Academic Freedom and the Internet:

a handbook for equitable policy

in academic libraries

Riko Fluchel Julie Jones Colin Lewis

INTRODUCTION
Internet Policies vary widely according to
their respective institutions. Many public
schools and libraries have more restrictive
policies that are intended to comply with the
Children’s Internet Policy Act (CIPA), which
requires a narrow form of content be blocked.
This includes content that is deemd obscene,
pornographic, and harmful to minors.
The utilization of internet filters to fulfill these
requirements are well researched in public and
K-12 educational environments. Many content
rich sites, such as social media sites, Google
Docs, or even National Geographic, have been
blocked in many of these contexts.
This seems due to a loose definition of “content
that could be harmful to minors,” resulting
in the filtering and blocking of potentially
embarrassing or offensive content to children,
teachers, or families.1
While the American Library Association
(ALA) has documented the ways in which
internet filters infringe upon core values of
open access to information and freedom of
speech, not much research has been conducted
regarding the impact of internet filters and
policies in Academic Libraries; specifically,
how it might impact research, and the sort of
research that might be deemed more valuable
(such as information accessed via library
databases as opposed to popular sources).
Such practices therefore rob students of
developing critical information literacy skills
and deciding for themselves the appropriateness,
authority, and credibility of resources they find.
Others have also discussed the digital divide
in public schools and/or libraries, and how
internet filters put many low socioeconomic
students at a greater disadvantage by hindering
their free access to information.2 For example,
many students or other patrons who lack an
internet connection or a computer at home may
need access to social media websites in order
to look for jobs or other opportunities. In this
way, internet filters pose a barrier to inclusive
and equitable practices at the educational level.
This handbook is intended to be a brief
overview of internet policies and filter practices
as they may relate to academic librarianship-
-these include Research and Curriculum,
Intellectual Freedom, Institutional Values,
and Departmental Relationships between the
library, IT, and administration. Each section
incorporates examples and/or suggestions for
equitable practices.
Heavily informed by the ALA’s own guidelines
and research by the Office of Intellectual
Freedom, we hope this guide will illuminate
the continual need to articulate the negative
impacts of restrictive internet policies on the
pursuit of higher education.
1
RESEARCH, CURRICULUM,
& ACADEMIC FREEDOM
The implementation of an internet filter
involves an array of stakeholders: academic Suggestions
librarians, students, faculty, administration,
and IT staff. From the standpoint of academic • Librarians should engage with faculty
and intellectual freedom, it is the role of those and find common ground on the issues
involved in academia to understand the forms of censorship, academic freedom, and
and effects of censorship and create policies to intellectual freedom
protect academic and intellectual freedom, not • Utilize faculty networks when cultivating
impede it. relationships with university administration
and IT departments in regard to internet
Internet filtering can interfere with the ideals of filtering discussion
academic freedom and create limits for faculty
when it comes to research and curriculum.
The American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) states that “teachers are
entitled to full freedom in research and in
the publication of the results, subject to the
adequate performance of their other academic
duties. . .Teachers are entitled to freedom in
the classroom in discussing their subject.”3

The Internet has become a ubiquitous and

undeniable tool in everyday life, particularly
when it comes to research and education. 78%
of students prefer to use the internet when
doing research.4 Blocking certain content
deemed subjectively offensive, inappropriate,
or inaccurate creates barriers for faculty when
it comes to research and curriculum design.

“The classroom is peculiarly the “marketplace

of ideas.” The nation’s future depends upon
leaders trained through wide exposure to that
robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth
“out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than
through any kind of authoritative selection.”5
2
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
ALA defines intellectual freedom as “the right
of every individual to both seek and receive
information from all points of view without
restriction.”6 Intellectual freedom is a core
value of the profession of librarianship and
protects our society from the censorship of
information. Internet filters are the modern
day book challenges and librarians should
treat them with the same zeal in which they do
banned books.
Internet filtering has slowly become an accepted
and normalized form of censorship in the last
twenty years. The adoption of CIPA helped
spur this normalization, but academic libraries
are immune to this government regulation
and should fight for their professional values
despite administrative push back.7
Similarly, as education and lifelong learning
are core values in the profession, libraries
should err on the side of making their students
information literate, giving them the skills to
filter the Internet on their own.8
Filtering out obscene material, which is a
highly subjective process, denies students the
agency of choosing for themselves what is
appropriate or not and it denies librarians and
faculty the opportunity to educate students on
how to best cultivate a respectful and ethical
internet behaviors. Although most universities
do not block social media websites through a
filter, some state in their internet use policies
that campus networks and devices are only to
be used for educational purposes.9
Statements like this disenfranchise students
who live on campus or do not have access to
a personal computer. The term “educational
purposes” is vague and goes against the core
value of lifelong learning.10 There are many
opportunities for education outside of specific
curricular activities, particularly as it pertains
to social media. Social networks can be a
great opportunity for librarians to teach digital
literacy skills and digital wisdom.11
Some academic institutions will employ third
party filtering software. Third party filtering
is something that academic libraries should
be wary of. Third parties are private entities
that do not hold the same values as academic
institutions. Handing over the power of
internet filtering to a for profit company would
be like handing over a library’s collection
development process to Amazon.
Third party filtering companies often employ
“black box” trade secrets, so that no one
can truly know what is being filtered and
how. This creates a lack of transparency
for librarians to give to their patrons and
makes overriding blocked content even more
difficult. Additionally, academic institutions
should be careful of how and if a third party
filter collects user data because patron privacy
could be at risk.
3
INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM
Suggestions

