curtin.interview
- 1. ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Shane Curtin! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! LIBR 234! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Librarian Interview! ! ! ! ! The following is a transcript of my recording of an interview with Ali Birnbach, Reference Librarian and Readers Advisory Coordinator at the Mill Valley Public Library in Mill Valley, CA. The interview occurred on 12/01/14. ! ! Ali can be reached by phone at the Mill Valley Library at 415-389-4292, or by email: abirnbach@cityofmillvalley.org! ! ! ! Question and Answer Section! ! Shane: What is an example of an intellectual freedom issue you might encounter on a daily basis?! ! Ali: The act of collection development. On one hand, looking at collection development, you can say that anything you decide against purchasing for the collection is a form of censorship… if you carry it to the philosophical extreme. You are choosing to omit information from the collection, effectively preventing people from gaining access to it. The same can be said for when patrons submit purchase requests. You then know for a fact that there is demand for this book, at least from one person. Does that warrant inclusion? Clearly you have a reason for why you would or would not put something in the collection. If a patron asks you to purchase a book you don't feel strongly about including, or disagree with including, you have to consider intellectual freedom. You have to consider how your decision will affect the collection and patrons. For example, several years ago, I had a patron request for a book who’s thesis was that global warming was a hoax. I completely disagree, and believe that the evidence of global warming is undeniable, but I did my due diligence and found out that we didn’t have many books in the collection that took the stance that global warming was a hoax (for good reason if you ask me). ! ! Shane: But someone who wants to argue with the people who believe global warming is a hoax might want to read that book to learn about those arguments, for example. ! ! Ali: Exactly, and that’s why it was a tough decision. One of our jobs as librarians is to try and provide accurate information. It’s hard to do. It’s hard to blindly purchase a book. A lot of us, when purchasing books, rely on reviews from “trusted sources” like Publisher's Weekly, Booklist, The New York Times, etc. Of course, you can argue that all of those sources are biased, and I believe that’s true, and could talk about that later. But you need some sort of rubric. You need something to go on. You can’t do it all yourself. ! ! Shane: When it comes to religious material- it’s not factual, and it doesn’t need to be, but when you run into issues where religion directly challenges science, how do you handle that. Suppose someone put in a purchase request for a book on creationism? ! of1 19
- 2. ! Ali: Well that’s different, because with global warming the argument claims to be based on scientific fact, whereas creationism just eschews scientific fact. Ordering material for the religion section doesn't require factual legitimacy, since theology doesn’t claim to be science. But something that does make that claim, like the global warming book, needs to be evaluated for accuracy with regards to the scientific method, to make sure it isn’t just propaganda in disguise. ! ! Shane: So where did the global warming book end up, Dewey-wise? ! ! Ali: Well that’s interesting, because I looked at other books we had on “the hoax of global warming,” not that we had many (about three), and they had ended up in social sciences. I think this one actually went into the science section. I did end up purchasing it. First, I wrote back to the patron and told him I couldn’t find scholarly reviews for this book. It was pretty obscure, you know? So I said, “I don’t think we’re going to purchase it,” and the patron wrote back and said, “It seems like we have so many books on global warming being a reality, and it’s a very unbalanced collection. Why don't you start representing the different sides of the issue?” And that I honestly couldn’t argue with. It was a legitimate point, so I ended up purchasing it. ! ! Shane: Is it a legitimate point? As you said, a book has to be scientific in nature to be classified as science. If there’s not scientific evidence to support this book’s claim, then the book has no value scientifically. It shouldn’t be considered a valid counterpoint to the legitimately scientific sources the library has on global warming. ! ! Ali: But here you get back to the issue of purchasing and collection development. Unless I read the book I don’t know what evidence the author is citing. So how can I evaluate it? How can I say it’s untrue. The global warming debate is still being waged so heavily, and while I have a firm stance, I don’t have enough of a scientific background to critically analyze every single thing I bring into the collection. ! ! Shane: And no librarian would. They wouldn't have the time either. Since we’re talking about collection development… The population of every community is different, and the proportion of viewpoints is different. Do you think the library should strive to to represent all viewpoints (that it knows about) equally? ! ! Ali: Not necessarily, and maybe this is an immature idea, but let’s take the Berkeley Public Library. You could argue you should have ten books on Judaism, ten on Christianity, ten on Mormonism, ten on Zoroastrianism, and so on. But- and I say this having grow up in Berkeley- those percentages don't fit the population. If only two of the books on Zoroastrianism ever check out, do we have to keep all of them just to be equal? ! ! Shane: Well nowadays it doesn't matter as much, but if you look back to a time before interlibrary loan and libraries networking with each other, would your answer be different?! ! Ali: Interlibrary loan systems are amazing tools, and I’m glad patrons have access to them. But you’re right; if you have a more insular collection, I think it’s important to have every side represented, but I don't know about equally. I do feel kind of bad saying that, because ideally you do want equality, but in the real world I don't think it’s possible. You definitely want to have at least a little bit of everything represented, if possible. Because you don’t necessarily know why some resources are less popular. Maybe no one is aware of them. There has to be of2 19
