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

to result in death or substantial bodily harm or in substantial injury

to the financial interest of another... (Wis. SCR 20:1.6)

The persuasiveness of these rules, that which makes them more than aspirational, lies in their enforcement. Because lawyers cannot practice law without a license, they are subject to such licensing requirements as each state supreme court chooses to adopt. That same court enforces the requirements through state bar disciplinary boards. Violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct may result in public or private reprimands, monetary penalties, or even revocation of the license to practice law (Wis. SCR 21.06). Without that license, a lawyer, like a doctor, cannot practice his or her profession.

A review of recent state court proceedings reveals the seriousness with which the Rules of Professional Conduct are taken. For example, in just one month--June 1995--the Wisconsin Supreme Court considered whether three different attorneys had failed to act with reasonable diligence in representing their clients. In all three cases, the court suspended the attorneys' licenses for periods ranging from sixty days to eighteen months.(5) A few months later, the court suspended another attorney's license for nine months on the same grounds.(6) And in October 1994, the court revoked the license of an attorney for misappropriating client funds.(7) Despite public criticism of attorney conduct, it is clear that the legal code of ethics is capable of enforcement.

But the library community has no such authority. In August 1994, Rose Beushausen, a resident of Mokena, Illinois, placed an exhibit in the local public library display window after receiving permission from the library's"window organizer" (Stevens, 1994,p. 1). The controversial"Baby Richard" court decision concerning the conflicting rights of adoptive and birth parents had recently evoked widespread public sentiment, and the library window display focused on adoption rights. When the library director ordered it removed, Beushausen, who even cited the Library Bill of Rights, unsuccessfully sought assistance from the American Library Association. Although ALA appeared to agree that Beushausen's interpretation of the Bill of Rights was correct and that her exhibit should not have been removed, an ALA official could only respond that "the association has no authority over library administrations" and that "Beushausen's only recourse would be to file a lawsuit on constitutional grounds" (p. 1).

If librarians were required to obtain a license to practice their trade, states (or other licensing bodies) could place restrictions upon the license, as the legal system has done for attorneys and the medical profession for doctors. Without the licensing requirement, any code which the library community adopts--the Library Bill of Rights, the ALA Code of Ethics, a Statement of Principles--lacks the disciplinary weight of the lawyer's Professional Rules of Conduct.

Clearly, if the Library Bill of Rights were stripped of the rhetoric which currently is unsupported by legal doctrine, the remaining document would have the First Amendment as its foundation. But the second document which this article proposes--the Statement of Principles--would continue to lack such authority. But that does not mean it is superfluous.