ALA President Caught Plagiarizing and Faking Signature

ALA President Camile Alire has been caught plagiarizing and possibly using a fake signature by me, SafeLibraries. Before the usual crowd piles on, you have to see the evidence for yourselves: <a href="">ALA Double Standard on Accuracy in Texas State Board of Education Proposal on School Book Content; ALA President Plagiarizes to Promote Matter Outside ALA Purview</a>


Just yelling "this is an opinion" does not keep you from libel.

Truth is an absolute defense to libel.


Round and round we go, where Safelibraries stops nobody knows.

It's either "your opinion" or it's "truth" claim it's "your opinion" and you litter your writing with those two words, hoping to protect yourself from libel. Yet then you come out with some one-sentence line implying that this is the truth? What happened to "providing the evidence for people to make up their own minds, to have their own opinions"? Let us draw our on conclusions and quit telling us this is the "truth".

>Truth is an absolute defense to libel.

Wow. Did you get that off Wikipedia all by yourself? Let me give you the real world take on "truth is an absolute defense to libel".

1) It is not an absolute defense in all states
2) Even if it is a defense you still have to pay your attorney. Mess with someones name enough and get yourself sued and you will be out $10,000 in legal fees even if you win.
3) I would say that in this case it is not the truth so even if "truth is a defense" you are hosed

What are the "substantive issues"? The plagiarism that isn't really plagiarism because it was a collaborative work product? The "fake signature"? Oh, said the signature wasn't the issue, yet you're the one that brought it up in the first place. Who can keep track of what you think the "substantive issues" are when you yourself are avoiding them?

I read this statement in a completely different way that you do..."President Camila Alire will be sending a letter including the statement to the Texas DOE this week." No where in that sentence does it say that the letter and the statement will be SEPARATE. I read that sentence to say that the letter will INCLUDE the statement, not that the statement will be a completely separate thing.

I was not asking Blake to take down a post because I disagree with your opinions; I asked him to take down the post because you are engaged in libelous activities. It would be your opinion that Mrs. Alire engaged in plagiarism because of two letters that have similar wording and passages. However, when you make the accusation that she has engaged in plagiarism, a serious intellectual charge, based on the same evidence (an accusation that she availed herself to unauthorized use of the document), then you are entering a whole different sphere.

Blake told me he wasn't going to take down your post. I can respect his decision and the reasons he gave. I suggested it because a person does not have the right to engage in false accusations that tarnish the reputation of another individual. I would do it for anyone, no matter how I felt about them. Reputation is an important commodity these days, and you are trampling on someone's reputation with no basis whatsoever.

I wish to pay you a compliment and say that I admire your echo chamber. You only hear what you want to hear. Our apparent resistance simply fortifies your beliefs, regardless as to the counterpoints offered and (in this case) the surrounding reality. For every reply given, you have taken it as evidence of deeper conspiracies, of greater loyalty to a professional organization, and of grand schemes and cover-ups that abound in the world of libraries. Even if we were all standing at the edge of the ravine, chanting "You're driving the wrong way!", you'd take it as a sign that you are on the right path, even as your car plunges off the side of a cliff.

You are tilting at windmills.

This is an excellent point:
For every reply given, you have taken it as evidence of deeper conspiracies, of greater loyalty to a professional organization, and of grand schemes and cover-ups that abound in the world of libraries. Even if we were all standing at the edge of the ravine, chanting "You're driving the wrong way!", you'd take it as a sign that you are on the right path, even as your car plunges off the side of a cliff.

He won't listen but I can guarantee I have no professional loyalty to ALA. So if he thinks that is why I disagree he is dead wrong. If there was plagiarism I would be the first to jump on the condemnation wagon.

That was actually interesting. This is not.

I agree. The textbook thing is interesting and it is my main point. You are the very first person to address a substantive issue and do so positively ("actually interesting"), no matter how short.

That main point, namely the ALA double standard of seeking accuracy in Texas while opposing accuracy in Florida, let alone the standing issue, was addressed on my blog, and the plagiarism was only an aside I discovered while rereading everything before publication. I thought the letter from Camile Alire was actually written by Camile Alire when I first read it. As I continued proofreading down my page, I was stunned reading the Garnar letter and realizing it was substantially the same and was published 2 days previously. I looked back at the Alire letter and found absolutely no attribution of true authorship. Truly stunning.

On LISNews, however, I restricted my comments solely to the plagiarism by the ALA president as this is LISNews, not general news, and I didn't think LISNews would care about the non-library-related Texas issue. Clearly, with all the comments here, this topic has been good for LISNews.

Blake, as you read above, will not be removing this post despite being asked. Can you believe freedom of speech advocates would ask to remove speech with which they disagreed? Sadly, that is not truly stunning, sadly, it's par for the course. So I hereby officially thank Blake and LISNews for providing a forum that actually practices what the profession it follows preaches. I hope to bring many more issues to LISNews, only I will try to write them better in the first place.


You are the one who brought up the whole "plagiarism" non-substantive issue in the first place. I give up. There is no reasoning here.

Good point about the fact Safelibraries brought up the plagiarism issue. You are right. Here he is trying to claim it was not his main point. How is it not your main point when the title of your post is: ALA President Caught Plagiarizing and Faking Signature

It's my main point here on LISNews, but only a subsection on my own blog.

Congrats, you kept the focus on me and not the ALA. Apparently ethical lapses or plagiarism are or no concern to you.

Richard Blumenthal claims Vietnam service, it's false, but he's a good guy and the New York Times is at fault for exposing him and writing the story really poorly, right? Sound familiar? Focus on the Times and not the deceptive act, right?


Okay, so it's not the main point of your blog post. But, it was the main point that you posted on LISNews. Yet, you dismiss anyone who has focused on the so-called plagiarism "side issue". Odd. If you didn't want the discussion to be about the plagiarism, don't mention it, especially as the main topic.

Or, was it when your opinion about the alleged plagiarism wasn't backed up, did you just conveniently "remember" your main point, even though it wasn't posted here?

I needed a good laugh.

There is no plagiarism. That is why we could not focus on it. This thread has already gone nuts so I am responding here but when you make any other post you do not exist to me.

"...Paranoid ideation differs from paranoid delusions in that the ideas are held with less conviction. Paranoid style is a character style featuring hypervigilance, litigiousness, rigidity, humorlessness, jealousy, sullenness, suspiciousness, and hyperattention to evidence in the environment that corroborates paranoid suspicions."


Subscribe to Comments for "ALA President Caught Plagiarizing and Faking Signature"