Ethics in Librarianship: A Management Model

ROSEMARY
RUHIGD u MONT

ABSTRACT
A MANAGEMENT MODEL of ethical decision making in librarianship
is presented. T h e model combines individual variables with
situational variables and shows why policymakers and decision
makers must exercise moral judgment in performing their duties.
This article also examines the notion of social responsibility as an
ethical issue.

INTRODUCTION
The study of ethics in the information professions is a subset
of the study of ethics in general. Thus, a definition of ethics may
be helpful in clarifying this concept. There is no agreement on the
exact definition of the term ethics. Some use it to refer to the art
of determining what is right or good. It is also used in three different
but related ways signifying: (1) a general pattern or “way of life,”
(2) a set of rules of conduct or “moral code,” and (3) inquiry about
ways of life and rules of conduct (Dwivedi, 1987, p. 22). As a concept,
the purpose of ethics is to establish principles of behavior that help
people make choices among alternative modes of action. Making such
choices of ten involves ethical &lemmas, because these are marked
by multiple and noncomparable dimensions. The dimensions are the
results-both benefits and harms-that are going to affect the
organization, the society, and the individual as a result of a decision
or action (Hosmer, 1988, p. 10). In essence, ethical behauior is what
is accepted as “good” and “right” as opposed to “bad” or “wrong”

Rosemary Ruhig Du Mont, School of Library and Information Science, Kent State
University, Kent, OH 44242
LIBRARY TRENDS, Vol. 40, No. 2, Fall 1991, pp. 201-15
@ 1991 The Board of Trustees, University of Illinois
202 LIBRARY TRENDWFALL 1991

in the context of the governing moral code (Schermerhorn, 1989, p.

604).
The determination of what is right rather than what is wrong
has been generally codified in the form of law, although not all
situations have been, and can be, covered by any such codification.
Laws are rationalized for the welfare of society; thus, any behavior
considered ethical should also be legal in a just and fair society.
This does not mean, however, that simply because an action is not
illegal i t is necessarily ethical. In other words, just living u p to the
“letter of the law” is not sufficient to guarantee that one’s actions
can be or should be considered ethical (Schermerhorn, 1989). The
following examples of ethical questions can be considered in this
context:
Is it ethical to take longer than necessary to do a task?
Is it ethical to do personal business on the employer’s time?
Is it ethical to call in sick to take a day off to catch up on chores
at home?
Is it ethical to fail to report rule violations by a co-worker?
None of these examples is illegal. But many individuals would
consider one or more of them to be unethical.
The values held by an individual, group, or society are the basic
components of an ethical system. Yet uncertainty is a fact of complex
dynamic organizational life. The interests and values of another
individual, group, or society and laws regarding both are unclear.
Ethical standards, therefore, are not universally accepted, but rather
they are the end product of discretionary decision-making behavior
affecting the lives and well-being of others (Pearce & Robinson, 1989,
pp. 148-49).
Ethics in the information professions is concerned with the
application of moral standards to the conduct of librarians and other
individuals involved in information dissemination. It is a type of
applied ethics concerned with clarifying the obligations and dilemmas
of librarians and other information professionals who make decisions
regarding the acquisition, processing, and dissemination of
information to individuals, groups, and society at large.

EVOLUTION CONCERNS
OF ETHICAL IN
INFORMATION
PROFESSIONS
Tracing the development of ethics as an area of concern for
information professionals will help in identifying the factors that
are responsible for and that influenced the evolution of ethical
behavior. Although ethical issues in librarianship were of some
concern prior to the 1960s (see Table l), it was the rise of the social
responsibility debate in the decade of the 1960s that caused ethical
 DU MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 203

concerns to become of major importance to librarians and other

information professionals.

