This week I'd like to reflect on something that happened to me recently that relates to a library patron's right to privacy. I put a copy of Little Brother on hold at my public library. My mom and 2 of my sisters work there. When my hold was available, one of the workers at the circulation desk told my mom that my book was available. She even made a joke about the title of the book because I have all younger sisters. My mom then called me to ask me if I wanted her to pick it up or if I'd come in to get it. She did pick it up for me. This seems like a violation of my privacy. My mom should not be the first person notified if I have a hold ready to be picked up. I'm not sure if the book is checked out to me, but was handed over to my mom, or if it was actually checked out to my mom. Also, I don't think it is very professional for a library employee to joke about my choice in reading material. I have chosen not to mention my objections to this breach of confidentiality to any library employee. I have nothing to hide from my mom and most of the library employees know my family and wouldn't do anything intentionally hurtful to any of us. I just hope that they do not take privacy issues so lightly with other patrons. I'm not sure how I would go about making a formal complaint about this if I did choose to. I would be uncomfortable doing so because I would be afraid that somehow my mom would be looked down on. I wouldn't want her coworkers to think she has a tattletale daughter, trying to cause trouble. At the same time, that really shouldn't have happened.
I found ALA's "Privacy: An interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights" to be very clear and helpful. There are many references and examples of how important privacy and confidentiality are to libraries. It's both an ethical and a legal issue. Check it out http://www.ala.org/ala/aboutala/offices/oif/statementspols/statementsif/interpretations/privacy.cfm
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Saturday, June 13, 2009
entry 4
I've found an interesting free speech article about a man who was fired for writing a letter to the editor criticizing George W. Bush. Here's the link http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:CLOB&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=128CD277203BD4C0&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
Clearly, this man has the right to express his opinions about his political views. He was not a threat to national security. He was not writing on behalf of his workplace. He was fired because one of his bosses was a former Republican state representative. The man who was fired sued for wrongful dismissal. The case was settled for $150,000.
I can't imagine how this man's employer thought a letter to the editor about politics would be grounds for dismissal. I could agree that if the letter criticized the employer in a way that was a threat to security or was libelous, but not this. In the US we have the right to discuss our political opinions. The US Declaration of Independence states that if our government no longer works, we can get rid of it and start again. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." We have the right to talk about these things. We should not live in fear of losing our jobs if we exercise our rights.
This is the link I used to quote the Declaration
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Clearly, this man has the right to express his opinions about his political views. He was not a threat to national security. He was not writing on behalf of his workplace. He was fired because one of his bosses was a former Republican state representative. The man who was fired sued for wrongful dismissal. The case was settled for $150,000.
I can't imagine how this man's employer thought a letter to the editor about politics would be grounds for dismissal. I could agree that if the letter criticized the employer in a way that was a threat to security or was libelous, but not this. In the US we have the right to discuss our political opinions. The US Declaration of Independence states that if our government no longer works, we can get rid of it and start again. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." We have the right to talk about these things. We should not live in fear of losing our jobs if we exercise our rights.
This is the link I used to quote the Declaration
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Friday, June 5, 2009
entry 3
The article I found of interest this week is called "Psalm-thing awry in 'All About Me' Flap."
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:DCDT&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=1289A84ADFB37A80&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
It describes the situation of a kindergarten class that has an "All about me" week for each of the students. Each student gets to do a show-and-tell type thing about their interests, etc. The student's parents are invited to participate. One student is a Christian and nightly reads Bible passages with his mother. That is something important to them. The mom tells the teacher that she'd like to read a Bible passage at her son's "All About Me" presentation. The teacher says no. She says that it is inappropriate and possibly illegal. This is not the first time that a parent has wanted to share something religious with the class. A Jewish family presented information about Hanukkah and Passover.
The mother sued. She felt she had the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion to be able to read a passage of the Bible to a group of children. The federal court sided with the school district. The court said that it was inappropriate for the children to be a captive audience to an adult reading religious texts.
This case brings up some important distinctions in freedom of speech and religion. According to the court, a public school classroom is not as free as the street corner. Schools have the right to restrict speech in order to remain neutral. Particularly, adults are limited in what they can say to children because children see adults as authority figures. Children are particularly vulnerable to proselytization.
One of the articles suggests that if the student and his mother wanted to describe the importance of their religion to the class, that would be acceptable. Actually reading religious scripture is not acceptable.
Someone else contends that the mother had ulterior motives. The babysitter is on record saying that the child's favorite book was not the Bible.
This case leaves me torn. I think a small passage of the Bible would not harm the children. I certainly see why it is troublesome to have an adult authority figure reading religious scripture to small children. If the children learned about religious holidays, then at least a summarized version of religious scriptures must have come up in their discussions. I don't think it is harmful for children to know that there are people who have certain beliefs that they hold very dear. I also see how presenting that in a neutral and appropriate manner would be like walking on a bed of nails. If you leave anything out or if you don't present someone's belief the way they want it to be portrayed, you'd get into all kinds of trouble. It seems appropriate for the individual students to be able to tell their classmates about their beliefs. Kindergartners may not have the skills to do that.
My final view is that students should be free to share with other students. When adult authority figures abuse their power to persuade children to a particular view, that is not ethical.
Below are two other articles on the same case.
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:DCDT&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=1289A84ADB1A1858&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:DCDT&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=128A08492CB753A0&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:DCDT&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=1289A84ADFB37A80&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
It describes the situation of a kindergarten class that has an "All about me" week for each of the students. Each student gets to do a show-and-tell type thing about their interests, etc. The student's parents are invited to participate. One student is a Christian and nightly reads Bible passages with his mother. That is something important to them. The mom tells the teacher that she'd like to read a Bible passage at her son's "All About Me" presentation. The teacher says no. She says that it is inappropriate and possibly illegal. This is not the first time that a parent has wanted to share something religious with the class. A Jewish family presented information about Hanukkah and Passover.
The mother sued. She felt she had the First Amendment right to free speech and freedom of religion to be able to read a passage of the Bible to a group of children. The federal court sided with the school district. The court said that it was inappropriate for the children to be a captive audience to an adult reading religious texts.
This case brings up some important distinctions in freedom of speech and religion. According to the court, a public school classroom is not as free as the street corner. Schools have the right to restrict speech in order to remain neutral. Particularly, adults are limited in what they can say to children because children see adults as authority figures. Children are particularly vulnerable to proselytization.
One of the articles suggests that if the student and his mother wanted to describe the importance of their religion to the class, that would be acceptable. Actually reading religious scripture is not acceptable.
Someone else contends that the mother had ulterior motives. The babysitter is on record saying that the child's favorite book was not the Bible.
This case leaves me torn. I think a small passage of the Bible would not harm the children. I certainly see why it is troublesome to have an adult authority figure reading religious scripture to small children. If the children learned about religious holidays, then at least a summarized version of religious scriptures must have come up in their discussions. I don't think it is harmful for children to know that there are people who have certain beliefs that they hold very dear. I also see how presenting that in a neutral and appropriate manner would be like walking on a bed of nails. If you leave anything out or if you don't present someone's belief the way they want it to be portrayed, you'd get into all kinds of trouble. It seems appropriate for the individual students to be able to tell their classmates about their beliefs. Kindergartners may not have the skills to do that.
My final view is that students should be free to share with other students. When adult authority figures abuse their power to persuade children to a particular view, that is not ethical.
Below are two other articles on the same case.
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:DCDT&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=1289A84ADB1A1858&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
http://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:DCDT&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=128A08492CB753A0&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated5&req_dat=0ED5223F5C1C57DF
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)