You are on page 1of 28

Censorship and the Librarian: Evaluating the Professional Literature to 1939 and the Librarys Bill of Rights

Jane Davis History 5740 Dr. Myers-Shirk April 17, 2007

Censorship and the Librarian: Evaluating the Professional Literature to 1939 and the Librarys Bill of Rights

ABSTRACT:

Librarians have long had a complex and difficult relationship with censorship, particularly of fiction. The current view of intellectual freedom has not always been the majority view of librarians and their professional organization. The passage of the ALAs Librarys Bill of Rights in 1939 signified a dramatic change in the way librarians dealt with censorship. By evaluating and reviewing professional literature from 1876 to 1939, an understanding of the foundation of this change may be achieved allowing librarians to better comprehend our history and the difficulties presented by the censorship of fiction.

Introduction

Thats one group you dont want to mess with.1 Michael Moore said this of librarians in 2001 when his book Stupid White Men was revived from publishing limbo by a letter-writing and publicity campaign led by librarians. In December of 2001, Moores book Stupid White Men was held in warehouses by the publisher, HarperCollins, due to the publishers fear that the book was too inflammatory after 9/11. After months of fruitless negotiations, Moore read a passage from his book to a crowd at a New Jersey Citizens Action private event saying, It may be the only time it's ever heard by anybody.2 A librarian in the crowd, Ann Sparanese, later contacted the American Library Association (ALA) and other library posting boards on the internet. Shortly thereafter, HarperCollins was flooded by letters and emails from angry librarians admonishing the publisher to fully support the First Amendment and release Moores book as promised. Moore said of the aftermath, Librarians see themselves as the guardians of the First Amendment. You got a thousand Mother Joneses at the barricades! I love the librarians, and I am grateful for them!"3 Not only do librarians see themselves as defenders of the First Amendment and intellectual freedom, after the incident with Moore, many Americans began to do so as well. Despite this admirable action, librarians have had a difficult relationship with censorship and intellectual freedom. In the past, and in current years, librarians have been responsible for both preventing and enacting censorship. Although in the last few

4 decades, the role of the librarian as a censor has decreased greatly, librarians still struggle with the issue. The professional organization of librarians, the American Library Association (ALA), has been pivotal in the involvement of many librarians in First Amendment and Intellectual Freedom issues. The ALA has sponsored a Banned Books Week to promote awareness about books that are censored or challenged every year for the last 26 years. The ALA also provides toolkits and training to librarians on intellectual freedom issues and how to confront and prevent censorship. The driving force behind ALAs anti-censorship movement is the Library Bill of Rights. Initially proposed in 1939, the Library Bill of Rights has been modified slightly over the years, but remains essentially the same. Primary among its goals is the guarantee of the right of the reader to have access to books and information regardless of the authors race or nationality or the political or religious views.4 Librarians have not always been the most ardent defenders of the publics right to read. When the ALA was formed in 1876, library leaders like William F. Poole, Charles Cutter and Melvil Dewey, advocated avoiding controversial literature and defined the librarian as moral censor.5 Not only were librarians encouraged to avoid controversial material, they were trained in methods to justify such censorship and how best to promote only the worthwhile books to the public. In the following decades, librarians sought to define their professional role and its relationship to censorship. Library professional literature reflects this struggle between censor and protector of intellectual freedom and by the passage of the Librarys Bill of Rights a dramatic shift in professional views had occurred.

5 How this drastic shift from censor to promoter of intellectual freedom, or selector, occurred is an important question. What were the political, economic, and social trends that led to this shift from censor to selector? How is this change related to the changing social values of who the cultural elites are and how good culture is identified and selected? Finally, how does this shift from censor to selector reflect the shift in American culture during the time period? By examining the professional writings of librarians, a greater understanding of how and why this shift occurred is possible.

Librarians as Censors: 1800s-1920

The public library movement began with the establishment of the Boston Public Library in 1848. Prior to this time most libraries were privately funded by associations or groups by membership fees. The founders of Boston Public Library sought to create a free public library funded by public monies that would allow access to information to all citizens of Boston, regardless of affiliation. A Harvard scholar, populist thinker, and founder-trustee of the Boston Public Library, George Ticknor, was instrumental in developing the idea of the free public library as not only as an institution of cultural record and preservation, but also as an educational institution.6 He described his view of the ideal public library in a letter to Edward Everett, a Massachusetts senator.

