It really annoys me when folks who have absolutely no clue about how the American Library Association operates, leap to conclusions, and mis-state what happened.
My issues start with the Annoyed Librarian (who at least professes to be a librarian and an ALA member at an academic institution). The good thing about AL, is that he/she actually states most of the facts fairly correctly. And he/she is correct that "I doubt the ALA or the ALA Council will have much to say about this." But for the reason he/she is wrong.
First, this was a program organized and sponsored by a Round Table. Round Tables (as units within ALA) are among the looser of the kinds of units. They have no ability to speak for the organization, and at best can get ALA Council to act by getting the Round Table Councilor (or another of their members) to bring it up.
Second, the main reason why Council did not act is that there was nothing to do! What can you do if you invite a panel of people, and suddenly all but one quit! You no longer have a panel! (A panel of one?) What to do? I think the Round Table did the right thing and canceled the program.
The charges by folks like Steven Emerson are ridiculous. An ALA unit (part of a professional organization) is supposed to replace a panel discussion with a presentation by a single individual? I think not!
Then there is Dan Kleinman who runs a web site and blog alleging to be "Safe Libraries" but who has been on a long campaign against freedom of speech in public libraries. In his blog, he shows his complete lack of understanding about conferences and how they are organized by challenging "the ALA to include Robert Spencer in next year's panel."
[Side note: In the library world you can usually tell when someone does not like or understand ALA because it is "the ALA" rather than just "ALA" for me it is a red flag -- almost every time!]
What is most interesting is that the speaker who did not cancel has written a much more even handed treatment of the incident. While Robert Spencer does not explicitly accuse ALA of censorship, he does take a little jab. It seems that he is more interested in being heard than in denigrating an organization which actually invited him to speak.
"Then there is Dan Kleinman who runs a web site and blog alleging to be 'Safe Libraries' but who has been on a long campaign against freedom of speech in public libraries."
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not against freedom of speech in public libraries. But on to a more important matter.
"In his blog, he shows his complete lack of understanding about conferences and how they are organized by challenging 'the ALA to include Robert Spencer in next year's panel.'"
That may be your view, but I write for a general audience, not only an ALA audience. Generally, the public could reasonably expect "the ALA" to invite Robert Spencer again. It could reasonably see the actions of an ALA Round Table as the actions of the ALA.
Listen, you guys (I used to be a member) are the self-arrogated censorship police. You should not be doing anything that has even the appearance of impropriety regarding censorship.
I sat and watched that Robert Spencer controversy for a while and did nothing because I did not see censorship there. Then along came the Steve Emerson article wherein he reported on the "face-saving" censorship by Myra Appel, a Round Table chairman. Suddenly I saw the link.
Mrya Appel's censorious actions may have come "among the looser kinds of units," but that's how you see it. The public sees it differently. The public sees an ALA Round Table leader using a back door method of censoring out Robert Spencer. And when Robert Spencer is not invited back, even by a "looser kind of unit," it'll be the ALA that the public sees as cementing its previous censorship. And I'll be there to say so.
I highly recommend someone sees to it that Robert Spencer is invited back, whether by a "looser kind of unit" or by some other means. The self-arrogated censorship police better not have even a whiff of censorship around them, and the way Judith Krug treated jailed Cuban librarians like dirt is bad enough. Remember how she wanted to "drown" the Cuban issue?
Don't tell me my efforts to show communities how the ALA misleads them about legal means for protecting children is part of "a long campaign against freedom of speech in public libraries" when "[a]n issue facing all members of the ALA is their leaders’ shameful exception of the Cuban people’s freedom to read."
I look forward to seeing Robert Spencer invited back to speak at another ALA conference involving the same or similar subject matter.
First of all, until you run a conference -- any kind -- you should not criticize a decision made about speakers. If you are going to "write for a general audience" you should also be accurate, and pay attention to the dynamics of conference planning.
ReplyDeleteI will also note, that you talk about "the ALA" and make it sound like a huge monolithic, tightly controlled organization. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And you know what....canceling a PANEL discussion, when most of the panel backs out at the last minute IS NOT CENSORSHIP. Your saying it is does not make it that!
I recognize that you feel your argument is weak when you suddenly bring in Cuba -- a topic which I will not discuss here.
Whether or not Mr. Spencer is invited is not up to me or to ALA Council. It is up to those who plan programs (a number that I would guess to be around 1,000 -- or more).
"And you know what....canceling a PANEL discussion, when most of the panel backs out at the last minute IS NOT CENSORSHIP. Your saying it is does not make it that!"
ReplyDeleteYou are correct. You'll note I explained that I said nothing until the Steve Emerson article. It was there that is was revealed, "according to sources close to the situation, [EMIERT chairman Myra Appel] wanted to disinvite Spencer, but would be accused of censorship if she did so. The indirect method was a face-saving solution." Myra Appel saw it for what it was, Steve Emerson just reported it, and I so noted. Don't attack the messengers.
My reference to Cuba had nothing to do with furthering the ALA censorship argument. Rather, it had to do with your own mischaracterization of me. You should not be accusing me as you did when the ALA itself is guilty of dismissing entire country loads of people crying out for freedom of speech.
With the passing of the Cuban librarian "drowner" Judith Krug, the former de facto leader of the ALA, perhaps it is time for the ALA, yes, "the" ALA, to reconsider its position vis-a-vis the Cuban librarians. If there's any "face saving" to go on, it should be to support Cuban librarians, not censor out Robert Spencer.
And that brings up an interesting point. You too have extolled the Cuban librarian "drowner" in "Judith Krug: Tribute and Thoughts." What's interesting is that you said, "There are some wonderful quotes in Wikiquotes, though. Most of them I can mentally hear Judy say!" That's nice. Most of those quotes are there because I put them there or on the original Judith Krug page before they were moved to Wikiquote!
So here in the current post you dance around the censorship issue by accusing me of not being accurate or just being ignorant, while in the past Judith Krug post you thought my collection of Krug quotes was so "wonderful" that "most of them I can mentally hear Judy say!" Not only should you not attack the messenger, but you should not attack those you already indirectly praised, though you didn't realize it at the time. It makes it appear as if your current condemnation of a speaker you didn't realize you praised in the past is driven solely by bias, by obfuscation. And what are you helping to cover up? The ALA's censorship of Robert Spencer. Your further cover up and excuse making only makes the case stronger.
Lastly, you said, "Whether or not Mr. Spencer is invited is not up to me or to ALA Council. It is up to those who plan programs (a number that I would guess to be around 1,000 -- or more)." That is an excuse. The ALA will have to deal with a further perception of ALA censorship if Mr. Spencer is NOT invited by someone. A bureaucratic excuse like the one you are promoting in your blog post will not be acceptable.