BackTalk: Where Personal and Professional Collide

I'm a citizen who often likes to proclaim his politics publicly. I wear buttons on my lapel, tack posters on my wall, paste bumper stickers on my car. As long as the First Amendment still operates as a check to laws like the USA PATRIOT Act I will continue to enjoy these expressions of my guaranteed, or at least warrantied, right to free speech. But my rights to the free and reasonably full expression of speech as a citizen sometimes conflict with my responsibilities as a librarian.

If you doubt this have another look at Principle VII of the American Library Association (ALA) Code of Ethics:

We distinguish between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.

I see a number of conflicts between private rights and professional responsibility that probably weren't imagined when this principle was written. I assume that this code was meant to remind reference librarians, for instance, that it is unethical to proselytize for our favorite causes with patrons who expect objective professional assistance at the reference desk. If a patron asked for help finding editorials supporting the Right to Life I would be out of line if I replied, "Sure, and I'll show you some Right To Choose material as well, to balance that out."

Even as further assistance, a suggestion like this is "in-your-face"; it smacks of creating an unwelcome debate, or even confrontation, at the desk rather than providing extra service. I might justify this behavior by claiming I had a moral duty to promote intellectual freedom by encouraging discussion. But what I'd really be doing is coercing the patron. The reference desk is not a soapbox.

The trouble is, I do do things like this. I don't usually go out of my way to wear my private beliefs on my sleeve, but I don't hide these beliefs if I'm asked about them. As I understand the intent of our code of ethics, we should try to keep a delicate balance between helping and offending our patrons. But what if I were to wear a button proclaiming that I was a supporter of Howard Dean for President? Would this interfere with my ability to provide impartial reference service? I know I have a citizen's right to wear such a button, but what if this leads some patrons to believe I wouldn't help them if they supported President Bush or even John Kerry? I can see why it's okay to have political signs on my office door but perhaps not on my lapel when I'm meeting the public.

Someone's going to protest that I'm being overscrupulous: surely most patrons can distinguish between my private beliefs and my public responsibility to give objective reference assistance? Surely a supervisor would not forbid me to wear a crucifix around my neck if I were Christian, a Star of David if I were Jewish?

I raised this rhetorical question, expecting that no library would be so politically correct, before I heard about Kimberly Draper, a front-desk clerk in the Logan County Public Library, Russelville, KY, who was fired on April 16, 2001 for wearing a necklace with a cross pendant. Draper violated a dress code stating "No clothing depicting religious, political or potentially offensive decoration is permitted." Draper sued and won (though she didn't ask for her job back). Federal judge Thomas Russell did not agree that the wearing of the cross interfered with the library's purpose (see our web exclusive news 9/8/03 ).

Usually this is an ethical rather than a legal issue. How do we reconcile the librarian's right to practice free speech and the patron's expectation to receive dispassionate reference service? Surely the patron comes first? I find myself smack-dab in the middle of this debate. On the one hand, I'm a free speech advocate trying to keep all channels of communication open between librarians and the public we serve. On the other hand, I respect my own privacy too much to encroach on our patrons' right to be left alone.

I need a third hand, I guess, because as a teacher-librarian dedicated not only to providing information but helping students learn a little bit about how to discriminate among different kinds of information resources I feel an obligation to discuss ideas with some of them. I hope this isn't heresy. I don't think it's unethical. It sure isn't always comfortable to suggest to patrons that there are other points of view they may want to consider than the one with which they started.

Maybe wearing a button reading "All Questions Are Welcome Here" would be better than advertising an obviously partisan political statement. But let's admit it: with or without buttons or signs, public service librarians are never completely neutral or objective information providers. We shouldn't, of course, use our position to be polemicists for a particular cause—unless, of course, that cause is free and open access to information.

We welcome opinion pieces for BackTalk. Please send them to LJ, BACKTALK, 360 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10010; fialkoff@reedbusiness.com