I would establish a library which differs from all free libraries yet attempted. I mean one in which any popular books, tending to moral and intellectual improvements shall be furnished in such numbers of copies that many persons can

6 be reading the same books at the same time; in short, not only the best books of all sorts, but the pleasant literature of the day, shall be made accessible to the whole people, when they most care for it, that is, when it is fresh and new. I would thus, by following the popular tasteunless it should demand something injuriouscreate an appetite for healthy reading. This appetite once formed, will take care of itself. It will in the great majority of cases demand better and better books.7

This idea that the public library was for education of the masses, and in order to educate, one first had to provide access to popular materials is a prevalent attitude through out early library literature. The notion of public self-education was vital to the creation of early public libraries. Many library leaders and trustees saw the public library as the peoples college for those who could not afford schooling beyond the basic public education provided. This individual-driven education was vital to the creation of a citizenry that was well-educated and capable of participating in a democracy. Libraries served the public good by providing access to information and allowing the public pursue further education at an individual pace. The issue of convincing the public of the value of this self-directed education fell to library leaders and trustees. Ticknor and other library leaders felt that the way to attract the masses to the library was to provide access to popular works. Once the desire to read was ingrained, then librarians could guide reading tastes which would be more refined and demand for the older and more settled works would increase.8

7 Out of this noble desire to encourage reading and a love of education grew the issue of censorship. How were librarians to encourage reading with popular materials without lowering their standards? How were librarians to select materials that would appeal to the masses without pandering to the lowest common denominator? Since public libraries often received limited funding, the purchase of books and materials had to be closely considered. Librarians often sought the best work for the least price that would have the greatest demand. One type of work that was in great demand was fiction. The issue of fiction in the public library arose at the first meeting of ALA in 1876. William F. Poole, director of the Chicago Public library, lectured on the importance of fiction in the public library to foster a reading habit. Poole believed, like Ticknor, that works of fiction were important in drawing community members to the public library. Addressing the issue of fiction, he encouraged librarians to select works that were good and true; but he was also aware that many librarians considered popular fiction to be of questionable value to the reading public. He saw many works of popular literature to be of marginal value and he was adamantly opposed to fiction that was immoral or portrayed evil in a positive way. Poole realized this type of fiction presented a difficulty for librarians. Despite this, Poole felt strongly that the risk of this marginal literature was outweighed by its value as a tool to develop the habit of reading.9 The response of the attending librarians set the tone for the debate about fiction in public libraries for the next century. All agreed that fiction had a profound effect on readers, good fiction led to good acts and bad behavior resulted from bad fiction; but the way to define good and bad fiction was hotly debated. Some librarians agreed with Poole that the redeeming aspects of fiction overrode the negative elements, while others

8 disagreed strongly. William Kite, a librarian from Germantown, Pennsylvania, argued that libraries should not stock fiction at all. Kite felt that libraries, in their role as peoples colleges, should only provide access to educational and informational works. In Kites view, fiction was not the realm of libraries and was to be left to the dime stores and book stores. Librarians on both sides of the argument agreed the public could not choose appropriate fiction for itself. Therefore, as well-trained and well-educated professionals, librarians saw themselves as protectors as well as educators of the masses and sought to acquire only the best reading material for the public.10 Left to their own devices, librarians felt that the public would read damaging and detrimental works of fiction that could only encourage improper and immoral behavior. Despite all this discussion of fiction in the library, the word censorship was not used. Librarians at the time did not see their selection policies as censorship. Rather than censoring, librarians were selecting works that were morally uplifting and would contribute to the well-being of society as a whole. They were, as Poole encouraged, selecting the best works for the most people. Arthur E. Bostwick, the director of St. Louis Public Library and ALA president from 1907-1908, addressed the idea that this method of selection was, in fact, censorship. In his article The Librarian as Censor, Bostwick states that the very act of rejecting a book based on one objectionable feature is censorship. While this censorship is not ideal, Bostwick felt that it was necessary. Rather than focusing on censorships relation to the professional goals of librarians, his article focuses on training the librarian to develop criteria for such censorship. He states the following on selection:

9 I know of no more desirable classification of books for our present purpose than the old three categories the Good, the True, and the Beautiful. Those books that we desire, we want because they fall under one or more of these three heads they must be morally beneficial, contain accurate information or satisfy the esthetic sense in its broadest meaning. Conversely we may exclude a book because it lacks goodness, truth or beauty. We may thus reject it on one or more of the three following grounds: badness that is undesirable moral teaching or effect; falsity that is, mistakes, errors or misstatements of fact; and ugliness matter or manner offensive to our sense of beauty, fitness or decency.11

