Library Juice 3:17 Supplement 1

Library Juice 3:17 Supplement 1 - May 3, 2000 Second Core Values issue supplement Collected Email The website for AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION CORE VALUES TASK FORCE is at: http://www.ala.org/congress/corevalues/ The statement can be found there. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. First, John Berry, III May 1, 2000 Dumbed Down Core Values Don't let inoffensive generalizations be mistaken for our deepest beliefs. http://www.ljdigital.com/articles/views/editorial/20000501_14343.asp [Sent to the ALA Council list by Mark Rosenzweig] .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. From: "Karen G. Schneider" <kgs[at]bluehighways.com> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: [ALACOUN:4585] Re: LJ's John Berry on "Core Values" Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:21:42 -0400 Organization: Generally Good Quite frankly, this is the biggest crock of shit I have been privileged to see on this discussion list. The Core Values statement is an excellent piece of work, and the committee was very open to input. As for John Berry, he obviously had a slow-news week. His last editorial was simply boring; this one is purely wrongheaded. Perhaps the original problem was for the Committee on Ed. to have asked a Task Force to assemble a statement--any statement. The purpose of this statement was to help our profession move forward during this time of great upheaval and change. It was a first step, and I believe it was done very well. What it has become, unfortunately, is a convenient rallying point for the whinnying naysayers who object to any effort to recast who we are in terms that are meaningful for our era. Berry's objections are picayune and bear no connection to the reality of the Core Values statement. However, his words have given ample lift and airspeed to the dirigible of negativism that ever floats above ALA Council. Meanwhile, while we fiddle, librarianship burns... Karen G. Schneider kgs[at]bluehighways.com Assistant Director of Technology Shenendehowa Public Library, Clifton Park, NY http://www.shenpublib.org .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 15:42:57 -0500 From: "James B. Casey" <jimcasey[at]lib.oak-lawn.il.us> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: [ALACOUN:4587] John Berry's Vow of Poverty! Thanks to Councilor Rosenzweig, we have received advance copy of John Berry's reaction to the CVTF document. In one important respect, I agree strongly with both Mark and John. These Core Values should be debated openly and fully before being voted upon by Council. John Berry III wrote eloquently and with great skill about the "Crisis in Librarian Salaries". Now he seems to be advocating what amounts to a vow of poverty for Librarians ---- or more correctly, a renewal of the vow of poverty which ALA has purportedly made for us in bygone years. -------------------------------------------------------- John Berry III states (excerpt): "The CVTF's "Assurance of equitable access to recorded knowledge, information and creative works," while inoffensive, is simply no match for the direct power of two clean, clear ALA policies on fees for library service. One says, "The American Library Association asserts that the charging of fees and levies for information services, including those services utilizing the latest information technology, is discriminatory in publicly supported institutions providing library and information services." The other existing policy puts it even more directly: "The American Library Association opposes the charging of user fees for the provision of information by all libraries and information services that receive their major support from public funds." ---------------------------------------------------- Clean and Clear? Bold and Direct? Or is it muddled and misguided altruism? Should State Universities not charge tuition or State funded Museums not charge admission? Shouldn't all citizens be entitled to access academic institutions and museums? What about toll free highways and absolutely free postage? Even the public schools charge tuition for students whose parents don't reside in and pay taxes directly to support the school district. Many also charge for text books, lab fees, field trips, etc.. Nobody is shouting about "FREE" in these cases --- and ALA wouldn't be wise to ask if postal workers, teachers, truck drivers and State University faculty would be happy working for the wages paid to Librarians. And is it altogether wrong for some cost recovery (not gouging) to be obtained by those who actually use the service? In the minds of many, if we "give it away" it must not be worth very much. Thus we have long discussions with irate patrons who can't understand that it costs money to process and catalog books, to chase down overdues, and to keep our facilities open 7 days per week. We see the Census Bureau and IRS expecting us to contribute large amounts of staff time and space to the furtherance of their operations "at no charge" to their own agencies. I'm sorry to say that ALA has often been leading the pack in devaluing information and Library services by slapping on the "free" lable. The CVTF has tried hard to clarify and modernize. And for that effort, I thank them! James B. Casey --- Councilor-at-Large .