The Ethics of Fake Reference

Introduction A common assignment in introductory reference classes these days requires library school students to ask questions of a virtual reference service--usually not at their own university library--and evaluate their encounter. Often they are instructed to ask a question that might be of genuine interest to them, but there is no way to guarantee that the students even have a question of interest, leading in some cases to students asking random questions of these services. Regardless, such assignments might benefit the instructors and students, but they do so at the expense of librarians. One such interaction I had with an aggressive and arrogant student prompted my thinking on the matter, and led to an ethical analysis of what I shall call fake reference. Fake reference assignments are unethical. They fail to pass ethical tests both from a deontological (the right thing to do) and a consequentialist (leads to good outcomes) approach. They fail the deontological test because they cannot be reconciled either with Kant's categorical imperative or the American Library Association's (ALA) "Code of Ethics" (http://www.ala.org/ala/issuesadvocacy/proethics/codeofethics/codeethics.cfm). They fail the consequentialist test because the most reasonable goals they could have--evaluation of user services and the experience of a library user's perspective--are either unworthy or impossible and could be attained more effectively in other ways. Deontological Approach Typically, one analyzes the ethics of a practice through one of two ethical perspectives: deontological or consequentialist. The deontological approach asks if an action is the right thing to do based upon an ethical code, while the consequentialist approach asks if the action leads to good consequences. First, let's consider the deontological perspective. In deontological ethics, actions that adhere to an ethical code are right actions. Kant is the preeminent philosopher in the deontological tradition, so I turn to his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals for support. In that work, Kant develops what he terms the "categorical imperative." The categorical imperative provides the rule that allows us to determine the ethics of an action. He formulates the categorical imperative in various ways. For example, Kant advises us to "act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" (30). Basically, this means that you should not perform an action unless you think it would be acceptable for everyone to perform that action. Its basic tenet is captured in the "Golden Rule" to do unto others as you would want them to do unto you. Kant's ethics is grounded in the notion that all human beings are ends in themselves, rather than means to another's end. The world is a "kingdom of ends," as it were. Thus, another formulation of the categorical imperative urges us to "act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means" (36). If I use someone merely as a tool to further my own ends, I would be acting unethically according to this approach. A good example of unethical behavior to show the application of the categorical imperative, and one relevant to some fake reference transactions, is lying. In a deontological system, lying would almost always be considered unethical (and for Kant it always would be). First of all, it would be difficult for anyone to argue that lying to others should become a universal law. Even people who benefit from lying benefit because of the universal law that lying is unethical and wrong. It is only in a community of trust that lies can be effective ways to receive unearned benefits. Secondly, lying to benefit oneself usually means treating others as a means to your end. Though Kant did not think so, many people do believe there are exceptions to the rule against lying, telling "white lies," for example. …