Bostwick goes on to describe how to evaluate his three categories. Truth is fairly easy. A work must not present a false representation of facts or the world. In the realms of non-fiction, Bostwick encourages librarians to use experts within the community to evaluate the truthfulness of works; and in the realm of fiction, works should reflect an accurate portrayal of mankind. The goodness and beauty of works are much harder to evaluate. Simply put, badness depends on immutable laws, while uglinessis a matter of convention.12 According to Bostwick, there are actions that are always wrong, and a work that presents these immoral acts as inconsequential or good should always be refused or censored regardless of artistic quality. However, an ugly book which is morally unobjectionable, and yet contains that which is improper or indecent should be considered based on its possible effects and how the community might receive it as well as its artistic qualities.13 Bostwick leaves this determination of decency and beauty up to the librarian and the library board, relying upon the librarians professionalism to judge

10 books properly and how they may fit into the community and the board to best understand the community. Like many other library leaders, Bostwick is aware of the difficulty of determining impropriety in works of fiction, but feels works with some ugliness may be of a redeeming nature if taken into proper context. He uses the example of a book on thieves that might encourage young boys to play cops and robbers. If the book results in a confusion about the wrongness of thievery, it should be censored, however if it encourages young people to strive for justice and mercy, it should be retained. This modern idea of arts value begins to effect how librarians view their roles as censors and gatekeepers of knowledge. If a work is indecent to one and decent to another, should it be chosen? This question becomes more and more prevalent in library professional literature as societys view of how good and high culture is defined. The change in selection policies to reflect this view is slow. Primarily due to the limited nature of public library funds, librarians often erred on the side of caution for fear of offending the community or the library board of trustees. Mark Twains Adventures of Huckleberry Finn was removed from libraries throughout the country at the turn of the century because of Huck Finns impropriety. One librarian said, Huck was a deceitful boy; that he not only itched but scratched; and he said sweat when he should have said perspiration.14 Often, works that are now considered canon in modern American literature were either censored or placed in closed stacks that restricted circulation. Theodore Dreisers Sister Carrie, Walt Whitmans Leaves of Grass, and Twains Adventures of Huckleberry Finn were all banned or restricted in public libraries throughout the country.

11 Even in these early years of public librarianship, there was much debate about censorship and popular fiction. While many professional writings during the time advocate censorship as a librarians responsibility to the public; others suggest a more open approach, encouraging librarians to attempt to include popular fiction to reach the masses without selecting offensive or immoral works. Since public libraries exist through public funding, it is vital that they promote and purchase only the best works for their public. At the same time, librarians of the period understood that popular works of fiction were a strong draw for the library and should be at least considered, despite the possible unsavory elements. Bostwick states, Of course, I can say but a word here on the trash question in fiction. But be not, I pray, too stern a censor. When selecting for a free public library judge books largely by their fruitsIts characters may be wooden puppets to you, while to the young reader they are heroes, full of the divine qualities of courage, sympathy, and tenderness. As the reader thinketh so is the booknot as you, wise critic, in your plentitude of knowledge, would have it to be.15 With Bostwick the first stirrings of a modern view of fiction begin to emerge, but even as he advocates fiction of questionable merit, Bostwick is strongly opposed to any work that celebrates evil (in his eyes) or fails to properly punish evildoers in the course of the novel. At the sixteenth meeting of the ALA in 1894, five presentations on the common novel in public libraries were presented. All five presenters agreed that the public library should provide access to popular fiction in order to encourage reading. They also agreed that only the highest forms of popular fiction should be provided. One presenter, A. W. Wheply, called upon librarians to make open war on a class of novels, which are boldly displayed in the shop-windows, which also disgrace the counters of many respectable

12 book-stores, the contents of which outrage good taste and decency.16 Many library leaders of the time seemed to think that it was easily understood which types of popular fiction were unacceptable. Regardless of the authors intent or the works effect upon the reader, dime store novels, penny dreadfuls and the pulp novels of the day were considered unwelcome in any public library. These writings demonstrate the odd relationship librarians have with censorship and fiction. On one hand, librarians are convinced that the library exists to educate and uplift the masses and in order to do this you must first get the masses to read. To encourage reading, a library must include some form of popular fiction in its collection or be seen as obsolete. On the other hand, the popular fiction of the time was seen by many librarians as detrimental, immoral and at times, indecent. Bostwick, Poole and others were firmly convinced that librarians were better equipped to evaluate fiction and to know better what people should be reading than the readers themselves. They walked a fine line between dictating what should be read and allowing the public access to what it wanted to read. Often this manifests itself in selection policies that suggest only the purchase of the best of the most popular works and a heavy reliance on critics and reviews for fiction selection, while leaving the interpretation of best up to the librarian or, more often, the library board of trustees.

