The text of the Library Bill of Rights is published in the Intellectual Freedom Manual, ninth edition (2015), part I, chapter 2, and on the ALA website.
The Library Bill of Rights constitutes the American Library Association’s basic policy on intellectual freedom. The document derives from a statement originally developed by Forrest Spaulding, librarian of the Des Moines Public Library, and adopted by that library on November 21, 1938, as the Library’s Bill of Rights:
Now when indications in many parts of the world point to growing intolerance, suppression of free speech, and censorship, affecting the rights of minorities and individuals, the Board of Trustees of the Des Moines Public Library reaffirms these basic policies governing a free public library to serve the best interests of Des Moines and its citizens.
I. Books and other reading matter selected for purchase from public funds shall be chosen from the standpoint of value and interest to the people of Des Moines, and in no case shall selection be based on the race or nationality, political, or religious views of the writers.
II. As far as available material permits, all sides of controversial questions shall be represented equally in the selection of books on subjects about which differences of opinion exist.
III. Official publications and/or propaganda of organized religious, political, fraternal, class, or regional sects, societies, or similar groups, and of institutions controlled by such, are solicited as gifts and will be made available to library users without discrimination. This policy is made necessary because of the meager funds available for the purchase of books and reading matter. It is obviously impossible to purchase the publications of all such groups and it would be unjust discrimination to purchase those of some and not of others.
IV. Library meeting rooms shall be available on equal terms to all organized nonprofit groups for open meetings to which no admission fee is charged and from which no one is excluded.
At the 1939 Annual Conference in San Francisco, Ernestine Rose, chair of the Adult Education Board, moved that the ALA Council adopt the Library’s Bill of Rights.1 The document retained the spirit of the Des Moines Public Library policy but differed from the original in several respects. The principal differences concerned Articles II, III, and IV of the Des Moines policy. In Article II, reference to equal representation “in the selection of books on subjects about which differences of opinion exist” was changed to “fair and adequate” representation. This change recognized the impossibility of equal representation in terms of numbers of volumes on a particular subject. Article III of the Des Moines policy was completely deleted because it dealt with the individual budget, needs, and purposes of a specific library. As such, it was inappropriate for a document to be applied nationwide.
Article IV of the Des Moines policy, concerning the use of library meeting rooms, was revised extensively before approval by the ALA Council. An introductory phrase establishing the library as “an institution to educate for democratic living” was added, and references to “nonprofit groups” and “admission fee” were deleted. The resulting article broadened the sense of the original by stating that library meeting rooms be available “on equal terms to all groups in the community regardless of their beliefs or affiliations.” As adopted by the ALA Council, the revised Library’s Bill of Rights read as follows:
Today indications in many parts of the world point to growing intolerance, suppression of free speech, and censorship affecting the rights of minorities and individuals. Mindful of this, the Council of the American Library Association publicly affirms its belief in the following basic policies which should govern the services of free public libraries.
I. Books and other reading matter selected for purchase from the public funds should be chosen because of value and interest to people of the community, and in no case should the selection be influenced by the race or nationality or the political or religious views of the writers.
II. As far as available material permits, all sides of questions on which differences of opinion exist should be represented fairly and adequately in the books and other reading matter purchased for public use.
III. The library as an institution to educate for democratic living should especially welcome the use of its meeting rooms for socially useful and cultural activities and the discussion of current public questions. Library meeting rooms should be available on equal terms to all groups in the community regardless of their beliefs or affiliations.
The three-point declaration approved by the ALA Council was recommended by the association to governing boards of individual libraries for adoption. The ALA could not force individual librarians and boards to take specific action, but this policy statement, like all other association recommendations and statements, provided a guide.
For five years, the Library’s Bill of Rights stood without change. In 1944 the Intellectual Freedom Committee, chaired by Leon Carnovsky, recommended that Article I of the document be amended to include the statement “Further, books believed to be factually correct should not be banned or removed from the library simply because they are disapproved of by some people.” Approved by the ALA Council on October 14, 1944, the amendment proclaimed for the first time the association’s position regarding the banning or removal of materials. The addition, however, also introduced the phrase “factually correct,” which was later to be a source of controversy, debate, and change.
