Academic Libraries and Intellectual Freedom
Barbara M. Jones is the Director of the Office for Intellectual Freedom and the Executive Director of the Freedom to Read Foundation at the American Library Association in Chicago. She is the author of Libraries, Access, and Intellectual Freedom: Developing Policies for Public and Academic Libraries (ALA: 1999); and Protecting Intellectual Freedom in Your Academic Library: Scenarios From the Front Lines (ALA, 2009). Note: Much of this essay is excerpted from the 2009 publication cited above, which should be consulted for more detailed explanations of each issue.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Traditional library practice defined intellectual freedom issues very narrowly and relegated them to public and school libraries. But in 1987 the FBI targeted academic libraries in an effort to uncover what they suspected to be subversive gathering of information and recruiting of operatives by foreign agents. And since 2001 the USA PATRIOT Act has had a powerful impact on procedures, policies, and services in academic libraries. While the statistics are difficult to collect due to the “gag order” associated with this legislation, it is entirely possible—and probable—that a National Security Letter has been served on an academic library. Further, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) of 1994 has been extended to cover Internet service providers (ISPs) and thus many campus networks. As the U.S. society struggles to balance the two important values of national security and individual liberties in the face of international terrorism, academic libraries are finding themselves increasingly in the crosshairs.
And so as we enter the second decade of the twenty-first century, it is essential that academic administrators, librarians, faculty, and students understand that intellectual freedom is part and parcel of the academic enterprise. Intellectual freedom in academic libraries, of course, still applies to protection from traditional censorship, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Academic librarians must be prepared to defend and advocate even the most difficult intellectual freedom principles and policies as colleges and universities become increasingly risk averse in this challenging economic climate.
The Twenty-First Century Student
The student population on most U.S. campuses is more diverse than ever. One finds older second-career seekers; “typical” millennial teenagers; Advanced Placement high school students; Elderhostel participants; international students; male, female, and transgender students; and students of every ethnic, economic, and religious background. Each student brings to college a unique background and technological proficiency (or lack thereof) necessary to navigate today’s academic library.
All of this matters when developing an intellectual freedom strategy to support and protect students’ freedom to grow intellectually. One characteristic of most college students is their growing technological skill. Some have described these students as good multitaskers, collaborative, format agnostic, and demanding. They may define “public” and “private” spaces differently than older generations. While surveys reflect millennials’ concern over personal privacy, their information seeking and sharing behaviors often belie that concern. Today’s college student freely associates with information, sorts it, sifts it, sends it on, and shares it without much thought about privacy or copyright. One thing leads to another, and they do not perform a formal linear inquiry. These students may also help themselves to Google information, unaware of the differences in accuracy, authenticity, and sources. College students still need someone to help them learn to mediate information, and the library is the perfect place for such collaborations among students, faculty, and librarians. Intellectual freedom thrives when students are aware of what information is accessible and the nature of that information so that they can expand their horizons. And academic librarians need to understand student information-seeking behavior in order to respect each student’s learning style and protect their privacy to explore. Intellectual freedom is more fully realized in an environment in which collaboration and instruction is available for those who seek it.
Public and Private Academic Libraries: Important Differences
Public colleges and universities are government entities and must therefore operate in accord with the U.S. Constitution, including the First Amendment. Public higher education is governed by federal, state, and local legislation as well as by such agencies as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Private institutions, on the other hand, have a contractual obligation with their students and faculty. Guarantees of freedom of expression are therefore based on such contractual documents as faculty and student handbooks.
Most private colleges and universities do adopt the values of the First Amendment and academic freedom because they would otherwise be hard pressed to attract the kind of faculty, librarians, students, and administrators to enhance and maintain their academic reputation. Job-seeking librarians should research the particular institution’s history and policies regarding intellectual and academic freedom—to prevent a “bad job fit” at a college that doesn’t support values that librarian holds dear.
The Limited Public Forum and Academic Library Space
The legal concept covering all publicly funded libraries—and that includes publicly funded academic libraries—is that of a “limited public forum.” In such a forum, users have a right to receive information, and librarians have a right to provide it. And yet this forum can set limits; it need not be as “free-wheeling” as a soapbox on a public park, for example. As a “limited” public space—which extends to cyberspace—libraries are free to set reasonable regulations in order to achieve their mission of providing information and other services. Such regulations might include the establishment of building hours and definitions of appropriate patron conduct.
However, any regulations must be applied equitably to all users. Disheveled students must be granted the same quality of library service as their well-groomed friends. If one group of students in a particular library area is asked to be quiet, then all users in that area must be held to the same standard of conduct. If there are different levels of borrowers and access (community borrowers versus faculty, for example), care must be taken that these levels don’t discriminate on the basis of physical disability, sexual orientation, or other categories recognized in U.S. civil rights legislation. Similarly, library meeting room policies must be designed for equitable access. These complex issues require further examples, which can be found in the Intellectual Freedom Manual or by contacting the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom.
