Karen M. Drabenstott
Associate Professor
School of Information
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1092 USA
Voice: (734) 763-3581
Fax: (734) 764-2475
karen.drabenstott@umich.edu
Many thanks to Bob Holley for introducing our latest topic on dissing discussion lists. We had lots of comments from CRISTAL-ED members and I'm so glad that Bob thought of this topic and did such a great job leading the discussion. Special thanks also go to Bob for returning to CRISTAL-ED to be a guest editor for the third time.
We have no formal discussion scheduled this week. I'll leave the discussion in our members' hands. We can talk about new topics for early next year, identify previous discussions that have held our interest, or bring up something new that comes to mind that might interest fellow CRISTAL-ED members and colleagues. Please, carry on!
Troy Johnson
School of Law Library
Public Services Librarian
Valparaiso University
656 S. Greenwich St.
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Voice: (219) 465-7820
Fax: (219) 465-7917
Troy.Johnson@valpo.edu
Lawyers take an oath when they are sworn into the bar. Doctors have the Hippocratic Oath. These oaths are important because they define the expectations and goals of the legal and medical professions. Should librarians have an oath?
I would argue that we should because it would help librarians define the goals and expectations of the profession.
If librarians had an oath what would it be, and what should it contain? I would suggest that two of the lines would be, "to preserve the human record" and "to provide information that improves the human condition."
Your suggestions welcome.
Tony Debons
SIS
University of Pittsburgh
debons@sis.pitt.edu
Samuel R.M. Souza
Reference Librarian
2nd Circuit Labour Court
Sao Paulo, Brazil
brsams@mandic.com.br
Regarding the oaths some professions would have, here in Brazil we do have official oaths we speak aloud at the end of our graduation courses, and the one we have here is like, "I promise to do everything to preserve the liberal and humanist character of the profession, based on freedom of scientific investigation and human dignity." I tried to translate the original statement as much as possible.
And, by the way, one could feel how difficult could be to keep oneself loyal to the values embedded in the compromise above. Specially when one needs to come closer to other groups of professionals, no matter which formal instruction they hold, but in case they do not care much about ethics of service guidelines as we do in library/information science in general. That is a point I always think about, and could be a suggestion for any opportunity for discussion.
Thanks a lot, specially to Professor Karen Drabenstott and CRISTAL-ED technical staff, who have helped me with some technical difficulties related to this list.
William F. Birdsall
Executive Director
Novanet Inc.
6080 Young Street, Suite 601
Halifax, NS B3K 5L2
Voice: (902) 453-2461
Fax: (902) 453-2369
bill.birdsall@Novanet.NS.CA
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
pwiener@ccmail.sunysb.edu
Mary VanBuskirk
Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information
Ottawa, Canada
Voice: (613) 993-7055
Fax: (613) 998-7639
mary.vanbuskirk@nrc.ca
Do we need an oath? An interesting question. I would argue that oaths are important, not because they define the expectations and goals of the profession, but because they establish a bond or commitment between the profession and the public. The existence of the oath defines the responsibility of the professional practitioners to their public, and the swearing of the oath reaffirms the commitment of each new practitioner to that responsibility.
So I would see the oath as an outward-looking rather than an inward-looking act, related more to the expectations of the public towards the profession, than the expectations of the professional practitioner. A bride and groom exchange vows with each other at marriage. This is a public act, to affirm their responsibilities to each other, rather than to help each of them to see their own goals and expectations.
Recently, in Ottawa, the local newspaper has been regaling us with the misdemeanours of certain members of the legal profession in Ontario who have betrayed the interests of their clients in order to replenish their own bank accounts. Whatever oath lawyers swear to (and I have no idea what it is) is presumably intended to restrain them from such misdemeanours. The role of the Hippocratic Oath is being questioned these days in terms of doctors who perform abortions or assist their patients to die with dignity. However, I would assume that these doctors believe that their actions conform precisely with their oath, in that they are making use of their medical skills to assist patients in need. So, if librarians do need an oath (and I am not necessarily suggesting that they do not), and if the justification is that other professions also swear an oath, then the librarians' oath ought to serve the same kind of role, namely to reaffirm the relationship between librarians and their public.
What should be contained in an oath? The proposed wording is impressive, but I wonder if it responds in any way to the reality seen by many (most?) librarians. Should I as a librarian not be bound to provide information requested by my client, even if there is no obvious connection between the information and the human condition? Should I choose to respond to an information request from a doctor before one from a grade six student because the former will more obviously contribute to improving the human condition?
