Librarians have significantly developed intellectual freedom as its foundational
professional philosophy since the early years of the profession (Knox, 2014). A definitive value for intellectual freedom was established in the 1930s, when the Depression, the New Deal, and labor movements enhanced the need for political and social engagement to maintain library support. Political turmoil from Nazi regime activity in Europe and sedition threats in the U.S. solidified LIS interest in maintaining freedom of ideas (Geller, 1984; Von Merveldt, 2007). In response to such threats, a resistant shift moved the focus from censorship and neutrality to a focus on freedom (Geller, 1984). Chicago and Des Moines public librarians developed
67
adopted both the ALA Code of Ethics29 and the Library Bill of Rights in 1939 (ALA 1996; ALA, 2008). Before this point, the Library Bill of Rights addressed “unbiased book selection, a balanced collection, and open meeting rooms” (ALA OIF, 2015, p. 9). ALA was not speaking out consistently in support of intellectual freedom at this point, and many articles conversely seemed to support censorship at this time (ALA OIF, 2015).
The ALA Code of Ethics and Library Bill of Rights established broad principles to serve as a professional ethical framework for librarians’ decision-making, rather than functioning as prescriptive rules. They have each been revised in response to developing issues (Geller, 1984; Robbins, 1996; Samek, 2001), such as censorship, equitable access, library users’ rights to privacy and confidentiality, librarians’ resistance to advancing private interests at the expense of library users, librarians’ role in prioritizing professional duties over personal beliefs, and the responsibility to provide access to current and historical information on all points of view, despite any partisan or doctrinal disapproval (ALA, 2013). Today ALA affirms a broad definition of intellectual freedom:
[T]he right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view and all formats without restriction. It provides for free access to all expressions of ideas through which any and all sides of a question, cause or movement may be
explored. Privacy is a necessary condition for true intellectual freedom. (ALA OIF, 2015, p. 251)
This definition has not remained fixed over time and influential LIS groups, e.g., ALA Council, Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC), Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE), and Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), continue to promote principles that support a “favorable climate” for intellectual freedom (ALA OIF, 2015). There are 28 interpretations of the Library
68
Bill of Rights that address the applications and practices around the profession’s principles. In 2017, ALA Council adopted the “Equity, Diversity, Inclusion” interpretation to the Library Bill of Rights that stated, “The American Library Association affirms that equity, diversity, and inclusion are central to the promotion and practice of intellectual freedom” (ALA, 2017, para. 1).
Since the 1930s, various organizations have utilized First Amendment frameworks to support intellectual freedom, “freedom to read,” “freedom of inquiry,” and “freedom of access” (Robbins, 1996). In 1953, the ALA and the American Book Publishers Council (now the Association of American Publishers) created the Freedom to Read Statement30 (ALA, 2004), affirming First Amendment rights. The ALA IFC is a committee of the ALA Council formed to safeguard intellectual freedom rights for library patrons, libraries, and library staff, framed with the First Amendment and the ALA Library Bill of Rights (ALA OIF, 2015).
In 1965 the IFC recommended to ALA’s Executive Board the establishment of the OIF, and in 1967, the OIF opened to focus on policy development (Samek, 2001). This office has developed its current commitment to promote intellectual freedom and support librarians engaged in information challenges (e.g., complaints, challenges, censorship, or surveillance of access, content, or expression). The ALA OIF has partnered with organizations such as
American Booksellers Association and Association of American Publishers since 1982 to promote “Banned Books Week,” an annual event to promote intellectual freedom and denounce book banning and book challenges (Knox & Oltmann, 2018; Long, 2006).
In the nineteenth century, early librarians served as paternalistic gatekeepers who discerned “good” and “bad” literature to uplift society and maintain social and moral order (Garrison, 1979; Geller, 1984; Jenkins, 1996). By the early 1900s, Melvil Dewey promoted
69
library service through “neutral” service (Wiegand, 1999; Samek, 2001). Although intellectual freedom was not articulated as a collective professional value at that point, some librarians were committed to protecting patrons’ rights “to know.” Some librarians rallied around institutional autonomy to reject external censorship during the Progressive Era and against community censorship in the 1920s (Geller, 1984). Some librarians who sought to defend access to information were limited by the profession’s commitment to neutral practice and deference to library boards (Geller, 1984; Robbins, 1996; Samek, 2001). Others, like Abram Korman of Chicago Public Library in the 1930s, were activist in challenging traditional practices in support of intellectual freedom on behalf of their communities’ interests (Latham, 2009).
The ALA Social Responsibilities Round Table denounced ALA’s claim of neutrality in the 1960s (Samek, 1996). LIS scholars and organizations describe the profession as objective and neutral in facilitating intellectual freedom, yet it is and has always been laden with social, legal, and/or professional values and norms. Library professionals have long employed their individual and cultural biases, for example, in designing, updating, and implementing traditional systems of classification and processes for organizing information (Olson, 2002). The LIS attempt to employ a “universal language,” that may be used by all, leads to access barriers and exclusion of marginalized community members and those outside of the mainstream (Olson, 2002).
