Content deleted Content added
Added passage for additional scholarship produced by Shirley Wiegand's Spouse, Wayne Wiegand, as historical support for her arguments, as well as a reflection of the ongoing conversation within librarianship about the library bill of rights. |
m fixing date in citation for new material |
||
Line 45:
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]], retired Professor of Library and Information Studies and [[American Studies]] at [[Florida State University]], expanded on his spouse's 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. 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, 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
==Further reading==
| |||