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 17:03:09 -0400 From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net> Reply-To: iskra[at]earthlink.net To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Dear fellow Councilors, Ms. Schneider's rhetoric is suddenly reminiscent of the style of Spiro Agnew's famous "nattering nabobs of negativism" (actually speech-writer William Safire wrote that gem). She lacks only the alliteration. But she makes up for it with her metaphor of "whinnying naysayers" on the "dirigible of negativism". As one of the putative passengers on the Zeppelin of Zealotry (my contribution to the contest), my dictionary up here (yes, I brought it along) says that whinnying is giving forth a "gentle or joyful neigh". Maybe that's the kind of neigh-saying she's referring to? Myself, I'm saying "yes"..Yes to what our already well articulated core values really are when I reject the piece of puff Ms. Schneider seems to consider a combination of pure poetry and profound philosophy. Mark Rosenzweig .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 16:26:07 -0500 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: Al Kagan <akagan[at]uiuc.edu> Subject: [ALACOUN:4589] ALA Core values Thanks to Mark for sending John Berry's editorial. I think he see the big picture better than most of us. The Core Values TF just leaves out too much and does not give sufficient thought to the proactive nature of our involvement. In a previous message to the Social Responsibilities Round Table I pointed out some of the specific flaws with the draft language. Here is what I wrote. > >1. Connection of people to ideas. This leaves out the political >orientation of the materials that we give to people. Don't we also >want to make sure they get alternative viewpoints, and shouldn't we >also teach them about evaluating sources, not just accept what we >give them as "fact."? > >2. Assurance of equitable access.... This leaves out the need for >cost-free access. And what about the need for "the Right to Know" >which we have heavily promoted over many years now (since Pat >Schuman was President). > >4. Respect for the individuality and the diversity of all people. >Shouldn't we also support redress of historical discrimination? >Shouldn't we be doing outreach to communities? > >5. Freedom for all people to form,hold and to express their own >beliefs. This is much too passive. We also support the right to >advocate beliefs in strong ways such as in demonstrations, street >theater, and other organized activities. > >7. Excellence in professional service to our communities. There is >a disconnect between the "value" and the explanation which really >addresses leadership qualities: "integrity, competence, personal >growth, effective stewardship, and service to our disciplines as >well as to our public. There are actually apples as well as oranges >in the list. I would label the value "Leadership Qualities." > >8. Formation of partnerships.... This is a mode of working not a >value. The value should be "Institutional Cooperation." > I don't think we can fix this document, and I suggest we follow John's suggestion to defeat it and move on. Al Kagan African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration Africana Unit, Room 328 University of Illinois Library 1408 W. Gregory Drive Urbana, IL 61801, USA tel. 217-333-6519 fax. 217-333-2214 e-mail. akagan[at]uiuc.edu .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000 09:57:52 -0700 From: "Robert S. Martin" <rmartin3[at]twu.edu> Subject: [ALACOUN:4592] Re: LJ's John Berry on "Core Values" To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Organization: Texas Woman's University "Karen G. Schneider" wrote: [snip] > Perhaps the original problem was for the Committee on Ed. to have asked a > Task Force to assemble a statement--any statement. The purpose of this > statement was to help our profession move forward during this time of great > upheaval and change. [snip] As Karen indicates, it might be useful to remember the origin of the core values task force and its charge. Last spring, in its deliberations, the Congress on Professional Education realized that there was no explicit consensus in the profession on our core values. The Congress further realized that, in the absence of such an explicit consensus on core values, it is impossible to resolve some of the most important issues it was charged to address. Unless we can agree on who we are and what we believe in, how can we possibly agree on what educators must teach? The Congress therefore recommended that ALA develop a succinct statement of the core values of the profession. The audience for the core values statement, it seems to me, is primarily other information professionals, not the general population. It is not intended to replace ALA policies on any issue. It is rather intended to enunciate clearly and succinctly the values that we librarians hold in common, so that other information professionals can determine if they share our values. Please note that this is an expression of my personal opinion. I do not claim to speak for the Congress, its Steering Committee, or the Core Values Task Force. Bob Martin Councilor at Large .