The Tide Begins to Turn

During the Carnegie era (1899-1920), the influx of funds from the Carnegie foundation resulted in a massive growth of public libraries. A rise in forms of

13 entertainment like movies and cheap fiction led to an increasingly populist view of recreational reading, as did the dramatic increase in foreign workers. Many libraries of the time began to see their primary goal as that of Americanization. What better way to incorporate the immigrant or entertain the worker than to provide them with quality literature that promotes the best ideals of American society? More and more works that had previously been deemed unacceptable were purchased by libraries. Librarians began to open their shelves to authors like Elizabeth P. Roe and other authors of romantic or mystery fiction. As a result, those librarians that advocated censorship were increasingly referred to as elitists and the anti-censorship movement decried the paternalism and arrogance of censors.17 Increasingly, those that did advocate censorship couched it in terms of respecting the community opinion. John Shaw Billings, the director of the New York City Public Library, advocated the use of restricted stacks to deal with books that may be deemed offensive to the public. It was assumed that if individuals truly wanted these works of questionable merit, they would ask for them and those who would be offended by them would not have to encounter them in the open stacks of the library. Works of fiction, non-fiction, and propaganda were often confined to restricted shelves in public libraries. By restricting access to these works, librarians could demonstrate their eagerness to respect the will of the community by both having works of questionable merit and limiting access to said works. Other librarians sought to clearly define a good work of fiction in order to have clear rules for disallowing bad fiction. Corinne Bacon, an Albany librarian and editor of H.W. Wilsons Fiction Catalog, felt works could be evaluated objectively and their

14 worth could be determined. By closely following Bostwicks approach, Bacon distinguished works that were immoral from works that were merely coarse. Immoral works taught that sin was acceptable, while coarse works uphold the moral sense regardless of vulgarity or superficiality. According to Bacon, novels that depicted coarse or vulgar events were acceptable for the public library if the sin depicted resulted in the proper punishment in the course of the novel. Bacon also felt that works that were excessively one-sided or bleak in their presentation of the world as to be demoralizing. Specifically, Bacon felt that Jude the Obscure by Thomas Hardy presented such a dark and diseased view of the world that it would be greatly detrimental to the public18.

Rise of Anti-Censorship

By Theodore Roosevelts election in 1905, more and more radical liberal groups were on the rise in America. The literary magazine Masses was founded in 1911 to provided a voice for both the progressive literary opinion and the radical political movement. The Modernist movement began to advocate art for arts sake, authors began to create works that were more reflective of modern values and less likely to present a simple moral view of the world and publishers were publishing their works. Socialist publications began to be more and more available. At the same time, public criticism of censorship by libraries began to be more vocal. In 1905, the Denver press addressed the issue of library censorship and in the following year Owen Wister, author of The Virginian, addressed the annual ALA meeting and declared that all subjects were fit for fiction. Wister went on to say let us remember that we call ourselves the Land of the

15 Free, and that since we proclaim liberty to all, we must not deny it to the author.19 In 1911, Willard Huntington Wright, the literary editor of the Los Angeles Times, criticized library boards for informal censorship or not selecting books that may be thought to be controversial or unpopular without actually consulting the public. Wright felt this kind of censorship by library boards was more harmful than legal censorship because it relied individual opinion rather than public interest.20 With the first rumblings of World War I on the horizon, many librarians felt compelled to maintain a level of neutrality that would promote and continue their international connections. The idea that the library should select only the best works transitioned into the idea that the library should represent all sides of an argument fairly and equally. This allowed for the inclusion of works that may be controversial and at the same time provided the librarians with protection from criticism. When asked why a work on evolution was on the shelves, librarians could point to works on creationism as a counter argument. While this primarily affected the selection of non-fiction works, the concept of neutrality also had an impact on fiction in the public library. Socialist novels could be placed alongside works that advocated the capitalist hero. As America entered the war, the social climate changed dramatically. No longer did the Wilson administration support neutrality, and with the passage of stronger sedition laws and the formation of the Censorship Board in 1918; the political and social environment became more and more hostile to free ideas. Libraries across the nation were called upon to remove authors who were seen as treasonous or failed to support the war effort fully. German, Socialist, and pacifist authors were removed from libraries or placed in restricted areas to control access. Library commissions and boards re-evaluated the

