AnnaKh

The bad news about the copyright grab just keeps on coming. It really looks like we are losing something important, and we have to act. Here is a story in the San Diego Union Tribune about how actual laws are being copyrighted – and the copyright found to be valid in court cases, including a Federal appeals court. In other words, governments are not free to distribute the whole of the law – in some cases you have to buy it from a private party in order to read it, or your library has to buy it (as long as that is still allowed – publishers are working on that now). This is so bad you\’d think it is a hoax, but it seems to be real. Slashdot has a discussion on this article from a few days ago.

From the International
Herald Tribune: \”More than any other new
monument in Paris, the new
National Library is a symbol of Francois
Mitterrand\’s desire to prove that he was the
\’thinker-president.\’ Today, the building is less
associated with thinking than with calamity:
stupendously impractical architecture, despite the early
protests of people with experience in the field; a
user-unfriendly location and a clumsy attempt to mix a
scholarly library with a public one.\”

\”Your libraries are on the way to destruction,\” claimed the enemy cataloger. \”You have no chance to survive make your time. HA HA HA HA ….\” Solution? Take off every \”zig\”!! Move zig. For great justice.

This week\’s Library Juice has an editorial called Classic and neo- information, about how the concept of information has changed without much notice, and about the implications of the change. Classic information is what\’s found in reference materials (for example), and neo-information includes anything that can be carried by an electronic signal. Values that apply to classic information are being used to support neo-information, and the failure to make the distinction has contributed to confusion about librarianship\’s future.

Sanford Berman, one of the 20th Century\’s library heroes, wrote a summary of the past three years\’ Top Five Censored Library Stories, in the style of Project Censored\’s annual collections of the most significant news stories that were suppressed by the corporate media. Sandy\’s piece was originally written for the print journal The U*N*A*B*A*S*H*E*D L*I*B*R*A*R*I*A*N and was republished on the web in this week\’s Library Juice. Sanford Berman is co-editor of the biennial anthology Alternative Library Literature, published by McFarland.

This week Library Juice published a discussion thread on Questia from COLLIB-L, the second in a series. The first one was published last December. Last July, Library Juice published an editorial called Questioning Questia. At issue is the company\’s decision to bypass libraries and offer access to their digitized collection of 50,000 books directly to students, for a fee.

Bryan Nichols has written a very funny and perceptive piece on the CIPA as a Machiavellian cure for our current ersatz economic recession. He writes for the online version of the Iowa State Daily.

He notes: \”Congress… is using CIPA as a way to get out of our current economic slump.\” …everyone has an interest in getting cheaper, better, faster pornography. The Internet is perfect for this. In fact, according to CNN, 37 percent of Internet users access pornographic sites…

Bryan Nichols has written a very funny and perceptive piece on the CIPA as a Machiavellian cure for our current ersatz economic recession. He writes for the online version of the Iowa State Daily.

He notes: \”Congress… is using CIPA as a way to get out of our current economic slump.\” …everyone has an interest in getting cheaper, better, faster pornography. The Internet is perfect for this. In fact, according to CNN, 37 percent of Internet users access pornographic sites…

Bryan Nichols has written a very funny and perceptive piece on the CIPA as a Machiavellian cure for our current ersatz economic recession. He writes for the online version of the Iowa State Daily.

He notes: \”Congress… is using CIPA as a way to get out of our current economic slump.\” …everyone has an interest in getting cheaper, better, faster pornography. The Internet is perfect for this. In fact, according to CNN, 37 percent of Internet users access pornographic sites…

The best and brightest will quickly go to work figuring out new ways to get porn. And just as with computers, VCRs, the Internet, etc., society will climb on the back of these pornographic Columbuses and ride them to a dynamic new economy.

Congress obviously predicted this sort of technological adaptation, and likewise predicted it would be a perfect way to improve the economic downturn. So Congress, even though it usually appears to be stupid and misinformed, has apparently been pulling the wool over all of our eyes.

see:
http://news.excite.com/news/uw/010322/university-201

Ann Sparanese presented the following report to the hearing of the Latin American Subcommittee of the ALA International Relations Committee on the topic of the Cuban \”Independent Libraries\” in Washington, DC, at the ALA Midwinter Conference. Robert Kent and Company, whose emails you no doubt have seen, had taken his cause to this committee and expected a resolution from ALA Council which would have furthered his anti-Cuban cause. As a result of Mrs. Sparanese\’s report and other efforts, the LA Committee recommended \”no action.\” The report, which should satisfy readers as the \”last word\” on this issue, follows…

Ann Sparanese presented the following report to the hearing of the Latin American Subcommittee of the ALA International Relations Committee on the topic of the Cuban \”Independent Libraries\” in Washington, DC, at the ALA Midwinter Conference. Robert Kent and Company, whose emails you no doubt have seen, had taken his cause to this committee and expected a resolution from ALA Council which would have furthered his anti-Cuban cause. As a result of Mrs. Sparanese\’s report and other efforts, the LA Committee recommended \”no action.\” The report, which should satisfy readers as the \”last word\” on this issue, follows…

Ann Sparenese\’s paper for the IRC Latin America & Caribbean Subcommittee 

January 8, 2001 
To: Pat Wand

Chairperson, ALA IRC Latin American & Caribbean Subcommittee 
From: Ann C. Sparanese

SRRT Action Councilor 
Subject: Hearing on Charges by \”Friends of Cuban Libraries\” 
Thank you for inviting me to speak before your Subcommittee. These

notes have been prepared for your consideration. I am the head of

Adult & Young Adult Services at the Englewood Public Library in New

Jersey. I have been an active member of ALA for ten years. As well as

serving on SRRT Action Council and its International Responsibilities

Task Force, I have been a member of YALSA\’s Best Books for Young

Adults Committee, the AFL-CIO/ALA Joint Committee on Library Service

to Labor Groups, and I am the current Chairperson of RUSA\’s John

Sessions Memorial Award Committee. I also have a long history of

interest in, and travel to, Cuba. I attended the 1994 IFLA Conference

in Havana and my most recent visit was this past November, when I

visited Cuban libraries and met with Havana members of ASCUBI, the

Cuban Library Association. I have followed with interest, and argued

against, the allegations of Mr. Kent since he began his campaign in

1999. The Social Responsibilities Round Table passed the attached

resolution regarding the FCL at midwinter conference one year ago. Mr.

