[Michlib-l] New equity and social justice principle added to ALA Code of Ethics

[Jennifer Noble]

Respectfully, I don't think the new entry in the Code of Ethics is "vastly
different" to the previous eight, nor should it drastically impact any
service we provide that has been covered by the previous tenets. Here is
the much-discussed last sentence, copied directly from the ALA website:

We work to recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to
confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and
to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities,
profession, and associations through awareness, advocacy, education,
collaboration, services, and allocation of resources and spaces.

Biases and equity are named explicitly in tenet 1. The rights of our
colleagues, who we know are not all straight and white, to employment that
protects their welfare are supported explicitly in tenet 5. We have
theoretically already been activists under these existing tenets. What
exactly is the problem with reiterating our support for unbiased
information, equitable access, and inclusive spaces for our colleagues and
communities here? What exact phrases are opponents of this tenet so
uncomfortable with?

I realize people may not be comfortable stating for the record which
phrases make them uneasy. I only ask that you (if you are one of those
people) unpack that uneasiness within yourself, even if you don't want to
share it here. Talking about racism/sexism/homophobia/etc is not part of
the problem. It's the first step to finally eliminating these evils.

Jennifer Noble
Adult & Teen Services Librarian
Adrian District Library

On Fri, Aug 6, 2021, 4:59 PM Kelsey Boldt via Michlib-l <michlib-l at mcls.org>
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'd like to just throw my two cents in because I've been following this
> thread with great interest.
>
> I tend to agree with our colleagues Karyn, Matt, Jennifer, and Kat on the
> addition of the ninth tenet in the ALA code of ethics. In particular, I
> agree with Matt that the tone of the last sentence of the new addition is
> vastly different than the the previous eight. It implies the need for
> certain types of activism in the workplace that directly impacts carrying
> out many of the other tenets. Particularly, tenet six refers to avoiding
> the advancement of private interests at the expense of library users and
> colleagues. I understand that some people believe in the type of activism
> inferred in the new ethic. However, this may not be the case for all
> employees or all library users. I like the simplicity of the previous
> codes so that any and all viewpoints can be expressed by staff and users
> alike.
>
> What's more, the first sentence, to my mind, is redundant. The first,
> third, fifth tenets directly reference providing unbiased and respectful
> service to all library users and colleagues - which I would argue
> inherently affirms a person's dignity and rights.
>
> This is why I believe the ninth tenet is rendered unnecessary. I can't
> speak to the history of the established code of ethics of the ALA and
> whether or not we have adhered to them as an industry with the honesty and
> respect claimed, but I think the first eight tenets listed in the ALA code
> of ethics are worthy of striving toward. Righting the wrongs of the past
> require us to live up to the lofty goals we've set for ourselves rather
> than create new language to speak directly to the issues of the current
> day.
>
> I dislike the feeling of being misunderstood, and I think that is what has
> compelled me to add to this thread. I can't speak for anyone but myself,
> but I think generally that anyone who is against the addition to the ALA
> code of ethics is not against equality, subliminally or blatantly. I think
> we are against the notion that we need new language to complicate the
> first eight tenets of the ALA code of ethics.
>
> Some of the less respectful comments in this thread are, I believe,
> exactly why these sorts of threads materialize and why people feel they
> need to make strong public declarations as opposed to have reasonable and
> malleable discussions. I'd love to have the discussion though. I'd really
> love to hear from those who like the new addition. Would you share
> practices that you have implemented or plan to implement in order to
> support the ninth code? I understand the ALA cannot do so, but perhaps
> getting a sense of what this code would look like in practice might help
> me to better understand or even change my mind.
>
> I'd like to add that I have yet to work with anyone who does not treat
> people with kindness and respect. I have yet to meet a fellow colleague
> outside of our little library who does not do the same. I rarely meet
> patrons who do not also strive to treat staff and fellow patrons with
> respect as well. With that said, I am not trying to imply that there is
> never room for improvement or that just because something hasn't happened
> to me or in front of me that it doesn't happen.
>
> I'd like to end just by saying that, regardless of whether we agree or not
> on the issues brought up in this thread, I think discussion is healthy and
> my assumption, until proven wrong, is that the people I work alongside in
> this industry are professionals who care deeply about the communities they
> serve. And I have yet to be proven wrong.
>
> Thanks so much and have a great weekend,
>
> Kelsey Boldt
> Assistant Librarian
> Ishpeming Carnegie Public Library
> 317 N. Main St.
> Ishpeming, MI 49849
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Michlib-l mailing list
> Michlib-l at mcls.org
> https://mail3.mcls.org/mailman/listinfo/michlib-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail3.mcls.org/pipermail/michlib-l/attachments/20210806/c19b8ce4/attachment.html>