Taking Heart in the Face of IF Compromises

Here's the situation. We've got a class of--what are we now, 22??--students, who are becoming intellectual freedom experts. It is clear to me that many are absolutely passionate about this subject, and are going to be really strong advocates for patron rights to read and explore freely in their libraries. I feel so proud to have participated in this process, because I really do believe that we need to keep this principle in mind in absolutely every aspect of our work in libraries. And I think we have allowed ourselves, as a profession, to become somewhat complacent on the issue. There are things that I question--for instance, allowing holds to be accessed in very public areas, with enough of a name to be recognizable, in many cases. I question the fact that some libraries have gone beyond CIPA-compliance, and actually prohibit adults from being able to disable filters, even though the Supreme Court made it clear that such access should be a possibility for those 17 and older. I question the notion that filters actually provide meaningful protections for children, particularly given how many very young children I see on a daily basis, coming into the library without any sort of parental supervision. There are so many ways to provide meaningful guidance, and filtering is only a means of censorship--not guidance.

Here's the situation. We have all these students who will be graduating from library school soon, and who are our next IF advocates. How do I break it to them that there are political and economic realities that will trump everything else? Changes in technology and library trends will also affect decisions that will have an impact on intellectual freedom. The confidentiality that patrons once enjoyed by having their holds kept behind the desk was trumped by the reality that the service was so popular that libraries could no longer store all of these materials in back rooms, and as libraries across the nation went to self-checkout, keeping holds in the front area seemed the only solution...and putting them out by name seemed the easiest for patrons. There are political and economic realities around CIPA--some libraries have been threatened with refusals to pass levies or bonds if libraries didn't filter all computers at all times. When libraries are facing public scrutiny, such as during bond or levy elections, we can't help but ask ourselves what is for the greater good--preserving intellectual freedom in its purest form, or bending a little, keeping ourselves out of controversy, so that libraries can receive the funding they need to keep buying patron materials?

What I'm trying to say here is that there is no library (that I have seen) that would pass the IF-purity test. I really doubt that there is a library in the United States that follows the Library Bill of Rights and all of its interpretations to the absolute letter, without ever compromising on an issue here or there. This is what I want to say to the students in the IF class...there will be times that you'll be disappointed in a decision that is made, and you'll be responsible for supporting those decisions once they are made, regardless of your opinions. What I really hope you'll take from this class, besides an understanding of the issue in all its complexity, is the importance of asking the questions, and raising the concerns that need to be raised. Because even when decisions don't go as you would hope, and even when you have to help make decisions that don't pass the 100% IF-purity test, if you keep asking the question and allowing the discussion to take place, then you're keeping the issue alive. And I believe so strongly that keeping intellectual freedom alive in libraries is crucial, not only for the access of our patrons, but to democracy and freedom in this country.