Four years later, with David K. Berninghausen as chair, the Intellectual Freedom Committee recommended a broad revision of the Library’s Bill of Rights and called for a considerable expansion of the document’s scope. Its introductory passage was pared to a precise statement of the association’s purpose: “The Council of the American Library Association reaffirms its belief in the following basic policies which should govern the services of all libraries.” By 1948, there was no longer the pre-World War II need to point out “growing intolerance, suppression of free speech, and censorship affecting the rights of minorities and individuals.” However, in the developing Cold War, the factors justifying the 1939 policy were even more evident, and it was recognized that the remedies stated in the Library’s Bill of Rights were necessary to protect free library service in times of peace as well as of crisis.
Article I was prefaced by the phrase “As a responsibility of library service.” Intellectual freedom was thus clearly related to the process of materials selection and, moreover, highlighted by being designated a “responsibility.” Reference to purchase from the public funds was deleted, thereby extending application of the policy to all library materials, not just those acquired through purchase. Whereas the 1939 document stated that selection should not be influenced by the race, nationality, or political or religious views of writers, the revision more explicitly said that no materials by any authors should be excluded on those grounds.
The first part of Article II was changed to effect a smoother reading, but there were no substantive alterations. However, the 1944 amendment concerning “books believed to be factually correct” was changed to “books … of sound factual authority” and the word “banned” was replaced by “proscribed.” Despite their seeming slightness, these subtle changes in the second part of the article actually enlarged the scope of the policy.
A totally new Article III recognized the need of libraries to challenge “censorship of books urged or practiced by volunteer arbiters of morals or political opinion or by organizations that would establish a coercive concept of Americanism.” A new Article IV recognized libraries’ responsibility to cooperate with “allied groups … in science, education, and book publishing in resisting all abridgment of the free access to ideas and full freedom of expression.” Article III of the 1939 document, concerning the use of library meeting rooms, became Article V of the new policy. Although the wording was altered, no change was made in the intent.
The entire recommended revision was adopted by the ALA Council on June 18, 1948. In effect, it was a completely different document from its 1939 predecessor. The new document’s scope and possible applications were broadly expanded, establishing its national significance. For the first time, the policy mentioned censorship, and also for the first time, the association declared the responsibility of libraries to challenge censorship—alone and with allied organizations. As adopted by the council, the newly entitled Library Bill of Rights read as follows:
The Council of the American Library Association reaffirms its belief in the following basic policies which should govern the services of all libraries.
I. As a responsibility of library service, books and other reading matter selected should be chosen for values of interest, information, and enlightenment of all the people of the community. In no case should any material be excluded because of race or nationality, or the political or religious views of the writer.
II. There should be the fullest practicable provision of material presenting all points of view concerning the problems and issues of our times, international, national, and local; and books or other reading matter of sound factual authority should not be proscribed or removed from library shelves because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
III. Censorship of books, urged or practiced by volunteer arbiters of morals or political opinion or by organizations that would establish a coercive concept of Americanism, must be challenged by libraries in maintenance of their responsibility to provide public information and enlightenment through the printed word.
IV. Libraries should enlist the cooperation of allied groups in the fields of science, of education, and of book publishing in resisting all abridgment of the free access to ideas and full freedom of expression that are the tradition and heritage of Americans.
V. As an institution of education for democratic living, the library should welcome the use of its meeting rooms for socially useful and cultural activities and discussion of current public questions. Such meeting places should be available on equal terms to all groups in the community regardless of the beliefs and affiliations of their members.
