To Be or Not To Be...Opinionated | BackTalk

Print |

Reprint/License |

Subscription |

RSS |

Share | |

By Leah L. White
Sept. 1, 2011

I HAVE A CONFESSION TO MAKE: I hate the Kindle. Hate it. I think it’s pro-DRM, restrictive, ugly, clunky, and probably offers the most uncomfortable way to read a book. I hate it so much that I even get a little annoyed when I see one. Phew! That felt good. Sometimes a librarian just has to rant every now and again, right?

Here’s the problem with what I refer to as “my Kindle issue”: my patrons have Kindles, and they need help with them. They bring their devices in, confused about how it works and what it takes to get free or discounted books on it. It takes every bone in my body not to say, “Really? Is this really better than a paperback? Or a Nook?” Yet, despite my beliefs, I do not say those things. I shut my mouth, hit the power button, and help.

Walking the line

Providing services that are free of our opinions can be extremely difficult. In a time when we can, and are even expected to, proclaim our personal perspective quite easily to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people online in less than a minute, keeping cool at a public desk can be tricky.

I once had a patron come up to me at the desk and ask, “So what are your thoughts on Sarah Palin?” What I think about her means little to the services I can provide to this patron. My professionalism kicked in, and I let him know that I couldn’t answer that particular question, adding, “But would you like to locate an article or biography on her?” Although the patron left unsatisfied, at least he didn’t leave offended.

My responses to questions like that are generally some variation of, “When I’m behind this desk, I have no opinion.” Of course, this is not really true. I am filled to the brim with opinions, and they are ones I am expected to have and share freely. For instance, I tell people what I think about books and writers all the time. After all, the difference between my thoughts on Jonathan Franzen and those on Sarah Palin, at least when it comes to my role as a public servant, are like comparing apples and oranges. Or are they?

Must we eschew advocacy?

Many of my peers, like myself, were raised to believe that speaking one’s mind is a good thing. In library school, we sit and judge other libraries’ policies. We argue about the future of libraries. Yet at your place on a public service desk, this is all supposed to go quiet. It can be extremely difficult to walk on the right side of that line—the line that as librarians we are bound ethically never to cross, no matter what.

According to the almighty American Library Association (ALA) 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.”

On the surface, this statement makes sense; I don’t tell people whom I’m voting for, and I certainly don’t tell people about my little “Kindle issue.” Still, there’s the sticky issue of library advocacy.

So, I cannot tell a patron my opinion of a politician, even if this elected official is antilibrary? Also, how does this code of ethics interact with the prolibrary advocacy movement and, just as an example, the Save the Library campaigns popping up all over the country? Do I get to fight for my library’s existence in all venues?

Where does education fit?

Anthony Molaro, a 2011 LJ Mover & Shaker, writes on the blog The Information Activist:

We have so avoided politics because of our ethical desire to impart unbiased information to the patron, but is it time to rethink this method? Yes we should always provide fair and unbiased information to patrons, but that doesn’t mean that we should just roll over politically and economically. We have been using our voice, and launching advocacy campaigns that have helped improve some of our funding crises, but is that all we can do? Is it wrong to educate our public?

This is where it gets murky. What if your library is forced to close branches, cut hours, or lay off staff owing to massive budget cuts? Patrons will ask the staff how they feel about it. Where does this leave the librarian?

By removing opinions so completely from our position in the library, are we just shooting ourselves in our comfortable yet stylishly shod foot? Where do impartial and accurate information services end and at what point does advocacy begin?

I do not pretend to know the answers. All librarians are struggling with these issues to some degree. We want to protect libraries and advocate for our right to exist. We want to be heard. But we are so concerned about offending someone that quite often we are left standing silent.

Author Information

Leah L. White is a readers advisory librarian at the Morton Grove Public Library. You can follow her on Twitter at: @leahlibrarian. We welcome opinion pieces for BackTalk. Please send them to ffialkoff@mediasourceinc.com

Reader Comments (3)

We were encouraged to stay out of the political conversation recently as our City Council closed our library branch so this article really hits home. I was very diplomatic when responding to comments on our Facebook page voicing displeasure at our branch closure. I went so far as to say that staff were "sad". But I was jealous as I watched all the things that NYPL was doing to motivate their community to stand up for the library and reduce the amount of cuts to library funding. I eagerly await other comments on this topic because I would like a better definition of how far it is we can go to advocate for funding and our very existence.

Posted by Donna on September 1, 2011 07:18:09PM

Interesting article, but there are several topics here. The first question about Sarah Palin, was very possibly a trap. I wrote in an email list/blog post of mine that "I think it is really important *not* to believe that all librarians represent a single political ideal since they neither represent a single political entity, nor should they. The moment they do speak out politically, they can become isolated by someone, somewhere, and at the same time they alienate a large number of the members of their own profession." http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/2011/08/re-day-made-of-glass.html Still, it is not hypocritical for librarians to say they are important to society. It is merely stating a fact, but the general public may not be aware of this fact. Naturally, librarians should be required, and able, to back up their statements if questioned--and that is the entire point. When confronted, they can begin to explain why, hopefully in language the average person can understand and appreciate, and these are the times when people may listen and librarians may have an impact. But, when arguing for the importance of libraries, librarians are also ethically compelled to provide the "non-librarian" view as well, in an unbiased manner. This makes us quite different from many other members of society. Being unbiased does not necessarily mean the same thing as keeping silent when you see someone doing something that will harm them and you. This certainly applies to information. There is still a moral responsibility to speak up.

Posted by James Weinheimer on September 5, 2011 04:58:24AM

Previous | Next