING AVENUES FOR COMPLAINTS, REQUESTS AND SUGGESTIONS CONCERNING LIBRARY MATERIALS; We celebrate and preserve our democratic society by providing opportunities for all individuals to become educated, culturally enriched, and informed, AND WILL WORK TOWARD THIS IDEAL BY MAKING AVAILABLE THE WIDEST POSSIBLE RANGE OF IDEAS, THROUGH THE ACQUISITION OF SMALL AND ALTERNATIVE PRESS MATERIALS, AND THROUGH THE AVOIDANCE OF PROFESSIONAL SELF-CENSORSHIP STEMMING EITHER FROM IDEOLOGICAL BIAS OR EASE OF ACQUISITION. WE ENDORSE ARTICLE 19 OF THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AND STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RIGHT TO FREE EXPRESSION. Change is constant; but we believe these principles transcend and endure in a dynamic technological and political environment. We believe further that through these principles, libraries in the United States can contribute to a world free of fear and want, a world THAT values and protects freedom of speech, a world THAT CELEBRATES cultural differences and respects individual beliefs, and a world where all are truly equal and free. ___________________________________________________________________________ 4. Issues of Inside Censorship and the ALA I wrote the following essay in March, 1998, for Ann Symons' listserv "presplan," which was being used to gather ideas for her presidential initiative "Intellectual Freedom 2000." A slightly rewritten version appears in _Counterpoise_ vol.2 no.1, January 1998. If you find any sarcasm in it, it's unintentional, and I'll try to strip it out of a future rewrite. Send me your feedback if anything strikes you. -Rory Litwin, rlitwin[at]earthlink.net Note: it's a good source of bibliographic info on the topic. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Issues of Inside Censorship and the ALA Forgive me for my lack of experience in libraries. I am a student and what I know of the issues that interest me I have learned primarily by reading. As I understand things, ALA's own actions in defense of intellectual freedom so far have been limited to the business of directly fighting censorship efforts brought against local libraries. It's an important task but something rather narrow in scope and effect, compared to the broader, systemic threats to intellectual freedom. Sanford Berman describes the situation in terms of two types of censorship, "outside" censorship and "inside" censorship, "outside" censorship efforts coming from outside of libraries, and "inside" censorship coming from within our institutions; libraries, publishing houses, etc. As Berman puts it, "'Outside' censorship may win headlines, but the 'inside' brand is probably more pervasive, and much more damaging to intellectual freedom." (Sanford Berman, "'Inside' Censorship", Wisconsin Library Bulletin, Spring, 1981, pp.21-4. Also see his "Three Kinds of Censorship that Nobody Talks About", Minnesota Library Association, Vol. 23, No. 7, August/September, 1996.) I see no reason why these deeper issues cannot be addressed more comprehensively by the ALA's Intellectual Freedom efforts than they have been to date. Ideally, the ALA's traditional courage in advocating its interests where they are controversial ought to extend to the honest pursuit of that freedom where it is most deeply challenged. As Ann Symons and the ALA's membership prepare an intellectual freedom program for her upcoming presidency it seems an ideal time to consider these issues. It is discouraging to me, however, that while ALA's basic intellectual freedom documents seem to take a strong stand against institutional threats to intellectual freedom, and librarians seem to believe universally that they are its defenders, the process of "inside" censorship only seems to be picking up steam, in book publishing, promotion, and review decisions. Librarians don't necessarily see the process and are commonly unaware of what they can and should do to counter its effects in their libraries. Also, through their own decisions, they are increasingly losing their own independence of the political-economic forces that affect their libraries. What happens to intellectual freedom as a result? The answer is not to be found by monitoring outside censorship efforts alone. ALA's reach extends beyond its influence on library professionals and ability to protect local libraries. It is a politically influential organization. I believe it is worthwhile to more directly address some of the institutional threats to intellectual freedom. I have read accounts of books being stopped before publication and books being "killed" in the promotion phase by PR firms working for specific, nameable industrial entities. These acts of censorship are harmful to society because they suppress facts that it is valuable, sometimes essential to know. Often these publications, or attempted publications, would reveal genuine threats to the public health, threats that are only recognized much later, due to the successful efforts of industries and PR firms to suppress the information. Who is there to fight against this form of censorship? As Herbert Schiller puts it, "The rejected author, whose book is rejected for political reasons, has no platform on which to complain." (_Information Inequality_, London: Routledge, 1996.) The present Freedom to Read statement seems dedicated to defending books from being removed from their shelves by people who are fearful of what they contain. But books are also being removed from _publication_, or not selected for review, by people who are fearful of what they contain. Why not address this type of market-based or political-based censorship in the ALA's official Intellectual Freedom statements? At the very least, librarians should be made distinctly aware of censorship of this type and the resultant necessity of reviewing, indexing, and selecting alternative publications. But beyond that (and possibly beyond the scope of this listserv, but worth considering), why not pursue these issues through ALA's influence in Congress and relationship with the American Association of Publishers? If we stand for intellectual freedom, we must to act in the political realm to ensure our market-neutrality and independence from political forces. (I have recently read accounts of the sort of "book killing" I am referring to in John Wiener's article "Murdered Ink," _The Nation_, May 31, 1993, and the book _Toxic Sludge is Good for You: Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry_, by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton (Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1995).) Assuming a challenging book reaches publication, it still has to be sold to a vendor. To a degree that is in principle measurable, booksellers are reducing access to alternative literature by the use of the approval plan concept and similar systems that end up weeding out alternative literature as an effect of their efforts to maximize profit margins. A study of library/vendor relations could be commissioned by ALA or by another group outside of the libraries themselves to document the real effects of the approval plan concept (aside from the budgetary savings and loss of jobs in acquisitions departments, which is