(Week 7) Book Clubs!
I had a lot of fun this week during our book club sessions, and I feel like it went very well. I don't think anyone was hesitant to speak up, but there were a few moments when we were a bit stumped about what to say. All of the facilitators did a good job with this, though - very encouraging. The main problem I ran into was when someone was perhaps more eager than others to talk at length, drowning out some of the quieter voices. It seemed very teacherish to try to control those voices, and I was definitely a bit too reluctant to take that step. However, when I imagine a book club style discussion, I don't imagine anyone controlling the conversation, just encouraging it. Comments? Suggestions?
(Week 8) Ethics!
The Code of Ethics felt like a very strong stance to me. Weren't we recently discussing activism in here? Or am I thinking of another class (or outside of class) discussion? "Dangerous Questions at the Reference Desk," however, felt somewhat opposed to the ALA Code of Ethics. Lenker's stance that it is a librarian's responsibility to factor his or her own personal moral stance into the answering of a "dangerous" reference question seems completely contrary to two points in particular from the ALA document, "We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources," and "We uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist all efforts to censor library resources."
Now, in answering a "dangerous" reference question, it's quite possible that the "aims of our institutions" might come into conflict with our service to a patron, but if we "resist all efforts to censor library resources," then I don't see the place of the librarian to keep any library resources from the patron. The idea of letting our own moral rules have a limiting effect on the information we provide to patrons makes me a little nervous. A couple of weeks ago in my reference class, we discussed library service to LGBT youth, and the article we read evaluated various librarians' reference service on the subject of GSA formation in schools. Overall, the librarians evaluated didn't do very well, though whether it was personal bias or a lack of knowledge of available resources was unclear in most cases. I hold that it's not the librarian's job to pass moral judgement on the patron or hinder her search for information. Does the possibility of illegal or "dangerous" future action on the part of the patron change that? I don't have an answer for that one, but I'd tend to lean towards no. I'm looking forward to hearing some other opinions, though, and I hope they'll help me clarify my own thoughts on the matter.
You share a really important example of a time when someone's personal biases/lack of awareness could affect their reference services, even if unintentionally. I look forward to a good class discussion!
ReplyDeleteAbout controlling voices in a book club: In an ideal world, everyone would get to say what they wanted to say and no one would dominate conversation. In the real world, by not trying to create a balance of voices, you're creating a culture that considers the loudest person's voice to be the most important, and you're telling the quieter people that their voices aren't important. That's a pretty extreme example, but I think you need to be clear about the kind of culture you want in your book club. If this were an ongoing book club, you may only have to address this kind of thing once or twice before you've created the kind of back-and-forth that you envision.
ReplyDeleteI'm just getting around to reading this week's posts, and you have some really interesting observations about the code of ethics here.
ReplyDeleteI actually talked in my blog post about how appreciative I was of the fact that Lenker's model included factoring in one's own personal views, because I think that's the only realistic way to approach ethics. I was going to tie the ALA code provision on "personal convictions and professional duties" into this but decided I had already written too much. To me, saying that your personal convictions shouldn't factor into ethical decision-making in your profession is absurd; it makes it seem as though librarians (or lawyers or doctors or any other professionals) are just automatons who blindly follow an ordained approach to right and wrong based on directives from some other person or group. That's not how ethics works in the real world. A virtue ethics approach like Lenker's makes much more sense to me.
On the other hand, I sympathize with your suggestion that there are situations where people's personal convictions may conflict with their obligation to provide access to information resources in a way that could be potentially harmful. I think this is a situation where you as an individual really have to evaluate your personal convictions and professional obligations and ensure that they're going to be in alignment to a degree you're comfortable with before you take (or keep) a job. At the same time, I think people hiring librarians should make sure that they're not going to only get one type of person; there is obvious value in having diversity of viewpoints at an institution.
These are complicated issues, but they're worth talking about. For me personally freedom of speech and personal freedom of action are important above all else-- the keystones of democracy and in many ways of librarianship as well. We really have to make sure that codes of ethics don't infringe, or seem to infringe, on these rights in ways that would make people who want to follow the codes uncomfortable.
So reading these a little bit late but anyway. I think both Caroline and the comments make a lot of good points. I think about your discussion of LBGT teens reminds me of drug stores employee who for personal reasons are allowed to not prescribe birth control and so forth or the in New York State clerks who disagree with gay marriage don't have to perform marriages. I think the ALA code of ethics solves this as does Tyson suggestions of having a diverse staff. I worry of course about the libraries that only have one or two staff members.
ReplyDeletei recently read an article from AASL's Knowledge Quest which dealt with a librarian who, while trying to start a GSA at her own school, noticed that certain sites supporting Gay Rights were blocked through her school's server and anti-Gay Rights sites were still available. she ended up taking her school district to court with help from the ACLU. this is what i think the real ethical response at the reference desk would be: willingness to go to any length to provide accurate and appropriate information to people who need it.
ReplyDelete