Although the text of the 1948 document remained unchanged until 1961, its application was broadened in 1951. On the recommendation of the Intellectual Freedom Committee, with the endorsement of the Audio-Visual Board, the ALA Council unanimously resolved that “the Library Bill of Rights shall be interpreted as applying to all materials and media of communication used or collected by libraries.” The statement, appended as a footnote to all printings of the Library Bill of Rights until June 27, 1967, resulted from a Peoria, Illinois, case of attempted censorship by the American Legion and a local newspaper. The Peoria Public Library was pressured to remove the films The Brotherhood of Man, Boundary Lines, and Peoples of the U.S.S.R. All three films appeared on the ALA Audio-Visual Board’s 1947 list of films suggested for purchase by small libraries. The Educational Film Library Association urged ALA to combat censorship of library film collections, but some librarians contended that the Library Bill of Rights applied only to print on paper. The council resolved the problem by its action of February 3, 1951. That same year, in response to efforts to suppress allegedly subversive publications, the council also adopted the first interpretive statement on the Library Bill of Rights, the “Statement on Labeling” (revised and renamed in 2009 as “Labeling and Rating Systems”; revised again in 2014). Additional interpretive statements on a wide variety of issues were to follow in subsequent years.
In 1961 another major addition to the Library Bill of Rights was approved by the ALA Council. From 1948 through February 1961, the library profession had studied the problem of segregation in libraries. A study made by the association’s Special Committee on Civil Liberties recommended that a new article be added to the Library Bill of Rights stating that “the rights of an individual to the use of a library should not be denied or abridged because of his race, religion, national origins, or political views.” The recommendation was approved by the ALA Council on February 2, 1961. The new statement became Article V, and the old Article V, concerning use of meeting rooms, became Article VI. The revised Library Bill of Rights read as follows:
The Council of the American Library Association reaffirms its belief in the following basic policies which should govern the services of all libraries.
I. As a responsibility of library service, books and other reading matter selected should be chosen for values of interest, information, and enlightenment of all the people of the community. In no case should any book be excluded because of the race or nationality or the political or religious views of the writer.
II. There should be the fullest practicable provision of material presenting all points of view concerning the problems and issues of our times, international, national, and local; and books or other reading matter of sound factual authority should not be proscribed or removed from library shelves because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
III. Censorship of books, urged or practiced by volunteer arbiters of morals or political opinion or by organizations that would establish a coercive concept of Americanism, must be challenged by libraries in maintenance of their responsibility to provide public information and enlightenment through the printed word.
IV. Libraries should enlist the cooperation of allied groups in the fields of science, of education, and of book publishing in resisting all abridgment of the free access to ideas and full freedom of expression that are the tradition and heritage of Americans.
V. The rights of an individual to the use of a library should not be denied or abridged because of his race, religion, national origins or political views.
VI. As an institution of education for democratic living, the library should welcome the use of its meeting rooms for socially useful and cultural activities and discussion of current public questions. Such meeting places should be available on equal terms to all groups in the community regardless of the beliefs and affiliations of their members.
By official action of the council on February 3, 1951, the “Library Bill of Rights” shall be interpreted to apply to all materials and media of communication used or collected by libraries.
On June 27, 1967, almost thirty years after its origin, the Library Bill of Rights underwent its second thorough revision. The need for change was made explicit during a special pre-conference, sponsored by the Intellectual Freedom Committee with Ervin Gaines as chair, held prior to the 1965 Midwinter Meeting in Washington, D.C. The primary target in the text was the phrase “of sound factual authority,” introduced into Article I in 1944, and revised and transferred to Article II in 1948. Criticism of the phrase arose when a librarian in Belleville, Illinois, used it to exclude a Protestant publication that he, being Catholic, described as lacking “sound factual authority.”
In their discussion of the Belleville situation, the pre-conference participants determined that some of the most profound and influential publications in our culture lack the element of “sound factual authority” and that the phrase itself could easily be abused to thwart the intent and purpose of the Library Bill of Rights. It was apparent that the phrase also could effectively keep the association from defending fiction or any of those great works that start from philosophical premises but have nothing to do with fact.
Along with recommending that the troublesome phrase be dropped, the Intellectual Freedom Committee asked that several other textual changes be made. In Articles I and V, the committee suggested adding the word “social” because of the far-reaching results of the civil rights movement. In Article IV, the committee recommended eliminating the phrase “that are the tradition and heritage of Americans” because it was both redundant and nationalistic. The committee further recommended that the reference in Article IV be expanded beyond the groups in science, education, and book publishing to reflect the wider context in which librarians and the association actually operated.
