The text of the Code of Ethics is published in the Intellectual Freedom Manual, ninth edition (2015), part I, chapter 2, and on the ALA website.
ALA’s Code of Ethics is the responsibility of the Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE). The Code of Ethics has been included in the Intellectual Freedom Manual because it is the document that translates the values of intellectual freedom that define the profession of librarianship into broad principles that may be used by individual members of that profession as well as by others employed in a library as a framework for dealing with situations involving ethical conflicts.
The Code of Ethics has a long history. As noted by John A. Moorman in 1995:
Since its formation, the American Library Association has worked on a Code of Ethics for its membership. In 1903, 1929, 1938, 1975, 1981 and since 1992, special attention has been given to either formulating, revising or revisiting the American Library Association Code of Ethics. The Association’s Code of Ethics Committee was first noted in 1928 and was established as an ALA Council standing committee in 1975.1
ALA adopted its first code of ethics in December 1938. The code was revised in 1981, 1995, and again in 2008. Review of the earlier draft codes, along with the adopted codes themselves, sheds considerable light on the evolution of this document.
The March 30, 1930, American Library Association Bulletin published a “Suggested Code of Ethics.”2 The committee that developed the code was chaired by Josephine Adams Rathbone, who served as ALA president from 1931 to 1932. This document covered specific ethical principles related to the governance and operation of a library. Although this early code bears very little resemblance to later codes of ethics, it includes concepts that remain in the current code. For example, a paragraph in part B, section 2, “Librarian and Constituency,” states:
The librarian, representing the governing body, should see that the library serves impartially all individuals, groups, and elements that make up its constituency. In the case of the public library as a non-partisan institution the books purchased should represent all phases of opinion and interest rather than the personal tastes of the librarian or board members. In an official capacity, the librarian and members of the staff should not express personal opinions on controversial questions, as political, religious, or economic issues; especially those of a local nature.
The full “Suggested Code of Ethics” read as follows:
In November 1938 the Code of Ethics Committee distributed a revised code that was adopted on December 29, 1938.3 The new code was more succinct, and the focus shifted somewhat from governing bodies to librarians, which it defined as “any person who is employed by a library to do work that is recognized to be professional in character according to standards established by the American Library Association.”
The code put forth twenty-eight principles of ethical behavior for professional librarians. Then, as now, the principles were not intended to be “a declaration of prerogatives nor a statement of recommended practices in specific situations” (principle 3). The eleventh principle is noteworthy because it stated that “it is the librarian’s obligation to treat as confidential any private information obtained through contact with library patrons.” This code, because of its adoption so late in the year, has since been referred to as the 1939 Code of Ethics. It read as follows:
At the 1939 Midwinter Meeting the ALA adopted the Library’s Bill of Rights. More than four decades passed before ALA adopted a revised code of ethics. During that time the organization adopted The Freedom to Read statement in 1953 and revised the Library Bill of Rights in 1948, 1961, 1967, and 1980. These two policies embodied for ALA the professional values that would serve as the framework for a new code of ethics reflecting the significant changes in the economic, social, and political environment in the United States since 1939.
A 1975 draft of a new code and a 1979 revised draft were published in the November 1979 issue of American Libraries.4 They were as follows:
The Committee on Professional Ethics revised the document based on comments received on the two drafts. The resulting revision of the Code of Ethics was adopted by the ALA membership and ALA Council on June 30, 1981. It read as follows:
The Committee on Professional Ethics began working on a revision of the Code of Ethics in 1991. Over a four-year period, the committee solicited comments from ALA units and members. When the document was submitted to the ALA Council at the 1995 Annual Conference, Jeanne Isacco, chair, reported that during this process the committee received numerous comments, many of which were incorporated into the revision. In addition, the committee encouraged members in individual libraries to use the code, discuss the implications of each statement, and adopt it as part of their institution’s practices.5
The most striking difference between the 1995 Code of Ethics and those that preceded it is the voice in which it is expressed. Previous codes were in the impersonal third person: “librarians should” in the 1939 code and “librarians must” in the 1981 code. The 1995 code represented the voice of the ALA’s members. Furthermore, the principles were expressed as facts (e.g., “We provide the highest level of service”) rather than as the obligations based on “should” or the commands based on “must” of previous codes. The 1995 code also included two new principles related to copyright (IV) and excellence in the profession (VIII).
