Editor's note: In 1999, ALA's Congress of Professional Education recommended a series of task forces on various issues it studied. One of those task forces was the Task Force on Core Values, which also had its roots in the previous year's discussions within ALA on outsourcing. That committee released a series of drafts, culminating in the 4-28-00 version to be considered at the ALA Annual Meeting in Chicago this July (see www.ala.org/congress/corevalues/draft5.html). This draft document, despite suggested revisions, remains very distant from the progressive social committments that lie at the heart of the profession's core values.

I'm not sure how to attack the statement on Core Values. On its face, it is a bland homogenization of euphemisms vaguely pointing at ALA policies already on the books. Those policies exist already, so this is just a bureaucratic layer of wording which allows some policies to be more equal than others, by proxy and interpretation. For instance, the "Interpretation" section of Draft 5 (see reference above) captures this perfectly:

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.

Now, for instance, how does one put a "different emphasis" or "revise" the a "assurance of free and open access to recorded knowledge" or a "commitment to literacy and learning" as the Core Values draft suggests? For me, the Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read are pretty much the core values of the profession, and one would have to do some pretty fancy reasoning to get around those two landmark statements as our core values.

So, why have the statement at all? If we have one, why doesn't it specifically refer to those two landmark positions? Why are there no specific references to intellectual freedom or equal access to information? The Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read are pretty much what gives the profession (and has given the profession) any real stature and moral/political force in the public arena. Vague, vanilla-euphemizing blandness as a statement of "core values" weakens our basic credibility as a profession.

Having said that, it isn't really a mystery why this is being pushed forward within ALA. PLG and SRRT have taken ALA and its divisions to task for betraying core values (as embedded in ALA policies and the two statements to which I've referred). ALA and ACRL leadership specifically have either been embarrassed or have been forced into actual, real-live discussions about the profession's values and how we might or might not put them into action. ALA leadership continues to see this as a threat and/or a distraction to the profession's "real" work, and so wants to define it out of existence. ACRL did the same thing with its "Strategic Plan" restrictions. This is political backlash, pure and simple.

Hey folks, its not like we (progressives) actually win most of these battles/issues. Now along comes a bland "core values" statement which will provide verbal cover when an issue is raised, or define it out of existence. (I can see it now: "Well, intellectual freedom might be really, really core for academic librarians, but as for school or public librarians, we have to adapt and bring a different emphasis to that 'core' value.") The startling this is that ALA leadership is willing to distance itsef from the landmark positions which have been its only base of public power and credibility in order to avoid taking positions or having internal debate. Stunning. Don't amend, deafeat it.

John Buschman

 

Back to the Table of Contents Back to the Table of Contents for issue 17.
Back to the list of articles available on this site.