A criticism of amoral professionalism

In this post I hope to criticize and examine the notion of amoral librarianship, by commenting on another student’s post. The views expressed within this post represent the status quo, mainstream professional opinion on the topic of information access and librarian duty. I attend to the post dialectically, examining the propositions within as would a pair in Socratic dialog.  [A student] wrote:

If a patron were to come up to me and ask me for materials on bomb making, I would reply by helping them find the information that they seek. Why is that you ask? If I were to refuse to answer the patron’s query due to my personal beliefs or any other moral/ethic based reason, I would be going against the basic principals that libraries are built on. It is the library’s task to disseminate information and make it available to all patrons. Esentially, information should be made available to all patrons, regardless of what may be done with the information received.

By either refusing to help the patron or prying into their privacy by asking them for their reasons for wanting that information, we could be placing ourselves, the library and its staff, as well as the patrons in harms way. In this way, I am indeed taking into consideration the many types of ethical codes that have been put into place. Ethical codes are not clear cut, but instead are grey matter. It is important to remember this in addition to remembering to respect all patrons regardless of the information that they seek. In this case, item one of the ALA’s code of ethics (Figure 8.2 in Rubin’s book) is very important to remember: “We provide the highest level of service to all library users through appropriate and usefully organized resources; equitable service policies; equitable access; and accurate, unbiased, and courteous responses to all requests.” (348)

Therein is an effective and succinct summary of Rubin’s, and by extension, the standard professional opinion on the topic. Yet something about this response is deeply disturbing to me. It is one thing to look the other way when a strange man in a trench coat asks you to help him access BDSM zines, we might write that off as eccentric and expediently provide guidance. We are not to judge morally those who inquire for their own personal entertainment or intellectual stimulation, but we are to judge and act against those who intend to injure others, not only as librarians, but as human beings; it is an entirely different sort of engagement when we assist a criminal in his research to slaughter innocents.

The professor’s thought experiment does not involve an engineer visiting a library to look up a special formula to clear abandoned buildings; it clearly implies that the would-be researcher is looking to commit arson or terrorism. This becomes not a matter of ethics for a librarian but a matter of ethics for a human being. Before you help our would-be destroyer kill his neighbors you must first address the question of whether or not this sort of collaboration is befitting a citizen of the community. Doctors take an oath not to harm, but those who aided the Nazis in whipping up Zyklon B were still considered criminals, even though they may not have dropped the tablets themselves. By aiding a would-be terrorist in committing acts of terrorism, you are an accomplice in those crimes and violate your sacred trust as a guardian and conduit of knowledge. I can think of no way to reason out of that conclusion.

It is your duty as an American citizen to pry into others privacy when they relate to you that they are planning to slaughter others. The proper reaction for a virtuous individual would not be to aid the criminal, but to immediately report him or her to law enforcement, and then ensure that an escape is not possible, performing a citizen’s arrest if need be. Terrorism leaves the domain of “personal beliefs” and enters into the realm of action. It is unacceptable for a librarian to plead neutrality on this topic.

Librarians should instead serve as wise guides to knowledge, steering the ignorant, confused and curious toward materials which would enrich their mind and character. Take the example of a distraught individual who is looking for books on how to kill oneself. I might comply with that request, but I also might suggest other volumes which might be more befitting of wholesome, skillful knowledge. I suppose that complies with a general ethical maxim of mine, that one with power and knowledge should be a steward and caretaker of those without either. In this sense it is my responsibility to act against the terrorist, so that others may be preserved. If that course of action is incompatible with the ALA doctrine of librarianship, then chances are I won’t be working as one.

Reply

Firstly I’d like to say that I respect everyone’s opinion in this discussion. I firmly believe that as human beings we’re all entitled to draw our own conclusions. However, a valid difference of opinion and accusing someone of aiding and abetting terrorists are two very different things. I must agree with [the student’s] original post. This thought exercise did not specify the patron’s true intent and I believe that was the ultimate point the professor was trying to convey. As librarian, you will encounter situations like these. While we may be the “stewards and caretakers of information”, we are not the gatekeepers.  Therein, it is not our place to assume or even pass judgment about what the patron’s intent may be. We are there, simply to provide information to those who seek it.

This is not to imply that if someone told me specifically that they planned on taking part in a violent act, that I would not report it. However, that was not the scenario used for this discussion. Furthermore it is not our job to seek out why this patron may need this information. The second we start letting librarians make these kinds of determinations, is the second we hinder people’s access information. Let’s take this idea of offering potentially harmful information to patrons and apply it to something less violent. There are many people out there who regard some of the most classic forms of literature as harmful to children. Would they be performing their “American duty” by denying access to these?

In your post you claim that we should “serve as wise guides to knowledge, steering the ignorant, confused and curious towards materials which would enrich their minds.” While yes, we do guide people, there is a line we cannot cross. We shouldn’t, nay we mustn’t allow our own personal beliefs to play a role in this. Some believe that all you need is a little religion to enrich your mind. Once again these are not our determinations to make. We are there to ultimately point people in the right direction, whether it is bomb making 101, homosexuality, or any other topic they seek.

And finally, the tone of your post paints a picture that [the student] was somehow seeking out terrorists and providing them with sensitive information, which I don’t think was the case. I don’t think her post reflects that of an amoral librarian. You assume that we violated some moral standard because we provided the patron the information he sought. Let’s be straight here, we violated your moral standards. There is a difference. I believe it is my moral obligation as a librarian to provide equal and unfettered access to information.

The professor’s exact words:

“As a reference librarian you are approached by an individual asking that you provide him with information for building a bomb, that would enable him to blow up a suburban home. What should you do, and why? Do you blindly serve the patron, discounting any moral obligation, or is it your primary duty to think of the collective ‘good’?”

Also you are confusing the purpose of my post, which was not a personal attack on the writer, but as I said, a dialectical exercise. When you say “I don’t think her post reflects that of an amoral librarian” I think you are confusing immoral with amoral. I mean to refer to a librarian who does not consider morals or ethics in his or her behavior and duty, not a librarian who is unethical or of questionable moral disposition. I propose that librarianship should be moral, and I mean this is in a technical sense: it must be guided by ethical principles and standards. In other words, my reasoning is a classical refutation and criticism of sophistry, the position that all morals are relative and of no account in the professional setting.

Bottom line is, if you aided anyone in actualizing an act of arson or terrorism – i.e. blowing up suburban homes, you are committing a crime and also being derelict in your duties not only as a human being but also as a librarian. In the first sense you are endangering others by acting as an accomplice in an act of terrorism, in the latter, you are foolishly throwing caution to the wind in granting unmetered access to all knowledge, whether it be harmful and endangering the public (which as a civic servant, you have been tasked with serving) or no.

It would not be equitable for a librarian to judge the personal morality, beliefs, interests of the visitors to the institution (hence my first example), but it is equitable for one to prevent the harm of others.