next »

[anon]

This article is basically griping about disagreement with a couple decisions made by one professional organization. Where is the evidence that conservatives are discriminated against in the hiring process? Where are the studies documenting censorship of conservative library materials?

And to go a little further, think about the general argument that academics have a liberal "bias". No, they study the issues for a living and conclude that the conservative view is wrong. I would be ashamed to admit that 90% of experts on a subject disagree with my views. Academics have reached liberal "conclusions".

So what if the guy chooses not to express his opinion because he wants to avoid debate. When they start beating him up for his opinion, then we have a problem.

[%sig%]

[JAM, Reflecting in Alaska]

The Enlightenment--modernism--is dead in Euro-centric culture, including its libraries, partly, if not largely, because of the excesses that grew out of the thought of its founders, Bacon, Descartes, and Locke. Unfortunately, there is little evidence that a civil post modernism is taking root in libraries (or academia). And, it may be unfair to expect this to happen. Colleges and universities and their libraries, as presently organized, lie at the core of the modrnist project.

As difficult as it may be for teaching and learning to recenter itself, libraries and "librarianship" may have a more difficult time of it because there has always been little theory with which to anchor libray "practice," even at the height of the modernist era. So, we librarians emote and our popular "professional" literature and life (which gets all the attention) is, and always has been, full of it. Read some randomly selected Library Journal editorials, for example.

So, like other post modernist effort, what passes for thought and reflection in a number of academic liibraries comes down to a matter of power: who has it and who shouts the loudest; who is inclined to display  corrosive elitism and arrogant self-righteousness. It is an academic version of unrepentant religious fundamentalism. And it is unlikely to go away any time soon because academic libraries relfect and embody the spirit of their host institutions, many of which have a way to go before they fully touch bottom in their slide into intellectual despair and pointlessness.

Perhaps the time has come for those of us who find this state of affairs unacceptable to establish a new professional presence, one that avoids the politicization of ALA and which focuses exclusively on the many serious practice and intellectual problems we have to deal with as academic information mangers. But even as I write those words I wonder. Is it possible to maintain libraries as enlightenment-governed organizations in the middle of post-enlightement and increasingly politicized universities?

[%sig%]

[Gary Fitsimmons, CJC]

The latest post by Mr. (Dr.?) Suarez shows exactly the kind of arrogant stereotyping that has led to this article. Many in higher education feel that only uneducated people who have not learned to think critically could possibly be conservatives. The idea that someone could be educated, read, evaluate both sides of any of these issues critically and actually arrive at and adopt a conservative viewpoint is so foreign to them that they are surprised whenever they encounter any opposition in academia.

Actually, there are a great many of us who critically evaluate issues all of the time and come out on the conservative side. Just as there are (beleive it or not) clergy that are atheists. (The Jews/Nazis analogy doesn't fit). Many of us have grown tired of being told to shut up and sit down and are therefore begining to write articles, make speeches and generally exercise our right of free speech. Many of us hope, just as anyone who is passionate about an ideology does, that we might be able to persuade others to see things as we do, by showing how we have come to our opinions.

The author has expressed his opinion on how he feels others in academia and especially in librarianship have intentionally or not repressed his viewpoint. Some of the reactions to his article, in expressing surprise or disgust with his complaint have served to prove his point. When one senses that he is not of the prevailing ideology the atmosphere is hardly conducive to an open exchange of ideas for him.

One final thought. The argument that not opposing the War in Iraq is endorsing the status quo is ludicrous. Organizations such as ALA refuse to take stands on issues all of the time because the issue is not directly related to libraries. The notion that librarians can be neutral on any issue is to reduce them to nonhuman status. But a professional association, in order to remain professional, should not be missused to advance anyone's political agenda when it has no direct relationship to the profession. I am, by the way, a card-holding member of ALA.

[James B. Casey, Ph.D.]

The excerpt below is from the article noted above by David Durant:

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i06/06b01201.htm

 “One of the most disturbing aspects of the situation is the way in which the supposedly nonpolitical American Library Association has become a platform for left-wing partisanship. The ALA's Council, its elected governing body, is dominated by left-wing activists who recently passed a resolution calling for the United States to leave Iraq.”

“It is, of course, the right of the vast majority of my colleagues to hold positions I disagree with. But it's a very different matter when the major professional association in librarianship takes openly political stands on issues that have no direct bearing on the field.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don’t think that David Durant is really “conservative” at all.  He is just plain wrong -- and unwilling to admit it.  

As one who has served on ALA Council since 1996, I can say that it is by no means “dominated by left-wing activists”.   It is, however, dominated by people who have an intellectual bent and who value the truth.  The resolution calling for the United States to leave Iraq was based very largely upon the indisputable fact that the War had been launched on fraudulent premises and under a massive campaign of misinformation.  It is a majority of the American people who now believe that invading Iraq was an error and not merely a band of “left-wing activists” on ALA Council.   Anyway, since when has the valuing of truthful, accurate information been a political issue of Right versus Left?  

