Source of article: http://www.trinity.edu/departments/library/ascv3n1.html
Is it a librarian's duty to adopt a credo of equality and non-judmentalness, and to try to enfranchise as many disenfranchised groups as possible since all deserve access to information? Should we take on the challenge to empower community members by provision of that access and, thereby, a path to lifelong learning? If we fail, it is possible that the gap between the few haves and many have-nots will widen to the extent that a small percentage of "intelligentsia" will control and dominate our culture. The issues involved do not belong to one societal group - gays, women, minorities - but are basic human rights issues. For this reason, it seems essential that librarians lend support to the broader task of directing attention to libraries and intellectual freedom issues. Those who are currently training to become members of the profession should be aware of such concerns, as many libraries are offering more and more access to information via electronic retrieval methods.
While we live in a society that promises instantaneous retrieval of information via computers and phone, there are many occupants of that society without access to phones - even for emergencies - let alone computers. When the media offer perceptions of computer technology reaching 'everyone", they conveniently forget about the 70% of the U.S. population who neither have access to, nor can afford, a computer.
Libraries in those areas occupied by the have-nots are often struggling to provide the basics, keep the doors open, and buy books. Being able to offer access to technology is not likely to be among their priorities. Equal access to technology is dependent, before anything else, on keeping libraries open, adequately staffed, and having collections strong enough to support people's technological endeavors. An inadequate library service is true injustice against people, whatever their ethnic background, age, gender, political persuasion or sexual preference.
When book budgets, staffing and information technology are cut, such financial pressures impose a defacto form of censorship. Budgetary concerns result in the introduction of fee-based services, especially when such options are available for Internet end-users. What has happened to the public library tradition of free access to materials? In the emergent digital library movement, can the provision of general public access to the Internet be regarded as analogous to the free public library movement of the 19th century? Is the provision of Internet access to the community comparable with information access for the masses?
If one's right to read comes directly from the First Amendment right guaranteeing freedom of speech, surely this right extends to electronic as well as print media? If this is the case, then we need sensitizing to the information needs of special user populations in information services. So much of what we librarians do presupposes a level of ability among our library users - ability to read, spell, know the alphabet sequence we use. These days we are also beginning to assume a level of competency with computers. All these factors need to be taken into consideration when planning user education, but how far can we cover factors that are considered to be "basic abilities"? Increased effectiveness of staff in interpersonal skills and additional help provided by special programs are factors contributory to equity of access, since they reduce the extra difficulties faced by some of our clients - for example, the dyslexic, the visually impaired, and the computer illiterate.
Censorship and stock selection is problematic at aiming at equity of access because of the many and varied interests and beliefs of library clients. What one customer wants to read may well be considered offensive by another. Do you acquire a book which may be requested by one sector of the community at the risk of alienating another group? How do you decide whom to please? Is it possible?
Public libraries should try to cover as many areas of interest as possible, and collection development policies exist to help make rational decisions. For example, a public library might purposely buy insufficient copies of a controversial book for all its branches, adopting a very free (and well advertised) hold-placing policy and expediting delivery of holds to a requestor's branch.
The Internet can remove or bypass the censorship/selection activity and collection development policies. Is monitoring what people have on the Internet our concern? If the library provides access, via the Internet, to a pornographic magazine, this might be construed as "pandering" in some statute books. The legal responsibility here is likely to be with the library for providing such material rather than with the patron for accessing it, although we may feel that the onus of Internet use should be placed on the client - for example, with parents being responsible for what their children read/view!
Another dilemma is trying to resolve the problem of our commitment to offering access to our resources versus our responsibility to protect materials and machines. Dissatisfied patrons may take their protest underground, vandalizing, stealing, hiding and tampering with library material to which they object. How do we prevent this without undue pressure on privacy and freedom of access? Librarianship is based on the civil liberties, principles of freedom of speech, equal access to ideas, and due process. Attempts to limit the provision of materials undermine the ideology of intellectual freedom underpinning public and academic libraries.
Libraries have the potential to offer a diversity of electronic and hard-copy content. While we may still be better at distributing the latter, we need to look forward to how we perceive our role in connection with the former. We can champion better ways to sift through electronic information; to develop criteria for evaluating such information; and to facilitate equity of access.