16 ideas of neutrality and determined that in a time of war, to be neutral was to be disloyal.21 With the war over and sedition laws relaxed, librarians in the 1920s were beginning question the idea of censorship again. Heavy influence from liberal literary magazines like The Dial, led many librarians to redefine the nature of art and literature and therefore redefine their roles in bringing art to the public. Mary U. Rothrock, public librarian in Knoxville, Tenn., put forth the opinion that the librarian had no place as a censor. I venture to express a conviction that the librarian is not a censor for adult readers. That is, the librarian is not concerned primarily with the exclusion of books from the library on the grounds of their possible moral effect on mature readers. 22 Rothrock went on to define the novel and the way of viewing arts morality based not on the actual art, but on the effect the art has on the individual. As a continuation of Bostwicks view that the effects of fiction could be dependent upon the reader this is presents the issue of censorship in a different light. If the moral effects of the novel are specific to the individual reading the novel, how is the librarian to know what is damaging and what is helpful? Unlike Bostwick, who advocated reliance on the community and library boards, Rothrock suggests that librarians cannot know, and therefore should select as many works as possible and leave the judgment of their worth to the patrons. Instead of asking the library board if specific books are acceptable, Rothrock urges librarians to offer a wide selection and allow the community to decide for themselves. Even as she suggests a policy of acceptance, Rothrock does make it clear that she is not making a plea for low standards of book selection. Surely we must have the highest standards but equally surely they should be applied intelligently with a view of bringing to all people the books that

17 belong to them. 23 Other librarians supported Rothrocks views but went on to suggest caution in purchasing sensational and popular works of fiction. Many librarians suggested waiting to purchase popular fiction for some time, until the first sensational demand it is past, and its real permanent, or even temporary, value has opportunity to assert itself.24 Despite some agreement by her professional peers, Rothrocks suggestions were somewhat ahead of her time. Most librarians were not in a position to purchase questionable works of fiction and relied heavily on the good will of the community to continue to operate. Therefore, many librarians of the 1930s began to incorporate the changing ideas of the value of the novel into a system that was reliant upon public funding. Librarians began to acknowledge that they could not easily evaluate the goodness of fiction and began to advocate a more populist view of fiction, while still not selecting all works requested by the public. The reasons and rationale for censorship had begun to change. Instead of refusing to add questionable books to the library collection because librarians did not think them morally valuable, the reason for a books absence was more likely because the librarian feared it may offend the community and therefore endanger the position of the librarian or the library. In his 1930 treatise on book selection, Francis K. W. Drury states, Censorship is not within the province of the librarian of a public library; discriminating selection is. He is not an authority in ethics or morals. If he presumes to decide which book is unethical and immoral and which is not, he must do so on other grounds than simply that the former is subversive of good morals and the latter is not.25 Drury also states that the librarian should not presume to teach morality instead relying and cooperating with the

18 better element in his community and pursuing only works that are thought to be decent and in good taste. Drury reflected the more common practice of quiet censorship. Librarians did not actively censor books, but because of the public libraries reliance upon the good will of the taxpayers, librarians attempted to prevent community anger by selecting works that were inoffensive. George Bowerman, head librarian of Washington, DC Public Library, advised librarians that while censorship was repugnant to liberal librarians, some censorship may need to be enacted to maintain a good relationship with the librarys diverse constituency or to at least appease the library board of trustees. Bowerman often contributed editorials and responses to the public in the Washington Post both defending the selection of fiction and declaring that his library did not select too much fiction.26 At the same time the ALA was suggesting librarians maintain the line of neutrality in book selection. In the 1930 Suggested Code of Ethics, the ALA advocates neutrality, specifically, In the case of the public library as a non-partisan institution the books purchased should represent all phases of opinion and interest rather than the personal tastes of the librarian or board members.27 Prior to the 1930s, the ALA tacitly condoned censorship and understood that despite the highest ideals, some librarians felt forced to censor and restrict works of fiction in order to appease the public. During the beginning years of the Depression, librarians were often more concerned with keeping the doors open than with censorship. The professional writings of the day focused strongly on providing services for a public that was largely under- or unemployed. Adult education was seen as a path to aid the public during the Depression and many librarians became involved with national planning for New Deal programs.

