Shunned and Attacked—
ALA and Free Speech
By Walt Crawford
American Libraries Columnist
Senior analyst, Research Libraries Group
Column for May 2003
Last year in this column, I summarized the legal issues involved with the Children’s Internet Protection Act and ended with a friendly challenge: “If you have been treated badly by an official unit of ALA (or made to feel officially or unofficially unwelcome during a state or national conference) because you disagree with ALA’s stance on filtering, let me know.” I also asked for evidence of any filter-using library that has come under attack by ALA.
I received no satisfactory replies based on the full wording of the challenge. I could say that claims of attacks on profiltering librarians and libraries are nonsense. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
The good news
Nobody provided evidence that ALA has censured a library for using filters. That’s hardly surprising. ALA is not in the business of censuring libraries, and several thousand public libraries use filters on some computers.
Nobody provided evidence that ALA has censured or shunned individual profiltering librarians. One correspondent argues that, by taking an official stance against filtering, ALA “treats badly those librarians who disagree with it” and that this constitutes “implied censure and ostracism from ALA.” Given that American Libraries has published profiltering articles (Feb., p. 38–42) and professional librarians often advocate differing views on filtering, I have problems with this argument—particularly since the logical outcome would be to make ALA a tea-and-crumpets society, unable to adopt any policy with which any members disagree.
Do I agree with ALA’s position: that librarians should oppose any use of censorware on any computers in any libraries? Not really, but that’s a separate issue.
When ALA or one of its officers or staff claims to speak for all librarians and all libraries, it exaggerates the unanimity of the field. The same can be said for every other professional association and, except for cults, almost every association of any kind. Every association I know of simplifies in the same manner.
Problems and difficulties
One librarian took issue with the first half of the column, asserting that the real CIPA issues relate to public opinion and the perception of librarians as pornographers. The writer and I are both right, and the column title (“The Real CIPA Issues”) should have been clearer. What I summarized were the legal issues in the CIPA challenge. Librarians must deal with local fallout—the PR issues—because those issues are more complex than “Kids can see dirty pictures at libraries.”
I hoped (and hope) that my column provided some ammunition for librarians, but it’s a tough battle. Another librarian recounted an incident in one of America’s most progressive communities, where two librarians explained to some friends ALA’s position on filtering and the friends were appalled. Notably, neither of the librarians suggested that ALA should avoid difficult battles, and both support ALA’s position on CIPA.
One librarian provided evidence of attempted personal censure by a state library association and claimed loss of job opportunities for publishing profiltering views, also offering a broader claim of verbal attacks from ALA officials. This librarian does not believe that ALA seeks to destroy libraries or librarians who disagree with ALA positions, but that mistakes happen when people with strongly differing opinions clash.
The same librarian asserted that my challenge was worded to assure that no effective response was possible. That may be true. I’ve heard enough “I was told by a friend who has a colleague who . . . ” stories that I wanted a little more evidence, but I’m satisfied that this librarian was treated badly for speaking out in favor of filtering.
If debate becomes harassment
The final missive had nothing to do with filtering. Some librarians were shouting down another librarian (via a series of e-mails) and calling the other librarian’s professionalism and intelligence into question. That’s heated debate and part of life. But the interplay was repeated (without the librarian’s permission) in a widely distributed newsletter, including a vituperative “response” that the shouted-down librarian never saw.
That’s more serious. It did not involve an official ALA body directly. It was certainly an attempt to quash or at least punish free speech. Fortunately, it wasn’t an official attempt.
There you have it, and it’s not the pretty picture I was hoping for. Some librarians view intellectual freedom and free speech as one-sided affairs or as things to be avoided within the profession itself. They should know better. I find that attitude unfortunate for a field so closely aligned with the First Amendment.
|