Kent would like to present his proposal as a no-brainer, a simple

question, a single pure concept: intellectual freedom. But it is not.

This paper is respectfully submitted with the hope that the

subcommittee may approach Mr. Kent\’s requests with a fuller

appreciation of history, the facts and the issues. 
Who Are the \”Friends of Cuban Libraries?\”

This is how Robert Kent and Jorge Sanguinetty described themselves at

the outset of their campaign for Cuban \”independent libraries.\”(1) 
\”Before going to the debate, however, the Friends of Cuban Libraries

would like to answer some inquiries from the public regarding the

goals and origin of our organization. The Friends of Cuban Libraries,

founded on June 1, 1999, is an independent, nonpartisan, nonprofit

organization which supports Cuba\’s independent libraries. We oppose

censorship and all other violations of intellectual freedom, as

defined by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of

the ideology or leadership of whatever Cuban government is in office.

The founders of the organization are Jorge Sanguinetty and Robert

Kent. Jorge Sanguinetty resides in Miami. He was the head of Cuba\’s

Department of National Investment Planning before he left the country

in 1967. He was later associated with the Brookings Institution and

the UN Development Programme. He is the founder and president of

Devtech, Inc. He is also a newspaper columnist and a commentator on

Radio Marti. Robert Kent is a librarian who lives in New York City. He

has visited Cuba many times and has Cuban friends whose viewpoints

cover the political spectrum. During his visits to Cuba Robert Kent

has assisted Cuban, American, and internationally-based human rights

organizations with deliveries of medicines, small sums of money, and

other forms of humanitarian aid. On four occasions he has taken books

and pamphlets to Cuba for Freedom House and the Center for a Free

Cuba, human rights organizations which have received publication

grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development; on three

occasions his travel expenses were paid wholly or in part by Freedom

House or the Center for a Free Cuba. On his last trip to Cuba in

February, 1999, Robert Kent was arrested and deported from the

country.\” 
Many references to Mr. Sanguinetty appear on the WWW. He speaks

widely on the subject of returning free market enterprise to Cuba. As

a commentator on Radio Marti, Mr. Sanguinetty is or was an employee of

the United States government. Cubans on the island have always

listened to Miami radio and even some TV stations. But Radio Marti is

a propaganda station directly controlled by the most right-wing

elements of the Cuban-American exile community, the Cuban American

National Foundation (CANF). It is not a neutral voice or a bastion of

\”free expression.\” It has never aired the voices of liberal elements

of the Cuban-American community who favor the normalization of

relations with Cuba. Mr. Sanguinetty is simply a professional

propagandist. In October 1995, President Clinton presented a $500,000

government grant to Freedom House for publishing and distributing

pamphlets and books in Cuba.(2) The funds were also devoted to paying

for individuals to travel to Cuba as tourists in order to make contact

with dissident groups, organize them and fund them.(3) Robert Kent is

evidently one of these couriers -another propagandist on an illegal,

paid-for mission on behalf of Freedom House. He is not the only

American to be sent on such a mission(4) and be deported. Kent

evidently believes that by acknowledging his sponsor, this somehow

legitimizes his activities. But it only demonstrates the nature of

his campaign as part and parcel of stated US foreign policy intended

to destabilize Cuba. 
2. What Are the \”Independent Libraries\”? 
The \”independent libraries\” are private book collections in peoples\’

homes. Mr. Kent and the right-wing Cuban-American propaganda outlets,

call them \”independent libraries\” and even \”public libraries.\” These

\”independent libraries\” are one of a number of \”projects\” initiated

and supported by a virtual entity calling itself \”Cubanet\”

(www.cubanet.org) and an expatriate anti-Castro political entity

calling itself the Directorio Revolucionario Democratico Cubano. The

Cubanet website describes what the \”independent libraries\” are, how

they got started and who funds and solicits for them. The index page

says that the organization exists to \”assist [Cuba\’s] independent

sector develop [sic] a civil society…\” This is the wording used in

both the Torricelli and the Helms Burton Acts, both of which require

that the US government finance efforts to subvert the Cuban society in

the name of strengthening \”civil society.\” You will see on the \”Who We

Are\” page that Cubanet, located in Hialeah, Florida, is financially

supported by the National Endowment for Democracy, the United States

Agency for International Development (USAID) and \”private\” \”anonymous\”

donors. The \”exterior\” representative of the \”independent libraries\”

is the Directorio Revoucionario Democratico Cubano, also located in

Hialeah.(5) 
3. Who are the Independent Librarians? 
 You will read on the pages of Cubanet about the individual

