6 thoughts on “Unite Against Book Bans”

1. I do not share Hank’s enthusiasm. So far the ALA has mainly counted book bans. They have not been an active voice. AAUP is only one of the many conspicuous omissions on their short list. Recall that 140 scholarly organizations spoke together against bans against a false conception of critical race theory in June 2021. Not only AAUP, but ACLU who work actively with scholarly like me across the US, PEN America who counts banned books. Note the predominance of for-profit book publishers and the near total absence of educators at all levels and student/student advocacy groups. NCTE and AFT only educational groups; NCTE has completely muffed its own statements. Where are AHA, OAH, PMLA, AERA, CCCC, APA, NEA, and so many others?

   I have reached out a number of times to Caldwell-Stone and others at ALA. Not even an acknowledgement. I find their “toolkit” much more liked than, for example, PEN America or Honesty in Ohio Education.

   Much like AAUP, ALA is opposed to librarians organizing. They do not assist the brave Texas A&M librarians who both speak out and strive to organize. Today, like the late 19th C., organizing among librarians, faculty, grad and undergrad students, clerical workers, and even bookstore personnel–like Amazon and Starbucks–is local and individualized. this is a sorry state of affairs for 2022.

   For more on book banning, see https://againstthecurrent.org/atc218/book-banning-past-and-present/

   • My typing again! :”toolkit much more LIMITED than….” Apologies

   • To maintain that ALA mainly counts book bans is akin to claiming that AAUP mainly keeps a censure list. To be sure, ALA is a different sort of professional association from the AAUP. Its members are public and school librarians, corporate and special librarians, library administrators and trustees, “friends” of libraries groups, as well as academic librarians, who actually comprise a very small part of the association. It is not and does not claim to be a scholarly organization. It does not do the sort of organizing that traditional unions or the AAUP do (although I do not understand why Harvey seems to think that AAUP opposes organizing librarians). Its role is to provide a wide array of professional support services and public education about libraries, working through a variety of affiliates, offices, and state library associations. Its work in opposition to censorship efforts is mainly conducted by its Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), which services its member-driven Intellectual Freedom Committee and Intellectual Freedom Round Table. At present, OIF has a staff of just three, two professional, one support.

     What does OIF do? Well, I was its assistant director in 1980-81, in the wake of Ronald Reagan’s election, which set off an earlier wave of right-wing book banning efforts, and for over three decades thereafter I edited its 36-page periodical, the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, published six times a year (since renamed, reconceived, and quarterly). So, I know a bit about what they do and who they are. Probably the single largest responsibility the office has, which takes up the bulk of staff time, is to provide assistance and support to librarians and libraries (mainly public and school libraries) facing censorship challenges. That work is similar to what AAUP’s Department of Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Governance (DAFTG) does, and like DAFTG OIF provides assistance in confidence, “behind the scenes” so to speak. In addition, OIF offers consulting services. As their website notes, they will help libraries “create and edit policies, strategize plans for working with communities and families, and provide workshops and programs about the First Amendment, privacy laws, internet filtering, and intellectual freedom.” In addition, the office has run a variety of more formal training programs for librarians, library school faculty, library attorneys, and library trustees. Through its Freedom to Read Foundation, ALA submits amicus briefs in important intellectual freedom cases and provides financial support to besieged librarians.

     All of this work is based on a foundational set of policies created and continually updated by the IFC and ALA Council, supported by OIF. These derive largely from the ALA’s seminal Library Bill of Rights (analogous, perhaps to our 1940 Statement), which provides a bedrock for intellectual freedom in public and school libraries (less so, perhaps, in academic libraries). Many of these policies are collected in the periodically updated Intellectual Freedom Manual, similar, perhaps, to AAUP’s Red Book. (Disclosure: I wrote and edited several editions of this manual.)

     That all this work is done by such a limited staff (personally, I wish ALA would provide more support to that office, although I know nothing of their current financial situation) would be remarkable in ordinary times. But for public and school libraries these times are far from ordinary! I know for a fact that OIF has been besieged with increasingly frantic calls for their assistance, although I think its director was only kidding when she asked whether I might be interested in returning to the staff as a volunteer. I am, therefore, not surprised that the office did not respond to Harvey’s inquiries. They have more pressing priorities, I suspect.

     Of course, ALA has its flaws, but so does the AAUP. It is not the library organization that either Harvey or I might desire, but it’s the one we have. But those flaws can hardly be attributed to the work of the OIF. More important, as OIF director Deborah Caldwell-Stone noted, “we can’t do this alone.” “Our partners and supporters are critical in moving the needle to ultimately bring an end to book bans,” she added.

     The AAUP would, I believe, be well served to follow the lead of our organizing partner, the AFT, in joining this campaign. Perhaps we might help bring in some of the scholarly organizations whose absence Harvey seems to think are evidence of the effort’s lack of value.