TABLE1
STAGESO F ETHICAL
ORIENT-ATION

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3

Ethical attitudes Traditional (before Stakeholders (1930 Affirmative

1930s) 1950s) i.e., staff, action (1960s-
patrons present)
Orientation Institutional Institutional Enlightened
self -interest interest, stake- self-interest,
holder interest stakeholder
interest,
societal
interest
Social values Personal and Employees have Societal
user problems must needs beyond interest and
be left at home economic needs participation is
and users have fundamental to
needs beyond our success
information needs
Political No government Government Government and
involvement support is a information
desired necessary evil agencies must
cooperate to
deal with
societal prob-
lems

The concept of social responsibility is fundamentally an ethical

concept. It involves changing notions of how human needs should
be met and emphasizes a concern with the social dimensions of
information service that has to do with improving the quality of
life. Social responsibility provides a way for the information
profession to concern itself with the social dimensions of service and
be aware of the social impact of that service.
Historically, librarians saw that their major responsibility was
to the collection; caring for the materials within the library building
was their primary concern (Du Mont, 1977, p. 24). Many modern
information professionals now acknowledge that they are responsible
to any individual or group (i.e., stakeholder) with an information
need. These stakeholders can be any constituency in the library’s
environment-users, nonusers, employees, suppliers, government
agencies, public interest groups, and host communities.
Table 2 illustrates a four-stage model of a social responsibility
continuum. Stage one encompasses responsibility for the library
204 LIBRARY TRENDWFALL 1991

collection. Stage two adds responsibility for employees. Stage three

includes responsibility to library users-those individuals who have
made a conscious decision to use the library’s information resources.
Stage four expands responsibility furthest by proposing that
information professionals are responsible to society in general and
includes users and nonusers alike.

2
TABLE
SOCIAL
R ESPONSIBILITY
CONTINUUM
O F AN INFORMATION
PROFESSIONAL

Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage ? Stage 4

Collection development and + Employees + Information + Society as a

maintenance only users whole

What information professionals do in terms of pursuing social

goals depends on to what or to whom they believe they are responsible.
A stage one information professional promotes collection de-
velopmen t and maintenance. At stage two, information professionals
accept responsibility for the employees in their organization and focus
on human resource concerns. Because they will want to get, keep,
and motivate good employees, they are concerned with appropriate
education and training, improved working conditions, expanded
employee rights, increased job security, and the like. A stage three
professional expands goals to include high quality service, an
excellent collection, good relations with the public, and the like.
A stage four professional aligns with an active interpretation of social
responsibility. At this stage, professionals see their responsibility to
society as a whole. Their service is defined in terms of advancing
the public good. The acceptance of such responsibility means that
such information professionals actively promote social justice,
support social and cultural goals, and take political positions even
if such actions are perceived negatively by some.
Each stage carries with it an increasing level of discretion. As
professionals move to the right along the continuum, they have to
make more decisions based upon situational variables not of their
own making. By the time professionals reach stage four, they are
required to think about ethical dilemmas not necessarily solely within
the context of their organizations but to decide what is right and
what is wrong from a societal perspective. They may follow self-
chosen ethical principles, upholding values and rights regardless of
majority opinion (Trevino, 1986). Obviously, not all professionals
perceive reaching stage four as an appropriate goal. Some stay in
stage one, which emphasizes responsibility for collection maintenance
 DU MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 205