19 However, despite this involvement, the ALA could not get its members to approve a national library agency to administer federal funds. Opposition to such an agency was focused on a fear of political influence and bureaucratic censorship. The subject was so divisive that the vote was tabled for the remainder of the conference.28 By 1935, librarians had become more and more vocal in their criticism of bowing to community pressures and censorship. Fueled by the crisis in Europe, many librarians saw the reliance on a board of trustees to determine selection policies and the quiet censorship of past as a path to totalitarianism. An anonymous librarian Jay Otis wrote in the Wilson Bulletin, Librarians seldom admit that they practice censorship. When hard pressed, they would call it a proper choice of books with a limited book fund.29 Furthermore, the anonymous voice called for librarians to resist the dominion of library boards and trustees who did not truly represent the public. The idea that a few dictated the morals and values of an entire community was ethically difficult and more than a few librarians saw the echoes of the tyrannical dictatorship of Germany. Harold J. Laski wrote a reminder to librarians in 1935 about the very nature of public libraries and the importance of intellectual freedom to democracy. Laski stated that the purpose of the public library was to make accessible the heritage of culture, in the widest sense of the word, to any who may wish to take advantage of it. 30 He encouraged librarians to not limit this access based on personal philosophies; instead he advocated the idea that the only test to be applied was the test of significance. If a work had meaning to one or more individual, it was significant and therefore worthy of selection. The more readers or groups of readers the work could affect the more significance and therefore the more desirable the book should be. He also addressed the earlier ideals of educating and raising

20 the tastes of the masses, saying The way to educate the public tasteis not by neglect, but by sympathy.31 He advised librarians to protect culture by protecting freedom and to remain ever-vigilant against the tyranny of one idead fanatics who want to make their petty standards the measure of our freedom.32 Laski closed his article with the following charge to librarians:

Do not let us be ashamed to be the advocates of freedom. The librarian is in charge of the tradition of civilized man. He is required by his office to be militant about its rights. He is, as Heine said, a soldier in the liberation war of humanity. Let him earn his reward for valor in that noblest of all conflicts.33

Laski held librarians accountable to put into practice their lofty ideals. Librarians reacted to this challenge in force. William Carlson of Vanderbilt University called upon the ALA to be more instrumental in supporting intellectual freedom and to publicly address issues such as book burning and libraries in totalitarian states. Stanley Kunitz, the editor of Wilson Bulletin, publicly chided the ALA for the decision to hold the 1936 meeting in the racially segregated Richmond. Even the dean of the Chicago library school, Louis Round Wilson, criticized the professions focus on technical aspects and encouraged librarians to take a bolder educational role and broader social responsibility.34 These issues came into sharp focus with the 1937 dismissal of Philip O. Keeney. Keeney was a tenured librarian and ranking professor at University of Montana and was officially dismissed because of his philosophy of librarianship.35 It did not go

21 unnoticed by fellow librarians that Keeney was also a Socialist and the leader of Progressive Librarians Council. Primary in the issue of Keeneys firing was his resistance to the administrations urging to remove or censor radical materials. Librarians called for the ALA to investigate the issue, to which the ALA replied that a committee had been formed to deal with the Keeney issue as well as the hiring of a lawyer as state librarian in Iowa.36 In the spring of 1938, Keeney was re-instated by order of a district judge and the university appealed the decision. His re-instatement was the result of adamant avocation by a professional organization and the ACLU. Sadly, the professional organization that stood by Keeney and fought for his position was the American Association of University Professors, not the ALA. Finally, in June 1938, the ALA issued a statement of support for Keeney. The ALAs paltry response to the Keeney firing disturbed and upset a number of librarians. Kunitz was particularly vocal in his criticism of a professional organization that seemed toothless and incapable of protecting its constituents. In addition to reports and opinions on Keeneys dismissal, Kunitz filled his editorials in Wilson Bulletin with notes of disaster throughout the worlds libraries. Japanese librarians called for assistance in protecting their collections, storm troopers were in Vienna, Austrian Nazis began to purge books from libraries, and Freud was under protective custody.37 These discussions of tyranny and censorship both on American and foreign soil worked to spur librarians to address issues of censorship and intellectual freedom. In his October 1938 article in Wilson Bulletin, Bernard Berelson challenged the idea of impartiality and neutrality as beneficial to librarianship. Berelson felt that this notion of impartiality deluded librarians into believing we have discharged our entire social obligation by provided all sides with bibliographic ammunition and that it keeps

