Content deleted Content added
sequencing change Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
Citation bot (talk | contribs) Altered pages. Added doi. Formatted dashes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | Category:Use American English from October 2019 | #UCB_Category 662/669 |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
Line 42:
==Criticism==
Shirley Wiegand, [[professor emeritus]] of law at [[Marquette University]], asserts that the Library Bill of Rights uses rhetoric disconnected from the legal understanding of "rights." "Bills of Rights", and "rights" themselves, are in this understanding legally enforceable and backed by well-developed arguments. The Library Bill of Rights has no such force or backing, because it is simply a statement of principles. Wiegand argues that the Library Bill of Rights (and the accompanying rhetoric) needs to be supplanted by a code well-grounded in the case law and language of the First Amendment and its accompanying legal principles. Something similar to the Library Bill of Rights could be retained as an accompanying "aspirational creed", such as a revised form of the ALA Code of Ethics, but it would need to provide more practical guidance.{{ref|wiegand1}}
[[Wayne A. Wiegand]], [[Library scholar|library historian]], and retired Professor of Library and Information Studies and [[American Studies]] at [[Florida State University]], expanded on his as well as his spouse's earlier work concerning the Library Bill of Rights, asserting that it has principally been a tool Librarianship has used to control the narrative surrounding libraries and their defense of intellectual freedom without actual legal accountability for those principles. This view, Wiegand argues, is evidenced by specific historical contradictions within the profession since the adoption of the Library Bill of Rights such as the controversy around the legacy of [[Melvil Dewey]] and the renaming of the [[ALA Medal of Excellence]], the lack of ALA support for civil rights protestors following the [[Alexandria Library sit-in]] despite the then-recent adoption of the Library Bill of Rights by the ALA, lack of support from the ALA for librarians working against the ban of materials targeted by the [[California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities]] in the 1950s, and others, before concluding that the profession and its organizing bodies must have a reconciliation with this history before more meaningful frameworks for library rights and their protection can be produced.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wiegand |first=Wayne A. |date=April 2020 |title=Sanitizing American Library History: Reflections of a Library Historian |url=https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.1086/707669 |journal=The Library Quarterly |volume=90 |issue=2 |pages=108-120 |via=The University of Chicago Press Journals}}</ref>▼
David Woolwine of [[Hofstra University]] has criticized the philosophical underpinnings of the Library Bill of Rights, specifically objecting to the use of [[utilitarianism]] and "rights discourse" in defense of the principles. The "moral calculus" of the utilitarian argument that free access of information produces the greatest good for the greatest number can also be used to argue in support of restrictions for the purposes of safety and national security. Rights discourse relies on the assertion of rights with minimal referencing, while neglecting detailed argumentation. Woolwine asserts that utilitarianism and rights discourse need to be replaced by a synthesis of [[modernism|''modern'']] and [[postmodernism|''post-modern'']] philosophy to coherently and soundly justify the principles of the Library Bill of Rights.{{ref|woolwine}}
▲[[Wayne A. Wiegand]], [[Library scholar|library historian]], and retired Professor of Library and Information Studies and [[American Studies]] at [[Florida State University]], expanded on his as well as his spouse's earlier work concerning the Library Bill of Rights, asserting that it has principally been a tool Librarianship has used to control the narrative surrounding libraries and their defense of intellectual freedom without actual legal accountability for those principles. This view, Wiegand argues, is evidenced by specific historical contradictions within the profession since the adoption of the Library Bill of Rights such as the controversy around the legacy of [[Melvil Dewey]] and the renaming of the [[ALA Medal of Excellence]], the lack of ALA support for civil rights protestors following the [[Alexandria Library sit-in]] despite the then-recent adoption of the Library Bill of Rights by the ALA, lack of support from the ALA for librarians working against the ban of materials targeted by the [[California Senate Factfinding Subcommittee on Un-American Activities]] in the 1950s, and others, before concluding that the profession and its organizing bodies must have a reconciliation with this history before more meaningful frameworks for library rights and their protection can be produced.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wiegand |first=Wayne A. |date=April 2020 |title=Sanitizing American Library History: Reflections of a Library Historian |url=https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/10.1086/707669 |journal=The Library Quarterly |volume=90 |issue=2 |pages=
==Further reading==
| |||