- 3. exposure before there can be awareness, and awareness before there can be interest. If you don't know that something is out there how can you be interested in it? How can you want it? ! There’s a lot to be said for patron driven acquisition, which Mill Valley is doing now. If a patron requests something, you try to get it. The idea is that if one patron wants it, multiple patrons will want it.! ! Shane: If you knew for a fact that only one person wanted something or would ever want it, and it would sit on the shelf forever afterwards, would you still buy it? ! ! Ali: Right now, I get so few suggestions that yes, I would. We’re a small library so one person matters more than in a huge city system. Not matters more, but their voice is stronger. If I were swamped with requests I’d have to be more selective, but I get three or four a week maybe, so it’s not hard for me to indulge the patron. Better to include something, examine it, and remove it if you feel it doesn't belong in the collection. But to not add it at all is more akin to censorship. ! ! Shane: And we already have plenty of things that nobody checks out. We can’t predict the long term success of items.! ! Ali: That’s one of the issues that frequently comes up in collection development. There are always some classics. Not just in fiction- A Brief History of Time, or Into Thin Air by John Krakaur- classics. But what if no one checks them out? Those are staples that we know are fundamentally well written, interesting and informative. They teach us something. They’ve had a lasting impact. But if no one checks them out, should they just be weeded? Should it be based solely on circulation statistics? I don't think that it should. I think you need to try to evaluate everything equally, even if you can’t represent everything equally. And I think everything should be evaluated based on content, first and foremost. There won’t be many cases where you can’t tell what the content is. For books that don’t have reviews, I will look on Google Books or Amazon, to check the table of contents and citations. I’ll look for anything that will let me see some part of the book. It requires more detective work than I’d like to do, but I feel that that is part of my responsibility as a selector. ! ! Shane: That covers biases in selection. Have you ever struggled to keep your biases out of a reference transaction? ! ! Ali: Yes. I’ve felt guilty on occasion, realizing my bias either during or after the fact. I tell myself that that’s just part of being human. You can’t keep you biases out of everything, That’s who you are. The hard thing is when people ask you for a bias. The might ask how to phrase something on a resume, for example. I try to be very neutral and tell them I can’t advise them of what to do in those situations, but when I see someone struggling to compose an email, or write a resume- if I see something that I know could help them, isn't it doing them a disservice not to say something? But at the same time, my role isn’t necessarily that of teacher. However, there is a lot of instruction that goes on as part of my job on a daily basis, what with tech center questions and book a librarian appointments. ! ! Shane: But you don’t want to cross that line between advising patrons and doing things for them. ! ! Ali: Right. And you know, sometimes coworkers will advise people on how to structure their resume or something; there are some patrons who appreciate it, but others feel the librarians of3 19
- 4. are overstepping their bounds. It goes both ways. It’s great that we are so open in Mill Valley. We don't have a lot of rules. It’s on the integrity of the employee to be the the best librarian they can be, but it doesn’t give you a lot to fall back on when those grey areas inevitably come up.! Sometimes I can’t help it, but I try to only let my bias come through if its not a topic of extreme significance. If someone asks me what books I would choose, for example. I try to avoid giving my opinion, but if that what they really want, I’ll do it. But when it comes to something as significant as how to structure a resume, I am not comfortable doing it. ! ! Shane: To return to the global warming example, if someone came in trying to learn about global warming, would you tell them about that book? If we had, in our collection, a resource you thought was blatantly false, would you let a patron know that that resource was there? ! ! Ali: I think you should mention it, especially if it’s what they’re looking for. I don’t take any evaluative stance at that point. If they come asking for arguments against global warming, I will definitely get the book to them. What I love about a library is that books are shelved in a similar section, so there's hope that they'll stumble across some better resources. But it’s not my job to control a patron’s search for information. I’m there to listen, distinguish what they want, and give it to them, regardless of what it is. If it’s instructions for building a bomb, yes that’s scary, and yes I may have some questions, but it’s not my job to pass judgment. ! ! Shane: If a patron seems to be in a neutral position when it comes to the issue they are investigating, have you ever tried to direct them? I don’t mean control their search, but just point them toward resources you believe to be more reliable or truthful?! ! Ali: If I feel that there is a way that I can help people to look at the resources they want more critically without being patronizing and without curtailing their interest in finding anything, then sometimes I will suggest that they check the sources cited in the book. I will encourage them to take a look at where the author is getting information. A lot of time it is very awkward to do, and frankly, I don’t do it often. That may be a disservice but… what can you do?! I try so hard to show people databases. I get very excited to show them the possibilities. But I realize that many people find it overwhelming. When people come into a situation with something in mind, they don't really hear you. You’re just wasting their time and exhausting yourself. ! ! Shane: What do you think a librarian should look like? Do you think they should be required to dress a certain way? Some are of the opinion that things like religious garb, for example, should not be permissible, because it can turn-off or intimidate patrons.! ! Ali: Forgive my strong words, but that is bullshit. I don't think a librarian should look any particular way. Call it my crazy liberal viewpoint, but I think piercings are fine, tattoos are fine, everything is fine. Because we’re all individuals. Nobody expects you to be an automaton, and if they do then they are outdated. And what? The library is just going to pander to that? I think people need to stop seeing librarians as the quintessential action figure Nancy Pearl librarian, who stamps books and wears a little cardigan, and is nice and sweet and quiet. They need to see real people. ! ! Shane: Yes, you can’t censor yourself in that way because a patron might have a problem with you. We’re all about not censoring them, so how can we willingly censor ourselves. ! ! of4 19