It was also recommended that Article VI, concerning the use of meeting rooms, be amended to include the phrase “provided that the meetings be open to the public.” This amendment clarified the association’s position regarding the use of library meeting rooms by private groups with restricted attendance. The enlarged scope of the text led the IFC to recommend that “library materials” be substituted for “reading matter,” thus making the footnote of 1951 regarding nonprint materials unnecessary.
By the time the Intellectual Freedom Committee’s proposed changes came before the council in 1967, a pre-conference on intellectual freedom and the teenager had recommended that young people be given free access to all books in a library collection. Accordingly, the committee included with its previous suggestions the recommendation that Article V include the word “age.”
On June 28, 1967, the ALA Council adopted all of the Intellectual Freedom Committee’s recommendations. The revision was a statement very different from its 1939 progenitor. Whereas the original document concerned itself primarily with unbiased book selection, a balanced collection, and open meeting rooms, the new version went much further. It recognized that censorship of any materials and in any guise eventually affects the library. It therefore provided libraries with principles for opposing censorship and promoting intellectual freedom in the broadest sense. The 1967 revision of the Library Bill of Rights read as follows:
The Council of the American Library Association reaffirms its belief in the following basic policies which should govern the services of all libraries.
I. As a responsibility of library service, books and other library materials selected should be chosen for values of interest, information, and enlightenment of all the people of the community. In no case should library materials be excluded because of the race or nationality or the social, political, or religious views of the authors.
II. Libraries should provide books and other materials presenting all points of view concerning the problems and issues of our times; no library materials should be proscribed or removed from libraries because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.
III. Censorship should be challenged by libraries in the maintenance of their responsibility to provide public information and enlightenment.
IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resisting abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.
V. The rights of an individual to the use of a library should not be denied or abridged because of his age, race, religion, national origins or social or political views.
VI. As an institution of education for democratic living, the library should welcome the use of its meeting rooms for socially useful and cultural activities and discussion of current public questions. Such meeting places should be available on equal terms to all groups in the community regardless of the beliefs and affiliations of their members, provided that the meetings be open to the public.
Although the revised policy had been carefully crafted to meet the needs of librarians, questions continued to arise about how to apply it to specific activities. Responding to this need, between 1971 and 1973 the committee recommended and the ALA Council adopted six new interpretations: “Challenged Materials” in 1971; “Free Access to Libraries for Minors” in 1972; and, in 1973, “Evaluating Library Collections,” “Expurgation of Library Materials,” “Restricted Access to Library Materials,” and “Sexism, Racism, and Other -Isms in Library Materials” (replaced in 1982 by “Diversity in Collection Development”).
During the decade that followed the adoption of the 1967 Library Bill of Rights, questions were also raised about its silence with respect to sex discrimination and institutional censorship in college and research libraries, while its unqualified references to “the community” and to “public” meeting rooms made it appear as a document for public libraries only. Moreover, the profound changes in American society that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s virtually mandated further changes. Hence, in January 1980, the Library Bill of Rights underwent a third major revision, the product of nearly three years of careful review.
The initial impetus for revision came in 1977 with a request from the Committee on the Status of Women in Librarianship that the Library Bill of Rights be revised to reject sex discrimination in library services and to eliminate sex-linked pronoun usage from the document itself, which the Intellectual Freedom Committee agreed to act upon as part of an overall reassessment of the document. The subsequent review process involved unprecedented, broad participation from all sectors of the library community.
At the 1978 Midwinter Meeting, the Intellectual Freedom Committee asked a subcommittee of its own members to prepare a new draft. At the 1978 Annual Conference, the committee received a report from the subcommittee and conducted a membership hearing on the revision process. At the 1979 Midwinter Meeting, a draft Library Bill of Rights was approved for distribution and sent for comment to all ALA councilors, divisions, round tables, and committees, and to all chapter intellectual freedom committees, journals, and bulletins. The draft was also published in the national library press. Comments received were then reviewed at the 1979 Annual Conference, where the committee also held another open hearing. Shortly after the close of this conference, a new draft was approved by mail and circulated by the IFC to all councilors and ALA units and the library press. Final comments were reviewed by the committee at the 1980 Midwinter Meeting, where Frances C. Dean, its chair, submitted the final revision to the ALA Council.