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:42:44 -0600 (MDT) From: Janet Swan Hill <Hilljs[at]Colorado.EDU> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: [ALACOUN:4594] Core Values Dear Colleagues, I tried to send this message last Friday morning, but my computer had just been (you should forgive the expression) "repaired", as a consequence of which my messages *looked* as if they had been mailed, but never actually went anywhere. (Isn't technology wonderful). I am now forwarding it through different software. So I'll send it and pray. The message was composed and sent prior to my receiving the copy of John Berry's editorial. Rather than re-think it in light of that item, I am just going to send it "as is." janet swan hill councilor at large **************** I'd like to contribute something a little different to this discussion about the Core Values document. That is, I'm going to describe some of the events that I remember that led up to the formation of a task force charged to develop a statement of Core Values, as well as my personal take on the process followed by the Task Force in arriving at its first draft (the one that preceded the draft that we are all now discussing) This is a personal recollection. Others might remember things differently. Still others were not in a position to recall these things, due to not having been on Council for some of these discussions, or at the Congress on Professional Education, or in the Task Force meetings. I hope that some of this will help put things into a context that will make be useful as we think about the issues. When the State of Hawaii entered into an outsourcing contract with Baker & Taylor, whereby all selection and cataloging for the state's public libraries were to be done by B&T, there was an uproar. The issue was brought up in Council, and there was extended discussion. Some of those speaking to the issue decried the contract because it had moved "core functions" outside the libraries, and others said that this violated the profession's "core values". If my memory serves me correctly, one or the other of these phrases was incorporated into one or another of the resolutions brought to the floor. I remember that when I heard these phrases mentioned for the first time, I dived for my ALA Handbook and began riffling through the Constitution, Bylaws and Policy Manual to see if indeed the contract DID violate "core values" or outsource "core functions". I also remember that many other councilors headed for their handbooks at the same moment (it was one of those priceless Council moments Ö. s many of us thumbing through the Policy Manual at the same time). What I found, Ö. what we all found. and what was then mentioned in the course of the debate, was that we didn't HAVE a statement of either Core Values or Core Functions. Several councilors noted that it was a little difficult to censure someone for violating something that existed only in our minds. Both during those debates, and in the discussion that followed on the electronic list, a number of councilors observed that it oughtn't be that difficult or that time consuming to come up with a list of core values and core functions, and that we ought to do it. I remember contributing a message on the list in which I said that I could come up with a list of core functions that satisfied ME very easily, and I did. I believe that I listed: selection and/or identification of materials/resources that meet the needs of the library's clientele; and actual or policy oversight over operations for making those materials/resources accessible through acquisition, organization, physical processing/preservation, instruction, and user assistance. I think that I also said, in a separate message, that I had my own list of core values, and that it contained only one item: open and equitable access to information. But those were my personal lists. The issue died down, but was revived soon in connection with Council discussions about the real meaning and implications of the removal of the word "library" from the names of accredited LIS programs. In these discussions, too, we talked about the degree to which LIS programs might or might not be teaching "core functions" and providing educations that adhered to our "core values". Again we noted that we as an organization hadn't articulated either of these things, so it was difficult to demand that the LIS programs hew to them. As a result of our debates about library education, however, a Presidential Steering Committee was formed, and a Congress on Professional Education was held. I was commissioned to provide one of the background papers for the Congress, and because of that was one of the participants. Two of the workshop sessions were particularly focused on the matters of core values and core functions. The rationale was that LIS programs needed to know what the profession regarded as "core" so that they could be guided by that knowledge in establishing their curricula. We were divided into many small groups of about 20 people each, and asked to identify what we regarded as core values for the profession. Our deliberations were "jump started" with a list of values and values-like words that appeared in ALA's various existing policy statements. We added to those lists, and then set about organizing them and prioritizing them. All the lists from all the groups were then pooled, and the group as a whole did some additional "weighting" and prioritizing. A similar process was followed for core functions, except that there were no existing policy statements to serve as a starting point. Following up on the Congress, the ALA President appointed task forces to continue work on what had been begun at the Congress. The Core Values Task Force was one of those. We started our work with the lists that were developed at the Congress. We also sought out and looked at values statements developed by other professions. We considered the genesis of our own task force (including the debates that had occurred in which the absence of a values statement was felt to be a problem). We discussed "what is a value." We discussed what the purposes of a values statement were, and how those we saw from other professions did or did not answer those purposes. From these sources grew our vision of the