- 5. Ali: Yeah, a monochrome staff that is so grey and bland that it makes no impression. That’s safe, but when you take away personal identity from staff members, I don't think it helps them do their job better. I do think, however, that a good librarian understands when they need to tone their individuality down a bit, because it can intimidate people. Librarian’s don’t have to teach everyone a lesson about the importance of personal expression, although we do believe in it. ! ! Shane: Speaking about personal expression, lets talk about the expression of unpopular opinions. Would you stop a NAMBLA meeting at a library where you worked, or a white supremacist meeting. And what about offensive notices on bulletin boards. You know, “come join the KKK. Meetings Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. Take a tab.”! ! Ali: Well the bulletin board question is really interesting. My philosophy would be ““you can post on this bulletin board, but it must be taken down after two weeks.” I can see how allowing the posting of offensive things would get us into trouble, but if its not illegal hate speech, as terrible as it is, what better place to expose this and talk about it than at the library? That’s what community boards should do. That’s what community is. Not everybody agrees. So I feel that the hands off approach is better, just because I don't think librarians should be police. Maybe on some levels they should, but most librarians I know don't get into it for that reason. As soon as you start to tone things down out of fear of offending people, you short change others and don't give them enough credit for their ability to talk about them an examine their own reactions . You deprive them of learning opportunity. Even if its awkward and uncomfortable, better it come out in a public forum so it can be addressed, than it gets repressed and kept inside ! ! Shane: And the same would apply to meeting rooms? I believe it would be illegal to stop people from meeting in a public place for something like that. ! ! Ali: Well it depends on the specific library’s rules. If I ran a library I would decide with the board whether we’d have public meeting rooms that anyone could reserve, or have them be closed except for events, etc. You can’t do that thing where you say “submit a proposal so we can see what your group is about.” Then you get into biases. The same rules need to apply for everyone. We’re a public institution. You can’t just cut some people out. ! ! Shane: Is there ever a good reason to censor information. Can you imagine a situation where censorship would be necessary? ! ! Ali: Well, take Holocaust deniers. There are books on that subject. Books that deny the Holocaust happened. I fundamentally object to those books; I don’t think they have any basis in reality. But I still wouldn’t censor them, and the reason why is because its important for people to know that that is something some people believe.! ! Shane: Like global warming being a hoax.! ! Ali: Yes. It’s hard sometimes, but I would like to think that I can stand by the idea of absolute freedom on information.! ! Shane: Have you ever gotten a censorship requests? How do you handle them? Do you know the library’s policy on them?! ! of5 19
- 6. Ali: I have never encountered anyone who wanted to censor material so strongly that they asked us to take it off the shelf. I’ve had a number of complaints from people who thought things were inappropriate, but they backed down when asked if they wanted to pursue it farther. Someone really objected to a Daniel Silva novel that had to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whichever viewpoint this person had, it came into direct conflict with this FICTIONAL spy novel, and the patron thought the novel was very insulting and degrading to a whole group of people, and that it encouraged stereotypes. But he didn’t want to pursue it further, just wanted to voice his disgust. Someone once wrote on one of our DVDs- “SMUT”. Yes, the library does have procedure for censorship requests. When someone comes to us with a complaint we ask them if they would like to file a formal complaint. The hope is that, by mentioning the concept of censorship at that point, it will clue the patron in to the seriousness of what they are asking. If they say yes, we have them fill out a form called: “Request for removal of material from a library collection.” They fill out their name and contact info. They fill out how many pages of the book they’ve read, if any. They don’t need to have read the whole thing. There’s space for writing about what elements they objected to, and what they would recommend in place of this book. We ask them what other books they know of might address this same topic, but be more “suitable”. I think it is actually a very well though out form, and it requires the patron challenging the material to really consider some of the factors that we consider when we purchase something. The form goes to the director, who reviews it and calls the person in for a meeting. She might first take it to the Board of Trustees. I’m not sure what happens after that, to be honest. That’s all I’ve been told about it. ! ! Shane: Do you know if there is any appeal process if the patron is not pleased with the decision? ! ! Ali: I’m sure there is. I’m sure they can appeal to the city. ! ! Shane: You mentioned that they don't have to read the whole work to file the complaint. Do you think it is necessary that someone has read a whole work in order to be qualified to dispute it at all?! ! Ali: That’s a tough question. Ordinary I would have said yes, of course, but I can see cases where someone might want to dispute something like the global-warming-is-a-hoax book. Do you really need to read all 598 pages of it to know you object? But it’s different for a work of fiction. I think to have a really strong opinion on a work of fiction you need to have read the work, perhaps not in its entirety, but you have to have done more than skim through it. ! ! Shane: That was my opinion too but.. you know the idea of “heart of the work” in copyright? If someone takes a specific part, which is deemed to be representative of the whole, there can be a legal problem. Think of the John Galt speech from Atlas Shrugged, for example. If you read that, you would know the entire message of the book. ! ! Ali: But you read Atlas Shrugged, right? You only know its an accurate representation because you read it. Someone who hadn’t read it would not know. ! ! Shane: But they might have heard that it was a good summary of the book. In general people object to things we don't know much about all the time, so isn’t it unfair of librarians to exact that standard upon others?! ! of6 19