In addition to eliminating the use of sex-linked pronouns, the committee recommended revision of the preamble to state explicitly the role of libraries in maintaining intellectual freedom. Libraries are described in the revision as “forums for information and ideas,” employing the word “forum” to indicate that the library should be open to any opinion or view. During discussion of this revision, it was suggested that the library be defined as in Article VI, as “an institution of education for democratic living.” This formulation was rejected because it could imply support for the idea that libraries should censor all materials that they deem antidemocratic.
“Democracy,” strictly speaking, means “rule by the majority.” From the standpoint of intellectual freedom, the library’s role in our society is not based on the principle of majority rule but on the principle embodied in the First Amendment that minority points of view have a right to be heard, no matter how unpopular with, or even detested by, the majority.
In Article I, the Intellectual Freedom Committee recommended the elimination of verbiage that seemed to detract from clarity and simplicity of expression and the modification of the word “community” to read “the community the library serves,” inasmuch as many libraries serve a special public, such as a specific academic or school community. The committee further recommended replacing the word “author” with the phrase “those contributing to their creation” because the originators of many library materials are referred to by other terms.
In Article II, the committee recommended adding that libraries have an obligation to provide information and diverse points of view on historical as well as current issues. In Article III, stylistic changes, as well as elimination of the modifier “public,” were suggested. The meaning of “public” in the article’s context placed an obligation on nonpublic libraries that such libraries insist they do not have.
The revision of Article V was marked by considerable debate about whether a general statement affirming the rights of all individuals to library use could serve the same function as a more detailed list of all those specific conditions or factors that might lead to infringement of this right. Considering that explicitly designating one or more factors as discriminatory might risk excluding other grounds not specifically mentioned, either by oversight or by inability to predict the future, and judging the so-called laundry-list approach to be stylistically unwieldy, the committee recommended instead a general statement condemning discrimination according to origin, background, or views. The committee recommended, however, retaining specific reference to age, because a suitable generic term that would readily be recognized as inclusive of this factor could not be found.
Finally, Article VI was revised to take into account differences among types of libraries and to eliminate any implication that libraries might censor materials and exclude programs on the grounds that they contain antidemocratic ideas or are not socially useful. The revision laid firm emphasis on the principle of equitable and nondiscriminatory application of rules and regulations governing meeting rooms and exhibit space while permitting libraries broad flexibility in formulating such rules and regulations according to the dictates of their widely varied situations.
On January 23, 1980, the ALA Council adopted the recommendations of the Intellectual Freedom Committee. The resulting document constitutes the present Library Bill of Rights.
In the 1980s four new interpretations were adopted: “Meeting Rooms and Exhibit Spaces” in 1981 (replaced by two separate interpretations in 1991), “Library-Initiated Programs as a Resource” in 1982, “Circulation of Motion Pictures and Video Productions” in 1984 (replaced by “Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials” in 1989, which was subsequently incorporated into “Free Access to Libraries for Minors” and renamed “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors” in 2014), and “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library Media Program” in 1986 (revised and renamed “Access to Resources and Services in the School Library” in 2014).
In the late 1980s requests were made to amend the Library Bill of Rights to include the concepts of freedom of access to information and libraries without limitation by language or economic status, as well as equity of service and access and representation in the collection for gays, bisexuals, and lesbians. In response, the Intellectual Freedom Committee began with a review of the interpretations to address these issues. As a result, all but one of the then-extant interpretations were amended and three new interpretations were added: “The Universal Right to Free Expression” in 1991 and, in 1993, “Economic Barriers to Information Access” and “Access to Library Resources and Services Regardless of Gender or Sexual Orientation” (revised and renamed “Access to Library Resources and Services Regardless of Sex, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, or Sexual Orientation” in 2008).
After the review process was complete, the IFC concluded not only that revision of the basic document was unnecessary but also that it would be unwise to open and apply the laundry-list approach to a document that had stood the test of time.