\”libraries\” and their personnel. Not one of the people listed is

actually a librarian. Not one has ever been a librarian. Most,

however, are leaders or officers of various dissident political

parties, such as the Partido Cubano de Renovacion Ortodoxa and the

Partido Solidaridad Democratica. This is documented on Cubanet,

although Mr. Kent never mentions these party affiliations in his FCL

press releases. We know absolutely nothing about the principles,

programs or activities of these parties, or why they have been

allegedly targeted. We don\’t know whether their activities are lawful

or unlawful under Cuban law. Kent maintains that their activities are

solely related to their books – but in reality we have no idea whether

this is true and in fact, one of these \”librarians\” told one of our

ALA colleagues that this was not true! By using the terms

\”beleaguered,\” \”librarians\” and the buzzwords \”freedom of expression\”

and \”colleagues\” Mr. Kent hopes to get the a priori support of

librarians who might not look beneath this veneer. After all, isn\’t

this the reason that the subcommittee will be considering their case

in the first place? But I wonder if ALA is willing to establish the

precedent that all politicians with private book collections who

decide to call themselves \”librarians,\” are therefore our

\”colleagues\”? 
4. Who funds Cubanet, the Directorio, and the \”independent libraries\”

– and why is this important? 
A recent book entitled Psy War Against Cuba by Jon Elliston (Ocean

Press, 1999), reveals, using declassified US government documents, the

history of a small piece of the 40-year-old propaganda war waged by

our country against the government of Cuba. The US has spent hundreds

of millions of taxpayers\’ dollars over these years to subvert and

overthrow the current Cuban government – US activities have included

complete economic embargo, assassinations and assassination attempts,

sabotage, bombings, invasions, and \”psyops.\” When even the fall of

the Soviet Union and the devastation of the Cuban economy in the early

1990\’s did not produce the desired effect, the US embarked on

additional, subtler, campaigns to overthrow the Cuban government from

within. One element of this approach is the funneling of monetary

support to dissident groups wherever they can be found, or created.

This includes bringing cash into the country through couriers such as

Mr. Kent, and increasing support to expatriate groups operating inside

the US, such as the Directorio, Cubanet and especially, the Cuban

American National Foundation (CANF) The website Afrocubaweb

(www.afrocubaweb.org) has gathered information from the Miami Herald

and other sources to document the recipients of this US funding.

USAID, a US government Agency, supported the Directorio Revolucionario

Democratico Cubano to the amount of $554,835 during 1999. This is

the group that supports the \”independent librarians\” in Cuba and is

listed as their \”foreign representative.\” The money that they send to

Cuba, as well as the \”small amounts\” of cash that Mr. Kent carried

illegally to Cuba violates Cuban law, which does not allow foreign

funding of their political process. Neither does the United States

allow foreign funding of its own political process – the furor around

alleged Chinese \”contributions\” to the Democratic Party is a case in

point. The \”independent libraries\” may be independent of their own

government, but they are not independent of the US government. The US

government is not the only anti-Castro entity that has adjusted its

policy to changing times– the most right-wing forces in the Cuban

expatriate community have also stepped up their support of dissident

elements inside Cuba over the last few years. The Miami Herald

reported in September 2000 that \”the leading institution of this

city\’s exile community plans to quadruple the amount of money it sends

to dissident leaders on the island…\” This leading institution is the

Cuban American National Foundation (CANF), and the article reports

that part of the group\’s $10,000,000 budget will begin \”flowing to the

island through sympathetic dissidents by the end of the year.\” More

specifically, CANF will, among other declared activities, \”increase

funds to buy books for its [Cuba\’s] independent libraries.\”(6) 
5. What is CANF? What is its record on free expression, intellectual

freedom, and democratic rights here in the USA? 
 The Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) was founded by Jorge

Mas Canosa, a veteran of the Bay of Pigs invasion and CIA operative,

at the behest of the Reagan administration in 1982. It has become the

most wealthy and powerful voice of the right-wing Cuban community in

South Florida and has wielded extraordinary political power for the

last twenty years. It has been connected to violence and terrorism

both in Cuba and in Miami. Its newest tactic, as described above, is

to \”support\” dissidents in Cuba, including buying books for

\”independent\” libraries, presumably to support \”freedom of expression\”

in Cuba. Mr. Kent and Mr. Sanguinetty claim to be proponents of human

rights and frequently refer to the \”landmark\” IFLA \”report.\” But they

seem to have no problem with their libraries\’ CANF connection, even

though CANF was the subject of a truly \”landmark\” report issued by

Americas Watch, a division of Human Rights Watch, in 1992. The

Americas Watch report on CANF is the first that organization ever

issued against a human rights violator in a city of the United States.

It states that \”a \’repressive climate for freedom of expression\’ had

been created by anti-Castro Cuban-American leaders in which violence

and intimidation had been used to quiet exiles who favor a softening

of policies toward Cuba.\”(7) The executive director of Americas Watch

at that time, said \”We do not know of any other community in the

United States with this level of intimidation and lack of freedom to

dissent.\”(8) The report documents \”how Miami Cubans who are opposed

to the Cuban government harass political opponents with bombings,

vandalism, beatings and death threats.\”(9) A campaign spearheaded by

CANF against the Miami Herald in the early nineties resulted in

bombings of Herald newpaper boxes and death threats to staff.(10)

Pressure from CANF closed the Cuban Museum of Arts and Culture because

it showed work by artists who had not \”broken\” with Cuba.(11) Anyone

who followed the Elian Gonzalez case this past year noted that

tolerance for dissenting views by Cuban Americans was completely

lacking in Florida and a hostile atmosphere was maintained by CANF

during the duration of the affair. Can you imagine what the life

expectancy of a pro-Castro \”independent library\” in the middle of

Little Havana would be, given this history? CANF does not respect

freedom of expression or democratic rights in the USA, yet it is a

direct financial supporter of Mr. Kent\’s independent libraries.