- 7. Ali: Yes, but at the same time, how does someone know that that the message of the book, the culminating message, isn't something else from what they thought based on what they read? ! ! Shane: Okay, but it’s like the global warming book we talked about. Or say there’s a book that says Jews are genetically inferior to Aryans- you don’t need to read that book to know it is repugnant to you. The point of the book itself, the very subject it discusses, is something you object to.! ! Ali: Yeah. A lot of people objected to The Perks of Being a Wallflower because of homosexual themes, or themes of suicide. People objected to it on principle. But that’s crazy to me, because it is such a compassionate and thoughtful book that if they actually read it they might feel differently. In southern California, I don't remember the school, they actually moved to ban Harry Potter because it has witchcraft and sorcery. What? If they read the book, they would understand that it’s a fantasy. It’s not promoting anything. ! ! Shane: But if you believe that there should not be any homosexual or suicidal themes in books, then within that framework, you would be justified in taking issue with a book that had those themes, even if you hadn’t read it. It wouldn't matter to you what the ultimate message of the book actually was, what it’s purpose or point was. It would only matter that it contained certain terminology or contents. ! ! Ali: Yeah. But I have more respect for the complaints of people who read the book, because they have a better sense of what they’re trying to censor. ! ! Shane: What are your views on our obligations to confidentiality with respect to our patrons’ records?! ! Ali: We have a huge obligation. I think our library is very good about that, not keeping patron records on our end. Yes, I do think they are backed up on a server somewhere. If the FBI really wanted to hack us, they could probably pull up lists of what people check out, but we don't store that information anywhere else as far as I know. We definitely don’t keep print records. I think sometimes we have good measurements in place, though they don’t always work. Barcode numbers rather than names, and separate, permanent patron numbers. That idea is pretty neat. We do whatever we can to protect anonymity. I don't think it’s something to be taken lightly, and I’d be nervous if we didn't do as much as we do. ! ! Shane: What about the hold-shelf, in that regard?! ! Ali: I’m not sure how to do a hold-shelf in a way that is user friendly without requiring patrons to remember something like their patron number or last few digits of their barcode. To have a self service hold-shelf, however, I think you have to sacrifice that anonymity.! ! Shane: Do you think the lack of anonymity on the hold-shelf deters some patrons from placing holds? In my class we’d call it a psychological barrier. Fear that people or the librarian will see what they are checking out? People might prefer to use the self checkouts for this same reason! ! Ali: Yes. I think the number of those people is very small, but I’m sure it happens occasionally.! ! Shane: To small to worry about?! of7 19
- 8. ! Ali: Yes. That sounds callous, but I think the service we provide with the hold-shelf is good, and we’d be dong a greater disservice to people if they thought their books were kept from them. Imagine if it wasn't self service and they had to ask the librarian. I worked at a library in Newton where it wasn't self service, and we shelved holds in back and grabbed them to bring to patrons. But that policy then guarantees that someone would put your face to what you were checking out. So I think they way to do it ideally is- if someone feels uncomfortable with other people seeing what they are checking out, they can request that their holds be kept in the back. I would be willing to do that if I was the manager. I’d have a shelf for people who didn't want others to see what they were ordering. We’d still have to keep it under their last name of course. ! ! Shane: That connects to the next question. I learned there are some libraries where staff are not allowed to discuss patrons’ checkouts with them. Do you think this is a good idea, or is better to leave it up the discretion of librarians.! ! Ali: The literature I read when I first got out of grad school was in that view; you don't comment on someone else’s materials. The safest route is tell people to refrain form commenting. I’ve noticed from experience, though, that people really like the personal interactions at the library. They want to hear- “Oh, I loved that book too!” They want to talk to people about it.! ! Shane: I think people want and expect librarians to be able and willing to talk with them about books. That seems elementary.! ! Ali: Yeah.! ! Shane: This is backtracking. Back to the censorship requests. Should librarians be obligated to hear all requests, even if some are absurd? Can it be just a waste of you time? Are you really going to waste your time, and the manager’s time, and the library board’s time, with someone complaining that a book is “communist” or something?! ! Ali: I want to say no. I don't know how you'd create a system to determine if a complaint was legitimate. Before I started working in library I would have said absolutely, you have to hear everything. But having worked in a library with some truly outrageous patrons, arguing with me about why I can’t start a fire in the hearth on a spare the air day, I feel differently. I don't think it’s worth anyones time to listen to some of these complaints, but I don't have any idea how to weed out the erroneous complains. I’ll sacrifice some of my idealism here and say some complaints are bogus and should be discounted right away. ! ! Shane: So… you were an idealist until you got out in the field? ! ! Ali: (laughs) Yeah, very true. …Or maybe you do need to listen to them. But it don't think it’s our responsibility to convince someone of why we aren't going to remove materials. I think that is where we get caught up too often.! ! Shane: In justifying our actions?! ! Ali: Yes. I think you should explain it. Once. But is not up to librarians to make everyone feel these discussions are ok. I think that is the point were you can use your authority as an of8 19
- 9. evaluator of information to say, “You know what? This is the final decision.” You don't want to create a culture where these complaints are encouraged. ! ! Shane: So the official standpoint, in the Freedom to Read Statement, is that we shouldn’t censor anything. It seems incongruous then, that we make these reconsideration policies at all. If out ethics truly state that we don’t censor anything, then these policies are either a farce, or they’re unethical. But as far as I can tell, some libraries adhere to the FTR statement, while others cave to censorship requests. Wouldn’t we save more time by actually committing ourselves to the ALA’s stance. Why are we wasting our time with having reconsideration policies at all?! ! Ali: Intellectual freedom is a tenant you try to follow and live by, but its not a physical thing that is just done. It’s good to have that tenant and that philosophy, and apply it wherever you can. But sometimes you can’t apply it rationally or fairly in the actual world. Reality isn't as neat as principles. ! ! Shane: There’s a site called Safe Libraries that I looked at for a while. They rant about how librarians are peddling smut to children. I don’t know if they said this exactly, but the point I took away from one article I read, was that they think librarians are using the concept of intellectual freedom as an excuse to avoid making decisions about moral issues. I did think that was a good point, because it seems to me that a lot of librarians see intellectual freedom as an all or nothing proposition; they can't censor anything, they think, or everything would be fair game for censorship. They put themselves in an impossible situation.! ! Ali: Yeah, and that’s where I think people take the philosophy a little bit to far. If they say it’s all or nothing, they are hiding behind it. You have to say, this is what we’re striving for. We will never reach one hundred percent. We need to make decisions about why we will or won't censor something, and stand by them. If you look at is as an absolute do or don't every time, you have an unrealistic mindset.! ! Shane: Yes, and its arbitrary anyway, because we still have to obey the law. Obscenity is still information, which is defined and interpreted arbitrarily. So we say, well we don’t censor anything legal, as if what was legal is some sort of absolute. If this were the fifties, communist works would be illegal. Legality is not a permanent condition. ! ! Ali: It’s true. ! ! Shane: What do you think about labeling materials designated for certain age groups? Our library already does that, of course, but we don't forbid people from checking anything out. Do you think labeling, even innocent labeling for guidance purposes, can intimidate or otherwise discourage them from checking things out?! ! Ali: Like stickers for parent to evaluate books for their kids?! ! Shane: Yeah, or even the stickers we already have for chapter, books, easy readers, etc. Just suppose there was some policy that said kids can’t check out certain books unless they are of x age. ! ! of9 19
- 10. Ali: Yeah, I don’t think there should be any policy around it, but I can see where, as a parent that kind of thing can be really helpful. So the way we do it is good- having stickers that denote general age groups, fro guidance purposes only. Definitely there should not be that kind of labeling on the adult materials, though. There should be nothing that says “this may contain offensive materials” If you're a minor it’s your parent’s responsibility to evaluate these things. If you're not a minor, it’s your own responsibility as a reader to evaluate what you're going to read, and manage your own reactions to it. But I don't think anyone can hold the library accountable, and say “I never would have read this book if the library hadn’t tricked me into thinking it was safe!” That’s life, so play your tiny violin. ! ! Shane: That happened to me in Catholic school. The library books were all labeled according to reading level. Even if I was just looking at the older kid’s books, the librarian would shout at me to get back in my own section. It made me very angry. ! ! Ali: Yeah, I don't like that. A lot of parents ask you, “I have a two year old. What kind of book should I get?” And that makes sense. I guess the school librarians didn't think you were ready for those books. ! ! Shane: Have you ever had to ask anyone to leave the library for physical reasons, like body odor?! ! Ali: No, but I’ve gotten complains about patrons. One man always smelled like smoke, and people would complain that everywhere he went he left a trail of smoke smell that was affecting them in one way or another. There were a number of people when I worked in the Santa Cruz Public Library who maybe hadn't seen a shower in a few days. We had these little slips of paper we could hand out to people that said “I’m sorry, but we have received complaints about your personal hygiene. Here is a place where you can find a shower.” I don’t think I ever had to give out one of those to anyone, thankfully.! ! Shane: Were you supposed to talk to them, or just walk up and hand it to them?! ! Ali: On no, this was to avoid confrontation, so you just hand it to them and walk away. Or you leave it by their stuff when they aren't there.! ! Shane: That seems kind of immature.! ! Ali: I agree. It was terrible, but at the same time, who wants to tell someone their BO is offensive?! ! Shane: So what are they supposed to think? Did the slip have the library logo on it, or they’re just supposed to think some patron left it there for them?! ! Ali: I don’t know. It was a bad system. I don't think you should kick anyone out because of smell. Yeah it’s bad sometimes, but people- be adults. Grow up. There are people who come in wearing gallons of perfume or cologne. That can smell just as bad. It can actually smell worse and irritate allergies just as much. ! ! Shane: That segues into something else; if multiple people are having their library experience ruined by an individual, do you determine what do do based on the needs of the majority? If ten of10 19
- 11. people complain about one person, do their needs outweigh his? I know the library doesn’t want to turn anyone away, but at the same time, isn't the goal of the library to be accessible to the most people. I know you don’t much like utilitarian principles, but isn't that the mission of the library?! ! Ali: Yeah, I think I’d have to say something at that point. ! ! Shane: And that ties into the idea of the individual versus the collective. Librarians can try to serve both, but isn’t that a recipe for disaster. The individual and the collective are frequently at diametric odds. ! ! Ali: There’s no easy solution to that. I really wish I could ask the people who complain- “What would your solution be?” If its just one person versus another person, I don't think that’s legitimate enough to ask someone to leave, or tell them they can’t use the library. If a number of people complain, I’m not sure what to do, aside from approaching the patron in question and saying, “excuse me, I’ve received a few complaints about x y or z. I don't know your circumstances, but perhaps in the future, you can consider the impact your actions may have on others?” …I don't know.! ! Shane: Even more complicated, what about someone with a mental disorder? We have that one patron who talks to herself and swears, and she's not around often, and is fairly quiet, But imagine something more than that, someone who has Tourette syndrome, or jumps up and own screaming? ! ! Ali: Does it actually threaten other people? ! ! Shane: It doesn't threaten them, but if you came to the library to work quietly, to do the things people generally go to libraries to do, and someone is running around screaming, I think you’re justified in being upset. But that also raises the question- what is the library supposed to be in the first place? I think that before we answer any of the other