CLA Draft Position Statement on Intellectual Freedom

May 22, 2015

The Canadian Library Association’s Intellectual Freedom Advisory Committee has drafted an update of the Intellectual Freedom Position Statement.

If you have feedback on this draft, please comment to Alvin Schrader, Chair of the Intellectual Freedom Advisory Committee aschrade@ualberta.ca and Ms. Valoree McKay, CLA Executive Director vmckay@cla.ca no later than Wednesday May 27, 2015.

Recommended New Statement

All persons in Canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have access to all expressions of knowledge, opinion, creativity and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to intellectual freedom, under the constitution and the law, is essential to the health and development of Canadian society as the foundation for freedom of conscience, thought, belief, and informed citizenship.

Libraries have a core responsibility for the development, maintenance and advancement of intellectual freedom.

It is the responsibility of libraries to safeguard and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire or provide access to the widest variety of information resources, in all forms, and shall resist labelling, rating and levelling systems that restrict access to these resources.

It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee the right of free expression by making available without discrimination the library’s public spaces and services to all individuals and groups.

Intellectual freedom includes the right to privacy in the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual activity. Libraries have a responsibility to safeguard information about the identity and activities of all users.

Libraries should resist all efforts to limit the exercise of these responsibilities while recognizing the right of criticism by individuals and groups in accordance with established policies, procedures and due process.

Employees, volunteers and employers in libraries have a duty, in addition to their institutional responsibilities, to uphold these principles. Public library boards, school boards, post-secondary governing boards, and libraries reporting to other governing entities have an ethical responsibility to uphold these principles by endorsing this Statement.

Current Statement (last revised 1985):

All persons in Canada have the fundamental right, as embodied in the nation’s Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to have access to all expressions of knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity, and to express their thoughts publicly. This right to intellectual freedom, under the law, is essential to the health and development of Canadian society.

Libraries have a basic responsibility for the development and maintenance of intellectual freedom.

It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those which some elements of society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular or unacceptable. To this end, libraries shall acquire and make available the widest variety of materials.

It is the responsibility of libraries to guarantee the right of free expression by making available all the library’s public facilities and services to all individuals and groups who need them.

Libraries should resist all efforts to limit the exercise of these responsibilities while recognizing the right of criticism by individuals and groups.

Both employees and employers in libraries have a duty, in addition to their institutional responsibilities, to uphold these principles.

Explanations in support of the new Statement:

The current Statement is succinct and comprehensive. The CLA Intellectual Freedom Advisory Committee is loath to add too much to the Statement – too much detail muddies the message, and many issues related to intellectual freedom are dealt with in other CLA position statements. With that said, the Committee recommends that some parts of the Statement be updated and clarified:

Paragraph 1 [all references are to the existing Statement]

Omit the Bill of Rights as it suffers from several dimensions of ineffectiveness: it did not have the force of law, is not a constitutional document, applied only to the federal level and not the provinces, and is superseded by the Charter; the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights and was reluctant to declare laws inoperative on the basis of it.

Also: Insert “opinion” into the phrase “knowledge, creativity and intellectual activity” to be less restrictive in intent and to clarify that IF is very broad in coverage.

Also: Insert “the constitution” before “the law” to reinforce the view that the constitution is the primary source of IF principles for libraries.

Also: Add at end “as the foundation for freedom of conscience, thought, belief, and informed citizenship” to help explain who intellectual freedom is for and why it’s vital.

Paragraph 2

Replace “basic” with “core” as a stronger directive and references the central pillar of the profession and of libraries.

Also: Add the word “advancement” after “maintenance” in order to emphasize the active role of libraries in promoting IF.

Paragraph 3

Replace “guarantee” with “safeguard.” We are skeptical that libraries can guarantee access.

Also: Replace “make available” with “provide access to”. As well, we note that libraries have the choice of materials acquisition or of providing access thereto, e.g., thru ILL. The directive to libraries should not be “acquire and…” but rather “acquire or…”

Also: Change “materials” to “information resources, in all forms” to encompass ever-changing formats. The term “materials” carries with it the suggestion of physical objects.

Also: Add a reference to resisting labelling, rating and levelling systems “that restrict access” – if a practice does not tend to restrict access, then it is not directly an IF concern. CLA does not have a separate statement about labelling, as ALA does. We recommend a reference be inserted here, as an alternative to creating a separate statement to deal with this increasingly common issue. See, for example, “Book Levelling and School Library Collections,” BCTLA Position Statement, British Columbia Teacher-Librarians’ Association, April 200:, “The practice of levelling books, used to support guided reading instruction in classrooms, is not consistent with the values of teacher-librarians, and should not be applied in part or in whole to school library collections…. Levelled collections, whether located in school or classroom libraries, inhibit the use of authentic strategies for selection and directly contradict the message of pursuing reading for the interest and passion it inspires.”

Paragraph 4

Replace “facilities” with “spaces.” The term “facilities” invokes an industrial feeling. References to library spaces are more common in current literature.

Also: Delete “all” from public spaces and services, as implicit and therefore redundant.

Also: Insert “without discrimination.” Note that we left “guarantee” in this Paragraph, because we think this is within the control and responsibility of institutions.

New Paragraph [to be inserted between Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the existing Statement]

Both the Code of Ethics and the Statement on Access to Information and Communication Technology reference privacy but in a very basic way. Many other IF statements from around the world ensure that the link between patron privacy and IF is clear.

Paragraph 5

In order to communicate the expectation that libraries develop explicit, written policies and procedures relating to IF, add the phrase: “in accordance with established policies, procedures and due process.”

Paragraph 6

Expand the coverage of this directive so that not only employees and employers but as well library volunteers and all governing entities are included in the ethical directive to resist censorship.

Note: There is a tendency in some quarters to want to stipulate “within the boundaries of the law” or some such phrasing into several of the Paragraphs. However, this is redundant and should be avoided. Paragraph 1 includes this qualification, and that applies to all subsequent Paragraphs.