Most Librarians are not particularly violent and they tend to want to uphold law and order.  Librarians also value intellectual freedom and privacy rights.  Therefore, it isn’t surprising that the overwhelming majority of ALA Council abhors the kind of acceptance of torture to extract information and denial of Civil Liberties that has been practiced at places like Abu Graib and Guantanamo.  Nor would most of them tend to be comfortable with the “shock and awe” destruction and invasion of cities (including Libraries) where millions of innocent civilians are being subjected to the horrors of a war zone.   Since when has the casual acceptance of torture, cruelty and violence been a virtuous disposition that Librarians should adopt?

Most Librarians also believe in sound fiscal management and almost invariably operate within their budgets.  It is not terribly surprising that a majority of Council Members oppose a War launched upon false information that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and which, along with the huge tax cuts, further exploded the already enormous fiscal deficits.  Public Librarians I know are keen to maintain fiscal reserves and keep up the infrastructures of their buildings.  Hence, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear many Members of Council lament the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars (not to mention thousands of lives) were wasted on an unnecessary war in Iraq that could have been on hand to deal with natural disasters in the Gulf area of the United States where millions of people and their schools and libraries are in dire need of assistance.   Since when is the running up of huge fiscal deficits and exhausting budgetary reserves so that one is unprepared for disasters a value that could be described as “conservative” and one which Librarians should accept with indifference or even emulate?

The real polarization in the United States isn’t between Right and Left or Conservative and Liberal.  It is rather, between those who believe what they see and those who see only what they believe.  It is by no means surprising that an overwhelming majority of librarians and intellectually inclined persons should be in the former category.  

James B. Casey --- ALA Council Member.

[%sig%]

[DJ Ford, Physiology Prof]

Yes I read your response. The one in which you missed the point entirely.

"I still find it perplexing that both you and Mr. Durant see the screening of Moore's Fahenheit 9/11 a political act (the film simply propaganda) and cannot see that White House and Corporate press releases, information downloads and speechs via Faux News are propaganda in their own right as well. Given this, which has more power and greater impact? " You assume too much. I simply stated that the film is left-wing propoganda. There is also plenty of right-wing propoganda, but what relevance does that have to the author's thesis? You are off-topic.

"I see only that Mr. Durant is worried that the opinions of the group differ from his. Stip him of his rant, he sounds only miffed." Then you are blind sir. The actions of a group can most assuredly affect who chooses to join that group. Diversity on the college campus and in any educational setting is essential. A group that does not allow or support diversity of opinion is intolerant at best, possible even fascist.

"Sounds like critical thinking is itself a political act. To me, the ALA seems to see in the Patriot Act an assault on critical thinking and the processes that librarians should aid and support." Again that was only an example within the article. Not the central argument. "We see what we want to see" is as true as ever methinks. It's difficult to think critically when one has to overcome one's own inherent biases eh?

[dark globe]

Durant states:

"Proponents of the resolution on Iraq argue that abandoning the country to Al Qaeda would allow us to spend lots more money on libraries here at home."

That's where I stopped wasting precious seconds reading the article. Such a simplistic, ideologically charged, and unsupported statement demonstrates the author's inability to view both sides of an issue objectively and makes his piece more appropriate for the New York Post or some other such rag, but certainly not an academic forum.

[Anonymous]

Here we go again: the right accusing some group (faculty, media, Hollywood) of "liberal bias." This is such a transparent device that it is surprising that people still take the bait and respond seriously. The responses tend to be tepid attempts to prove that we aren't "biased." As if conservatives aren't biased and aren't at least as oppressive when in power. And don't kid yourselves, folks, they truly are in power. All this wailing about "liberal bias" is ludicrous when viewed in the context of what actually is happening in this country.

Henry Kissinger was right about academic politics.

[%sig%]

[steven bell]

I made my views known in an opinion piece I wrote for Library Journal. It is mentioned in Durant's article, but gives the impression it was published in LJ - but in fact it was published on the LJ website only - not in the print. It's too bad the Chronicle does not provide links within its online article. But for those who may wish to read it, my piece is freely available at:
http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA622666.html

Anyone who has attended the last two or three ALA meetings, followed the issues our governing body discusses and creates resolutions about, will know where Durant is coming from. ALA is primarily a liberal, progressive organization. The question for the association is do they pander to the beliefs of the majority or do they try to provide more balanced content - to possibly get us thinking less narrowly. It has always seemed hypocritical to me that as a profession we are dedicated to promoting balanced viewpoints in our collections (which many libraries do not) and communities - but that we have a severe case of ignoring our own standards.