questions we need to decide that, but no one seems like they want to decide on it. Libraries are more inclusive that ever before, but it feels like we are so desperate to get the community in the doors, so afraid of negative public perception, that we’re letting too much stuff slide in terms of patron conduct?! ! Ali: That may be true. It’s hard to say. I see the library as a community center. NOT as a day care center, I should add. It’s one of the few places where you don't have to have a membership, you can stay as long as you want, and you don't have to buy anything. It’s open to everyone, and that’s rare to find in a place other than a public park. To have something that’s so open and available is pretty important. To me a library is more than just a book repository. Whenever I see someone who is mentally unbalanced or has hygiene issues, I try to always think, well, that could be me. I understand other people feeling uncomfortable. There are times when I feel uncomfortable. I don't know that that means you should kick someone out. I do think it warrants having a discussion with them, but I just hate having to be the one to bring that up. If someone is mentally unstable they may not be able to change their habits.! ! Shane: What if they start using the library everyday?! ! Ali: If it becomes an issue, the library director has to talk to them and say, “if this continues to happen, were going to have to ask you not to come here anymore.” ! of11 19
- 12. ! Shane: On a lighter note- do you do anything for banned books week at the library?! ! Ali: The children's and young adult librarians do things, because most of the books that get banned are young people’s books. They do displays and blog posts, and make lists of books. They post things on Twitter and Facebook, but we don't do a lot of programming around it. ! ! Shane: Do you think we should do more?! ! Ali: I’m always fascinated by banned books, because I can never understand why people want to ban them. It’s interesting to me, but I don't think that in our community there’s anything to be gained by emphasizing it more than we do. It’s a very insular and liberal community, so I don't think people realize how often things are challenged or banned in other places around the country. ! ! Shane: I have to ask- the obligatory bomb question. If someone asks you for information on how to make a bomb, or something of the kind…! ! Ali: If they threaten the president, which is illegal, I would say “sorry, I’m not comfortable helping you.” I would recuse myself. But if they say, “I’d like to know how to make meth,” or “What goes into building a bomb?” I would help them. Sure it would raise personal questions for me. Why would they want this, I would wonder. You could ask them, are you dong a report? But they would be leading questions, and I wouldn’t want to make an innocent person feel scrutinized. ! Besides, this is something someone could Google, and get thousand of hits on in seconds, so it’s already out there. We aren't preventing anything by withholding information. We might be delaying something, but that’s it. ! ! Shane: So the internet has sort of taken away some of our accountability in that regard?! ! Ali. Sure. You can’t infer people’s intentions from their information requests. We don’t know why they want this information. We don't know they're building an meth lab just because they ask how to. Maybe they’re writing the next season of Breaking Bad. ! ! Shane: So they’ve tried to use checkout records as evidence in court cases. We learned about how, in the Scott Peterson case, the prosecution brought up Peterson’s affinity for the books of Dean Koonz and Stephen King as circumstantial evidence of his guilt. ! ! Ali: Geez. Ridiculous. Even if he had books on how to get away with murder… You can’t infer anything. That just makes no sense. It sends a message and other people wonder, “if I read this, what will people think about me?” People have the right to read what they want; no one knows how you're applying the information but yourself. Find evidence some other way. ! ! Shane: So you think having this sort of “evidence” be used regularly in criminal investigations would create a culture where people were afraid to pursue information? ! ! Ali: It would lead people to self-censor and deprive themselves of information they were interested in.! ! of12 19
- 13. Shane: That’s what I thought. But at the same time, there are a lot of privacy issues in the news- online security threats, hackers- and it doesn't seem to stop people from putting themselves on the internet more and more, and risking more and more of their privacy. So part of me wonders if people would even care.! ! Ali: Yeah, maybe they wouldn’t. But I think its noble to maintain a standard for others, even if they don't maintain it for themselves. Fighting for privacy rights is part of what we as librarians do. If patrons want to give out their information willingly, that’s on them, but we need to stay as true to our professional ethics as possible, even if the world is crumbling around us. ! ! Shane: Which filtering measures do you have in your library, if any? On the kids computers? Adult computers? What would you change about your policy, if anything? ! ! Ali: I don’t believe in filters, though I’ve heard some strong arguments for them. Our current system has no filters on adult computers. Children’s computers are set up so they cannot be used to surf the internet. They can only be used for homework; you can only access selected databases and education resources. Things are pretty locked down in the children's room.! ! Shane: So you’re fine with things as they are on the adult computers?! ! Ali: Yes, and believe me, we have people who watch porn, and do all kinds of stuff. Still, I feel like filtering raises too many questions. How do you determine what and how to filter? If, for example, there’s a teenager interested in learning about sex, and out filters block him or her from that information because of certain keywords or something, that’s terrible. It’s not fair or responsible for us to make those resources inaccessible to people.! ! Shane: That leads us to the million dollar question. If someone comes up to you and says “Help! The man next to me is watching porn!”, what do you do?! ! Ali: (sighs) I sigh. I take a deep breath, then I have to approach the person, very uncomfortable, and say “Excuse me. You can’t look at that here. That’s agains our terms of use which you agreed to when you signed on.” Thats the other thing. We don’t have filters, but we do have terms of use (that nobody reads of course). But by clicking “accept” when you sign on, you do agree to it. It says that you won’t look at anything illegal, disturbing, or--- I think we phrased it as: “bear in mind that you are in public. Be mindful that others may be sensitive to certain content.”! ! Shane: But that language is subjective. Its doesn’t name any specific content. ! ! Ali: But what you say is, “I’m sorry. We’ve had a complaint. What you're viewing has made someone uncomfortable.”! ! Shane: True, but I could be looking at a gay rights website, and it makes a religious fundamentalist at the next computer uncomfortable.! ! Ali: Then you should tell that to the librarian, and we’ll say “Ok. Carry on”! ! Shane: And when it comes to porn, people have different definitions. Some consider nudity to be porn. Someone could complain because another patron was looking at Matisse paintings. ! of13 19
