ALA hypocrisy

The American Library Association's refusal to forthrightly condemn the Cuban government for its brutal suppression of non-government-approved bookstores and libraries has rankled me for a long time. But because I maintain a certain distance from the slithering, reptilian bolus of its governing Council, I have never addressed the issue directly.

Fortunately, Nat Hentoff is not so discreet. And, as always, his principled defense of freedom of speech shows up the hypocrisy and cowardice of those who would rather ignore the issue.

Those on the ALA Council who most strongly defend the Castro government's "right" to imprison librarians and other distributors of books and other printed materials are the biggest hypocrites of all.

Mark Rosenzweig and Ann Sparanese are two of the most outspoken defenders of the Cuban government in this matter. Rosenzweig is an influential member of the Orwellianly-misnamed "Social Responsibility Round Table"; more about him later. Sparanese, in a recent issue of Library Juice, makes the remarkably specious arguments that (1) the imprisoned librarians aren't really librarians because the only real librarians in Cuba are the ones so designated by the dictatorial government, (2) that the Cuban government is justified in confiscating their materials and imprisoning them because it alleges that they are financially supported from the U.S., and (3) because the U.S. is less than perfect-in-every-single-way, no principles of any kind apply to the Cuban government.

The first proposition is a semantic Rube Goldberg construction so laughable that it hurts. By that standard, the Nazis committed no crimes against humanity because, after all, they defined Jews as nonhuman. Besides, why does it matter whether or not they are "officially" librarians? These are "human" rights we're talking about, not special privileged "librarian" rights. So what if, as Sparanese asserts, they are "dissident politicians, apparently non-violent, who sometimes use the moniker of 'librarians' to enhance their stature"? Don't dissident politicians have any rights in Ms. Sparanese's Brave New World of "Social Responsibility"?

The second proposition truly shows their blatant hypocrisy. Nevermind the idea of free speech and free press being any kind of a universal principle; as far as Rosenzweig and Sparanese are concerned, it applies only to their side. Rosenzweig, not entirely coincidentally, is head of the Reference Center for Marxist Studies, an institution affiliated with the Communist Party USA. If the US government applied the same standards to his "library" as his beloved Maximum Leader applies to dissenting librarians and archivists in Cuba, Mr. Rosenzweig would be spending his days in a solitary cell talking to the cockroaches. Rosenzweig and Sparanese hide behind the (rightful) protection that they enjoy in the United States, while blithely approving of the violation of those same rights by their pet dictator.

The third proposition is either a stunning non sequitir or yet more hypocrisy. What, because person X stole a car and got away with it, person Y is therefore entitled to rape and murder at will? How's that again?

What is most disturbing and disgusting about this whole sordid issue is the fact that otherwise sensible librarians and activists like Jessamyn West and Rory Litwin, who normally speak strongly in defense of free speech, are silent or seem to agree with the pro-repression faction. Is this just more of the same old "No-Enemies-On-The-Left" attitude that led liberals of the early twentieth century to defend the USSR even while "Good Ole Uncle Joe" Stalin starved, butchered, and massacred millions? Or do they actually agree with the idea that anyone who disagrees with a (left-wing) government should be imprisoned?

For shame. The "No-Enemies-On-The-Left" attitude damaged the credibility of the Left for decades after the extent of Stalin's crimes against humanity became known, and American librarians' silence on this issue damages the credibility of our stand against potential abuses of power by our own government, as Mr. Hentoff and other commentators are already pointing out. Does it make any sense at all to tacitly approve of actual, real abuses while condemning potential future ones?

A principle is a principle is a principle. Or else it's no principle at all.