22 us from the realization that seeing all sides of a question is not an end; but only a means, a prelude to a decision.38 Berelson felt that while the librarian was obligated to provide information on all facets of an argument, the responsibility did not end there. He emphasized that citizens of a democratic state could only be responsible citizens when they were aware of the processes of social change. Berelson also advocated a new direction for librarians. Rather than the custodians of knowledge or the passive transmitter of knowledge, Berelson felt librarians should work towards an activation and application of that knowledge for the social good.39 In November of 1938, the Des Moines Public Library adopted a Librarys Bill of Rights to define and clarify positions on censorship, intellectual freedom and professional responsibility. Citing growing intolerance, suppression of free speech and censorship affecting the rights of minorities and individuals in the world, the Des Moines Public Library sought to define a set of basic policies for governing a free public library. 40 The document addressed four major points: 1. Books and other reading material purchased from public funds should be chosen based on value and interest to the public and not based on the race, nationality, political or religious views of the writers. 2. As far as it is possible, all sides of controversial subjects should be represented. 3. Official publications or propaganda published by organizations should be solicited as gifts and made available without discrimination to library users. 4. Library meeting rooms should be available on equal terms to all organizations.41 The Librarys Bill of Rights was published in Library Journal, Wilson Bulletin, and the ALA Bulletin in December 1938 and January 1939. Librarians throughout the country

23 applauded the declaration and urged the ALA to establish a Bill of Rights for the entirety of the professional organization. By summer 1939, the ALA did so. The ALA version of the Librarys Bill of Rights was almost identical to the statement issued by Des Moines with one notable exception. ALA leaders felt that the pursuit of propaganda as gifts was an issue best left up to local libraries and not mandated at a professional level. However the ALAs version did address the growing intolerance and suppression of free speech ensured that the selection of books should be made on merit and not the views of the writers, advocated an equal representation of materials on controversial subjects and supported the idea that library meeting rooms should be equally accessible to all members of the community.42

Conclusion

If the years preceding the ALAs adoption of the Librarys Bill of Rights reveal an ambiguous attitude towards censorship, the years following only emphasize the issues the profession has had with censorship and intellectual freedom. Although the ALA forms the Intellectual Freedom Committee in 1940 to recommend such steps as may be necessary to safeguard the rights of library users, very little actually occurs to promote the professions dedication to intellectual freedom until the 1970s.43 The librarians relationship with intellectual freedom has long been a difficult one; however it seems that as a result of direct professional threats and a rise of totalitarianism in the world at large, librarians became more and more concerned with issues of intellectual and academic freedom. Fearing a repetition of the book burnings and censorship in Nazi Germany,

24 American librarians sought to define their roles as protectors of intellectual works and the access to such works. Followed by a dismissal of one of their peers for his intellectual views, librarians began to see the reliance upon boards and trustees for their power as a detriment. By abdicating their power of selection in earlier years to the community and trustees, librarians had set themselves up as mere puppets of the larger whole. Not servants but slaves to library boards, librarians began to realize their professional security was dependent upon creating a professional code of ethics and a body that supported it. The rapid adoption of the Librarys Bill of Rights was a direct response to this need. After a decade of complaints by the rank and file librarians, often recognized by the more liberal-leaning Wilson Bulletin, the ALA leaders finally began to realize that the continued development of the profession relied upon a creation of set ideals and ethics that could define and protect librarians professionally. Librarians still appear on both sides of the intellectual freedom issue, and while the ALA vocally supports a very broad and open view of the issue, many librarians are more conservative. The old practices of bowing to the will of the community or a board of trustees have not completely fallen away. While many of the rank and file librarians of the 1930s complained that the ALA was too conservative and out of touch, members of the librarian rank and file today often charge that the ALA is too liberal and out of touch. The current social environment is shifting towards an encouragement of protectionism and censorship, particularly in the realm of childrens fiction. Many librarians still walk the difficult and fine line between providing the public with the fiction it desires and restricting access to works that may be seen by some in the community as detrimental.

25 While a professional code of anti-censorship does little on the surface to ensure intellectual freedom in Americas public libraries, it does encourage and support those librarians who feel it is their duty to provide equal access to all materials. Without such a code, librarians would be left to their own determination and would face censorship challenges alone. Now, in the 21st century, the Librarys Bill of Rights and the ALAs support provide librarians who wish to fight censorship with the encouragement and the appropriate tools, as well as financial support in some cases. The Librarys Bill of Rights has been expanded, in the last six decades, to protect the right of access regardless of age and to actively encourage librarians to fight censorship and assist the public in the fight of censorship. The ALA Code of Ethics has also been modified to advocate the fight against the censorship of any library materials.44 The ALA has been active in many lawsuits challenging the removal or censorship of books and authors and the Patriot Act. Local public librarians now have a powerful ally in challenging censorship and threats to intellectual freedom and although the fight continues, librarians are better equipped due to a professional organization that fully supports the ideals on which librarianship was founded. The struggle to define the librarians role in censorship is ongoing, but with the support of a professional organization and a codified system of professional ethics, librarians are surer of their footing in the censorship fight.