and development, or stage two, which emphasizes appropriate

behavior for a librarian as a professional, or stage three, which
emphasizes fulfilling the duties and obligations of a professional
librarian through high quality service to users.
There never has been established any simple right-wrong
dichotomy to help information professionals make decisions
regarding their appropriate domain for ethically responsible action.
The social responsibility movement of the 1960s did provide fuel
for debate. The concept of intellectual freedom, called the profession’s
“central ethic,” was used to frame issues as diverse as civil rights,
the war in Vietnam, women’s rights, and the war on poverty (Bundy
& Stielow, 1987). On one side, there were those who were in stage
four on the social responsibility continuum, defining intellectual
freedom as a series of value judgments supporting a radically
pluralistic egalitarian society. On the other side were those who viewed
social responsibility from stages one and two of the continuum,
defending intellectual freedom from a position of collective and
individual neutrality (Peattie, 1987, pp. 43-57).
As the debate waned in the 1970s, it was obvious to many
proponents and opponents of the social responsibility movement that
there were several key issues in the debate that had not been, and
perhaps cannot yet be, settled. One key issue concerns the operational
definition of social responsibility. How shall a library’s resources
be allocated to help solve social problems? With what specific
problems shall a given library concern itself? What priorities shall
be established? What goals or standards of performance shall be
established? What measures shall be employed to determine if a library
is socially responsible or socially irresponsible?
In the, past, the traditional library environment provided little
or no information to the decision maker that was useful in answering
the above questions. The concept of social responsibility itself
provided no clear guidelines for ethical behavior. Given this lack
of clarity, librarians who wanted to be socially responsible were left
to follow their own devices or relied on some rather vague
generalizations about social values and public expectations.
Another problem with the concept of social responsibility is that
it has not always taken into account the environment in which the
library functions. In the past, many advocates of social responsibility
treated the library as an isolated entity that had the ability to engage
in unilateral social action. Eventually, it came to be recognized that
libraries are severely limited in their ability to respond adequately
to social problems. There are physical, organizational, and attitudinal
barriers that have to be overcome (Martin, 1989).
The last issue that remains unresolved in the debate about social
206 LIBRARY TRENDWFALL 1991

responsibility concerns the moral basis of the notion. The term

responsibility is fundamentally a moral one that implies an obligation
to someone or something. It is clear to most people that librarians
have professional responsibilities to acquire, process, and disseminate
information products and services efficiently to users of libraries.
These responsibilities constitute the reason for the existence of
libraries. But why do librarians have social responsibilities and to
whom? What are the moral foundations for a concern with the social
impact of information services?
The proponents of social responsibility, though well intentioned,
have produced no clear and generally accepted moral principle that
would impose on the information professions an obligation to work
for social change. Various arguments have been made to try to link
moral behavior of the profession to the performance of libraries.
Little has been accomplished, however, by way of developing a solid
and acceptable moral argument for the notion of social responsibility.
Thus, although those promoting social responsibility are wry
moralistic in many of their statements, in debate with others, they
do not articulate a philosophical basis for the social responsibilities
discussed (Bundy, 1980).
T h e emotionally laden nature of the discussion on social
responsibility presents the possibility that debate on the subject will
continue indefinitely with little prospect of agreement being reached
on the scope of the issues involved or their solution. Beginning in
the late 1970s and continuing through the 198Os, a theoretical and
conceptual reorientation has begun to take place regarding the
information profession’s obligations to its various constituencies. The
new approach can be labeled “social responsiveness” (Pearce &
Robinson, 1989, pp. 147-48) and it has become clear that the shift
from responsibility to responsiveness reflects a significant change
of focus. This new focus has shifted the dwussion from moral
imperatives related to social responsibility to a more technical and
neutral approach that includes social responsiveness.
The Public Library Association’s guidelines for identifying roles
for public libraries reflects this shift (McClure et al., 1987).The process
described in the guidelines includes identification of both internal
and external mechanisms, procedures, arrangements, and behavioral
patterns of the library’s constituent groups taken collectively. It
establishes mechanisms to judge the capability of libraries to fulfill
certain roles. Attempts are made to identify key variables within the
library that relate to its responsiveness and discover structural changes
that will enable the library to respond adequately to social demands.
The important questions are not moral, related to whether a library
should respond to a social problem out of a sense of social
 D U MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 207

