Framework for Evaluating the Use of Labels and Rating Systems by Libraries
Introduction:
The role of the library in democratic republic includes:
1) Providing access to as full a range of diverse ideas, information, and resources as possible to enable each individual to exercise personal choices.
2) Providing access in a neutral, non-judgmental manner; avoiding the predisposing or prejudicing the attitudes of potential readers or users of that information.
3) Facilitating access by providing reader’s aids to assist library users in their exercise of their personal choices.
4) Providing individualized assistance to library users.
Libraries accomplish this by:
1) Development of a diverse collection and the establishment of gateways to information and resources available from external sources (electronic, cooperative agreements, Ill, etc.);
2) Organizing and cataloging these resources;
3) Providing bibliographic aids and guides (bibliographies, path finders, etc);
4) Providing reference and reader’s advisory, bibliographic instruction and other patron education services;
The Mission of facilitating individual choice is best accomplished with personalized services. However, this is not always possible or appropriate, both because of staffing limitations and because many library users wish to select their reading choices independently.
Thus, libraries have developed organizational schemes including directional and finding aids that are aimed not at individuals, but users in general. When developing these bibliographic aids for the convenience of the user, libraries do not apply value judgments to or advocate the ideas found in their collections or in resources accessible through the library. To do so would be, or at least have the appearance of being, viewpoint endorsement or discrimination neither of which is acceptable in a library, particularly one that is publicly funded.
However, libraries do promote reading. How do we promote reading without communicating a value judgment that might predispose or prejudice the potential reader? That’s when the difficulty and confusion arises. There are no definitive answers.
It helps use legal reasoning as an example. Courts provide answers, but only for the facts in the case before them. However, they base the answers on a continuously evolving body of laws and legal concepts upon which prior decisions have been based in order to resolve current conflicts between values and beliefs within a framework of constitutional principles. This process maintains the constitution as a living, legitimate document.
The library profession must use this same method if we are maintain the Library Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read Statement as living, relevant and legitimate documents in the rapidly changing, tumultuous environment within which libraries exit today.
Questions to ask about labels in the library
1. What is the intended purpose?
• To inform? assist the reader? warn? discourage? encourage? promote?
• Is the purpose secular or religious?
2. What is the nature of the symbol used?
• viewpoint neutral?
• prejudicial?
• does it have religious meaning or association?
3. What are the criteria for inclusion?
• objective?
• value based?
• based on self-identification by author or copyright holder or judgment of the library?
• based on the ratings of a private organization not subject to legislative or judicial review?
• inclusive?
• exclusive of some viewpoints?
4. How is the label used?
• informational but interfiled?
• separate shelving location?
• to discourage or restrict access?
5. What is the principle or primary effect?
• to advance or inhibit a particular viewpoint?
• to advance or inhibit religion?
• to entangle the library with religion?
• to facilitate access in a non-judgmental manner?
• to discourage or restrict access?
5. What does the sum total of these attributes communicate to the average library user?
6.. How might it impact perceptions of the library and reading choices of the library user?
Prepared by Candace Morgan (cd_df_morgan@msn.com) for ALA’s Law for Librarians April 2006,
revised August 2006