statement as something that was short ("short enough to fit on a poker chip"), that was phrased generally enough to be inclusive of all the values identified as important, that did not exclude segments of the profession, and that would not become rapidly outdated. Further, we saw it as something that did not replace anything currently in the Handbook, nor supplant any of the extant policy statements which addressed one or more of our values in detail. About the poker chip -- one of our task force members brought the values statement from her own institution. The values (about five of them) were expressed in single words. The institution had printed the values on a poker chip, and each employee was given a chip. They were also engraved on paperweights. The values were "explicated" in a small brochure. The task force was struck by the forcefulness and effectiveness of this kind of presentation, and although we did not aim to create a "poker chip" of our own, each time we found ourselves becoming wordy, we would remind ourselves that we were to working toward a concise statement of values, not a policy manual. About becoming rapidly outdated -- We consciously tried not to use terms that were considered to be "insiders' jargon" or "code words," and instead to use common language and terminology that encompassed the meaning and intent of the jargon and code words. An example of jargon is the term "intellectual freedom", which is librarians' shorthand for a complex concept that might not be well understood by those outside the profession who might be wondering "what are they about?" The concept is clearly "core" to our profession, but the particular words are not sacred. Once we had tentatively agreed on the sort of document we were aiming toward, we began to work on the lists that were generated by the Congress, and added values of our own until we "ran dry". Then began the process of reducing the lists - which by this time took up three walls of our very large conference room - to a manageable size, first by identifying "common themes" and overlaps, and then by developing general "headers" that subsumed all of the values that we had grouped together. No term was accepted unless all who were there could agree that it encompassed, or served as an "umbrella" to all of the values listed under it. None of us imagined that we would unveil a document and have it immediately acclaimed and accepted by all. We knew that it would be the subject of intensive debate and discussion. (We didn't anticipate that it would be the subject of intensive debate by the readers of Dr. Laura's webpage, but indeed it was. We were certainly surprised to discover how many of the readers of that page read into it a determination to push pornography on children). None of us would have produced this exact document on our own. I, for instance, would have stopped after the first value. We had philosophical disagreements among ourselves along the way. (For example, the philosophical difference between wanting to name "diversity" - which we agreed to be jargon - as a separate item, or wanting to have if suffuse every value so that it could never be "lopped off"). In the end, however, we produced a draft that we could all support. And now it's up to Council. janet swan hill councilor at large .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 17:00:38 -0400 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net> Subject: [ALACOUN:4597] Jargon I find it highly disturbing to hear "intellectual freedom" written off as a "jargon" term i.e. as if it is some specialized vocabulary only understood within the library profession. That's what "jargon" would, properly, mean. I believe it is widely understood in the United States outside of professional circles When Janet Swan Hill says "An example of jargon is the term "intellectual freedom", which is librarians' shorthand for a complex concept that might not be well understood by those outside the profession who might be wondering "what are they about?" " I wonder if she is simply not aware of the present, wide currency and long history of the term, or is simply tired of being tied to what it quite precisely represents. "Diversity" is also suggested to be jargon, which grudgingly must be paid lip service, although it is a term which has informed public debates for the last 20 years and has also been reemphasized by ALA repeatedly in the last period in various initiatives and programs at every level The Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement stand as quite clear, precise and widely accessible presentations of our commitments in this area. I see nothing in the Core Values document which "translates" antique jargon , as Karen Schneider would have it, into a more "contemporary" idiom, strictly to communicate its essence better to "future generations" or even to the general public. Rather I see a substitution of much vaguer terminology which fuzzily communicates to the present and next generation only an uneasiness with definitions of our policies and commitments as they have developed historically and a distancing of ourselves from the duty to maintain basic policies (e.g. free access) and commitments (e.g. intellectual freedom) in the face of political pressures and other exigencies. Mark Rosenzweig .