26 Endnotes

Steven Zeitchik. HC to Publish Moore Book without Changes. Publishers Weekly 248 no.52 (24 Bolonik, Kera. Muzzling Moore, Salon.com. 7 January 2002. Ibid. American Library Association, The American Library Association Librarys Bill of Rights, American Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books in American Public Libraries, 1876-1939: a Study in Cultural Ibid. Don C. Stevens, Millicent Library Annual Report 1894 (Fairhaven, Mass.: Millicent Library Board Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books, 10 Wayne A. Wiegand, The Politics of an Emerging Profession: The American Library Association 1876Ibid, 10 Arthur E. Bostwick, The Librarian as a Censor, Library Journal 33 (July 1908): 257 Ibid, 259 Ibid, 260 Asa Don Dickinson, "Huckleberry Finn Is Fifty Years Old - Yes, but Is He Respectable?" Wilson Arthur E. Bostwick, How Librarians Choose Books, in Library Essays: Papers Related to the Work

December 2001): 14.


2

<http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/07/moore/index.html> (10 April 10, 2007).


3 4

Library Association Bulletin 33 (15 October 1939): p. 60-61.


5

Change. (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1984), 12.


6 7

of Trustees, 1894) http://www.millicentlibrary.org/annual-reports/1894.pdf> (14 April 2007).


8 9

1917. (New York: Greenwood Press, 1986), 9


10 11 12 13 14

Library Bulletin 19(November 1935): 180-185.


15

of Public Libraries (Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press, 1920; reprint, 1969), 23
16

Papers and Proceedings of the Sixteenth General Meeting of the American Library Association held

at Lake Placid, NY 17-22 September 1984 , by the American Library Association (Chicago: American
Library Association, 1894):14-24
17 18 19

Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books, 80-89 Ibid, 92

Papers and Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth General Meeting of the American Library Association

held at Narragansett Pier, R.I. 29 June 6 July 1906, by the American Library Association (Chicago:
American Library Association, 1906):

27

20 21 22

Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books, 100 Ibid, 109-110 Mary U. Rothrock, Censorship of Fiction in the Public Library Library Journal 48 (May 1923): 454Ibid, 456 Marilla Waite Freeman, Censorship in the Large Public Library Library Journal 53 (1 March 1928): Francis K. W Drury, Book Selection. (Chicago, Ill.: American Library Association, 1930): 297 George F. Bowerman, Public Librarian Says Fiction is not Unduly Represented in Librarys Suggested Code of Ethics, American Library Association Bulletin 24 no. 3 (1930): 5862. Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books, 147-160. Jay Otis, Will Libraries Live? Wilson Bulletin 10 (September 1935): 28 Harold J. Laski, The Uses of the Public Library Wilson Bulletin 10 (November 1935): 175 Ibid, 177 Ibid, 179 Ibid, 179 Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books, 164-65 Jesse Shera, An Exchange of Correspondence, Wilson Bulletin 11 (June 1937): 715 Glenn M. Wyer, in An Exchange of Correspondence, Wilson Bulletin 11 (June 1937): 716 Evelyn Geller, Forbidden Books, 172 Bernard Berelson, The Myth of Library Impartiality: an Interpretation for Democracy Wilson Bulletin Ibid, 90 Stanley J. Kunitz, "A Library 'Bill of Rights'." Wilson Library Bulletin 13(January 1939): 314. Ibid. American Library Association, The American Library Association Librarys Bill of Rights, American Judith F. Krug, ALA and Intellectual Freedom: a Historic Overview in Intellectual Freedom Manual

456.
23 24

221
25 26

Acquisitions Washington Post (5 June 1930): 6


27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38

13 (October 1938): 87
39 40 41 42

Library Association Bulletin 33 (15 October 1939): p.60-61


43

(Chicago, Ill.: American Library Association, 2002):7

28

44

American Library Association, The American Library Association Librarys Bill of Rights adopted 18

June 1948, amended 2 February 1961; 28 June 1967; 23 January 1980; reaffirmed 23 January 1996 <http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillofrights.pdf> (17 April 2007)

You might also like