responsibility, but more pragmatic and action oriented, dealing with

the library’s ability to respond and the changes necessary to enable
it to respond more effectively.
One of the advantages of this approach is its managerial
orientation. The concept ignores the philosophical debate about
responsibility and obligation and focuses on the problems and
prospects of making libraries more socially responsive. The process
lends itself to analytical techniques in utilizing specific methods,
such as data collection and analysis and numerical interpretation
of results. The utilization of data through this process can help
decision makers determine how best to institutionalize social policy
throughout the library. Organizational structures can be evaluated;
the roles of information professionals can be delineated; personnel
policies can be structured to reward appropriate “socially responsive”
behavior; and goal statements can be formulated that reflect the roles
identified.
Even though this approach seems to answer many of the questions
faced by those concerned with the social responsibility debate, social
responsiveness does not offer answers to all questions. The concept
of social responsiveness does not provide guidance on how resources
should be allocated to fulfill the various library roles. Libraries
respond to the same problems in different ways and to varying degrees.
And there is no clear data as to what pattern of responsiveness will
be the most successful. The philosophy of responsiveness does not
help a library to decide what roles it should have or what priorities
should be established. In the final analysis, social responsiveness
provides no better guidance to management than does social
responsibility on the best strategies or policies to be adopted for library
service. It appears that library personnel, by determining the degree
of social responsiveness and the pressures to which they will respond,
decide the meaning of the concept and what services will be developed
as a result.
There is still a lack of moral principles or theory on which to
base decisions. Societal pressures are assumed to exist, and libraries
must respond to these in some manner. Social responsiveness assumes
a passive attitude to such pressures. T h e concept of responsiveness
provides no moral basis for information professionals to respond to
social problems. There is no explicit moral or ethical theory and
no specific values for personnel to follow in making responses to
societal demands.
This position becomes quite evident when examining the
statement of professional ethics developed by the American Library
Association (ALA) in 1981 (ALA. Committee on Professional Ethics,
1981, p. 335). The 1981 statement makes no mention of the Library
208 LIBRARY TRENDVFALL 1991

Bill of Rights nor any other philosophical statement as a source of

the foundational ethics of library service. Although a 1980 draft spoke
of the need for “participation in professional associations [and]
community activity in support of library programs and legislation”
(ALA. Committee on Professional Ethics, 1980), this point was left
out of the adopted version.
Criticism of the draft document includes the assertion that, “it
does not deal adequately with the ends and means of the library
profession. Rather i t is primarily a guide to attitudes toward work,
without examining the mission of that work” (Du Mont, 1980, n.p.).
While the presence of an ethical code can stimulate debate and
strengthen professional autonomy, these results can only take place
if the effect of the code is one of clarification of the practice of
librarianship rather than a clarification of the appropriate demeanor
of the professional (Kuhn, 1989, p. 25).
In responding to such criticism, the question of managerial
guidelines and principles becomes relevant. What criteria, other than
self-interest, are relevant to guide information professionals in the
development of socially responsible strategies? Shall these strategies
be judged solely on their short term effectiveness-i.e., in helping
a library respond to a patron who wishes to remove a certain book
from the shelves? Can libraries retain their neutral posture and still
support those government leaders who support the interests of
libraries and share traditional values of intellectual freedom and
access? The nagging question of defining the social good or, in a
public policy context, of defining the public interest, appears. And
finally, the absence of a clear moral underpinning for whatever
strategies are determined continues to present a problem. If
information professionals become proactive, does such behavior mean
that they are attempting to minimize the impact of social change?
Do not information professionals have a moral obligation that goes
beyond their identified mandate to acquire and disseminate
information? If information professionals do have social and political
responsibilities as well as professional responsibilities, what is the
moral basis for these responsibilities today?

ETHICALDIMENSION
OF DECISION
MAKING
In answering the preceding questions, the major premise is that
management is basically an ethical task, and that many management
decisions have an ethical dimension. In general, an ethical decision
is one that affects human welfare or human fulfillment in some
significant manner (Bucholz, 1989):
An ethical decision can be further defined as a decision where questions
of justice and rights are serious and relevant moral considerations. These
concepts are central ethical considerations in human affairs, and an
 DU MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 209

ethical decision is one where a consideration of them is an important

dimension of the decision. Can the decision be defended on grounds
of justice? Is it fair and equitable in some sense to all the parties affected?
Does the decision violate some basic human rights, such that it could
be labeled an immoral decision? These are the kinds of questions that
must be asked. (p. 31)

