Reality bites: the collision of rhetoric, rights, and reality and the Library Bill of Rights - includes related information on American Library Association's Code of Ethics - The Library Bill of Rights

One librarian, while initially relishing the publicity and media attention he received, quickly backed down. When the mayor asked him to cancel the order for Madonna's book, he complied: "He's the boss; these are public funds"--i.e., funds collected from the tax-paying public, not from the mayor personally. Within days, citizens had donated three copies to the library, and the mayor thereafter left the decision to the library board. Still, the librarian responded, "I will recommend that the board not accept the gift, and they will probably take my advice." The book, he says, is "pure trash, not even well designed" (Kniffel, 1992, p. 902). Another librarian ordered the book despite the mayor's public statement that the book was pornographic and did not belong in the public library. She stated: "We are trying to get people to understand the concept of freedom of information and the dangers of censorship" (p. 903). From these examples in the library community, it would appear that one man's rhetoric (of censorship) is another (wo)man's reality.

Rights

The rhetoric of "rights" creates confusion and is often unrealistic. Again a definitional analysis will prove helpful. A "bill of rights," according to a standard dictionary, is "a statement of the rights belonging to or sought by any group" (Flexner, 1987, p. 207). Black's Law Dictionary defines it as a "formal and emphatic legislative assertion and declaration of popular rights and liberties..." (Black, 1990, p. 164).

As a first step, it is obvious that any effective statement of rights must at least be understandable. Baldwin (1996) has discussed at length in his article the problems of ambiguity and vagueness which mar the Library Bill of Rights. But, it can be argued, the U. S. Bill of Rights suffers from the same problems. After all, what does it mean to say that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (U.S. Constitution, amendment II)? Or that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated" (U.S. Constitution, amendment IV)?

But for over a period of 200 years, the national document, unlike the library document, has benefitted from scrutiny by thousands of scholars, along with federal and state judges alike. Judicial interpretive opinions have been reduced to writing and distributed to the offices of every lawyer in the country. The First Amendment is the law of the land.

But such is not the case with the library's document. "The LBR [Library Bill of Rights] is nobody's law; it is a declaration of guiding principles" (Swan, 1979, p. 2043). Although numerous pages of interpretation serve to flesh out some of the skeletal six articles, the document remains rhetoric mixed with reality. It is, therefore, all the more important that the document be worded clearly, carefully, and, as Baldwin has noted, more realistically.