Our readings for class this week were (thankfully) pretty light, which I appreciate because I think we all had very busy "breaks."
We were asked to read over the ALA Code of Ethics, which we have looked at in previous courses, as well. I imagine that part of library school has to do with being indoctrinated to follow the ALA Code of Ethics, which is just as well because they're a pretty good set.
The second reading was pretty interesting because it kind of went against the grain of what we had been previously taught about the Code of Ethics and a librarian's level of responsibility in providing access to information. Specifically, it went against what we were taught about it in the introductory course, 647. In regards to "dangerous questions," we were taught that it is unprofessional to judge what is or is not appropriate to provide access to, regardless of the material or circumstances surrounding it. A patron may be asking about books on suicide or pipe bomb building for any number of reasons which may or may not include actually committing suicide or building a pipe bomb, for example. This seems reasonable enough, a person could have had someone close to them commit suicide, or they could be doing a school project on recent history involving pipe bombs.
"Dangerous Questions at the Reference Desk: A Virtue Ethics Approach." Lenker, Mark. The Journal of Information Ethics. 17,1. Spring 2008.
The second reading challenges that interpretation of the ALA Code of Ethics, saying that to provide access to information which is potentially harmful to the patron or others without considering the possible effects is both reckless and irresponsible. The author says that it is a narrow line to walk, but a person's moral integrity should not be put into opposition with a profession's guidelines, or use them to hide behind. The paper was a bit misleading, because it went into a few hypothetical "case studies" of patrons asking dangerous questions at the reference desk, and then going over the virtue ethics stance of responding, which allowed for the hypothetical librarian to think about the different ways his answer could affect things, but I felt like it didn't actually come to a conclusion about what level of information the librarian could provide, or what he could say if he decided that the dangerous question was something that he felt immoral providing an answer to. Even if I decided that I didn't want to provide the answer to how to build pressure cooker bombs, how do I tell the patron that without being rude or unprofessional?
I really think that the reading we did brought up some fascinating points about how perhaps following the ALA Code of Ethics to a T while disregarding personal objections is at best a cop out for responsibility and at worst a serious degradation of a person's moral character. I think it begs the question, though, about how do you judge what you deem to be objectionable based on your own values and bias against what someone else deems to be objectionable? Can you put qualifiers on when it is and is not okay to withhold information? One person may find a patron's request for information on how to become a sex worker objectionable and another may not.
I'm really interested to see what we as a class have to say about this interpretation of the Code of Ethics. It seems safer to just stick to the code and provide whatever information is asked of us, but at the same time, I might feel personally responsible if I found out that I had helped someone to kill a family in a house fire.
I don't think it is you who got off on the week-by-week counts. I think I made a mistake on the syllabus when adjusting it from 2013 to 2014!
ReplyDeleteIt is innteresting to see that these ethical questions are found through information sciences. In information security we often have to grapple with the implications of our knowledge. Do we expose vulnerablities when we find them or do we limit that knowledge. In the end I follow a simple rule. You cannot have safty through obsurity. Sooner or later that information will get out and whether or not that person is shown will not deter them. Ultimatly I choose that information is ethically a good thing and would rather have it properly contextualized to help those who seek it to use it well.
ReplyDelete"Specifically, it went against what we were taught about it in the introductory course, 647. In regards to "dangerous questions," we were taught that it is unprofessional to judge what is or is not appropriate to provide access to, regardless of the material or circumstances surrounding it.'
ReplyDeleteI completely forgot about 647! This is certainly true. My biggest takeaway from the Code was that the guidelines that it provides are just that, guidelines. Meaning that you should examine the situation and use your common sense to determine the best course of action in a particular scenario. The Code should guide your actions, not rule your actions.
"I really think that the reading we did brought up some fascinating points about how perhaps following the ALA Code of Ethics to a T while disregarding personal objections is at best a cop out for responsibility and at worst a serious degradation of a person's moral character."
ReplyDeleteI really struggled with this part of the reading. Like you question, at what point do we get to decide that something is objectionable? At what point do our biases get in the way? Similarly, is it up to us to judge what a person is using the information we give them for? I was actually talking about our ethics discussion in 500 discussion last week, and my GSI asked if our class to a conclusion about what to do in ethical situations like the case studies given, and I said that we had not because we probably never could, either as a class or as a profession.