In our attempts to maintain a certain scholarly decorum, some academic libraries remain in the model of the quiet nineteenth-century “book box” and the library becomes irrelevant on campus—in terms of use and funding. In the digital age it is unlikely that this type of building and service ethic will attract students. Academic librarians and architects should design the space for collaborative learning, digital learning, multi-media and other content formats, and library instruction—all important components of intellectual freedom. To achieve a relevant library space for the campus community, the campus community must participate in its development.
Academic Freedom
The principles of library intellectual freedom and the traditional concept of academic freedom (as espoused by the American Association of University Professors, for example) differ somewhat, but they share the same roots. An academic library lacking a supportive campus culture in regard to academic freedom will have trouble protecting the intellectual freedom of its users. And so academic librarians have often sought common ground with faculty and administration by linking their shared values. Guarantees of academic freedom are usually restricted to the rights of faculty to determine what goes on in their classroom, including course content. And these rights do not always extend to students or librarians. Intellectual freedom principles are more closely tied to First Amendment rights or campus ethical values. It is therefore essential that ALA’s intellectual freedom principles be part of any campus’ comprehensive statements and policies on academic freedom. Academic librarians need to be at the table when academic freedom is formulated and debated on their campus.
Academic Librarians and Campus Collaboration
All too often, librarians are not at that table. This is unfortunately true when information technology policies are developed. IT professionals are often (and understandably) so focused on cost-saving and efficiency that they ignore contractual language about user privacy, for example. That is why all players must all work together on campus as each brings invaluable expertise to the table. Librarians must understand that not all campus actors are going to support the principles of intellectual freedom, because they may have equally compelling and conflicting agendas. Also, campus administrations are more risk averse than ever. Campus officials—even campus counsel—are often not well-versed on library law. Librarians must understand the unique and invaluable perspective they bring to campus policy development. This lack of campus expertise or experience with library issues underscores the importance of the Association of College and Research Libraries’ (ACRL) recent advocacy programming, aimed at making academic librarians an integral part of the campus culture.
ACRL
The Association of College and Research Libraries’ Intellectual Freedom Committee created its own “Intellectual Freedom in Academic Libraries” document in 2000, as an Interpretation of the more general Library Bill of Rights. [Nanette: URL’s.] Academic librarians need to support this committee as it creates intellectual freedom programming and policies specific to academic concerns. This support is also important in such other ALA divisions as LITA (Library and Information Technology Association).
Written Policies
Academic librarians must carve out the time to discuss, develop, write, and update good written policies. While the work is tedious to many of us, such policies are invaluable insurance against intellectual freedom-related crises. Policies help assure staff consistency in handling intellectual freedom issues, whether brought by an angry faculty member or an insistent FBI agent. Written policies, held together attractively in a folder or on a web site, display a library’s professionalism and managerial excellence. Policies are best written by small groups within the library who share common interests but bring different perspectives to the table. A wealth of examples and ideas are available in the Intellectual Freedom Manual.
Library Information Content (Collections)
In the twenty-first century, a “collection” might be a book on the shelf, a manuscript in an archive, a licensed database, a DVD, an institutional repository report, or a borrowed Interlibrary Loan request. It might well be content created by the student. Content-based censorship is still one of the primary barriers to intellectual freedom. Written collection development policies should describe an academic library’s mission, subject specialties, and priorities. It should also include the collection policies for consortia members if applicable, as libraries increasingly share collections and move to a “library without walls” concept. The policy should therefore cover collections shared, borrowed, licensed, or purchased. While the Intellectual Freedom Manual does contain such specific Library Bill of Rights Interpretations as “Diversity in Collection Development” and “Evaluating Library Collections,” almost all of the interpretations of the Library Bill of Rights deal in one way or another with information content. [Nanette: URLs.]
Academic libraries are often members of consortia. Increasingly these groups share collection responsibilities systematically in order to pool limited financial resources and to assure continued coverage of a broad range of subjects. Libraries should never use consortia or Interlibrary Loan partnerships as a way to avoid buying a controversial book. For one thing, such books are often in great demand, and if only one member of the consortium is courageous enough to buy the book, the user demand won’t be met.
