The Australian Library Journal

The 'war on terror' and its implications for libraries

Leaving aside the semantic difficulties contained in the definition of the immediate conflict, we can accept that for whatever reasons, there are individuals who wish to advance their arguments regarding the ancient divide between Christianity and Islam in a geopolitical fashion by way of violence. In western societies including Australia [so far], the extremists on both sides of the terrorism divide represent a minority view. Nonetheless, the chance of an even-handed debate on the issue is precluded here as elsewhere, and any voice wishing to put the argument that the [Islamic] individuals committing the violence may have a point of view is shouted down while Christian violence, delivered in the form of long-range missiles, or by armoured vehicles goes unnoticed and the resultant non-combatant casualties go uncounted. Susan Sontag's mild intellectual counterpoint to the Twin Towers catastrophe met with a hysterical response. The Dixie Chicks were booed off stage for a song critical of the US President and Michael Moore's Oscars acceptance speech was not well received. The 'war in Iraq' and its mounting toll of casualties on our, that is to say, the US side, is beginning to erode popular support for the American government, and is slowly beginning to cut back the Coalition's standing in the polls in Australia. But no early end is in sight. The London attacks by home-grown militants created an immense backlash against anyone whose holy book is the Koran and others - on account of their skin colour - for whom it was not. If (and some say 'when') there is an attack in Australia, a reaction of similar intensity may be expected here.

Libraries are not likely to be direct targets in any campaign by the protagonists for either side except to the extent that any concourse or public space may be, but they might become indirect victims of the conflict in the face of strongly held opinions and beliefs from the entire spectrum of thought and action generated by the issue. Doris Lessing once observed that there were many pairs of jackboots residing in the wardrobes of otherwise ordinary citizens waiting to be pulled out, polished, pulled on and strutted in and this view has recently been reflected by Philip Roth (The plot against America). Those who would use extreme circumstances to exercise their dictatorial proclivities are never far from us. The letters columns of national newspapers offer a depressing insight into the opinions of such individuals: in the last week we have heard from advocates for the establishment of camps, both internment and concentration, for members of particular ethnic, racial or religious groups, or those holding a particular political belief, and for the wholesale deportation or repatriation of such individuals if they had once been immigrants. So far the debate has not filtered down to levels where the intellectual content of media becomes a focus for angst or hatred, although not so long ago, I recall, a public library in Canberra bowed to a handful of objectors and pulled down the display which had raised their ire. But sooner rather than later, a library, probably a public library because they are closer to the front line of the debate, will become the target for complaints, low-key violence in the form of graffiti or broken windows because it stocks material to which the doctrinaire from either side of the argument object. The issue is likely to arrive out of the blue, and it might be better to have considered ALIA's Statement on free access to information and formulated a strategy (in conjunction with one's parent authority) well in advance. It, together with CILIP's Intellectual freedom, access to information and censorship is reproduced below. Taken together, they make interesting reading. Thirty years ago, I wrote that libraries had thitherto and without exception been forced to defend their arguments for the freedom to read in the prickly undergrowth of alleged obscenity, and that thus far in this country the arguments had not erupted in the political arena: that may be about to change and if an implied wish for a wider-reaching debate can be detected from this distance in time, I am reminded of the Irish aphorism that 'more tears are shed in response to wishes granted than to those that are denied'.

In this issue We lead with an interesting article by Suzanne Lipu and her colleague Allison Hill of the University of Wollongong who breathe fresh life into the notion of the librarian as academic, a philosophy which was alive and well in the Colleges of Advanced Education (when else but in the early 70s?) but which has since fallen into desuetude, with their article about conducting a cohort of successful business leaders into the green pastures of doctoral research and its demands for information literacy. This article had had to be pulled from an earlier issue partly for space reasons and partly from my mismanagement of the ALJ database. My apologies to the authors. We give the balance of this issue to colleagues from the Charles Sturt University's 'Matching users with information' Community of Scholars. This is the first time I have featured contributions from an institution rather than from individual academics, and it will be interesting to see readers' reactions. Ross Harvey introduces us to the Community and the articles which follow. Anne Lloyd looks at the inculcation of information literacy in a particular workplace and suggests that there are lessons to be learned from her research; John Kennedy argues for the revival of a 1980s convention, the collection development policy, averring that is as seriously needed for digital resources as it was for printed materials; Stuart Ferguson, Philip Hider and Tricia Kelly review the processes involved in the evaluation of information systems and propose some fresh approaches; Philip Hider goes solo and flies a bit higher with an interesting article which maps and records interactions between users and systems. Wendy Smith takes us into the Matrix as she asks are we 'Still lost in cyberspace?' and compares Pandora and the Internet Archive as preservers of the Web component of our documentary heritage. Her findings are salutary. Anne Lloyd, Ross Harvey and Damien Lodge raise the spectre of lost and missing Australian documentary heritage and - as all good research does - raise more questions than they can answer, and a quintet: Stuart Ferguson, Rachel Salmond, Yeslam Al-Saggaf, Mike Bowern and John Weckert look at the portfolio of case studies used to illuminate the ACS' Code of ethics and ponder the utility of a similar model for ALIA's Statement on professional conduct. And a goodly bag of reviews.

I welcome Karen McVicker to the ALIA/ALJ team. She replaces the formidable Emma Davis in the ALJ publishing process, and comes to the relief of Sharon Cunningham who stepped up to the plate when Emma left, and in addition to getting inCite into print, saw this editor through the first two issues of the Journal for the year. Karen trained as an editor with Heinemann Australia in the early 1980s. Since then she has worked for Cambridge University Press, the Australian National University, the Australian National Gallery and as a freelance editor before joining ALIA. She is an enthusiastic member of her local library (when not at work or rowing). She also recognises - a rare quality these days - the difference between a colon and a semicolon, and I look forward to her input.

CILIP Intellectual freedom, access to information and censorship

CILIP is committed to promoting a society where intellectual activity and creativity, freedom of expression and debate, and access to information are encouraged and nurtured as vital elements underpinning individual and community fulfilment in all aspects of human life. It is the role of a library and information service that is funded from the public purse to provide, as far as resources allow, access to all publicly available information, whether factual or fiction and regardless of media or format, in which its users claim legitimate interest. [In some cases this will be limited to those areas reflecting the primary purpose of a parent institution; in others it will be generalist in nature].

Access should not be restricted on any grounds except that of the law. If publicly available material has not incurred legal penalties then it should not be excluded on moral, political, religious, racial or gender grounds, to satisfy the demands of sectional interest. The legal basis of any restriction on access should always be stated.

In the past librarians and information staff have resisted pressure from many shades of opinion to censor material and have defended the principle of the free dissemination of information. They are expected as part of CILIP's Ethical Principles to show 'commitment to the defence, and the advancement, of access to information, ideas and works of the imagination'. The responsibilities of librarians and information staff should include full discretion over collection development and management and access policy within a broad general policy set by the parent institution. The provision of access to materials by a library or information service does not imply endorsement especially where the material may be thought to encourage discrimination.

The principles of access are the same in the emerging networked society where the opportunities provided by information and communications technologies have revolutionised the way information is made available. CILIP endorses the Council of Europe Guidelines (attached) on 'Public Access to and Freedom of Expression in Networked Information'. It urges all employers of library and information staff to embed these guidelines into their practice and to support the principle of uninhibited access to information, recognising the discretion that library and information staff will need to exercise in meeting the legitimate interests of their users.

Any librarian or information specialist who considers that undue pressure has been brought to bear over matters concerning selection or access policies is asked to inform the Institute.

CILIP 2005