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. From: "GraceAnne A. DeCandido" <ladyhawk[at]well.com> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 10:57:06 -0400 Subject: [ALACOUN:4600] Response to Core Values editorial by John Berry in LJ CC: Jberry[at]cahners.com The temptation to simply let John Berry�s editorial, �Dumbed-Down Core Values� of May 1, 2000 in LJ and on the web at http://www.ljdigital.com/articles/views/editorial/editorialin dex.asp, slip by without comment was great. One never wants to dignify this kind of thing by taking it too seriously. As a Councilor and as a member of the Core Values Task Force, however, I couldn�t let the assumptions perpetrated in this screed go by. The tone of this editorial is patronizing to an astonishing degree. What are we to make of the comment that his opinion is �affectionate, if critical�? His affection or lack of same is of no moment to us. He is not, thank the goddess, our uncle. Berry calls the Core Values draft �general� �vague� �the stuff of publicity agents and spin doctors.� We on the Task Force chose our words with care, words that would have balance and meaning to anyone who read them, in or out of the profession. I submit, for example, that �intellectual freedom� is a phrase that only librarians understand. Library patrons, garden-variety folk, know that �the connection of people to ideas� means not just good ideas, but bad ideas and silly ideas and dangerous ideas, because if we don�t save them and keep them available, who will? That�s intellectual freedom at its most grass-roots. It is an old, old trick to disarm by ridicule. Berry�s characterization of the Core Values draft as �bland�, his dismissal of our work with a pat on the head and a certificate, is unconscionable, not to mention unprofessional. Berry�s view is also clearly circumscribed by a self-evident prejudice toward public libraries. His emphasis on publicly funded institutions ignores the real issues of access, diversity, and equity that librarians in universities, schools, and other places face. The Task Force, comprising librarians from nearly every kind of library, strove to provide words that were true for all types of librarians. We wanted inclusiveness, not combativeness. He posits that we have no Jefferson or Ranganathan among us. We hope that we have the sense to recognize � to name just two of our distinguished group -- in Michael Gorman�s thoughtful phrasing or Janet Swan Hill�s incisive intelligence the level of care that went into our document. Michael is of course, one of the great library writers of our time, and author of a book on core values; Janet�s clear thinking is amply displayed in the document describing the Task Force�s history, recently posted. It is hard not to wonder if the real problem Berry perceives is not our lack of Jefferson or Ranganathan but our lack of Berry. In the months that the Task Force has been working, we have received hundreds of emails, met with hundreds of other librarians, sought input at national conferences, in our own states, and in local professional organizations. We cherish the support we have received from these diverse groups and we hope that support will translate into a positive response from Council. We will not be dismissed, we will not be patronized, we are listening, and we will be heard. GraceAnne A. DeCandido Blue Roses Consulting ~ Writing ~ Editorial ~ Web Content ~ New York City ~ ladyhawk[at]well.com http://www.well.com/user/ladyhawk/gadhome.html What's Ladyhawk reading now? http://www.well.com/user/ladyhawk/books.html Writing is exciting, and baseball is like writing. You can never tell with either how it will go. Marianne Moore .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 08:36:40 -0700 From: Sue Kamm <suekamm[at]mindspring.com> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: [ALACOUN:4601] Re: Response to Core Values editorial by John Berry in LJ Amen, GraceAnne! I was on the Intellectual Freedom Committee during the revision of the Library Bill of Rights. As did the members of the Core Values Task Force, IFC struggled mightily to provide inclusive language that would be understandable to the public and the professionals who would use it. Rather than provide a "laundry list" we chose to develop umbrellas that would cover all people, all media, and all types of libraries. IMNSHO, the Core Values Task Force has done a masterful job. I hope Council can adopt the statement so we can move on to discussing the much-needed changes in the standards for accreditation. -- Your friendly CyberGoddess and ALA Councilor, Sue Kamm email: suekamm[at]mindspring.com "It's a mere moment in a man's life between the All-Star Game and the Old Timers' Game." --Vin Scully .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 12:13:56 -0500 (EST) From: ANN SNOEYENBOS <snoeyena[at]elmer4.bobst.nyu.edu> Subject: [ALACOUN:4605] Core Values To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Cc: jberry[at]cahners.com Organization: NYU Libraries Thank you Sue Kamm for reminding us why we are here--to discuss the standards for accreditation. I am certainly not going to vote for the current Core Values Statement just to allow that dicussion to take place. I agree with many who've said that the statement is limp. It is little more than a pitch for democratic society. Should we really be trying to rebuild library and information science education on the back of a document that has no spine? Instead of discussing the language of this Core Values Statement, I think it would be more productive to put the whole thing aside as an impossible exercise. Our goal is to figure out what we think is important in the education of future professionals, so let's focus on that and not on enumerating how human potential is maximized through the world's libraries. Yes, the Congress on Professional Education thought it would be easier to talk about a core curriculum if there were a set of core values, but if that can't be done easily how much more time, money(!!), and effort is that endeavour worth to us as an association? Let's get back to the fundamental issue--WHAT SHOULD THE SCHOOLS FOR OUR PROFESSION TEACH? WHAT SHOULD NEW PROFESSIONALS KNOW? Ann Snoeyenbos NMRT Councilor .