• As libraries should not be without a

collection development policy, they should
also have a clear internet use policy.
Academic libraries should have their own
independent internet use policy, educating
patrons on what the campus expectations
of internet use are and how it is regulated
or filtered. This will create a culture of
transparency.
• Work on integrating digital literacy into
information literacy instruction and
reference consultations. Empowering
students and giving them the agency to
make their own choices on the Internet
presents more of a learning opportunity
than filtering information.
• Academic libraries should communicate
their professional values to other parts of
the institution and respectfully caution
against the use of third party internet filters.

4
 INSTITUTIONAL VALUES
Each individual academic institution will
inevitably have a separate code of conduct
or policy that students, staff, and faculty
are expected to abide by. Some academic
institutions explicitly cite their code of conduct
in their internet use policies.
The University of California San Diego, for
instance, notes that, “in keeping with the spirit
of UC San Diego’s Principles of Community,
we expect library users to be guided by
courtesy, sensitivity, and respect for others
when accessing and viewing Internet material
and using the library computers in general.”12
In this case, the institution’s code of conduct
and the library’s subsequent appropriation
of it are intended to foster a collaborative
and respectful environment. Indeed, rather
than limiting either intellectual or academic
freedom, such codes of conduct exist to define
key terms (e.g., harassment and discrimination)13
as well outline the university’s ethical vision.
In this vein, institutional values distilled in
equitable codes of conduct crafted for the
well-being of all members of the university
community can be an alternative to the internet
filter.14 Insofar as they provide concrete
guidelines for a common life on campus, the
faculty can educate users while not infringing
upon their intellectual or academic freedom.
That being said, the relationship between
institutional values and internet use becomes
far more complicated when considering
religiously-affiliated organizations or those with
unique funding arrangements.
In these situations, it is very often the case that
tighter filters are in place precisely because
institutional values and codes of conduct are
much more prescriptive in nature. It is not
correct, however, to consider more defined
institutional values as necessitating filters.
The age of college students as well as the
principles of freedom outlined above suggest
that it is entirely appropriate for the institution
to encourage adult students to make decisions
based on its values without restricting their
access to information.
Suggestions
• Become familiar with your university
code of conduct and/or policy concerning
harassment and discrimination.15
• Use these policies to encourage proper use
of the internet within the library via the
construction of your internet use policy.
You can also use them as tools in technology
education settings.
5
 DEPARTMENT RELATIONSHIPS:
IT & ADMINISTRATION
Composing an internet use policy for the
academic library will inevitably include
negotiation with different stakeholders, the
most prominent of which are university
administration and the IT department. Indeed,
studies have shown that in the case of those
schools where internet filters are in place, it
is precisely these two groups that actively
decided to implement and continue to manage
them.16
Moreover, administrations and IT
professionals at schools that do employ
blocking software are 50% less likely to see
filters as a form of censorship when compared
with their counterparts at non-filtering
schools.17 Consequently, it is often the case
that administrators and IT professionals in
filter-using institutions will perceive academic
freedom in a way that is radically different
from what is presupposed here.18
To be sure, the reasons for tense relations
between the library and these other stakeholders
concerning internet access are many. In
certain cases, IT departments are concerned
about bandwidth and the subsequent financial
difficulties its expansion would have on their
department and the university writ large.19
Similarly, IT staff have been known to voice
concerns about the offensive nature of some
blocked sites, noting that many students
and IT workers would be uncomfortable
interacting with unsuitable material.20
Personal preference, however, cannot trump
academic and intellectual freedom. Instead,
we would hope that an institution with clearly
defined values regarding respect will create
an environment in which the latter concern is
rarely if ever a problem. If it remains an issue,
there are several alternatives to the classic
filter (e.g., privacy screens).
In any event, the library should have clearly
delineated policies and procedures to avoid
and/or deal with such complaints. Ultimately,
such tense relationships are softened less
often by logical debate than by cultivating
relationships.
In her attempts to solve the censorship issue
at Sante Fe Community College, librarian Peg
Johnson found that “no reasonable argument
[she] made seemed to work so [she] spent time
building relationships with faculty, IT staff,
and others and then gradually began to talk
about the issue again . . . . I honestly think that
the relationships established were the most
important factor in initiating change.”21
Librarians need to advocate for broad
conceptions of academic and intellectual
freedom on their campus with all stakeholders,
especially those in the IT department and
university administration.
Those institutions that retain filters due to IT or
administrative decisions beyond the library’s
control should nevertheless “set up procedures
to allow users to request that specific web pages
or websites become unblocked by library staff
6
 DEPARTMENT RELATIONSHIPS:
IT & ADMINISTRATION
either temporarily or for a specific activity.”22
At the very least, this provides a way for
librarians to continue facilitating information
access for patrons.

