1960s AD - Decade

In the article, the authors accused Berninghausen of engaging in "smear tactics" and pitting librarians against one another (Wedgeworth et al., 1973, p. 28). They collectively railed Berninghausen for proposing that social responsibility was an anti-intellectual freedom rationale, for misinterpreting the social responsibility movement, for assuming that social responsibility led to censorship, and for insinuating that intellectual freedom was the only ethic of the profession.

Apart from providing a forum for venting anger and frustration, the rebuttal article also gave SRRT a golden opportunity to outline its critique of Berninghausen's proposition that intellectual freedom and social responsibility were antithetical. SRRT based its critique on Berninghausen's idealization of balance in library collections. SRRT argued that the profession was "guilty of partisanship toward those social groups which have the largest and most conservatively respectable power base" (Wedgeworth et al., 1973, p. 27).

SRRT claimed that the prevalence of an imbalanced library service in the nation served as an impetus for movement toward social responsibility. When Berninghausen claimed that the social responsibility of librarians was "to select library materials from all producers, from the whole world of publishing media (not from an approved list)," he set himself up for criticism ("Action Council Business," 1972-1973). Schuman posed the question: "Where were you David Berninghausen, when movement groups publications were not being purchased by libraries? (Wedgeworth et al., 1973, p. 28).

Furthermore, while Berninghausen's discussion of balance was replete with abstract examples and hypothetical scenarios, SRRT's counter argument was based on lived experience. Starting in the late 1960s, SRRT had expended much energy attempting to inform librarianship on the alternative press movement. In 197O, SRRT had created the Task Force on Alternative Books in Print, and its fledgling publication Alternatives In Print (AIP), precisely to address the issue of balance in library collections.

By focusing on the treatment given to alternative press materials by the library establishment, SRRT had a ready response to Berninghausen's rhetorical statement that materials should be chosen from the whole world of publishing. SRRT made the case that collection building based on social responsibility was more, rather than less, inclusive. "Those who believe in the concept of social responsibility want to add the underground press to their collections, not toss out the traditional press....They have created access where it did not exist" (Wedgeworth et al., 1973, p. 28). Furthermore, SRRT argued, collection building based on social responsibility did not lead to censorship. "AIP, for instance, was created by SRRT to meet the need for information that the traditional libraries ignored. They did not then advocate the burning of BIP [Books in Print]" (Wedgeworth et al., 1973, p. 28).

Despite the strength of the activists' rebuttal, personal research on American librarianship's treatment of the Library Bill of Rights in the 1960s indicates that the professional community of librarians was unwilling to explore the debate between Berninghausen and SRRT further. This author would argue that Berninghausen successfully scared librarians away from the topic of social responsibility by playing to ALA's deep concern for legality and what Sellen called "action-crippling fear"(Sellen, 1987, Box 11, p. 1) about its "extremely favorable tax-status" ( Transcripts and Minutes, 1968, Box 6).