In that same vein, the Darien Statement that librarians “are stewards of the Library” provides rich fodder for discussion as well: should librarians primarily serve “the Library,” as it is idealized in the Darien statements, or do we serve the public or our community of patrons above everything else?

Having worked on the front lines in both public and academic libraries, I have noticed a distinct and generally positive trend away from the conception of librarians as the “guardians of the books” who shush their patrons and keep them from reading “smut,” toward librarians as public servants or guides who assist information-seekers without concerning themselves about what information is being sought.

However, the concept of librarian-as-public-servant breaks down when the community we purportedly serve calls for books to be banned, censored, or simply kept away from people who might be “harmed” or offended by literature they don’t like. At that point, the role of public servant comes into conflict with the role of “guardian of the books,” and even with Blyberg’s more current “steward of the Library” concept.

I think the Darien Statements generally strike a careful balance between these two sometimes conflicting roles, but I also think it does deserve more careful and thoughtful criticism, along the lines of what you’ve written here.

Thanks for an insightful consideration of an intriguing set of statements, and I appreciate the way you’ve highlighted the important distinction between “provoking” and truly provocative writing.

“Why we do things will not change, but how we do them will.”

That sums it up for me!