After reading this week about the different “branches” of intellectual freedom, it gave me a better understanding of the issue as a whole, as well as how the different components relate to one another. What is most interesting about intellectual freedom is that it is rarely a black or white issue. Although we all probably are staunch supporters of the freedom to read, is there a place where we draw the line? Do personal morals ever supersede professional ethics? Even more interesting, can advocacy for a cause coincide with neutrality?
In several cases, it seems that there are no answers, just compromise and case-by-case judgments. The policies set by the ALA are intended as staunch guidelines for librarians to promote intellectual freedom, but in practice there are always difficulties. I like that just as librarians have the responsibility to advocate for the right to read, the ALA also supports the right for books to be challenged by others who have a difference of opinion (maybe this is one area where advocacy and neutrality can come to terms with each other). I think that is what makes intellectual freedom so fascinating, because it is not a matter of finding a “right” answer, but instead thinking about things from various perspectives.
In addition, the ALA recognizes that there are bad or dangerous ideas, but that they are also an opportunity for people to form the right or good idea for themselves. I have struggled to clarify my feelings about this, and they have explained it so eloquently. In some ways the freedom to read reminds me of psychology motivation research, and why people behave in the ways that they do. A book may outline a “bad” idea (don’t try this at home!), explain the process, and tell the reader how to access the materials, but a book cannot make the choice to implement it.
Also, has anyone ever seen the movie V for Vendetta? The not-so-subtle warnings about the consequences of not protecting intellectual freedom and the Bill of Rights made me think of that movie.
Last but not least, I went to some of the recommended ALA sites and found that Judith F. Krug actually passed away last month. Her commitment to IF shone through in her writing, and the tributes to her are inspiring.
http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/rememberingjudith.cfm
Not Goodbye, but See Ya Later
9 months ago
Cassie,
ReplyDeleteYou really have jumped into this class--thought
provoking comments; there are a lot of hard questions to be answered when it comes to individual books. Thanks for going to my blog--at least now I know you guys will be able to read it. Tammy
Cassie you have done a wonderful job reflecting on intellectual freedom. I thought you perpectives on intellectual freedom exploring perpectives on issues instead of finding the right answer, really sums it up. I think most individuals want the right answer, which is usually thier right answer. Someone has to be neutral or we would ban everything. I actually had this conversation with my mother, who is very conservative. She believes in censorship but I reminded her that she enjoys her intellectual freedom and needs to equally support the opportunity for others to do the same. One day someone may ban the bible or religious publications because they cause to much controversy or whatever else. She would not support censorship then would she? I like your analysis, very thought provaking. I look forward to reading other postings.
ReplyDeleteWow, what a great comparison! If you don't mind I will borrow that particular example when I debate IF.
ReplyDelete