The War Is an ALA Issue

Librarians against the war in Iraq have very few places where they can express that point of view. It can be frustrating. Librarian Eileen Kramer described the problem on an American Library Association (ALA) list: "I am letting the world know that I think this war [in Iraq] is wrong. I am doing it with the best means I have available. I am putting my body and my sign where it can be seen…. That is all I can do: stand up, be seen, and make my point. That is not much, but one does what one can."

The debate about whether ALA should take a stand opposing the war in Iraq still rages on the ALA Council list, even though the Council voted against the idea at ALA's Midwinter Meeting. The war is nearly a month old now, and the arguments echo the debates that ultimately put ALA on record against the Vietnam War, even though it first rejected the proposal.

For example, ALA Councilor Jim Casey asserted that ALA is the wrong organization to take a stand. "ALA can't fight every battle and win every war," he argued. The vote of a "War Hawk" on library funding might just keep library doors open, Casey contended.

Others, just as in that earlier time, said they were personally against the war but that ALA, like libraries, should remain "neutral." The neutrality argument with regard to Vietnam worked until actions were taken that were decidedly not neutral, like the Exhibits Round Table invitation to Gen. Maxwell Taylor to speak at its ALA banquet. His appearance triggered a huge demonstration outside the conference hotel. In the banquet hall, many librarians stood with their backs to the speaking general, their ALA badges pinned on their shoulders.

ALA Councilor Ann Sparanese noted her "biggest disappointment" in the current ALA debate was the number of councilors who said ALA should remain "neutral." "This type of 'neutrality' is not neutral," she said. "Our failure to add our voice to those demanding peace puts us, effectively and objectively, in the corner of those who consent to war."

Opponents of the war, in addition to their moral opposition to it and the death and destruction it would bring, said the billions spent for the war would harm all other programs at all levels of government. Many believe that the current budget woes of libraries, and the loss of state and local support, will only get worse as the cost of the war escalates. They said libraries and the U.S. economy will suffer as a result for years.

Other librarians base their opposition on the terrible restraints the war puts on access to information. One councilor cited the "enormous disinformation and lack of information [that] surrounds the government's efforts." The library profession has always opposed any government action that keeps the American people from receiving the information they need to make informed decisions. This war, like all others, has been used to justify far-reaching government limitations on access to information.

Councilor Michael Gorman, recently elected to the ALA Executive Board, summed it up eloquently:

The fog of lies has enveloped both the human cost and the economic cost of this unjust war. The latter will not only be adverse to the interests of libraries but to every value of which libraries are a symbol and manifestation. How sad it is that the "leaders" of ALA could not bring themselves to oppose this wicked violence and join the voices of the vast majority of governments and people in the world.

Gorman is right. Librarians who oppose the Iraq war must continue to press ALA to take a stand. It is tragic that we couldn't prevail at Midwinter. The longer the war, the greater the danger to libraries and free access to information.

All the world hopes the issue will be moot by June, when ALA meets in Toronto. If not, we must make certain that it is at the top of ALA's agenda. Americans take stands through their churches, governments, unions, and organizations. For librarians, ALA is the best place to take a stand.

jberry@reedbusiness.com