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. And from the ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom listserv, to which Mark R. had been forwarding some of this correspondence: Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 11:20:17 -0400 (EDT) From: Melora Ranney <macbeth[at]saturn.caps.maine.edu> To: ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom List <alaoif[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: [ALAOIF:11116] Core Values Statement--a look OK, I just thought that this was another sort of interpretive thing, another nice statement about what we do, sort of like that American Value piece. However, if as Mark states this is to become our professional *mantra* so to speak, then let's apply some analysis to the thing: -Connection of people to ideas <Do we have a right, or even a moral imperative, to censor those ideas? Does anything in this statement address that question? Could we read here that we should connect people to only ideas that we approve of? WHICH ideas?> -Assurance of equitable access to recorded knowledge, information and creative works <As long as everybody gets treated the same, does it matter WHICH knowledge, etc., we connect them to--or is it only important that we are fair about it, and apply our policies evenly?> -Commitment to literacy and learning <Schools theoretically have a commitment to literacy and learning, yet they frequently make censorship a matter of official policy. One must therefore conclude that promoting literacy and learning do not entail opposition to censorship.> -Respect for the individuality and diversity of all people <If we respect them, does that mean that we do not censor them? Is that or is that not inherent in this phrase? If it is inherent, is it clear?> -Freedom for all people to form, to hold, and to express their own beliefs <Does that have anything to do with access? is it obvious that intellectual freedom includes access, or is it just expression? Are libraries about expression, or access? Is it ok if we censor as long as we allow people to complain about it?> -Preservation of the human record -Excellence in professional service to our communities <What is professional? Have we defined it here? Do library professionals oppose censorship?> -Formation of partnerships to advance these values Here are some definitions from my American Heritage Dictionary: idea: A product of mental activity; thought. equitable: Just and fair; impartial. intellect: The ability of the mind to think, reason, and learn. freedom: The condition of being free. free: 1. At liberty; not bound or constrained. 2. Not under obligation or necessity. 3. a. Politically independent. b. Governed by consent and possessing civil liberties. The only place in which I see the important word *freedom* here is where it states that people may *form, hold, and express their own beliefs.* It doesn't talk about what people may read, view, or otherwise gain access to--it just says that they may express their beliefs. What about people who argue that in order for us to support their right to hold their beliefs, we must censor stuff in our libraries? If we keep something in our collections even if someone feels its presence threatens his/her belief system, are we giving that person the freedom to hold that belief system, or are we infringing on that right? I've heard that argument many times, and it's not going to go away. The only place in which I see access referred to is in the connecting of people to ideas, and there is no reference made to WHICH ideas; hence, an argument could be made that librarians are in fact idea referees, and that we should indeed consider it a part of our job descriptions to CHOOSE FOR OUR PATRONS exactly which ideas might or might not be good for them. There is nothing in this statement which EXPLICITLY expresses that librarians have an ethical obligation to protect their patrons' freedom of access, nor that we should oppose censorship. You can read intellectual freedom into it; however, you can also read intellectual freedom out of it. I am not at all convinced that we can afford to abandon either the phrase intellectual freedom, nor the commitment to support intellectual freedom. Nor am I sure that we can afford NOT to mention a professional obligation to oppose censorship. If I were to take this statement and ask my Board of Trustees to incorporate it into our policies somewhere, there is nothing I could point to as backup if a patron challenged some material in our library. Social niceties make for delightful dinner conversation and probably improve list subscriptions; after all, _Martha Stewart_ has a much bigger readership than _The Nation_, and she probably has a much better recipe for barbecue. So, I will grant you that this is a tastier statement than something like *Librarians champion intellectual freedom and oppose censorship.* I mean, lots of us are sick of hearing that. However, can we afford NOT to say it? Are we now going to have an Office for Equitable Access at ALA? Are we going to be in favor of intellectual freedom but just not talk about it because it isn't *nice*? You might think that I am being extreme and making unreasonable arguments. However, those arguments don't sound so absurd when angry Jane Doe has been on the phone with library trustee Mrs. Smith or school board member Joe Schmoe, and folks are behind closed doors dealing with difficult censorship issues. At that point, vagueness can be quite damaging. I therefore conclude that Mark has a good point. If he or anybody else wants to forward this someplace they may feel free to do so. Melora Ranney .