Finally, the 1995 code included a statement concerning its use. This concept was included in the 1939 code but was absent from the 1981 version. The 1939 code stated:
This code sets forth principles of ethical behavior for the professional librarian. It is not a declaration of prerogatives nor a statement of recommended practices in specific situations.
The 1995 code addressed this issue by stating:
The principles of this Code are expressed in broad statements to guide ethical decision making. These statements provide a framework; they cannot and do not dictate conduct to cover particular situations.
In anticipation of the seventieth anniversary of the ALA’s Code of Ethics, COPE sponsored programs at annual conferences from 2004 to 2006 to explore whether there was a need to revise the code in light of new association policies and issues facing the profession. This series of programs addressed the role of the committee, the code, and ALA in ethical matters, asking such questions as: Should ALA provide ethical education for its members? Should it get involved in ethical disputes? Should it enforce the Code of Ethics? The comments received during these programs and in discussion with the Intellectual Freedom Committee indicated that a few revisions to the language should be considered, but the code did not need a major overhaul.
At the 2007 Midwinter Meeting and Annual Conference the Committee on Professional Ethics reviewed each article in light of the comments received and the needs of the profession. One suggestion with which the committee agreed was to strengthen the language in Principle IV to clarify that ALA supports a balance between the interests of information users and intellectual property rights holders. The committee prepared a draft revision including this suggestion and several minor edits. Prior to the 2008 Midwinter Meeting the draft was circulated to ALA Council members, the ALA Executive Board, divisions, round tables, and all other units for comment. A hearing on the draft was held during the meeting. Taking all comments into consideration, the committee recommended and the ALA Council adopted a revision of the code with minor style changes and an addition to Principle IV as follows (new language in bold):
We respect intellectual property rights and advocate balance between the interests of information users and rights holders.
Throughout the history of the Code of Ethics there have been debates about whether there should be a means for enforcing it. Some members believe that if there is no enforcement, the code is useless. Others see the code as a document of moral responsibility, believing that librarians do not need the threat of enforcement to maintain their professional ethics. The inevitable conclusion to these discussions has been that ALA has neither the resources nor the legal authority to enforce the code.
When the 1995 code was presented to council, COPE expressed the opinion that the most effective way to make the code a meaningful part of the library profession would be for it to be discussed and considered for adoption as policy by local and state libraries. After the adoption of the 2008 code, COPE sought the advice of ALA legal counsel on the issue of enforcement. Based upon this advice, COPE once again determined the best approach to be recommending that libraries adopt the code as part of their policy, thus making it enforceable on a local level.
Aware that ALA members had many questions about the issue of enforcement, the committee began work on an explanatory question-and-answer document at the 2008 Midwinter Meeting. Work continued throughout the 2008 Annual Conference and the 2009 Midwinter Meeting. The document was completed in January 2009. Additional explanatory statements on speech in the workplace (2001), social media (2013), and conflicts of interest (2014) have also been issued. In 2014, the ALA Council adopted the first interpretation of the Code of Ethics on the topic of copyright (see part III, chapter 13).
1. John A. Moorman, “Knowledge of the American Library Association’s Code of Ethics among Illinois Public Library Directors: A Study,” Illinois Libraries 77, no. 3 (1995): 140–47.
2. “Suggested Code of Ethics,” American Library Association Bulletin 24, no. 3 (1930): 58–62.
3. American Library Association, “Midwinter Council Minutes,” American Library Association Bulletin 33, no. 2 (1939): 128–29.
4. American Libraries 10, no. 11 (November 1979): 666.
5. American Library Association, 1995 Annual Conference, Report of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CD #36–36.1).