Neither Mr.Kent nor Mr. Sanguinetty have disowned this support – in

fact they haven\’t even mentioned it! They have not chosen to examine

or criticize the lack of free expression among the very people that

give them succor and publicity here at home, yet they claim to be its

great champions in Cuba! 
6. What about free expression and democratic rights in Cuba? 
There is no doubt that political dissidence has its consequences in

Cuba. Those who want to overthrow the current socialist government are

considered political problems. Because of the declared and well-funded

US policy of seeking to destabilize Cuba by creating and/or

instigating social unrest, the Cuban people consider these people to

be agents of US policy and enemies of the nation. This view is shared

by the former head of the US Interests Section in Cuba, former

Ambassador Wayne Smith who says: \”Since 1985, we have stated publicly

that we will encourage and openly finance dissident and human rights

groups in Cuba; this too is in our interest. The United States isn\’t

financing all those groups – only the ones that are best know

internationally. Those dissidents and human rights groups in Cuba –

that are nothing but a few people – are only important to the extent

that they serve us in a single cause: that of destabilizing Fidel

Castro\’s regime.\”(12) This is the reality of a small country that has

been in a virtual state of siege by the most powerful country in the

world for more than 40 years. The US has engaged in invasion,

sabotage, assassination attempts against its leader and even the

maintenance of a military base against the will of the Cuban people,

as well as well-documented psyop and propaganda campaigns. With the

economic blockade, the US has sought to bring the Cuban people to

their knees by depriving them of sources of foodstuffs and denying

medicine to their children.(13) Ambassador Smith: \”Through these two

policies, economic pressure and human rights – we want to force the

overthrow of Fidel Castro and then install a transitional government

that we like – to reinstate the people we want and thus, control Cuba

again.\”(14) It is a fact of life that democratic rights suffer in any

nation under siege or engaged in war. A view of our own history will

illuminate this point: simply look at the what happened to the

American people\’s freedom of expression, constitutional rights and

human rights during the Civil War, WWI, WWII, the Cold War McCarthy

period and even during our most recent wars. Can we realistically

expect and demand that Cuba be the model of democratic rights in the

face of the unrelenting US economic and political aggression? Cuba

does not have a perfect human rights record. But are we simply to

condemn Cuba for this situation? Don\’t we, as US citizens, whose tax

dollar has been used for so many years to create this situation, have

a special responsibility to look at the full picture? Shouldn\’t our

first concern be to change the policy that has directly contributed to

the limitation of democratic rights in Cuba? Even the UN special

rapporteur for human rights, while critical of Cuba, credited the US

policy for making the situation worse than it might otherwise be.(15)

Mssrs. Kent and Sanguinetty are asking this committee and the ALA for

a sweeping condemnation of Cuba on the basis of human rights. But are

not food, education, medical care, income, freedom from violence, and

literacy \”human rights\”? The Cuban people enjoy free medical care –

despite the US denial of Cuba\’s right to purchase basic medical

products – and have one of the highest per capita rate of doctors in

the world. All Cuban children attend school and enjoy free education

through university. The Cuban people are an extraordinarily literate

people with many more libraries and books than people in most of the

undeveloped world, despite Mr. Kent\’s attempts to ridicule their

library collections with absurd claims that have been refuted by Cuban

librarians. Cuban workers have the right to an income even if they

have been laid off from work; they have a society free from violence

and no Cuban child has ever been killed by a gun in his/her school.

Racism, as we know it in the US, is not present there and vestiges of

racism are actively combated at all levels of society. If these are

taken as measures of human rights, Cuba comes out looking very good

indeed. This is not to say that intellectual freedom and complete

freedom of expression are not important. But Cuba\’s exceptional

success in fulfilling these basic human needs explains why the

majority of the Cuban people are not anxious to trade their current

situation for the \”free market\”, \”wealthy exiles get their property

back\” plans of Kent/Sanguinetty\’s sponsors in Miami and the US

government. Before the ALA passes judgment on Cuba, even in the area

of free expression, we need to look at the whole picture and we need

to have some first-hand experience. We cannot simply act on what one

ill-informed librarian and a professional expatriate propagandist —

both with US government backing — tell us. 
7. How does US policy towards Cuba affect free expression and

intellectual freedom for US citizens? 
For close to forty years, in various permutations, the US has

maintained a travel ban, which specifically denies the right of US

citizens to visit Cuba outside a small set of \”legal\” and \”licensed\”

exceptions. This means that if any US citizen (any US librarian, for

instance) wants to travel to Cuba, simply to see for her/himself what

is going on there (not for any specifically academic or professional

purpose), this is against US law and punishable by fines and/or

imprisonment. If members of this subcommittee want to visit Cuban

libraries, simply to chat with your counterparts and even seek out the

\”independent librarians\” – it is not the Cuban government that is

preventing you, it is the US government! This is clearly an issue of

intellectual freedom(16) – but not to Mssrs. Kent and Sanguinetty.

They are purists. They are only concerned about freedom of expression

and intellectual freedom in Cuba – not in the US- and only for Cubans

in Cuba, not in Miami! This is utter hypocrisy. Because of this

forty-year war against Cuba by the United States, it is not just Cuban

citizens who have seen their democratic rights limited, it is US

citizens as well. To deliberately ignore this reality reveals the

claims and motives of Mr. Kent and Mr. Sanguinetty as deeply suspect. 
8. What About the IFLA Report? 
Why has the FCL been able to go forward with their accusations? The

answer is a report by the recently formed IFLA -FAIFE (Free Access to

Information and Freedom of Expression) Committee. The sole basis for

this action – the first such action taken by committee – was the

Friends of Cuban Libraries allegations, and several phone

conversations with the alleged librarians involved. No member of

FAIFE ever visited these \”libraries\” or attempted to. No

\”investigation\” whatsoever was undertaken beyond these phone contacts.