Suggestions

• If possible, attempt to establish a separate

IT department for the library. This is a
new trend even in smaller schools such as
Western Washington University.
• Have policies and procedures in your
internet use policy that are specifically
oriented to reducing offense and
complaints. These could include privacy
screens, a streamlined complaint procedure,
and the integration of certain parts of the
university’s code of conduct within the IUP
itself.
• Cultivate relationships between library
staff and the IT department/university
administration.
• Within these relationships, advocate for
broad understandings of academic and
intellectual freedom.
• Make sure librarians have the ability to
override any filters that remain in place
so that students and faculty can carry out
necessary research.

7
CONCLUSION

The topics discussed in the foregoing pages are

admittedly controversial within some academic
settings. At the same time, they are integral to
the librarian’s work, for it is the librarian’s job
to advocate for access to information.

If the library does not have a clear policy in place

outlining its vision of intellectual freedom,
its policies to prevent misuse of computer
technology, and its overall ethos as a place of
information gathering, then institutions will be
prone to make hasty, reactionary policies to the
detriment of faculty, staff, and the community
writ large.

Conversely, once such safeguards are in place

via the implementation of an internet use
policy, the academic library in question will
be better prepared to serve scholars, students,
and the wider community in their search for
anything that contributes to their research or
well-being.

8
 Endnotes
1 Melinda Anderson. “How Internet Filters Hurt
Kids.” The Atlantic. April 26, 2016. Accessed March
6, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/
archive/2016/04/internet-filtering-hurts-kids/479907/
2 Ginny Mies. “Internet Filtering: Don’t Do It.”
Techsoup for Libraries. April 8, 2014. Accessed
March 6, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/
education/archive/2016/04/internet-filtering-hurts-
kids/479907/
3 Donna R. Euben. “Academic Freedom of Professors
and Institutions.” American Association of Universi-
ty Professors. May 2002. Accessed March 6, 2018.
https://www.aaup.org/issues/academic-freedom/pro-
fessors-and-institutions. Information.” IBRES. Vol 24 No.2, (2014): 70.
6, 2018. https://library.ucsd.edu/about/policies/li-
brary-computer-use-policy.html
13 Valerie Nye. “Academic Freedom Triumphs Over
Internet Filtering Policy.” Intellectual Freedom Blog:
The Office for Intellectual Freedom of the Ameri-
can Library Association. August 14, 2017. Accessed
March 6, 2018. http://www.oif.ala.org/oif/?p=10449
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 David I. Orenstein and Lisa Stoll-Ron, “Internet
Filters and Academic Freedom: Librarian and Stake-
holder Perceptions and Their Impact on Access to

4 N. Evahart and J.K. Valencia “Internet Savvy Stu- 17 Ibid.

dents and Their Schools” Knowledge Quest, Vol 32
No. 4 (2004): 50-55. 18 D.I. Orenstein, “Filtering Access to Internet Con-
tent at Higher Education Institutions: Stakeholder Per-
5 Euben, “Academic Freedom of Professors and Insti- ceptions and Their Impact on Research and Academic
tutions.” Freedom” (Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University,
2009), cited in “Orenstein and Stoll-Ron, “Internet
6 Trina Magi, Martin Garner, and ALA Office of In- Filters and Academic Freedom,” 71.
tellectual Freedom. Intellectual Freedom Manual 9th
ed. (Chicago: ALA Editions, 2015). 19 Nye, “Academic Freedom Triumphs Over Internet
Filtering Policy.”
7 Karen R. Batch. “Fencing Out Knowledge: Impacts
of the Children’s Internet Protection Act 10 Years Lat- 20 Ibid.
er.” American Library Association Policy Brief , No.
5, June 2014. 21 Ibid.

8 Mies, “Internet Filtering: Don’t Do It.” 22 “Guidelines to Minimize the Negative Effects of
Internet Content Filters on Intellectual Freedom,”
9 “Computer Acceptable Use - Computer and Infor- American Library Association, accessed March 6,
mation Systems - Confluence.” Seattle Pacific Uni- 2018, http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/filter-
versity. November 16, 2016. Accessed March 9, 2018. ing/filtering_guidelines
https://wiki.spu.edu/display/CIS/Computer+Accept-
able+Use

10 “Core Values of Librarianship.” American Library

Association. July 26, 2006. Accessed March 9, 2018.
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/corevalues

11 Mies, “Internet Filtering: Don’t Do It.”

12 “Library Computer & Internet Use Policy,”

UC San Diego. October 16, 2015. Accessed March