However, as a further response to concerns that the wording of the Library Bill of Rights may be interpreted to exclude groups of individuals not specifically mentioned, the committee adopted the following statement:
In the Library Bill of Rights and all its interpretations, it is intended that: “origin” encompasses all the characteristics of individuals that are inherent in the circumstances of their birth; “age” encompasses all the characteristics of individuals that are inherent in their levels of development and maturity; “background” encompasses all the characteristics of individuals that are a result of their life experiences; and “views” encompasses all the opinions and beliefs held and expressed by individuals.
In 1994, in response to a rapidly changing information environment and the need for guidance expressed by many librarians about how to apply the Library Bill of Rights to electronic access to information, the committee began work on a new interpretation. Reaching consensus on this document took one and a half years. On January 24, 1996, the ALA Council adopted the new Interpretation, “Access to Electronic Information, Services, and Networks” (revised and renamed “Access to Digital Information, Services, and Networks” in 2009).
At the 1996 ALA Midwinter Meeting, the Board of Directors of the American Library Trustee Association (ALTA) voted to reaffirm the inclusion of “age” in the Library Bill of Rights because of challenges that might result in restricting access to libraries and library materials to children and young adults. The ALTA brought a request to the ALA Council to reaffirm the inclusion of “age.” The motion was passed by the council on January 24, 1996, by acclamation.
The latter part of the twentieth century was marked by growing concerns about the erosion of personal privacy in light of advancing technology. The ALA had consistently taken a strong stand on user privacy, adopting the “Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records” in 1971 (last revised in 1986) and the “Policy concerning Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information about Library Users” in 1991 (last revised in 2004). To assist libraries in implementing these policies, the IFC developed “Suggested Procedures for Implementing ‘Policy on Confidentiality of Library Records’” in 1983 (last revised in 2005).
At the 1999 Annual Conference, the ALA Council resolved that the Library and Information Technology Association be asked to examine the impact of new technologies on user privacy and the confidentiality of electronic records. The Task Force on Privacy and Confidentiality in the Electronic Environment was formed at the 2000 Midwinter Meeting, with broad participation from across the ALA.
In July 2000 the ALA Council approved the “Final Report of the Task Force on Privacy and Confidentiality in the Electronic Environment” and referred it to the IFC for review. The report recommended that ALA revise its existing policy statements to incorporate Internet privacy; develop model privacy policies, instructional materials, and privacy “best practices” documents; and urge that all libraries adopt a privacy statement on web pages and post privacy policies in the library that cover the issues of privacy in Internet use as accessed through the library’s services.2
At its 2001 spring meeting, the IFC returned to the ALA Council’s original request to consider developing an interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights on privacy. Initial work began on a draft interpretation at that time and continued through the 2001 Annual Conference and the committee’s 2001 fall meeting. The council adopted the new interpretation, “Privacy,” on June 19, 2002, at the ALA Annual Conference in Atlanta, Georgia.
In 2009 three new interpretations were adopted: “Importance of Education to Intellectual Freedom” (revised and renamed “Advocating for Intellectual Freedom” in 2014), “Minors and Internet Interactivity” (revised and renamed “Minors and Internet Activity” in 2014), and “Services to Persons with Disabilities.” In 2010 the ALA Council adopted the new interpretation “Prisoners’ Right to Read.”
During its 2013–2014 review of ALA intellectual freedom policy statements, the IFC proposed revisions to fourteen existing interpretations, all of which were approved by the ALA Council at the 2014 Annual Conference in Las Vegas. Those revisions are described in the essays that follow. The committee proposed no new interpretations in 2014, but it moved unique content from the interpretation titled “Access for Children and Young Adults to Nonprint Materials” to the interpretation titled “Free Access to Libraries for Minors” and renamed the consolidated interpretation “Access to Library Resources and Services for Minors.”
Although there is little doubt that future developments will mandate yet further revision or the development of additional interpretive statements, the Library Bill of Rights is by no means a product of hasty work, and as its history proves, it remains a vibrant statement of principle and a useful guide to action for librarians in all library settings.
1. “Council,” in “San Francisco Proceedings,” ALA Bulletin 33 (October 1939): 60–61.
2. American Library Association, Library and Information Technology Association, Task Force on Privacy and Confidentiality in the Electronic Environment, “Final Report,” July 7, 2000, www.ala.org/lita/about/taskforces/dissolved/privacy.