Parts of the report were taken verbatim from the papers of Mr. Kent

and Mr. Sanguinetty. Even the FAIFE report acknowledges the role of

financing by \”foreign interests,\” but it does not seem to find this

point very important. It does not address the issue of who these

\”librarians\” really are, but accepts FCL\’s allegations that they are

librarians. The IFLA investigation meets no standards. Nevertheless,

it has bestowed on Mr. Kent\’s cause a certain legitimacy and has

allowed Kent to go the Canadian Library Association, and other groups,

which also reacted to the IFLA report and did no independent

investigation. In an especially crass but clever move, Kent even

managed to get a recently imprisoned Chinese American librarian to

make statements about a situation about which he has no knowledge.

Perhaps IFLA can be forgiven for not understanding the nature of US

hostility toward Cuba, and the lengths to which the US and the

right-wing Cuban expatriate elements will go to further their aims of

overthrowing the Cuban government. But the American Library

Association will have no such excuse. Our own members and colleagues

have visited Cuban libraries and the \”independents\” (without prior

notification) and have testified as to their inauthenticity. They must

be listened to. This is already more than IFLA cared to do. The IFLA

report, and all that followed because of it, cannot be allowed to

grant any further imprimatur to the Kent/Sanguinetty campaign. 
9. What about our real colleagues – the librarians of Cuba? 
The charges that have been spread by Kent and his FCL have deeply

offended our real colleagues, the librarians of Cuba, and our sister

library association, ASCUBI. Our real colleagues are beleaguered by

shortages of things as simple as paper, professional literature,

computers and printers – and much of this has to do with their

inability, because of the US blockade, to purchase any items from US

companies (or foreign companies doing business with the US).

Computers cannot be brought to Cuba from the US legally, even as a

donation by licensed travelers. True \”friends of Cuban libraries\”

would be concerned about these matters. It is time that we begin to

know our real counterparts/colleagues in Cuba. It is time that we

begin to have the kinds of conversations and exchanges on all subjects

— including intellectual freedom and censorship. It is US policy,

not Cuban policy, which prevents us from doing so. As the

representative of US librarians, the ALA has an obligation first to

address our own country\’s limitation of freedom of expression and the

freedom to travel, then to criticize others. The American Library

Association cannot allow itself to be the willing instrument of a US

government/CANF-sponsored disinformation campaign. If the ALA takes

any action at all on Cuba, it should be to call for an end to the

embargo and the hostile US policy towards Cuba which harms the

democratic rights, including freedom of expression, of both the Cuban

and US people. ALA should begin in the spirit of the resolution

passed by the US librarians who attended the IFLA conference in Havana

in August 1994 (see attached). Copyright 2001 Ann C. Sparanese,MLS

Head of Adult & Young Adult Services Englewood Public Library

Englewood, NJ 07631 201-568-2215 ext. 229

[email protected] 
1 See http://internet.ggu.edu/university_library/if/cuba.html. Most of

the activities carried out by the FCL take place on the listserves, of

which this site has an \”anthology.\” 
2 Franklin, Jane. Cuba and The United States: A Chronological

History. Melbourne, Ocean Press, 1997. p375. 
3 Calvo, Hernando and

Katlijn Declertcq. The Cuban Exile Movement: Dissidents or

Mercenaries? New York, Ocean Press, 2000. p.130. 
4 Ibid. 
5 Another of

its stated purposes is \”informs the world about Cuba\’s reality\”, but

their news pages simply report only anti-government events or

incidents. 
6 \”In Miami, Cuban Exile Group Shifts Focus\” by Scott Wilson. The

Washington Post Foreign Service. Thursday, September 14, 2000; Page

A03. As quoted at http://afrocubaweb.org/dissidents.htm. 
7 \”Miami Leaders are Condemned by Rights Unit\” by Larry Rohter. New

York times, August 19, 1992 Section A, Page 8, retrieved from

Lexis-Nexis. 
8 Ibid. 
9 Franklin, p.300. 
10 Op.cit. 
11 Franklin, p 241, 242, 252,277. 
12 Calvo & Declercq, pp 156, (interview with Ambassador Smith.) 
13 \”Denial of Food and Medicine: The Impact of the U.S. Embargo on

Health and Nutrition in Cuba,\” A Report from the American Association

for World Health, March 1997. 
14 Calvo & Declercq, p160. 
15 Franklin, p 330. 
16 In \”The Right to Travel: The Effect of Travel Restrictions on

Scientific Collaboration Between American and Cuban Scientists,\” the

American Association for the Advancement of Science is every bit as

critical of the United States in limiting travel as it is of Cuba! The

report notes that the US government does not recognize the right to

travel as an internationally recognized fundamental right.

http://shr.aaas.org/rtt/report/one.htm .