Even in an academic library it is sometimes difficult to collect controversial materials—but the controversies might differ from those in a public library. Sometimes teaching faculty members will pressure librarians to buy books on a particular topic that represent only one “politically correct” view. Or faculty might object to spending precious acquisition dollars on a book that, though in high demand, is deemed “poor scholarship” and unworthy of being housed in an academic library. Some faculty might declare that a nonfiction book without footnotes is not worthy of an academic library collection. Others might take a position against graphic novels—not because of violent content, but because they are not scholarly. While in most cases academic librarians do, indeed, make collection decisions partly based on the quality of the scholarship, this rationale should never be used as a way to avoid the purchase of a book with great user demand. A recent example of this dilemma concerns the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-semitic fictional propaganda tract that is represented by its authors as “truth.” Such materials sometimes have a place in academic libraries because they appear in the public discourse and researchers need to be aware of the controversy contained therein. In such cases, librarians should consider providing contextual materials in other parts of the collection, representing many points of view.
Libel tourism presents another dilemma. Recently some publishers have been threatened by special interest groups to expurgate materials from a scholarly book—or to destroy the book entirely. In 2007 Cambridge University Press was pressured to remove Alms for Jihad: Charity and Terrorism in the Islamic World (2006) from circulation under threat of a lawsuit filed in the UK. The press sent letters to libraries that purchased the book, asking them to remove it from circulation. The American Library Association issued a statement, based on intellectual freedom principles, urging librarians to retain the book. Currently pending U.S. legislation will hopefully protect U.S. authors from such threats on their lives and livelihoods.
Internet Access
All U.S. academic libraries depend on the Internet not only for content but as a container. Software applications, handheld devices, Web 2.0, courseware, and distance learning—all depend on reliable and open Internet access. The Internet has also replaced many traditional library functions—electronic reserves is an example—at the same time it supports new genres (computer games) and communications strategies unknown a decade ago.
In the landmark Supreme Court case, Reno v. ACLU (1997), Internet content was afforded the same First Amendment protections as paper content. Because of the Reno case, all other Library Bill of Rights interpretations apply to Internet content as well as to other formats. For example, a Robert Mapplethorpe image in a glossy art book, spread out on a library table, has the same legal protection as the same image on the Internet. And both would probably be available in most academic libraries.
ALA’s Intellectual Freedom Committee considers the Internet so important that they have recently issued a number of crucial interpretations to the Library Bill of Rights: “Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks” and a number of privacy policies. [Nanette: URLs.] Questions have arisen regarding older minors who use college Internet content. “Harmful to minors” legislation and court cases have, to date, generally avoided focus on older minors, or have created exemptions for libraries. Academic librarians must research their local situation.
Privacy
The major change in the new edition of the Intellectual Freedom Manual is the increased emphasis on library reader privacy as a constitutional right and the resulting wealth of new policies and guidelines. This is the result of increased government emphasis on surveillance as an anti-terrorism strategy. This strategy has, in the view of many librarians, unduly invaded the privacy of library users. The Office for Intellectual Freedom has, in fact, added Choose Privacy Week to its annual activities, and academic libraries have created excellent programming around the privacy theme. College students in particular may hold a very different view of the balance of “private” and “public” from older generations, and it is important for libraries to clarify policies in this regard so there is mutual awareness and understanding.
Library circulation policies should include the state library confidentiality statute, which may or may not apply to academic libraries. It is especially important to teach student workers (often on the front line) how these laws apply when users request information that may be privileged. For example, a user can request a “recall” of a circulating book, but can’t be told who currently holds that book. Reserve book circulation records can’t be shown to professors, who sometimes want to base grades on a student’s record of reserve book reading. Library records can’t be turned over to officials without a court-ordered subpoena. Investigations of plagiarism also require a subpoena before librarians can reveal the circulation records of a student.
International researchers, regardless of their U.S. citizenship status, are protected by the First Amendment in U.S. libraries.
At the same time, libraries must develop a clear policy—with training for the entire staff—on what to do if served with a National Security Letter as described in the USA PATRIOT Act. NSLs usually trump state confidentiality statutes. But at the same time, libraries do retain a number of specific rights under the Act. The Office for Intellectual Freedom web site provides many examples of how to respond to a National Security Letter or an FBI visit, and also offers phone assistance when legally possible.
Many privacy-related dilemmas relate to use of the campus computer network. Most campuses keep transaction logs far longer than necessary for efficient library operations. Care should be taken to protect the privacy of students on campus networks, in regard to library records, reference questions, and other communications via the Internet. Librarians must not assume that campus network administrators are necessarily knowledgeable or sensitive to such potential invasions of privacy. If a network user violates campus policy, he or she should be granted due process.
Librarians should be at the table when campus is negotiating technology contracts. The vendor must specify the various levels of privacy and security of personally identifiable information (PII). Many privacy best practices fortunately extend beyond library walls; for example, The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) applies to other types of PII collected on campus. Librarians should point that out when developing library privacy policies that may seem draconian or unnecessary to some.
