ALA and the Resolution on Iraq

This week I had to do a presentation at the Internet Librarian conference about ethics and blogging. In preparing for this talk, I spent a fair amount of time trying to move beyond the utilitarian rationales for ethical behavior so that I could explain what it means in the universal sense to have an obligation to take care of one another.

Oddly enough, or perhaps not, the quotation that moved me into a broader understanding of the issues was the first law of librarianship: “Books are for use.” This rule reminded me that we are by nature an outwardly-focused profession. (Ranganathan’s point was to counter the other natural tendency to assume librarianship is about books, and not people. Books are for *use,* not for arranging on shelves.)

The qualities that tend to make us good librarians also tend to make us good people in the world, and when the two characteristics overlap, we ften do make statements about issues broader than the mechanics of librarianship. Often those statements are about librarians or library work, but sometimes those statements step beyond our library doors to consider what is happening in the world that affects library service.

ALA’s resolution on Iraq certainly fell in that category. A long thread on the Council list began with a discussion about an ALA member who had emailed individual members of Council with this message:

“You have no right to purport to represent me on national political issues that have nothing to do with libraries. I elect other people to do that.”

I don’t know whether to be relieved or offended that I wasn’t emailed. In any event, much good discussion ensued.

The ALA Iraq resolution was an edgy statement to make that some Councilors themselves objected to as “not ALA’s business.” It’s definitely worth asking when a position is worth our political capital. As a veteran, librarian, taxpayer, and voter, I object to the war in Iraq, I believe it is diverting national resources, and I intellectually agreed with the position. But only until I sat glued to the television for a week watching my government embarress me in Louisiana did I really feel that Council’s vote on Iraq was a completely rational stand for ALA to take. Even then, I would respect the position that ALA should have reserved its capital for other arguments. That’s not where Council went, and it’s not what I believe, but I would have respected it.

However, the argument that ALA can’t make statements about national issues simply lacks rhetorical validity. As someone else pointed out, our job IS the big picture, and it is natural and fitting that ALA as an association speak as one voice on the impact of national priorities on funding human services. We are not automatons. We are not in it for the big bucks and the fame librarianship will bring us. We are lucky to be in a profession where what we do forces us to think about fundamental issues such as what a government should do with its resources and what rights and services people are entitled to as people. As librarians, it is also doubly meaningful when we raise the B.S. flag on a national policy. The answer to the “political capital” question should be, if librarians are worried about this issue, you should be too. Not everyone will get that, but some will understand we’re the canaries in the mine, singing as hard as we can in our effort to take care of one another.