#library ethics

The American Library Association (ALA) is the oldest and largest library association in the world. They provide accreditation to library science/information science/library and information science degrees across the USA and Canada, along with one program in the UK currently awaiting accreditation. Many librarian positions require an ALA-accredited master’s degree.

One important document from the ALA is the Code of Ethics. This document was last updated in 2021 to include racial and social justice. It details the ethical responsibilities of libraries and librarians. The freedom and privacy of our patrons should always come first, and the code of ethics exists to protect this.

If you plan to add libraries to your own worldbuilding (and you should, in my biased opinion), make sure to consider library ethics. Does a code like this exist? If not, why? One good example of libraries without these ethics is the library system I helped my current DM put together for the City of Brass in the Plane of Fire - instead of protecting patrons, they track who uses what items and for how long, even going so far as to require payment for access to certain information.

I’ve included the full text below the cut, since Tumblr gets fussy with links - if you’d like to read it on the ALA’s website instead, just go to your search engine of choice and search “ALA Code of Ethics.”

So the blog that everyone loves to hate, Hiring Librarians, post a really interesting inverview with a job seeker1 which contained this:

What do you think is the secret to getting hired?

Organizational fit. Often difficult to assess, but critical to success on the job. I have found organizations will often hire someone that is somehow known to them or connected to the library, university, hospital, etc., e.g. former employee, known colleague from partner institution, volunteer, recommended by someone trusted by search committee member(s) — i.e. Often about who you know. Preparation also helps.

This is almost an axiom of job searching or success within your field. Despite all the vocal belief that white US/Canadian culture likes to hold about bootstraps and fierce individualism2, "I have found organizations will often hire someone that is somehow known to them."

Once more:

I have found organizations will often hire someone that is somehow known to them.

This statement, on the surface seems relatively innocuous. But it isn't really. In reality, the ideas and culture behind this is one of the main drivers for the persistance of inequality in job hiring and workplaces despite (at least for Canada and the US) most places having laws against discrimination.

In the tech community critiques over this notion of cultural/organizational fit have been floating around for quite some time, so I'm not going to belabour this point. There are also recent critiques about the concept of professional networking (and I've had my own critiques of networking in library land).

And now it is time to tie these three ideas together to understand how we've maintained stark inequality within a legal framework putatively designed to prevent this exact sort of thing. To recap (for the sake of clarity) these are the three propositions before us:

Getting hired is often about who you know.

Organizational/culture 'fit' is not only nebulous but specifically designed to admit only certain kinds of people.

Networking is a necessary tool for success (see item 1), but only networking of a narrowly defined kind (see item 2).

Networking can almost be viewed as an audition for organizations. How successfully you network not only increases the people who you know but it is also a way for you to demonstrate that you fit in the culture. And, yes, it is highly self-selecting. If you are a mother and can't attend evening events that run late and have a lot of booze? Well, clearly you don't fit the culture otherwise you'd make an effort to show up. But if you don't show up, then you won't meet people who might be instrumental for getting a new job or some other important opportunity.

On the first point, though, here is what [some recent research has to say]:

So white Americans tell a neighbor's son about a job, hire a friend's daughter, carry the resume of a friend (or, for that matter, a friend's boyfriend's sister) into the boss's office, recommend an old school mate or co-worker for an unadvertised opening, or just say great things about that job applicant whom they happen to know. But since most Americans, white and black, live virtually segregated lives, and since advantages, privileges and economic progress have already accrued in favor of whites, the additional advantages that flow from this help go almost exclusively to whites, DiTomaso said....

DiTomaso's work does confirm that networks -- not just the kind you build over awkward conversations, finger foods and watered-down cocktails but the kind you're born into -- matter, Austin said. It also points to just how different forms of inequality feed one another. Family-and-friends segregation feeds job and income inequality. That in turn feeds neighborhood and school segregation. That then leaves some kids less likely to receive a quality education and escape from the cycle, he said.

This is a cycle and system that feeds into itself. Marginalized people, because we are marginalized, rarely have access to the kinds of networks that are great for advancement3.

Put another way: who you are determines who you know in some very important none trivial ways. Yes, as you become an adult you are able to change some of these things (to an extent), but only with great difficulty.

