This essay explores the question of whether records pro-fessionals are as aware of the ethical dimensions of theirwork as they should be. It consider first the historical andprofessional context of archival ethics, then examines arecent case about business archives involving the authorthat suggests the need for renewed attention to profes-sional ethics, and concludes with a discussion abouthow archivists might reconsider the ethical dimensionsof their work.The task of the philosopher is neither to belittle truth nor toexalt it, neither to deny it nor to defend it, but to explain whywe need the concept and what it is to possess it. (Dummett,2004, p. 116)IntroductionWe live and work in a time when there are many challengesto archives and records management. National security, privacy,intellectual property, a fragile digital documentary heritage,and a host of other issues require that society’s records keep-ers be vigilant about technical, administrative, legal, andethical matters (see Harris, 2005). These turbulent times re-quire archivists to buoy public faith in the trustworthiness ofarchival institutions and the people who work there, and “they[archivists] must be able to make reference to codified ethicsin order to proffer a justification for that faith” (Dingwall,2004, p. 20). Yet, the growing number of writings in the pastdecade in the international archival community about mattersof recordkeeping and accountability, public policy, and societalissues have occurred apart from the writings about profession-al ethics. Not only are there reasons for why this has happenedbut there are consequences as well.Archivists and records managers strive to work ethically,both groups possessing ethics codes, regularly reading aboutethics in their professional literatures, and attending confer-ence sessions and workshops on this topic. This essay exploresthe question of whether records professionals are as aware ofthe ethical dimensions of their work as they should be. I consider first the historical and professional context ofarchival ethics, then examine a recent case about businessarchives involving the author that suggests the need forrenewed attention to professional ethics, and conclude witha discussion about how archivists might reconsider theethical dimensions of their work. Since there is no clearconsensus about the particulars of archival ethics, what I amwriting here may be received by some as being controver-sial, misguided, or even misinformed. It is why recordsprofessionals must rethink this aspect of their work.The Background of Archival EthicsIn 1980, the Society of American Archivists (SAA)approved its first official ethics code; since then, it has beenrevised twice (in 1992 and again in 2005), about the sametime as the more broadly defined information professionswere grappling with this area (M.M. Smith, 1997). Prior tothis SAA code, the National Archives had adopted a docu-ment in 1955 called “The Archivist’s Code,” functioning asthe semi-official ethics guide for the North American profes-sion until SAA’s efforts. The earliest SAA code seemeddesigned for display (like that of its National Archives andRecords Administration predecessor) while the 1992 code,with an ample commentary, was designed for use (or so thatwas part of the reasoning behind it). The most recent versionhas removed the commentary, reflecting the SAA leader-ship’s convictions that the code is not enforceable, that itsubjects the Society to potential legal liability, and that thecode with commentary muddles its meaning and usefulness(Benedict, 2004).Through these decades of discussion about archival ethicscodes, we can discern their general limitations. The Associa-tion of Records Administrators and Managers’ (ARMA)adoption of a code a decade and a half after the first of SAA’scodes suggests such weaknesses, with an emphasis primarilyto claim professional status (an ethics code being a benchmarkfor this) rather than providing any directives that can bemonitored or enforced (Lytle, 1998; Pemberton, 1996, 1998).Archivists and records managers have been writing aboutethical issues for a number of decades, although not as muchJOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 59(7):1128–1133, 2008Archival Ethics: The Truth of the MatterRichard J. CoxSchool of Information Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, 648 LIS Building, 135 N. Bellefield Avenue, Pittsburgh,PA 15260. E-mail: [email protected]© 2008 ASIS&T•Published online 15 April 2008 in Wiley InterScience(www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.20852JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY—May 2008 1129DOI: 10.1002/asias on other topics (at least, until very recently). In 1982, KarenBenedict urged that “particular attention should be paid to thesubject of ethics for business archivists, because their posi-tions and responsibilities are somewhat different from the restof the profession and include a higher probability of involve-ment in protracted litigation” (p. 314). American archivists,beyond discoursing on the general parameters of the SAAethics code at various times (Horn, 1989), also have focusedtheir attention on certain aspects of archival functions and theirethical implications or challenges, such as access, processing,and collecting (Becker, 1983; Cain, 1993; Danielson, 1989,1997; Miller, 1989; Wilsted, 1993). Archivists, internationally,also have reflected on a variety of ethical issues concerningthe formulating of ethics codes (Cooke, 1987; Russell, 1976)as well as their basic functions such as preservation and access(Baynes-Cope, 1988; MacNeil, 1991).By and large, however, the focus on ethics in the recordsprofessions has been on the role that codes play, usually thepractical values clustering around the public responsibilityof archivists and records managers (Hill, 1998, p. 74). Wecan speculate just how useful codes are in practice. Othershave depicted the limitations of codes, with their focuson rules and procedures, in complex and ever-changingenvironments (Wengert, 2001), or simply have alluded to therange of concerns and challenges that extend far beyondwhat is represented in codes (Froelich, 1992). Obviously, itis far easier to consider conceptually the role, content, anduse of professional ethics codes than it is to explore specifi-cally the murkier matters of ethical practice, failings, andsuccesses.Records professionals in the field usually