- 14. ! Ali: Or Michelangelo. Right.! ! Shane: So what do you do in those grey areas? I would just go with my opinion, but ultimately you could be called on the carpet for that, because it still is an opinion, and subjective.! ! Ali: But as a reference librarian you are allowed to use your judgment in those matters. If the library undercut that authority, you would have none.! ! Shane: I read a story in the news about a man watching porn in a Seattle library. He was at an outward facing computer so everyone in the library could see him. A woman complained and the librarian told her “We do not censor information ma’am,” and refused to do anything. I think that’s ridiculous. What do you think?! ! Ali: I don't think its ridiculous, but I do think they should have talked to to the patron, and told him that it was an open space, with kids around, and they shouldn’t be exposed to that.! ! Shane: But I think situations like that are what feeds the arguments of the people who call librarians porn peddlers. And it’s why I said I think intellectual freedom is a slippery slope. In the Seattle situation, the librarians were sending the message- “you can do anything here and we’re not going to stop you.”! ! Ali: (laughs) Well, I’m not saying that. I wouldn’t care as much about the porn watching if we had our media center set up so people couldn't see what other people were doing on the computers, but I also don’t think we should have to set them up just to avoid these situations. ! ! Shane: So what measure does the library take to ensure privacy in the media center?! ! Ali: I think we do fairly well. I think if someone needs to do something really private, they shouldn't do it at the library. Of course there will be people who need to do really private things but don’t have access to computers or a space of their own. That’s fine. I would hope they could approach one of us to ask for help. Otherwise you take your chances. You have to understand that it’s a public place, and you have to be responsible for taking your own privacy measures. If you want to turn you screen, do it. But code your passwords, make sure to log out. It’s on the patron, not on the library. I think its going too far, putting up privacy screens, rearranging things in some inconvenient way, just on the off chance. It’s not worth the trouble, since these things are hardly ever a problem. ! ! Shane: A couple more questions. What do you think a library should be? You mentioned this already, but it was in the context of another question. ! ! Ali: It should be a place where everyone can feel safe, first and foremost. I think it should be a place for learning, but also a place to just get away, to come and meditate or what have you. Of course, its a little bit louder that you'd like for meditation sometimes. But I do think it has a role as a community center. I’m glad you don't ned a card to come in. It’s more than just a place for reading and research. People who don't read at all should be welcome.! ! Shane: Would you ever refuse service to anyone?! ! of14 19
- 15. Ali: Never, unless they were endangering someone else, repeatedly abusing the staff or other patrons. I think after being talked to twice, they should be banned on the third infraction. After that, they should only be allowed into the library after a meeting with the library director.! ! Shane: If you see people burning library DVDs or CDs, do you do anything?! ! Ali: I would probably say, in a joking manner. “ Ha! I think that’s illegal!” or “Can you check that out too? We can really use the circulation statistics!”! ! Shane: Justice versus mercy. When it comes to library fines some people are in different financial situation or claim financial hardship. Do you think exceptions should be made?! ! Ali: It’s hard to prove financial hardship. but I don't think that should be an access barrier. Sometimes people are in dire straits. For reasons beyond their control, they can’t turn in books. The accrue high fines, and it really is a hardship. You’re gonna tell them they cant check out anymore? Yeah, there’s no way to prove it’s a hardship, but you have to take them for their word. You make a little note in their record, like we do, and explain what happened. That way, next time it comes up, the person on the desk has some context. For someone who makes minimum wage, fines make a larger impact than they do to someone who makes $80,000 a year. Our director is very good at this sort of thing. She says to make rules for the majority, not the minority that will try to abuse the system. Some will try to cheat us, but with the messages, we can get a sense of who.! ! Shane: On a related note, what about policies that create inequalities? For example: Mill Valley Library subscribes to some databases that other libraries in the county do not. Some patrons, who consider themselves to be living in Mill Valley, might not be able to access our databases because the zoning ordinances place their residences outside of the Mill Valley city limits.! ! Ali: That’s a good point, and I’ve seen it happen. I understand on one level, because it’s funding for the library that allows us to provide these services. Funding comes from property taxes, so people who live in the general county areas pay property taxes to the county, people in the city to the city. Ideally, of course, anyone who is a member of the consortium should have full and equal access to the consortium databases. ! ! Shane: Especially when people who live out of the county are still able to get library cards and use our print resources. ! ! Ali: Right. I think ideally the databases would be the same at all consortium libraries, but from a funding perspective, this becomes very difficult. I know patrons who are very upset when they find out for that out of city patrons have priority over them on a hold list for one of our items. It’s tricky. ! ! Shane: Alright Ali, that about wraps it up. Thank you for your time tonight. ! ! Ali: Thanks. It’s been fun. ! ! ! ! ! of15 19