And here is where things like conferences and other types of professional networking come into play. Except... there are many barriers in place for participation in these sorts of things. Barriers that serve to place real limits on the ability of a marginalized person to grow their networks and then leverage these networks for their own advancement.

All of these things work together. They feed into one another. They sustain each other. This is the sort of thing we are talking about when we speak of institutional/systemic oppression. Because something like this is complex and relies on the aggregated actions of many people.

DiTomaso concludes, based on her research, that most white Americans engage, at least a few times per year, in the activities that foster inequality. While they may not deliberately discriminate against black and other non-white job seekers, they take actions that make it more likely that white people will be employed -- without thinking that what they're doing amounts to discrimination.

And the reason this is so difficult to change is precisely because this behaviour is so normalized and unconcious that many of us just shrug our shoulders and say "this is how it works" or "everyone does it." Also because behaviours like this are difficult to pinpoint and address. They are also something that really wouldn't be covered by a law (or would be incredibly difficult to prove as discrimination).

Life goes on.

I'm not actually being sarcastic here. I'm in awe of this person's approach to job searching. It is a level of effort that I'm simply not capable of. But the effort they put into job searching makes their comment here all the more interesting, since it is pretty clear that zero amount of preparation and effort can crack this secret. ↩︎

This is the whole notion of the 'self-made man'. Of the reason we love and admire entrepeneurs so much. Why we love start-up culture the way we do. Because it conforms to a certain narrative of success that has a single, great individual (only sometimes a small team) overcoming obstacles and succeeding all on their own merit. ↩︎

So after @pnkrcklibrarian made a very clear public statement that Joe Murphy, a fairly ubiquitous presence in the library conference circuit, has been continuously sexually harassing women at these conferences (and one imagines pretty much anywhere he goes). This information, apparently, is widely known amongst women (this is the whisper network) and in spaces beyond, yet very little has been done to hold him accountable. He still gets speaking engagements. Keynote invites. Still considered a 'leader' or whatever in the field.

She posed a critical and important question on twitter:

Some of you really want to make a change and stop sweeping assholes under the rug.

So the big question: How.

and

How do we curtail the behaviour when it is publicly known, better yet, how do we weed them out so the profession isn't tainted.

This blog post is part of my answer for how to begin really dealing with this stuff. About how to create both a community wherein accountability is possible, and maybe some suggestions for what community accountability might look like in the librarian world.

Preamble

Can I point out the fact that Joe Murphy's behaviour is so well known that women attending lib conferences literally have instituted a buddy-type safety system to protect themselves? That -- quite literally -- they are afraid to be alone with him? Add this to the fact that librarians are mostly women and one begins to truly understand that this is what institutional sexism looks like. This is why issues of sexism and misogyny need to be present even in fields with a numerical majority of women. Because, despite these numbers, we still have a man known to be a predator being supported by the same institutions that employ, fund, etc. many of the women in the field. One last thought: if you think he is the only one... well, you'd be wrong.

And now, steps towards creating community where accountability is possible.

Put Victims First

Frameworks and clear support for victims. One of the reasons why situations like this continue, despite the offendor being known, is that, within our communities (both libraries and beyond), there is little-to-no support for victims and/or survivors. I don't only mean support in terms of victim services (although these are important as well), but even the very minimal support of the benefit of the doubt.

The problem with habitual abusers/harassers is that they tend to know exactly what sorts of things they can get away with. They know who to target. They know that, even if their targets voice their experiences, that the victim will be doubted (and blamed) or that, in the absence of 'proof', nothing much will come of it. And, importantly, they know how to engage in their abusive, harassing, and potentially illegal behaviour in ways that leave very little evidence behind.

As soon as @pnkrcklibrarian made her assertion, people were asking for proof. Some of it, apparently, has vanished. She did provide one link that I won't bother linking to, since it is besides the point. Many people think that these situations boil down to 'he said/she said' and that we can just really never 'know' what actually happened. Of course, this generally means giving tacit approval for the predator to continue abusing and harassing people.

In case people have forgotten, we are neither the police nor the judicial system. We do not have to adhere to their evidentiary requirements. We do not have to assume innocence. We don't have to build a 'case' against someone. We don't, in actual fact, require 'proof' that would hold up in a court of law. We don't need to gather evidence and conduct investigations.

