In Soviet Canada, Library Reads You
If any of you had any questions about what it’s like to work at Library and Archives Canada (LAC), well good luck getting an employee to answer them. LAC recently adopted a new code of conduct which has stunned many with its highly restrictive policies and emphasis on government loyalty. Public appearances, including attendance at conferences, teaching or speaking to other organizations, are now categorized as high-risk activities. These events must be approved by managers and evaluated for any possibility of conflict with LAC.
LAC is a federal institution, which acts as both a national library and national archive for Canada. On its website, LAC states that its mission is to make the documentary history of Canada accessible and to share knowledge among its users. However, the new code of conduct for LAC librarians and archivists directly contradicts this mandate.
There’s a lot of talk about duty to the government in the new code, which seems strange for a, how you say, modern democracy, but the most disturbing aspect of this code of conduct is that it presumes to dictate what a federal employee may do in his or her personal time. Many LAC employees participate in professional development or meet with outside groups interested in Canadian history, but now these activities will be restricted.
The Canadian Library Association (CLA) released a statement last week, asking LAC to rethink the policy:
“The language of the LAC Code also appears to infringe unnecessarily on the personal activities and opinions of public servants beyond the workplace. While we recognize a duty of loyalty to the Government of Canada and its elected officials, a reasonable balance must be maintained in recognizing that public servants also have a first duty of loyalty to Canadians at large.”
A LAC librarian would need approval before speaking at something as low-key as a What’s Next event at Pratt SILS, for instance. And what if he or she doesn’t receive approval? How broadly or narrowly will LAC define a “conflict of interest?” Good thing federal institutions are famous for their minimal bureaucracy; I’m sure getting departmental approval for that conference you want to go to will be a snap.
The CLA goes on to say:
“If employees of Library and Archives Canada are unable to teach and to speak publicly, they are unable to perform their work as information professionals and as public servants.”
As many observers have argued, LAC librarians and archivists make important contributions to the field through teaching, speaking, and serving in other professional capacities, and categorizing these activities as “high-risk” will make it difficult for them to continue their roles as educators and innovators. In an article on Canada.com, Loryl MacDonald, an archivist at the University of Toronto and president of Association of Canadian Archivists, observes that federal librarians and archivists feel “muzzled” by these rules, which target personal activities outside of working hours. She states,
“It is very disturbing and disconcerting to have included speaking at conferences and teaching as so-called ‘high risk’ activities.”
She also points out that the code seems to restricts other professional activities, like serving on editorial boards for library science journals.
It’s not entirely clear what has prompted LAC to adopt such an intense code of conduct, but I wonder if it has something to do with protecting their public image in a social media-heavy landscape. Now that everything is instantly shareable, I’m sure many employers are concerned about maintaining their public image when and if an employee does something vaguely controversial. The code specifically warns about social media and how an opinion expressed on a blog or tweet could be seen by a wide public audience. If any LAC employees want to blog, it seems like they won’t be able to from now on unless it’s cleared by a manager.
Although it’s now highly integrated into many workplaces, businesses and other public-facing institutions are still figuring out how to manage corporate and personal social media. When an employee’s personal social media account is visibly tied to his or her company, the implications for a poorly-received tweet are very real. Just last week, a bunch of people lost their jobs after some tweets went viral. The two tech companies whose employees were involved didn’t know how to react properly to a few controversial tweets, and their responses only made things worse. This came about from live-tweeting during a conference: I’m sure the authors of the LAC code of conduct fainted when they saw this story.
It’s one thing for a company or government agency to remind its employees that the Internet is not as private as many people seem to think. However, thought policing by demanding loyalty even outside of the job–which is what the LAC code of conduct seems to propose–is beyond the scope of any institution. This isn’t just “don’t say hate speech in a public forum,” it’s “don’t criticize the government on or off the clock.” It’s restricting what individuals can do in their private lives just because they are federal employees. Moreover, it contradicts the fundamental purpose of any library or archival institution, which is to promote the distribution of knowledge and support contributions to society and culture. LAC employees are now barred from making those contributions unless it is with LAC’s specific approval.
In an effort to perhaps control those embarrassing social media disasters, LAC is trying to mitigate the risk of PR skirmishes but has unwittingly created a pretty severe one in the process.
*I am not sure how this code of conduct compares to one for a US federal employee. I wasn’t able to find a specific document for US federal librarians in my admittedly cursory searches.
Note: This post originally appeared on a private blog for my Information Technologies class at Pratt SILS.