I interviewed ALA Presidential Candidate Mitch Freedman for Library Juice and published it this week. It\’s fairly long, and worth reading if you are trying to decide whom to vote for. I am supporting Mitch, and I hope it is not an abuse of my posting privileges to publicize an essentially supportive interview. It is informative though – by reading it you may decide you like him or don\’t like him (though I think you will like him). I have no plans to interview the other candidates. The interview is here:

I interviewed ALA Presidential Candidate Mitch Freedman for Library Juice and published it this week. It\’s fairly long, and worth reading if you are trying to decide whom to vote for. I am supporting Mitch, and I hope it is not an abuse of my posting privileges to publicize an essentially supportive interview. It is informative though – by reading it you may decide you like him or don\’t like him (though I think you will like him). I have no plans to interview the other candidates. The interview is here:Interview with ALA Presidential Candidate Mitch Freedman

Rory Litwin: I saw the Candidates\’ Forum at ALA midwinter, so I feel that I
am basically familiar with you and the other two candidates as far as your
general positions and personalities go. I\’ll say at the outset that I\’m
interested in helping people decide between you and Ken Haycock. Bill
Sannwald can be summarized, for my readers at least, as the
business-oriented candidate. I think that should be enough for most of my
readers to decide about him. (I don\’t mean to imply by that that he is
horrible, just to say that he is without a doubt a business-oriented kind
of person.) Ken Haycock is more liberal, and besides that he is extremely
intelligent, a good listener, and would probably make a very good ALA
President, in my opinion. I would rather see you in the office, but I
wouldn\’t mind seeing him there either. Tell me, am I wrong about him? And
for those who don\’t already know the two of you, why should they vote for
you? Should people think of you as the Ralph Nader candidate? Is a vote
for Freedman a vote for Sannwald?

Mitch Freedman: Starting with the last one first,

I think that this situation is different than the one involving Ralph
Nader.

I was asked to run by a group of leading U.S. librarians representing
every major library group: the directors of three of the great U.S. public
libraries, Brooklyn Public (Martin Gomez), Broward County (Sam Morrison),
Seattle Public (Deborah Jacobs); the dean of a great library school, the U
of Illinois (Leigh Estabrook); the president of AASL (Harriet Selverstone);
and the heads of two fine research libraries (Sarah Pritchard, UC Santa
Barbara, and Sherrie Schmidt, Arizona State University).

In addition I received endorsements from such luminaries as the former
dean of the University of South Florida, Kathleen McCook; such leading
children\’s librarians as Mary Somerville and Judith Rovenger; the most
distinguished African-American librarian ever & one of the most greatest
librarians, E. J. Josey; the Editor-in-Chief of Library Journal, John N.
Berry III (his first public endorsement in 30 years); Congressman Major
Owens, an African-American and the only librarian ever to serve in the U.S.
Congress; leading officials of REFORMA; and, I have been endorsed by such
organizations as the ALA Feminist Task Force, REFORMA, SRRT, and GLBTRT;
and numerous other leading librarians from all over the country. (My web
site www.mitch4prez.org has a more expanded list.)

These are mainstream and leading professionals who have supported my
candidacy. Unfortunately for Mr. Nader he received no such comparable
endorsements.

The other difference is that with the acceptance by ALA of my petition, I
have equal status with the two candidates nominated by the nominating
committee. The listing on the ALA ballot in no way indicates the
nomination route the candidates took.

I am running a campaign to win, and will win.

The Nader comparison does not apply here: People will not be \’throwing
away\’ votes when they vote for me.

People will be voting for the best qualified person-I have been an ALA
member for 30 years, been on Council five terms, have been President of
LITA and won the LITA Award, served on committees in numerous ALA divisions
(PLA, LITA, ALCTS), including current membership on the Committee on the
Status of Women in Librarianship, and past chair of the ALA Pay Equity
Committee, as well as chair of two state intellectual freedom committees
(NY & Minnesota). I have gotten things done on my job, in the Association,
have published widely on intellectual freedom, on technology, and on
cataloging, and consulted for libraries in Korea, Kenya, South Africa,
Latvia, Morocco, Turkey, Italy, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia; plus I
taught at Columbia\’s library school, and worked in major management
positions at some of the U.S.\’s greatest libraries, the Library of
Congress, the New York Public Library, the Hennepin County Library, and the
Westchester Library System.

The foregoing are not the credentials of a splinter candidate, but someone
who, although a member of the mainstream, has distinguished himself
professionally and personally as a front-lines activist who has fought for
professional principles and won.

Finally, I\’m honored to be identified with Ralph Nader. I am a petition
candidate, which I think is an advantage. I see myself as a people\’s
candidate, and one who wasn\’t picked by a small group of people, but by the
broad-based group of supporters listed above. I admire the work that ALA
committee members, including those on the Nominating Committee do, but I
think it\’s unconscionable that they could select two white men to vie for
ALA\’s highest office.

This is an awkward position for another white male to take, but it\’s
certainly an action that I would never have taken in this predominantly
female field and in a profession well represented by people of color. As
one of three white male candidates, I am proud to have the endorsements of
the ALA Feminist Task Force and REFORMA, and the founder of the Black
Caucus of the American Library Association (BCALA) as well as many past and
present Board members of BCALA.

I will point out one difference between Ralph Nader\’s candidacy and mine.
I believe that I will win because of my broad-based support and front-line
record as a librarian.

Regarding your question that likens Dr. Haycock\’s and my credentials, and
your poor assessment of Mr. Sannwald\’s chances, let me offer the following:
I appreciate that to you, the decision may be between Dr. Haycock and
myself, but I encourage you also to draw a more positive portrait of Mr.
Sannwald.

Dr. Haycock and I may have similar views, but my approach is different.

For instance, at the recent ALA Midwinter meeting, REFORMA, the ALA
affiliate that serves the needs of Spanish speaking library users and
addresses Latino issues, brought up the @Your Library campaign.

The campaign failed to include any Spanish language print or non-print
materials. When asked how we would prevent such negligence in the future,
my response was to offer to work with REFORMA to sponsor a resolution in
the ALA Council the very next day to require ALA to add comparable Spanish
language materials. The Council passed the resolution and a valuable
precedent was set.