Someone could argue, I suspect, that finding a market research report on electronic games for an electronics firm does really contribute to the improvement of the human condition, but I would then argue that his or her definition of improving the human condition is too broad to be of any value. Is it really the librarian's role to determine the moral value of the information we preserve, access and disseminate? Does that not smack of a certain kind of censorship? What of a government report recommending the closure of a local hospital? I as a librarian could argue that such a report actually works against the improvement of the human condition, and therefore choose to suppress the report. Is it not our role to preserve, ensure access to and disseminate information, and to preserve an impartiality as to the value (moral or otherwise) of the information (at least until asked)? I would suggest that a librarian's oath ought to address the value of the free exchange of information and our professional commitment to ensuring its preservation, easy access and availability to all.
An interesting topic. I look forward to hearing other views on this.
Diane M. Lewis
Serials Librarian
USGS Library
Reston, VA
dilewis@IGSRGLIB01.ER.USGS.GOV
There really SHOULD be a librarian's oath! To add to the following, I suggest something about providing accurate, unbiased information to the best of our ability, as well as upholding freedom of information. The recent resignation of one of our Virginia public librarians over Internet filters at her library is one example of the latter.
Michael Seadle
Editor: Library Hi Tech
Michigan State University
Voice: (517) 432-0807
Fax: (517) 432-1191
seadle@mail.lib.msu.edu
An oath is an interesting idea, but we would need to be careful about the words. I can imagine someone interpreting your second line, "to provide information that improves the human condition," as license for censorship (of those things which might not improve the human condition).
Dan J Bye
Information Adviser
Sheffield Hallam University, UK
d.j.bye@shu.ac.uk
I oppose the idea of a Librarian's oath. I do not think it would be possible to write one, and I do not think it would be useful. Far better is a constant debate about ethics and values.
I would not consider myself bound by any oath: I have my own values that may or may not coincide with those of other librarians, and I assert my right to follow my conscience in matters of ethics. Of course, my professional association has a guide to professional standards, but are they enforceable? In joining a professional association I voluntarily agree to abide by its bylaws etc., although I reserve the right to argue for change, but of what value would an oath be?
I think oaths tend to act as a conservative block on those who would prefer to take a more radical approach -- therefore it aids those who would censor dissident voices. Would those refusing to take the oath be refused the right to practice? If not, what would be the point of it? If so, that would be outrageous!
A lot of rubbish is talked about the Hippocratic Oath. In fact most doctors do not take the Hippocratic Oath, and have not done for years. I think there are only a handful of medical colleges that still insist on it. But how binding is it?
This is what is says:
"I swear by Apollo the physician, Aesculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation -- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look up his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgment, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons laboring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional practice or not, in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men, in all times! But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!"
How many doctors believe in Apollo? Anti-abortion lobbyists seize upon the line about abortion but clearly medicine has progressed somewhat since Hippocrates' day. And of course since the vast majority of doctors haven't taken the oath, they aren't bound by what it says. Well, good!
Clearly, when doctors act unethically, it is not the contravention of this oath that gets them barred.
The problem with an oath is that it attempts to set in stone values, standards and ethical codes that should be subject to debate, evolution, change. Values are not static, discovered once and for all. The develop as human knowledge and experience develop.
Troy Johnson
Public Services Librarian
School of Law Library
Valparaiso University
656 S. Greenwich St.
Valparaiso, IN 46383
Voice: (219) 465-7820
Fax: (219) 465-7917
Troy.Johnson@valpo.edu
One advantage of an oath is it would cause librarians to think about how they could work toward the goals of the profession while at the same time meeting the goals of their organization. It would also remind librarians of the larger goals of the profession so that they could find ways to meet the larger goals through the institutions they work for. For example, as a law librarian for an academic institution, I do not "work to preserve the human record," which was one of my suggested lines in an oath, as one of my main job duties. But an oath would remind me that this was one of the goals of being a librarian. So when I come across some ancient legal text in our collection that is to be weeded I remember to ask myself, "does someone else have this text or information?" If not, maybe I should be the one to make sure the information is not lost. The line in the oath of "preserving the human record" would act as a reminder to me to perform this function as a librarian.
The oath written down would also be a document that could be analyzed and criticized as a process to decide what belongs in the field of librarianship and what does not. Looking at the written oath one could ask questions such as, "should we have in the oath a line about preserving the human record?" The written oath could become a document that librarians could look to when defining what it means to be a librarian.
You may join the discussion and look over the list of past and future topics.
 |
|