Bucholz (1989) has identified three levels of ethical issues which

vary in scope and breadth-the individual level, the organization
level, and the system level (pp. 30-47). At the individual level, one
makes day-to-day decisions that mostly involve the application of
institutional policy to specific situations. When dilemmas arise,
judgments must be made, some of which have ethical dimensions.
At the organizational level, decisions are made for the organization
that will guide the behavior of employees. These decisions may be
broad in scope and involve consideration of social responsibility. At
the system level, broad questions can be raised about the ethical
foundations of information service; such questions are not tied to
a particular organization.
The specific nature of the decisions involved at each of these
levels can be seen if a concrete example is used. Information access
issues are fraught with ethical dimensions and provide a useful vehicle
to illustrate ethical dilemmas at each of these levels. Let us assume
that the basic organizational policy in regard to access is one of “free
access to all library materials for all individuals.” Ethics enters into
access decisions at the individual level in borderline or exceptional
cases that policy does not seem to cover. For example, does free access
really mean that a ten year old can take out an “R” rated video?
At the organizational level, the ethical dimensions of decision
making come into play when selection decisions are made. Decision
makers must make certain that the criteria and procedures that are
established to make selection choices do not discriminate against
certain writers nor points of view nor on the basis of irrelevant factors
such as race, sex, or religious preference of either the author or selector.
Self censorship of controversial materials is a constant problem that
must be addressed.
At the system level, ethical questions relate to information
dissemination. Who has access to information and at what cost? How
does information format affect access? Who is responsible for
providing information for those who have limited skills to acquire
it? These kinds of questions are settled through the public policy
process and the eventual outcome is reflected in laws and regulations
related to information access at local, state, and federal levels.
Figure 1 shows these various levels of decision making and the
ethical issues relevant to each level. Potential clashes exist at all levels.
Institutional policy may require that a decision maker go against
210 LIBRARY TRENDWFALL 1991

his or her own ethical standards, producing significant internal

conflict for one so involved. Institutional policy may not always reflect
the ethical standards of the society at large, which may force society
to develop laws and regulations to bring about change in institutional
behavior.

Decision Rule: Select the best materials for the most people at the least
cost.
Individual level: Borderline and extraordinary cases.
Organization level: Are selection criteria discriminatory?
System level: Is information access just and equitable?

Figure 1. Information access decisions

Another example can be taken from the hiring process for

librarians (see Figure 2). Many libraries make an ALA-accredited
degree an entry-level qualification for a professional librarian.
Applicants for professional positions lacking this qualification are
rejected. The ALA-accredited degree thus becomes a standard by which
libraries hope to assure the recruitment of a high quality staff.
Ethics enters into a decision to hire at the individual level in
borderline or exceptional cases where applying the policy in a
mechanical fashion does not seem just or equitable. For example,
if an applicant does not have an ALA-accredited degree, should he
or she be automatically rejected without looking at other information
such as previous work experience or other academic credentials? Such
a decision may not seem fair given the subjective nature of the hiring
process in general. Suppose a candidate with previous work
experience, but without an ALA degree, is narrowly rejected for an
academic library position and another candidate with an ALA-
accredited degree, but no work experience, is accepted for a position.
Is that fair considering that the work experience and academic
credentials are not really comparable. And what about exceptional
cases in which applicants may have other credentials, including
doctorates? Should they be mechanically rejected without some special
consideration?
At the organizational level, ethical considerations come into play
when one considers justice and rights in relation to the hiring policy
itself. Does a hiring policy discriminate unjustly on the basis of race
or sex, or can it be defended as fair and equitable? Are written
employment tests biased in favor of white middle class applicants
 DU MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 211

due to the concepts and language used in examinations: Is an

applicant’s right to equal treatment violated by the use of such
examinations? And, given the fact that grades mean different things
depending on the school one attended, is i t fair that grades are used
as a factor in making employment decisions?
At the system level, questions can be asked about the justice
of public service institutions such as libraries hiring only those who
are citizens or legal residents of a given community. Do not all
individuals have a right to apply for employment for which they
feel qualified, regardless of their legal status or place of residence?
These are serious ethical questions worthy of debate.

Decision Rule: Reject applicants who do not meet the standards.

Individual level: Borderline and extraordinary situations.
Organization level: Is the required ALA-accredited degree fair and equitable
to all groups, including all races and both sexes?
System level: Is it fair and just for public service institutions to have
legal qualifications for employment unrelated to
individual expertise?