This is about community accountability. Holding abusers/predators accountable to the community and holding the community accountable to itself.

We can and must take a stance of siding with victims. There needs to be a super clear message that whenever someone speaks up about abuse or harassment that they've experienced and encountered within a professional space (conference, work, whatever) that this person will be supported and believed.

What this looks like:

Don't ask for 'proof'.

Don't treat 'both sides of the story' as if they hold equal weight.

Do not engage in any type of victim blaming behaviour.

Listen to the victim. Do it. And don't judge.

Walk the Talk

@pnkrcklibrarian also tweeted this critical point:

I also need to stress it’s not enough to have CoC, we need to be ACTIONABLE to them. A piece of paper is worthless unless you support it.

If we are going to get serious about making spaces as safe and inclusive as possible, then we need to show commitment to things like codes of conduct and putting victims first through action.

If your conference (or whatever) has decided on a code of conduct, their should also be clearly stated consequences for breaking the code. And, this is where it gets really tough, actually enforce these consequences.

Did a woman just report getting sexually harassed?

Eject the man from the conference. Don't 'ask' him to stop. Eject him and let him know that he can try again next year.

Did a presenter just make a racist joke?

Stop the presentation. Call it out. If this manages to derail the talk (eg, the presenter gets defensive and is unwilling to apologize), then the talk is over.

Does someone have a reputation for being a sexual predator?

STOP INVITING THEM TO SPEAK.

Essentially: hold people accountable for the harm that they cause.

No, this doesn't mean turning people into pariahs and ruining their careers. But doesn't it say something about how permissive our culture is when it comes to abuse and harassment that only when a person becomes so known for it or some major event happens that causes everyone to 'turn against' the person, is when some action is finally taken?

The thing is, is that if we don't hold people accountable for small, seemingly innocuous (microagressions anyone?) behaviour, we give them tacit permission to escalate this behaviour. If people are held accountable for their bad behaviour it also gives them a chance to learn and grow and (hopefully) stop behaving that way. If accountability is becomes normalized, instead of silently accepting that abuse and harassment are something that we just need to grin and bear, then accountability doesn't have to be this big boogeyman. It also doesn't need to mean that a person's reputation and career are ruined.

Because if accountability is what gets normalized, then we'll all eventually have this experience (since there are no perfect people).

Things to watch out for

If your conference (or whatever) has a CoC and no one has yet to report an incident, this means that your CoC has failed to indicate that victims come first and that it will be enforced and that there are consequences. Get any sufficiently large group of people together, and it is nearly impossible that nothing happened.

If you are privileged in a respect and no one who isn't privileged in that respect has never once confided in you about their experiences, you've not done enough to clearly indicate that you are a trustworthy ally.

Next Steps

Start figuring out what you and/or your org will do to hold people accountable for their actions.

Make clear consequnces and communicate this to the larger community.

Enforce the codes of conduct and actually hold people accountable.

Do it even if it is hard.

Do it even if it is unpopular.

Believe victims. Believe victims.

Listen to victims (they may have their own thoughts re: accountability).

If you see a photo online of a pile of old and discarded books (I just saw one this morning with the caption "These words used to matter :(" under it), or ever come across a similar pile or box, please consider a few things:

If they belonged to any sort of institution, chances are they had a librarian in charge of them

Librarians adhere to carefully selected criteria for deselecting (“weeding” in library lingo) books with regards to things like their publication date, content, physical shape, and relevance

It’s likely those books were offered to charities, other libraries, schools, donation centers, etc. first and these are the remains

It’s also possible the librarian felt the books were not usable or useful to any of the places mentioned in #3 and made the careful and educated decision to weed them

Librarians need Master’s degrees to be certified librarians — they have spent a good amount of time learning how to be good at what they do, including deselecting

If you really think someone just dumped a big ol’ pile of books, consider contacting your local news station or charities to see if they might be able to help find use for them 

Take a look at the books — if they have a black line through the name of the library or any of the barcodes, etc. they have been marked for deselection and you do NOT need to mail them back to the library (but it’s really nice that you thought of it!)