Censorship within LIS has included various definitions and applications to reach what is employed by LIS today, any action or effort that leads to barriers or limitations to access to information or intellectual freedom. While the ALA expressed theoretical principles for free speech and improving access through the Library Bill of Rights, there was no accompanying plan to put theory into practice. Nationwide attempts to censor John Steinbeck’s April 1939
70
publication of The Grapes of Wrath spurred a turning point that led to ALA’s developing position on censorship (Krug & Morgan, 2010). This was certainly not the first banned or challenged book in the U.S., but it was one that engaged a noticeably public discourse after the creation of the Library Bill of Rights, with its attention to intellectual freedom. Eleven years later, Bartlesville, Oklahoma public librarian Ruth Brown was accused of providing access to subversive material because of her involvement in racial equity efforts and dismissed from her position. ALA responded to Ruth Brown’s dismissal by providing information, an on-site investigation of the case and national publicity of the case, yet they did not save her position (Robbins, 2000). ALA used their new policies to focus on the censorship of specific materials rather than become involved with the social issue related to racial integration; they masked the issue (Robbins, 2000). The ALA had not developed confidence in librarians that they would receive support for enforcing the Library Bill of Rights and its values against censorship.
On one hand, the Library Bill of Rights instructed librarians to embrace all points of view and to combat censorship. On the other hand, ALA provided little support to those librarians who opposed the suppression of alternative materials. In practice, then, ALA disseminated a subtext that offset the formal message of the Library Bill of Rights. The subtext reinforced the preservation of the status quo. (Samek, 2011, p. 9)
These cases called attention to the need for practical plans to connect with the ideological principles (Geller, 1984; Samek, 2001). In the 1960s and 1970s, activist librarians pushed for ALA to take a strong stance to defend its values and to protect librarians legally and financially should they stand against censorship. ALA worked with the Freedom to Read Foundation to align with a legal defense for intellectual freedom (Asato, 2011).
71
The FTRF was established in 1969 as an ALA-affiliated nonprofit organization. The FTRF’s mission is to foster libraries as institutions that fulfill every individual’s First
Amendment freedoms and uses the Library Bill of Rights to establish legal precedents beyond library policies (ALA OIF, 2015). ALA OIF stated, “U.S. law and regulation ultimately guide the policies and activities of intellectual freedom and libraries because censorship so often is a violation of the First Amendment and treated as a legal matter” (ALA OIF, 2015, p. 10).
The profession still negotiates tensions about defining censorship (Knox & Oltmann, 2018). While the direct acts of censorship are damaging in the restriction of access to
information, there are also residual effects of these acts. There is a “shadow of fear” that follows censorship and may lead people to self-censor in accessing, reading, writing, and sharing ideas in order to avoid punishment, controversy, or scrutiny (Robbins, 1996). In school-related censorship, this shadow of fear, also called a “chilling effect” affects students and teachers by limiting their potential intellectual growth, identity development, self-expression, and access to information (Noll, 1994).
A proactive approach to intellectual freedom centers information access as a significant element necessary to achieve intellectual freedom (Mathiesen, 2009). Librarians facilitate access to information through community assessment, engagement, and rejection of deficit- thinking, while acknowledging the expertise and knowledge that exists within communities. As early as 1880, there was documentation of librarians’ awareness of the distinct needs of
communities (Evans 1976; Worcester and Westbrook 2004). Mary Cutler was recognized as the first librarian to publish about the importance of engaging with communities to inform library service, conceptualizing what would later be named community analysis; she encouraged
72
librarians to learn about their community, as this was not the professional norm for the times (Dent-Goodman, 2011; Sarling and Van Tassel, 1999).
The LIS field has shifted from a “passive level of service” in the 1940s, which focused on selecting and organizing materials, to an “assertive level of service” by the 1980s, that focused on the community and serving people’s needs and interests (Greer and Hale, 1982, p. 359). The increased importance of community analysis during the 1980s’ financial recession was a means for libraries to maintain and increase community support (Sarling and Van Tassel, 1999). In the 1990s, community analysis was used to assess and respond to information needs related to technology. There was also a greater interest in serving culturally diverse
communities at this time. Community engagement counters neutrality for librarianship (Latham, 2009).
Community engagement supports an asset-based approach to assessment and
engagement, which fosters collaborations and partnerships. This approach rejects the deficit- based model which views communities as lacking and “information poor” (Haider & Bawden, 2006, 2007; Hudson, 2012). Rather, this approach acknowledges the abundance of knowledge, resources, and networks within the community as community cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005). Asset-based community engagement counters neutrality and improves information access. Nevertheless, the focus on access can lead to a passive approach rather than proactive work that intervenes and promotes library services (Muddiman et al., 2001). A proactive approach can be used for facilitating access to support intellectual freedom, in addition to responding to
intellectual freedom challenges. Both within and beyond the LIS professional boundaries, international organizations and scholars have conceptualized intellectual freedom as a human right.
73