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. From: "GraceAnne A. DeCandido" <ladyhawk[at]well.com> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:13:20 -0400 Subject: [ALACOUN:4611] Words Michael Gorman has given me permission to post this to the Council list. GraceAnne DeCandido Michael Gorman <michaelg[at]csufresno.edu> > Most comments on the proposed values statement seem to center on > semantics. In particular, whether the phrase "intellectual freedom" is > or is not a term of art unfamiliar to those outside our field; whether > the statement's non-use of the phrase has a weakening effect; and > whether "equitable" is strong enough word. > > Webster's3 defines "intellectual" (as an adjective) as: Of, belonging > to, or relating to the intellect. "Freedom" hardly needs definition. > Therefore, anyone unfamiliar with the phrase or our meaning could read > the phrase as meaning "freedom to think"--something available in a > totalitarian state. Contrast that with the statement's: Freedom for > all people to form, to hold, and to express their own beliefs. I would > submit that the latter is unambiguous, clear, and expressed in terms > known to all. I have used the term "intellectual freedom" in my book > on values, but I expect it to be read, if at all, by librarians and not > by anyone unfamiliar with our particular uses of "intellectual freedom." > > The relevant Webster's3 definition of "equity" is: A free and reasonable > conformity to accepted standards of natural right, law, and justice > without prejudice, favoritism, or fraud and without rigor entailing > undue hardship. The relevant definition of "equitable" is: > Characterized by equity, fair to all concerned, without prejudice, > favor, or rigor entailing undue hardship. The staement's: "Assurance of > equitable access to recorded knowledge, information and creative works," > even if read more closely than by most, assures fairness, justice, and > rights to access without rigor. Can anyone quarrel with that? > > Forgive this Casuabon-like missive but I would like to inform the > discussion with some objective observations. > > Michael > .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 16:50:04 -0400 To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> From: Mark Rosenzweig <iskra[at]earthlink.net> Subject: [ALACOUN:4613] Re: Words The distinguished librarian Michael Gorman urges us to consider a number of our major problems with the Core Values document to be merely "semantic" ones, based on our apparent lack of access to a dictionary.. Therefore he urges us to come to our senses by whipping out the old Webster's and looking up the individual words which make up the compound terms "intellectual freedom" and "equitable access". Then we'll know what people must think the compound terms mean, by the mechanical adding up of the two units. And there, conveniently, will lie the key to eliminating what is at issue. Well, not quite. Let me just take "intellectual freedom". In its actual usage, in its historical context both within our profession and well beyond it, in its accumulated connotations which, in the estimate of any person (even a non-librarian!), would go beyond the sum of the denotations of the two isolated words that together comprise it, the term "intellectual freedom" is a rich repository of meaning which evokes not just dry dictionary definitions, but real struggles which have been fought and which continue to have to be fought. The term "intellectual freedom" in any case, connotes, even in its most common-sense reading, much more than Mr Gorman's preferred formulation "the freedom to form, hold and to express" ones own beliefs. It expresses, as we have always used it - and as we hope to have the public understand us to use it (or so I thought) - the right to access to the whole range of stuff out of which these "beliefs", these ideas, can be formed. It is tied, therefore, to our active "opposition to censorship", another expression which, for some reason, finds no place in the Core Values. What has been the problem with "intellectual freedom " and "opposition to censorship" which makes us suddenly believe they are incomprehensible to the public? Has our entire history of the use of these terms been shrouded in an obscurity which we only now realize in the wake of the Core Values Task Force's considerations? Or do we risk incomprehension on the part of future generations by maintaing the continuity of usage of these historic concepts? I don't think so, so I remain puzzled by the degree to which the Task Force is wedded to their substitute formulations. Mark Rosenzweig .