     • Hank, I hope that you and I are not just writing to each other! We agree on some points but not on all. And, I politely suggest that Hank’s comment misrepresents part of what I wrote:
       1. we agree that BOTH AAUP and ALA SHOULD be doing more including organizing;
       2. Hank write more about ALA’s OIP than about ALA in general. But neither the office nor Caldwell Stone responded to my own multiple efforts to reach out. By comparison, ALA’s sibling Freedom to Read Fdn did. ACLU, PEN American, AHA all reached out to me. (It is not accurate to refer to “ALA’s FTRF” btw.
       3. I wrote nothing about AAUP and librarians.
       4. I did note ALA past and present nonsupport (to be diplomatic) of librarians–including in battleground Texas right now–efforts to organize. At the moment, ACLU state offices are fighting far more actively and aggressively for librarians at the school, school board, county, and state level than ALA. I try to distinguish between rhetoric and newsletters and action. I’m working with ACLU in at least three states right now.
       5. Readers of this exchange know well enough AAUP’s history with faculty and student organizing.
       6. With due respect, Hank your first sentence distorts what I wrote. Yet, our readers may judge for themselves just what these organizations do best.
       7. BUT ALA OIF does mainly count and report on book bans. But I do not see that it does it any better than RedWine.Blue/BannedBooksBusters, and PEN America, both of whom have more limited resources than ALA (or AAUP).
       8. Hank does not comment on one of my most consequential observations: the constitution of ALA’s 25 supporters list, overwhelmingly for-profit trade publishers, some of whom have mixed records on intellectual freedom on their own part.
       9. finally, Hank, as one retired historian to another, you have a number of strategically rhetorical “perhaps” in your response to me
       Bottom line: every one individually and organizationally needs to do more: I have called for a national and local public education campaign on what’s at stake for all of us in combatting book banning and attacks on inclusive education, and all else, too. Across all ages; across all media. Too many Americans including parents do not know the issues.

       • We may indeed just be writing to each other, Harvey, but perhaps that will justify my responding to what are, I think, rather petty differences, quibbles really, especially since I am well aware that you have written quite a bit of excellent commentary on this topic, which is a genuine, welcome, and important contribution to the struggle.

         You write: “2. Hank write[s] more about ALA’s OIP (sic; should be OIF) than about ALA in general. But neither the office nor Caldwell Stone responded to my own multiple efforts to reach out. By comparison, ALA’s sibling Freedom to Read Fdn did. ACLU, PEN American, AHA all reached out to me. (It is not accurate to refer to “ALA’s FTRF” btw).”

         Of course I wrote more about OIF than ALA’s other work, for instance staging two annual meetings of 15-20,000 and 5-8,000 attendees each; publishing multiple periodicals, etc. That was not the point. The work we’re discussing is, in ALA, done mainly through the OIF. As for FTRF, yes, technically it’s not “ALA’s FTRF” or, for that matter, a sibling. It is, the FTRF website says, “affiliated with the American Library Association.” More important, it is run out of ALA’s OIF and Deborah Caldwell-Stone is its executive director and secretary. So, I guess she responded to you after all. (For more info see the FTRF website at https://www.ftrf.org/)

         You write: “3. I wrote nothing about AAUP and librarians.”

         I assume this refers to my parenthetical comment that “I do not understand why Harvey seems to think that AAUP opposes organizing librarians.” Here I am referring to this statement in your original comment: “Much like AAUP, ALA is opposed to librarians organizing.” Maybe that was poorly phrased, but in plain English it communicates that in your view both AAUP and ALA are opposed to librarians organizing. The AAUP certainly is not, and I’m not sure that ALA is either.

         You write: “6. With due respect, Hank your first sentence distorts what I wrote. ”

         In your original comment you wrote: “So far the ALA has mainly counted book bans.” My first sentence reads “To maintain that ALA mainly counts book bans is akin to claiming that AAUP mainly keeps a censure list.” I stand by that.

         Moreover, not only is this not a distortion, you now double down on this position, albeit refining it now to claim that “ALA OIF does mainly count and report on book bans.” But the essence of my whole comment was to argue that not only ALA, but OIF in reality does much more than this. I described many (but not all) of those activities, with which I have direct personal experience. I do think, by the way, that the compilation of their censorship database and their annual “most banned” lists are — much like FIRE’s similar lists — in some respects just gimmicky ways of garnering attention to a real problem, not a source of complete and solid sociological data. That said, however, these lists are, as I tried to demonstrate, far from OIF’s main activity, certainly with respect to staff time and impact, albeit much of which often occurs “behind the scenes.” (For more on what OIF does go to https://www.ala.org/aboutala/offices/oif)

         Finally, as for your “bottom line,” your call “for a national and local public education campaign on what’s at stake for all of us in combatting book banning and attacks on inclusive education . . .” let me note simply that this is precisely what ALA and its coalition have called for and initiated. I hope that coalition will expand and, maybe, merge with others. But I see no reason to reject their call out of preference for a similar call issued by a single retired historian. But if you have constructed a different, better, more extensive effort, please let us know.

         • Hank, we will collegially and cordially agree to agree on a number of major issues, and disagree on some major and minor issues including ALA actual actions and the composition, and especially limits of their “coalition” and nonsupport of activist librarians in the field.

           I’ll keep you posted on the efforts of this retired historian who does have national organizations but not the ALA talking to each other often for the first time. I am well aware of the limits of what one person with no budget or staff can do. 🙂

Comments are closed.