- 16. ! Reflections on the interview! ! ! ! Ali Birnbach has worked in libraries for a decade and has been a reference librarian at the Mill Valley Public Library for half of that time. Her answers speak to the depth and length of reflection she has given these issues over the years. Though it was hardly possible to do justice to all of the semester’s topics in a single conversation, we touched on all of them, including biases in collection development and reference transactions, staff attire requirements, meeting rooms and bulletin boards, reconsideration requests, patron records and confidentiality practices, labeling, banned books, patron behavior, privacy in the media center, and fines and fees. Threaded among these topics was the persistent theme of the individual versus the collective, and the library’s often impossible obligations to both. This is something I have found quite fascinating over the course of the semester. ! ! The theme of the individual versus the collective is most prominent in this interview in the dialogue about collection development and the disruptive behavior of verbally or hygienically distracting patrons. When it comes to such issues, Ali’s answers reveal an idealism that, as she herself observed, is difficult to put into practice given the ambiguity of real life situations. Consider collection development: For the library to be useful to the public, it must build a collection that satisfies the needs of the majority. However, in order to fulfill its ideals, it must be an equal forum for the voices of the minority. This kind of balanced environment is vital to maintaining intellectual diversity, and exposing people to new ideas, encouraging an ongoing conversation rather than reinforcing the prevailing ideologies. Librarians have to bring everything to everyone, because, as Ali says: “There has to be exposure before there can be awareness…” However, this task seems all but impossible. ! ! The same considerations apply to distracting or disruptive patrons. How does one balance the rights of the few against the rights of many when those rights come into conflict? of16 19
- 17. What happens when one person’s constitutional freedoms impose upon someone else’s. I asked Ali what she would do if a single patron was annoying ten patrons, and she seemed comfortable taking the side of the majority and asking the person to adjust their behavior. The scenario of one patron annoying another individual patron, however, did not move her to the same conclusion. In this instance, she said, she would refrain from taking action. I did not ask her about one patron annoying five patrons… this perhaps would have elicited a different answer. Her answers to these questions, and others, indicated that in her mind solutions are best sought on a case by case basis, and that even at their best, policies cannot be constructed to provide clear guidance in all scenarios. This was in line with the conclusions at which I have arrived through our studies in this class, and from working in a library. ! ! Ali does not believe that the rights of the majority (if any there are) include censorship. She denies that censorship can have any positive outcomes. Ideas, she contends in our discussion about meeting rooms and bulletin boards, are better out in the open, where they can be discussed. She took a liberal attitude towards all forms of expression, on the part of both patrons and staff (when we discussed employee dress codes). While she believes in indulging people their eccentricities, she draws the line with some reconsideration requests, considering them too ridiculous to bother with. She does not think librarians are obligated to negotiate when it comes to matters of intellectual freedom. They should, however, offer explanations to their public. It was evident that Ali takes the Freedom to Read quite seriously: she believes that librarians are bound to do everything in their power to provide the public with information, but that people are responsible for the information they choose to consume. ! ! Ali had the most to say about collection development. It is clear she takes the quality of the resources she adds to her sections of the collection very seriously. Her example of the global warming book raised interesting questions. Is it the librarian’s place to evaluate the nonfiction resources they select for factual accuracy? How can they be held responsible for of17 19
- 18. anything more than a cursory evaluation, as they are likely not a scientist, mathematician, historian, etc? While she considers it her duty to provide accurate information, she acknowledges that she has neither the time nor authority to fully evaluate all of her selections, especially as the book reviews she relies upon may themselves be biased. I wonder if factual accuracy should even be a consideration in selection? Ali chose to include the global warming book after the patron who requested it voiced dissatisfaction with the lack of balance in the collection regarding the global warming issue. But this was not just a matter of overcoming her bias. As far as she could tell, the book was mere propaganda, devoid of any factual accuracy. Though I did not think to ask this during the interview, I wonder if the inclusion of a resource in the science section should be dependent on whether it actually has a scientific basis, or only on whether the author claims it does? (I recall the debate about whether to include creationism books in the science section, which we discussed in class.) It doesn’t seem like anyone has answered this question yet, though I think it’s a question that needs to be answered before any useful selection policy can be created. ! ! Ali’s experiences demonstrate how, too often, librarians’ responsibilities in collection development are murky. With the selection policies we looked at earlier in the semester, especially those regarding fiction, the guidelines struck me as so open-ended that the policies were almost useless. In most cases, they seemed to me to be no more than placeholders, designed to create the impression of a scientific method in the selection process, when in fact, many selection decisions are shots in the dark. The new Mill Valley Library policy, which requires that, except in extreme cases, all purchase requests should be honored (“If one person wants it then someone else will want it”) is slightly more practical, because it relieves librarians of the burden of decision making in areas where they are not necessarily qualified. ! ! While Ali’s awareness of the philosophical issues surrounding her profession is vast, she, like myself and many librarians I have spoken to, is vague on certain issues of policy and of18 19
- 19. procedure. She was not certain what degree of patron PII the library kept, and for how long. Nor was she certain of the final steps of the library’s reconsideration policy. These are questions that I expect many librarians cannot answer, as the questions arise only rarely. ! ! Overall, my conversation with Ali revealed that the issues surrounding intellectual freedom are even murkier than I had originally perceived, that policy is often arbitrary and unhelpful, and that in the end, the librarian’s only weapon against ambiguity is her own judgment.! ! ! ! ! ! of19 19