Week 7: Reflection, Week 8: Reading Response

(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.