ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


November 1991 /  633

The issues o f access and restriction

B y  C a th y  H e n d e r s o n

Research Librarian, H arry Ransom Hum anities Research C enter 
The University o f Texas at Austin 
and Chair, A C R L  Rare Books a nd M anuscripts Section

T
h ere seem s to be a hesitancy on the p a rt of 
the library profession to applaud absolutely 
the H untington Library’s decision to make 

available photographic copies it houses o f many of 
the D ead Sea Scrolls. This may stem  in p art from the 
fact th at standards and guidelines which govern and 
offer direction to rare book, m anuscript, and special 
collections libraries and librarians on the issue of 
access are being revised. C onsequently, th ere  are 
no docum ents to which librarians can refer with 
assurance for help in assessing th e  H untington’s 
move. O f th e  two docum ents u n d e r revision (the 
1987 ACRL “Standards for E thical C onduct for 
Rare Book, M anuscript, and Special Collection 
Libraries” and the ACRL packet of “Guidelines for 
M anuscripts and Archives”), the new  RBMS draft 
of “Standards of Ethical C onduct for Rare Book, 
M anuscript, and Special Collections Libraries and 
L ibrarians” is closest to com pletion (hearings are 
scheduled for M idwinter) and m aybe quoted m ean­
ingfully relative to this event.

T he special collections profession, while affirm­
ing principles of open access, recognizes that th ere 
may be some legitimate constraints on absolute 
access to research materials. T he draft’s section on 
"Limitations o f access” states first that access may 
be denied or lim ited in order to preserve the “physi­
cal or intellectual integrity and safety” of collection 
materials or to  “m aintain donor’s requirem ents or 
those o f the holder o f the literary rights, or for other 
legal reasons.” Secondly, a library “may not reserve 
materials for th e  use o f individual scholars except 
w here re q u ire d  by donors’ conditions of gift or by 
decision o f th e  holder o f th e  literary rights in the 
m aterial.” But, if th e  library itself owns the literary 
rights, “reservation o f materials for the use o f indi­
vidual scholars (although legal) should be avoided.”

W ith reference to this draft standard, knowing 
that th e  m aster negatives cam e to the H untington 
in consequence of a dispute, one would w ant to 
know th at Mrs. B echtel had clear title to the nega­
tives and that the H untington did n ot abrogate 
term s of the deposit by releasing the negatives .This 
requires knowing th e  term s u n d e r which Mrs. 
B e c h te l o b ta in e d  th e  p h o to g ra p h s from  th e

w

Rockefeller M useum in Jerusalem  and the term s 
u n d e r which the H untington accepted the set of 
imdealyst er negatives of the D ead Sea Scrolls after she 
rem oved them  from the Ancient Biblical and M anu­
script C e n te r in C larem ont, California. T hese are 
fairly straightforward issues o f legality. But u n d e r­
lying these are less clear issues o f appropriateness.

D e te r m in i n g  th e  a p p r o p ria te n e s s  o f  th e  
H untington’s action is, in part, a question of institu­
tional ethical behavior; of how one rare book and 
m anuscript library behaves towards another. In this 
instance, the question can be particularized: W hat 
responsibilities does a libraiy which acquires dupli­
cates of m anuscripts have towards the repository 
which owns the original m anuscripts from which 
the duplicates w ere made?

In discussions surrounding the developm ent of a 
draft, joint ALA/Society o f American Archivists 
“S tatem ent on Access to Original Research M ateri­
als in Libraries, Archives and M anuscript Reposito­
ries,” a key issue was how duplicates o f original 
m anuscripts housed elsew here should be adminis­
tered. In the absence of an express agreem ent 
betw een libraries (such as m ight be drawn up for a 
deliberate exchange of copies), concerns were ex­
p ressed about the right of the repositoiy housing 
the copies to further duplicate them  w ithout p e r­
mission o f the ow ner of the original m anuscripts or, 
for th at m atter, to make them  available on-site 
w ithout permission. No consensus on these issues is 
m anifest in the latest draft and no guidance is 
offered in the b roader draft— “Standards for E th i­
cal C onduct,” b u t they are, nevertheless, legitim ate 
questions about a library’s proprietary rights.