Figure 2. Hiring decisions

These examples serve to illustrate where ethical questions arise

at different levels of decision making in libraries. The decisions made
at all these levels benefit and burden individuals and groups
differentially. Some individuals gain and others are affected adversely.
Questions of justice and individual rights become relevant (MacCann,
1989, pp. 1-11). The question for the manager to answer is, Whose
rights should be respected and what concept of justice is appropriate?
(Bucholz, 1989, pp. 35-47).

ETHICALCONSIDERATIONS
FOR MANAGERS
INLIBRARIANSHIP
Librarians as managers are constantly making ethical decisions
whether they know it or not. They are constantly directing people
toward or away from information resources that may directly impact
their ability to enhance their lives or the life of their community.
They are creating the future for their organizations, for their
employees, for their users, for those who fund the service, and for
society as a whole.
Decisions about information access can affect human well being
212 LIBRARY TRENDWFALL 1991

and social welfare, having ethical impacts that are significant for
all those touched by the decisions. A recent article in the Chronicle
of Higher Education discussed “a revolution in the nature of resources
that provide [political] power” (Coughlin, 1990, pp. 10-11). The
suggestion is made that access to information resources must now
be counted as a source of world power. As the ability to access
information across the globe becomes possible through the use of
technology, librarians will have more and more opportunity to
influence decision making on a worldwide scale through appropriate
information provision. This is an awesome responsibility and one
that calls for ethical reflection of the highest order.
Librarians must be encouraged to think more broadly and highly
of their task. They must recognize that libraries are multiple purpose
institutions that have many impacts besides cultural enrichment or
recreation. Moral leadership of such institutions means recognizing
information agencies as part of an ethical system havingvarious values
that are important to human welfare. The challenge to librarians
is to incorporate these values into routine decision making and
develop methods of analysis that are applicable to identifying
appropriate goals for themselves and their organizations.

AN ACTIONPLAN
The implementation of an ethical vision in librarianship requires
action in several areas. An ethical perspective must be incorporated
into the workplace as well as into the curriculum through which
future librarians are being educated. The following areas constitute
what could be called an ethical agenda for librarians in both of these
settings.
1. In the educational setting, such a plan calls for a thorough
integration of moral and ethical concerns into the library/
information science curriculum. Although separate courses in
ethics may also be offered, integration of ethical concerns into
basic courses such as Management or Reference is essential to make
ethics more directly related to the roles and responsibilities of
information professionals.
2. Continuing education programs need to develop parallel efforts
to maintain the work begun in the academic setting. Questions
about ethics and moral aspects of librarianship must continue to
be addressed as professionals move through their careers.
3. Library boards of trustees and/or advisory boards must demonstrate
a concern about ethics by raising ethical questions when
aDDroDriate. The moral imdications of decisions and actions must
 DIJ MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 213

Boards can acknowledge the significance of ethical issues by raising

them in relation to goal setting and long-range planning.
4. Information professionals at all levels must recognize the
important role they play in institutionalizing ethical responsibility
throughout their organizations. Professional librarians have many
channels open to them to shape the library/information center,
including the setting of objectives for units and individuals,
developing and implementing the reward structure of staff,
modifying organizational structure to accomplish goals, and
developing and utilizing appropriate measures of performance.
Professional staff not only have responsibility for efficient and
effective use of material and human resources but also must be
willing to create a responsible institution that cares about and
responds to the ethical and moral imperatives of its policies and
actions.
5. Information policy-making by various government bodies must
be considered from an ethical point of view. Librarians have a
role to play in the debate; they can make contributions to the
discussion and provide insight into the formation of regulations
regarding the dissemination of information. Librarians must be
given the freedom to respond to information policy issues out of
a sense of ethical responsibility; rules and regulations for the
control of information flow must be evaluated as well as the
inherent limitations of information dissemination systems.
6. More research must be considered by both library school faculty
and professional librarians into the ethical aspects of decision
making by librarians. One of the themes of this article is that
many in the profession of librarianship are ignorant of ethical
issues, not having a good understanding of how such matters should
be analyzed and discussed. Research into ethical and moral issues
can help overcome this ignorance. Scholars in the field need to
apply their expertise to ethical questions and combine this with
the work of those from other professional disciplines who have
similar concerns.
This action plan suggests that a consideration of ethical issues
must become a familiar comfortable part of librarians’ thought
processes. Ethical ambiguities are always present because no one can
formulate policies that are going to be morally justified in all
circumstances and in all places and times. It is important that those
responsible for formulating, implementing, and evaluating policies
should be made aware of these ambiguities and be ethically aware
so as to act in a responsible and moral manner. Ambiguity, it should
be noted, does not diminish the significance of ethical issues, which
this discussion implies are pervasive in librarianship. In point of
214 LIBRARY TRENDWFALL 1991