already well documented in libraries' own reports). The potential for loss of intellectual freedom through a less than vigilant watch over library/vendor relationships is well enough understood already, however, to give it explicit attention in an intellectual freedom program. There is an equal problem with "inside" censorship by the gatekeepers within the library profession. The ALA's own _Choice_ has a policy of representing "all viewpoints on controversial or sensitive topics," but, as Charles Willett has argued, is far from achieving that goal. ("Politically Controversial Monographs: Role of Publishers, Distributors, Booksellers, Choice Magazine, and Librarians in Acquiring Them for American Academic Libraries," _Building on the First Century: Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries_, (Chicago: ACRL, 1989), pp. 238-42.) Reviewers at _Choice_ can be shown to have biased judgment in determining what will be reviewed. Similar factors limit review of challenging books by other review journals, with the effect of preventing their selection. Since this type of "passive censorship" or "inside" censorship is already contrary to stated policy at _Choice_, it is difficult to think of a suggestion for a new intellectual freedom policy that would be effective if it were to be adopted. I think that their are many possible elements to the answer. The statement should be clearly worded, so that it cannot be mistaken for an empty ideal or principled verbiage that makes no demands on anyone. It should address institutional or structurally-based censorship directly and with a critical intent, without hedging or avoiding specifics. After all, is the aim of ALA's intellectual freedom program to defend intellectual freedom, or isn't it? In terms of bibliographic access there is the further problem of bias in librarianship, due to a lack of critical reflection on mass publishers' pervasive marketing and the bias of reviewers. Sanford Berman's work over the years has frequently addressed this "post-selection" form of censorship, starting with _Prejudices and Antipathies_ and moving up through any bibliography of his work. In his "'Inside Censorship" article (ibid.), Berman describes post-selection barriers other than poor cataloging. Barriers to access that originate in the unconscious bias of librarians are clearly an intellectual freedom issue. There is no good reason for ALA's Intellectual Freedom statements and policies to continue to neglect these forms of censorship, regardless of whatever practical limitations they might have to confront. These issues all point to one primary defense against the overall threat to intellectual freedom, and that is the awareness, selection, and extensive use of alternative literature. Above all, I believe that this solution needs to be specifically included in the Intellectual Freedom statements - as a solution, and with reference to the censorship it answers. Much has been written on the importance of the alternative press as well as how to use it. Charles Willett's recent contribution to the discussion list "presplan" cited the review journal _Counterpoise_ and the directory Alternative Publishers of Books in North America. The Alternatives In Print task force or SRRT is a dedicated group but does not make policy. Not for a lack of interest, or for a lack of effort either, the AIP is currently not represented on the 21st Century Policy IF Statement group, which is responsible for drafting a new intellectual freedom statement. Although the words "intellectual freedom" do not appear in its name, those words fairly well express AIP's reason for being; yet the group is left to function largely by itself, and is largely ignored by the Office of Intellectual Freedom and other IF bodies within ALA. As a newcomer to the organization, I am unaware of the historical reasons for the lack of cooperation between these groups, and I am equally unaware of the reasons these issues have not been taken up more broadly or addressed more explicitly. Since the set of issues I've discussed has been written on at length already I have chosen to close with a few quotations from the literature. >From Chris Atton, "Beyond the mainstream: Examining Alternative Sources for Stock Selection," _Library Review_, v.43 No. 4 (1994) pp. 57-64: "...(B)y limiting ourselves to the publications of the mainstream we might be unwittingly sustaining a status quo, fostering an information elite, restricting access to aspects of culture and politics that tend to be disregarded by mainstream publishers and mass media in general...The distorting influence of all mass media (and I include "mass publishing" in this) has been demonstrated for many years in the work of such as Noam Chomsky, John Pilger, and the Glasgow University Media Group." In _The Manufacture of Consent_, Chomsky identifies a number of ways in which the mass media operate: by selecting topics by emphasis by framing of issues by filtering information, and by the bounding of debate." (Be aware of Chris Atton's recent book, _Alternative Literature: A Practical Guide for Librarians_, (Gower, Brookfield VT, Hampshire England, 1996).) from Charles Willett, (ibid.): "(Politically controversial books) do not leap automatically from cash register to the shelves of most college and university libraries. These books are our _glasnost_, our _samizdat_, our free voice. Every participant in the chain linking author and reader has a responsibility to bring them into college and university libraries. Publishers and distributors should tell librarians what titles are available and why they are significant. Booksellers should include them in their approval plans, even if they are not big money makers. Review journals should put aside ideology and guarantee that all viewpoints on controversial or sensitive topics are fairly evaluated. Comprehensive bibliographic essays and collection management reports should consider the whole world, not just the West. They should consider all points of view, not just academic and political orthodoxy. Studies and reviews that fail to consider honestly the intellectual contributions of socialist countries, third world countries and western dissidents are instruments of propaganda." from John Buschman, "Towards a New World Information and Communication Order: A Symposium," _Progressive Librarian_, No. 3, Summer, 1991, pp. 5-23 "Libraries as market-neutral spheres for information are declining... (W)hat has happened to economics, ownership, and distribution of global and government information has made basic freedom of information something of a joke. Libraries, like schools, are becoming linked to specific business and economic issues. Those issues will come to dominate the purchasing and administrative actions of libraries in order to fulfill the economic agenda now set for them. Perhaps most disturbing, most of this has begun unquestioned." It is my hope that Ann Symons' Presidency and the Intellectual Freedom 2000 initiative will be an occasion to broaden the scope of ALA's attention to the issues of inside censorship.
Web Page created by Text2Web v1.3.6 by Dev Virdi
http://www.virdi.demon.co.uk/
Date: Thursday, October 29, 1998 12:07 PM