T h e  Isra e li A n tiq u ities A u th o rity  a n d  th e  
Rockefeller M useum  in Jerusalem  control publica­
tion of the D ead Sea Scrolls because they own the 
physical m anuscripts in which the text is embodied. 
It is a fact that this power effectively passes to the 
owner o f a m anuscript containing unpublished text 
w hen the text is no longer u n d e r copyright p rotec­
tion. W hat the IAA has done with the pow er is 
decried by th e  scholarly and library community

(Cont. on next page)



634 / C&RL  News

(Henderson c o n t.fro m  previous page)

alike. It is behavior, as we have read, which “(al­
though legal) should be avoided.”

W hat mechanisms can the library profession 
employ to persuade an institution to behave differ­
ently? T he H untington Library has offered one 
example. W hat, beyond heightened public aware­
ness and pressure, has been gained? T he H unting­
ton Library has released only photographic rep ro ­
ductions o f the D ead Sea Scrolls. T he increased 
availability of the reproductions does not obviate 
the need for scholars to have access to the originals 
because what is being produced, albeit on a sched­
ule unsatisfactory to nearly all, is a scholarly edition 
o f a text. E ditors of texts n eed access to  the originals

o f surviving manuscripts if their edition is to have 
authority. Running around the Israeli Antiquities 
Authority, the Rockefeller M useum in Jerusalem, 
and the scholars privileged to work with the original 
D ead Sea Scrolls may, in fact, be one way to jum p 
the hurdles they have erected, but it may not help 
attain the ultim ate goal o f having democratic access 
to the original scrolls. The controlling parties need 
to be convinced that their m ethods are not condu­
cive to even the chosen editors producing an au­
thoritative text because they stifle the free flow of 
scholarly inquiry and discourse; b ut that may re ­
q uire persuasion o f a d ifferent sort than the 
H untington’s bold move. ■  ■

(Moffett cont. fr o m  page 632)

That policy has been consistently applied in 
succeeding years to the thousands o f scholars who 
have drawn on the H untington’s fabled resources, 
as well as commercial and educational enterprises 
that have used its materials.

It is that same principle which is em bedded in 
ACRL’s and the Society of American Archivists’ 
1979 “Joint Statem ent on Access to Original Re­
search Materials:”

“A repository should not deny access to  materials 
to any person or persons, nor grant privileged or 
exclusive use of materials to any person or person, 
nor conceal the existence of any body of material

from any researcher, unless required to do so by 
law, donor, or purchase stipulations.”

Am I wrong in thinking that most o f us simply 
accept that statem ent as a commonplace? Do any of 
us still contend with restrictions that mimic the 
D ead Sea Scrolls scandal? I sincerely hope not. But 
should any librarian or archivist find himself or 
herself in the position we found ourselves in at the 
H untington this year, I trust that person will take 
heart from ou r experience. Be resolute! Take arms 
against even a sea o f troubles— and by opposing, 
e nd them . ■  ■

(Scrolls cont. fr o m  page 631)

ted, access will be dependent solely on the availabil­
ity o f study space and the num ber of o th er readers 
seeking access to the same materials. Use during 
some periods of the year is predictably very heavy, 
especially in the sum m er months.

“In the case of the scrolls archive, the reader will 
initially be expected to work from images on micro­
film. In most cases it will not be necessary to go 
directly to the m aster negatives.

“I f  a person wishes to review the library’s scrolls 
holdings at a distance, he or she can arrange to 
examine the microfilm set by asking his or her 
institutional library to secure it from the H unting­
ton on ordinary interlibrary loan. (According to the 
library’s customary practice th ere  may be a modest 
charge to offset costs of copying, postage, and 
handling, but the H untington does not propose to 
charge a fee for access.)”

W h at is t h e  c u r r e n t s ta te  o f  e v e n ts ?

“I think it [the controversy] is over for us,” 
com m ented Moffett. “T he action should shift to the 
scholars.” W hen asked if he’s heard from the Israeli 
Antiquities Authority, Moffett replied th at he’s re­
ceived an invitation from Emm anuel Tov of the 
H ebrew  University in Jerusalem to attend a confer­
ence, tentatively scheduled for D ecem ber 1991, to 
discuss the issues surrounding the scrolls. Autho­
rized scholars and representatives o f those institu­
tions holding images o f the scrolls are invited to 
attend. “T he invitation is u nder consideration,” said 
Moffett, who reported that the “response to the 
H untington Library has been overwhelming. N ot a 
single negative com m ent has come in. I t’s been a 
remarkable event to be involved in.”—M ary Ellen 
K. Daυis, editor and publisher, C&RL News ■  ■