One of the other major solutions I offer is the establishment of a
Committee on Diversity that I would consult on all of the appointments I
would make and all of the ALA policies and programs initiated during my
tenure as President. Haycock and Sannwald made the usual statements about
how we need to embrace our patrons, librarians and staff from every
culture. To be fair, they–and I–cited their/our histories of inclusion of
people of color and strong records on multicultural issues.

But I did several action-oriented things that are ample evidence of our
differences when it comes to vigorous front-line direct action.

In addition to all of my years as an activist and demonstrator for civil
rights in the 1960s, the following professional efforts are worthy of
consideration and unique among the three candidates in the activism they
represent.

In 1971 the Black Employees of the Library of Congress (BELC) had a
demonstration in the LC main reading room protesting racism at LC. BELC
came to the ALA meeting that year and asked for ALA\’s support. I prepared
a statement, signed by other ex-LC employees who I organized, that I read
at the ALA membership meeting. I also engaged in the debate and managed to
negate the efforts to whitewash the racism at LC by a former Assistant
Librarian of Congress and, at the time of the debate, the president of the
Council on Library Resources. My efforts contributed ultimately to an
investigation of LC that I believe ended up critical of LC. I had worked
at LC and had seen the results of the racism first-hand.

Second, while at the Hennepin County Library, 1969-1974, I instituted the
policy of establishing bias-free cataloging, and hired Sanford Berman as
the head cataloger who implemented that policy. I also was responsible for
the implementation of an automated authority control cataloging system that
made it possible to make the sweeping changes in terminology.

Third, while at Hennepin, James Michael McConnell, a gay librarian, was
appointed by the University of Minnesota to a library position. Prior to
his starting date, McConnell married Jack Baker in a much-publicized
wedding ceremony. The U of M reneged on its letter of appointment and
fired McConnell. Despite all of the attendant publicity, I hired McConnell
as a cataloger at Hennepin because he was qualified for the position and
available. And I also believed in standing up for gay rights and human
rights.

Fourth, I was the only librarian in NY State to participate in the
ALA/ACLU lawsuit to overthrow the Pataki harmful to minors law. I
testified in court to get this harsh law overturned. Librarians would have
been subject to felony arrest if a minor were deemed to have seen something
\’harmful\’ on an Internet terminal in the library. I received an award from
the ACLU Westchester chapter for the role I played in this successful
lawsuit. I plan to be a plaintiff in the lawsuit to overturn the
Children\’s Internet Protection Act that will force filtering on all
libraries that wish to continue to receive, e-rate, ESEA, LSTA and other
federal funds.

Lastly, in my current position as director of the Westchester Library
System, a few years ago, I recommended to my Board, which in turn approved
my recommendation, to establish domestic partner benefits for all employees
who lived with partners on an ongoing basis and who did not otherwise
qualify for family plan benefits.

On the intellectual freedom front, I was the only librarian (and the
Westchester Library System the only library) to participate as a
plaintiff-I actually testified in court-in the ALA/ACLU/WLS et. Al. vs.
Pataki lawsuit. This action successfully overturned New York State\’s
\’harmful to minors\’ Internet law.

WLS and I have signed on as plaintiffs in the upcoming ACLU suit to injoin
and overturn the U.S. Children\’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA). Only a
handful of libraries are participating as of this writing.

There are more examples of my activist record, but these are illustrative
of my principles and my activism in support of them. I stand up for what I
believe both professionally and personally, and am proud of my record.

RL: Okay, let\’s talk about some issues. One issue that you are talking
about that the other two candidates, to my knowledge, are ignoring, is
privatization. Why is privatization an important issue to you and why do
you think the other candidates are not talking about it? What would you do
about it as ALA President?

MF: I don\’t wish to say that the other candidates are ignoring
privatization–although I will say that Mr. Sannwald referred to Riverside
as an isolated incident, unlikely to manifest itself ever again-not true;
there are several privatized \’public\’ libraries around the country.

I would rather speak to my strong feelings on the subject. I stated when I
was addressing the Chapter Relations Assembly that I will fight the
privatization of public libraries as long as there is breath in my body.
The bottom line on this issue is the \’bottom line.\’ A private company is
not serving the public, it is serving itself, its owners, its stockholders.

Regardless of how well intended or capable the company nor what respected
librarian it hires to be in charge, the decisions on policy, hiring,
selection of materials, etc. will all be subordinate to the company\’s
primary purpose, the making of profits for its owners. A public library is
a public good-it can\’t be subjected to the bottom line for its mission of
service to the entire community. Interlibrary loan is costly-should we get
rid of it? Serving disparate populations is expensive-why not just serve
the majority of the people in the community? These are bottom line issues
that are easy to resolve in a privatized public library. And I say \’no\’ to
privatization because that is the kind of thinking that will be destructive
of the public library mission and the public library movement, one of
America\’s three greatest contributions to democracy (public schools and the
First Amendment being the other two).

RL: Same question regarding freedom of expression in the workplace – why
is it an important issue for you and why do you think the other candidates
are not talking about it? And, what would you do about it as President?

MF: Your long-time readers are familiar with the case of Sanford Berman,
Head Cataloger at the Hennepin County Library and a man I am extremely
proud to have hired for that position, and one of my dearest friends. His
\”early retirement\” was forced by the library administration\’s attempts to
keep him quiet. As already noted, I hired Sandy and also hired James
Michael McConnell while at Hennepin. Each of them represented cases of
freedom of expression in the workplace gone horribly awry. In Sandy\’s
case, were I still there, he never would have had that \”early retirement\”
or we would have had it together. In McConnell\’s case, I hired him after
the University of Minnesota fired him for his public marriage to another
male. And my establishing \”domestic partners\” insurance benefits for staff
at the Westchester Library System bespeaks a strong position in this area.