fact, the ethical dimension of librarianship represents a generalized

concern for the improvement of quality of library service and
professional conduct of librarians.
A final caveat is in order. Ethical behavior in librarianship does
not mean that one should take no action, that is, avoid certain actions
or books or ideas in an effort to keep out of trouble. On the contrary,
the notion of ethics suggests that librarians take actions that are
socially just. Only by actively pursuing social aims can librarians
be ethically responsive. There is evidence to suggest that librarians
choose not to choose, to “play it safe” with services and collections.
Instead, librarians ought to exercise ethical judgment in their duties.
Only by demonstrating the highest standards of ethical decision
making will librarians inspire confidence and respect in the
information arena.

REFERENCES
American Library Association. Committee on Professional Ethics. (1980). Draft: State
on professional responsibilities. Unpublished manuscript.
American Library Association. Committee on Professional Ethics. (1981). On
professional ethics. American Libraries, 12(6), 335.
Bucholz, R. (1989).Fundamental concepts and problems in business ethics. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bundy, M. L. (1980). Helping people take control: T h e public library’s mission in
a democracy. College Park, MD: Urban Information Interpreters.
Bundy, M. L., & Stielow, F. J. (Eds.). (1987). Activism in American librarianship,
1962-1973. New York: Greenwood Press.
Coughlin, E. K. (1990). The astonishing transformation of Eastern Europe upsets
research agendas, intellectual assumptions. Chronicle of Higher Education,
37(January 3), 10-11.
Du Mont, R. R. (1977). Reform and reaction: T h e big city public library in American
life. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Du Mont, R. R. (1980).A comment o n “ T h e statement of professional responsibilities.”
Unpublished paper presented at the Council on Professional Ethics Forum,
American Library Association annual conference, New York City, June 26.
Dwivedi, 0. P. (1987). Ethics, the public service and public policy: Some comparative
reflections. International Journal of Public Administration, 10(1), 21-50.
Hosmer, T. R. (1988). Adding ethics to the business curriculum. Business Horizons,
31(July-August), 9-15.
Kuhn, J. (1989). T h e neutral librarian: A n overuiew of the defense and critique of
ethical neutrality i n the profession. Master’s thesis, School of Library Science,
Kent State University.
MacCann, D. (Ed.). (1989). Social responsibility in librarianship: Essays on equality.
Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
McClure, C. R.; Owen, A.; Zweizig, D. L.; Lynch, M. J.; & Van House, N. (1987).
Planning 6.role setting for public libraries: A manual of options and procedures
(Prepared for the public library development project). Chicago, IL: American
Library Association.
Martin, W. J. (1989).Community librarianship: Changing the face of public libraries.
London: Clive Bingley.
Pearce, J. A,, & Robinson, R. B. (1989). Management. New York: Random House.
Peattie, N. (1987). Intellectual freedom activities in the sixties: T h e defense of a
professional standard. In M. L. Bundy & F. Stielow (Eds.), Activism in American
librarianship, 1962-1973(pp. 43-57). New York: Greenwood Press.
 DU MONT/ETHICS IN LIBRARIANSHIP 215

Schermerhorn, J. R. (1989). Management for productivity, 3d ed. New York: Wiley.

Trevino, L. K. (1986). Ethical decision making in organizations: A person-situation
interactionist model. Academy of Management Review, U (July), 601-617.