[%sig%]

[Observer]

I don't know how to break this to you, but university faculties were predominantly conservative before the war, predominantly liberal after it.  We are in your debt, however, for demonstrating the nearly stereotypical arrogance of the left.  The notion that it is the left that reads and thinks and that the right is an assemblage of ignorant yahoos is a common smear.  Now if we are searching for a recent example we have a person to cite who blithely makes that point.  Keep in mind, however, that education does not guarantee political competence.  The worst president of the twentieth century was, undeniably, Jimmy Carter.

In point of fact, liberals are more appropriately characterized as emotional than lettered.  Consider the old saying that if you're not liberal in your youth you have no heart, whereas if you're not conservative when you reach adulthood you have no brain.  As exhibit A you might consider the questioning of Judge Roberts by Senators Feinstein, Durbin, and Schumer with their recurring references to his "heart" rather than to the law.  This is probably why liberals live with constant contradictions--abhorring the death penalty but approving partial-birth abortions; obsessing over gay peoples' right to wed, but not being troubled in the least at the illegitimacy rate within the African-American community.  They think with their hearts.  The best of them, however, know how to spell.  It's SUPERSTITIOUS.

[%sig%]

[John]

The American Library Association has a liberal political agenda.  This should not come as news to anyone who has been in the library profession for any length of time at all.

I have been a professional librarian since the mid 1970's and have been watching the ALA (as well as the MLA) continue to move farther and farther to the left.  At this point I don't consider the ALA to be anything more than an arm of the liberal Democratic leadership.

My advice:  Unless you are a supporter of the Democratic Party, don't join ALA.  If you are a supporter of the Democratic Party, send you ALA dues directly to Party headquarters--avoid the middleman.

If you would like to read about book censorship as it is practiced in the US, take a look at Cal Thomas's book, Book Burning.  (The irony is--your library probably doesn't have it!)

[%sig%]

[Marilyn]

John,  Just for fun, I checked the local public library.  (I am employed at an academic library.)   You're right.  They don't have Book Burning.

[%sig%]

[Stoic Librarian]

As someone who left the ALA many years ago I felt seperated from many of my colleagues and my alma matter.  

As a self-proclaimed stoic (one who seeks clear judgement and inner calm through diligent practice of logic, reflection, and concentration) I cannot abide the Chicken Little approach many have toward the Patriot Act.  Has it made me a tad nervous?  Yes.  But, the end of the First Ammendment has not come via the Patriot Act.  

Librarians gleefully putting up displays of banned books.  They also refuse to order books because they don't personally agree with the writer.   I had a clash with a my supervisor because she constantly ordered books that bashed a religious denomination, but never a book positive to that denomination.  She's was a proud ALA rep.

[john woodford, ret. editor/U M]

Great, a librarian who welcomes gov't intrusion and censorship and secret  investigations, possibly a prelude to inquisitions. And he wonders why most in his professoin disagree with him! Thank goodness principled librarians are still out there, brave and unweeded out. The powers that be can concoct, indeed have concocted, all sorts of "national security" rationales for curbing democratic rights. And here's a librarian willing to collaborate and conspire with them. Other regressive regimes also found such censors and other apologists--and willing agents--of secrecy and repression. So let's not call it a left/right or liberal/conservative divide that Durant is describing, call it "like it is" a freedom vs. totalitarian division in the library as well as most other fields, and he's on the totalitarian side.

[%sig%]

[Jojo]

"Great, a librarian who welcomes gov't intrusion and censorship and secret investigations .."

Sir .. please get a grip. After the friends of your pal Teddy "Mr. Oldsmobile" Kennedy bork'ed Judge Bork by trying to get his private-sector video rental records, that other major political party has been concerned about privacy. Why else did the ACLU/LCLU hire Bob Barr, former Newt Gingrich associate?

All this angst about the "greater good" of tax-subsidized libraries .. here's a recommendation.

Did it ever occur to Mr. Suarez, et al, that TIAA-CREF is sitting on one of the LARGEST pools of financial capital in the world? Why not direct some of that capital to opening private libraries for paens to Hilliary, Mr. Teresa Heinz, Al Gore Jr., et al? And charge admission to use? Wouldn't that be more honest? And quicker?

If blue states do it -- I'm sure red states would, too. And there would be more libraries for everyone. Wouldn't that be nice? More jobs for librarians.

[%sig%]

[dark globe]

If you would like to read about book censorship as it is practiced in the US, take a look at Cal Thomas's book, Book Burning. (The irony is--your library probably doesn't have it!)
********************
I would hope it doesn't. Cal Thomas has no advanced degree. His entire "authority" comes from having published a column in the popular press. There is no place in academe for such dilletantism.