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. From: Highsmith Press <hpress[at]highsmith.com> To: ALA Council List <alacoun[at]ala1.ala.org> Subject: [ALACOUN:4636] 5th Draft of the Core Values Statement Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 15:22:48 -0500 Dear Colleagues: The Task Force has continued to review comments and suggestions on the 4th draft of the Core Values statement from ALA units, affiliates, chapters, and members of the ALA Council. As a result of these recommendations, we have made two changes which have been included in the following 5th draft. The first change pertains to the core value on access. We changed "Assurance of equitable access to recorded knowledge, information, and creative works" to "Assurance of free and open access to recorded knowledge, information, and creative works." The second change was made in the interpretation of the value on diversity. The previous wording was "We honor each request for assistance promptly and with courtesy, meeting it equitably with the fullness of tools at our command while protecting each person's common right to privacy and confidentiality." The new statement, including the value, reads "Respect for the individuality and the diversity of all people. We honor each request without bias, and we meet it with the fullness of tools at our command. We respect the individual's need for privacy, confidentiality, and the right of access to library and information services and resources regardless of race, creed, national origin, age, ability, gender, or sexual orientation. Librarianship and Information Service: A Statement on Core Values 5th Draft (28 April 2000) The library and information profession is enriched by the skills and knowledge of its individual members. Through their specialized training and experience, they contribute to the varied missions of their institutions and organizations. Over time, they have refined their services to meet the unique and ever changing needs of their communities. Despite the multiplicity of these skills and roles, librarians and information specialists hold the following values in common: Connection of people to ideas Assurance of free and open access to recorded knowledge, information, and creative works. Commitment to literacy and learning Respect for the individuality and the diversity of all people Freedom for all people to form, to hold, and to express their own beliefs Preservation of the human record Excellence in professional service to our communities Formation of partnerships to advance these values Interpretation These values encompass many principles and beliefs that may have special meanings or require a different emphasis in each of the varied professional associations representing librarians and information professionals. The following is one interpretation, which may be adopted or revised by these organizations, based on their individual goals and priorities: Connection of people to ideas. We guide the seeker in defining and refining the search; we foster intellectual inquiry; we nurture communication in all forms and formats. Assurance of free and open access to recorded knowledge, information, and creative works. We recognize access to ideas across time and across cultures is fundamental to society and to civilization. Commitment to literacy and learning. We aid people to become independent lifelong learners by selecting and offering materials that support the differing needs of all learners, and that entertain and delight the human spirit. Respect for the individuality and the diversity of all people. We honor each request without bias, and we meet it with the fullness of tools at our command. We respect the individual's need for privacy, confidentiality, and the right of access to library and information services and resources regardless of race, creed, national origin, age, ability, gender, or sexual orientation. Freedom for all people to form, hold, and to express their own beliefs. All people have the right to seek, to know, and to find. Preservation of the human record. The cultural memory of humankind and its many families, its stories, its expertise, its history, and its evolved wisdom must be preserved so it may illuminate the present and make the future possible. Excellence in professional service to our communities. Our commitment requires integrity, competence, personal growth, effective stewardship, and service to our discipline as well as to our public. Formation of partnerships to advance these values. We believe in the interdependence of libraries and librarians and advocate collaboration in all areas and between all types of library, knowing that collections and services evolve successfully through such collaboration. For future reference, the 5th draft has also been posted on the Core Values Task Force website. The URL is http://www.ala.org/congress/corevalues/draft5.html Don Sager, Chair, ALA Core Values Task Force ***************************************************************** Donald J. Sager, Publisher, Highsmith Press, P.O. Box 800, Ft. Atkinson, WI 53538-0800. Tel. 920/563-9571. Fax: 920/563-4801. E-mail: <dsager[at]highsmith.com>. Web: http://www.hpress.highsmith.com .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. The first Library Juice supplement on the Core Values issue is at http://libr.org/Juice/issues/vol3/LJ_3.14.sup.html ______________________________________________________________________________top L I B R A R Y J U I C E | http://libr.org/Juice/ | | Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription | fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and | desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds | to Rory Litwin, at PO Box 720511, San Jose, CA 95172 | | Original material and added value in Library Juice | is copyright-free; beyond that the publisher makes | no guarantees. Library Juice is a free weekly | publication edited and published by Rory Litwin. | Original senders are credited wherever possible; | opinions are theirs. If you are the author of some | email in Library Juice which you want removed from | the web, please write to me and I will remove it. | | Your comments and suggestions are welcome. | | Rory[at]libr.org This page was created by SimpleText2Html 1.0.3 on 2-May-100. ay-100.