I will use the power of the presidency to advocate for free expression in
the workplace and personally take up the support and defense of any and all
librarians who are subject to attack for the expression of their views.
ALA has long avoided supporting librarians who have suffered for the
exercise of their freedom of expression-cases have been turned over to the
Merritt Fund, a poorly financed operation, and have not been the concern of
the Freedom to Read Foundation (FTRF), a financially well-endowed group.
FTRF has tended to focus on books and ideas, and has tended to avoid the
support of librarians because of the view that such support would
jeopardize ALA\’s tax-exempt status.

I will explore ways to provide stronger support to embattled librarians,
and will actively campaign for building up the coffers of the Merritt Fund.
Incidentally, Leroy Merritt, after whose memory the fund is named, was my
professor at the University of California at Berkeley\’s School of
Librarianship.

RL: Another issue you discussed at the Candidates Forum, which the other
two didn\’t touch, is the issue of declining access to government
information. Just what is going on and what would you do about it? And,
again, why do you think the other candidates aren\’t talking about it?

MF: The privatization of government information is a serious matter. It
began with Jimmy Carter\’s well-intentioned \”Paperwork Reduction Act.\” With
Ronald Reagan, the juggernaut hit full speed, and has continued with the
succeeding administrations.

Simply, much valuable government information, collected at taxpayer
expense, has been contracted out to private companies for dissemination.
Cases have been demonstrated in which databases that were created from data
that were collected at considerable government expense are now being
sold-on behalf of the government-by private companies at prices that are so
prohibitive that they are inaccessible to most academics and usually
affordable only by corporations.

Other examples of the decline of access to government information are the
reduction of numbers of copies in print runs of government publications,
and the publication of documents in electronic format alone rather than in
both print and electronic formats.

Perhaps, the worst case is the decision by numerous government agencies to
save money by simply not publishing valuable information.

Together these comprise a deprivation of the taxpayers of access to the
information whose assembling and publication that they paid for or need,
but to which they cannot have access for these various reasons. I will
fight to stop this decline in access to government information.

RL: How does your position on filtering differ from Ken Haycock\’s?

MF: I\’ll start with a quote from Albert Einstein. \”You cannot
simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.\” My position is unequivocally
against the imposition of filters. ALA needs to fully support its policy of
not abridging access to \”constitutionally protected speech,\” so that
libraries in crisis have an uncompromised position to which to appeal. My
understanding is that Dr. Haycock wants to develop tools to help libraries
to \”make the best of a bad situation.\” I will not compromise on the
advocacy of the position of protecting access to \”constitutionally
protected speech.\”

Ultimately decisions are made by the local community-not by ALA-as to
whether they should have filters on Internet terminals in their libraries.
As I have done in my job as director of the Westchester Library System and
as I will do as President of ALA, I will urge libraries to support
uncompromised access to \”constitutionally protected speech.\” Any perusal
of www.peacefire.org will demonstrate unequivocally that all of the filters
available grossly deny access to constitutionally protected speech. That
is why I will fight against filters as ALA President.

Further I will fight against any and all externally imposed requirements
for filters, and most especially the Children\’s Internet Protection Act
which demands filters if libraries and schools are to receive federal
funds. I will be a plaintiff in the ACLU lawsuit to overthrow this law. I
am not sure that Dr. Haycock\’s status as a Canadian citizen would permit
him to be a plaintiff, or, if it did, he would choose to participate in the
lawsuit.

RL: A new development in ALA is the slogan \”speaking with one voice\” and a
concurrent document from the ALA legal department interpreting existing
policy to mean that subunits of ALA are not permitted to speak on their own
behalf outside of ALA, under penalty of being dissolved. SRRT in
particular has been told that we are to cease sending out SRRT resolutions
on various issues, regardless of clear disclaimers to the effect that we
are not speaking for ALA. Other subunits that issue statements relating to
their areas of concern, such as GODORT\’s statement on the possible
defunding of the DLP, have not received any such warning. Are you
concerned about this? What is your sense of what is going on? And would
you take any action on this issue?

MF: I was one of a handful of members of the ALA Council that publicly
opposed this policy and actually engaged the ALA-hired attorney on its
merits and implementation. It is absurd that an organization that has
intellectual freedom as its highest value focus on limiting the speech of
its organizational units. Unpopular speech is not a valid reason for
silencing speakers.

Regarding your example, SRRT has not been in conflict with ALA policy and
has stated that it will label its statements and resolutions as expressions
of SRRT and not the ALA. The real one-voice issue isn\’t with SRRT and its
controversies, but with established ALA units that have spoken in Congress
and elsewhere in opposition to ALA policies. However uncomfortable this
is, ALA must find ways to deal with these conflicts without threatening to,
or actually dissolving, the given ALA unit or expelling members from the
Association. Free speech must prevail within the Association, not just in
libraries.

RL: A lot of people are unhappy that two white males were nominated this
year, especially with the current President-elect also a white male. How
do you feel about that and how do you think it affects you being the
third white male candidate?

MF: Please see my answer above. I am proud of my endorsement by the ALA
Feminist Task Force. Also please note the how many distinguished female
librarians asked me to run or have endorsed my candidacy. I also am a
member of the Committee on the Status of Women in Librarianship (COSWL),
and I served as chair of the ALA Pay Equity Committee. My website,
www.Mitch4Prez.org contains a copy of the speech I gave at a COSWL program
(focused on Deborah Tannen\’s \”You Just Don\’t Understand\”), \”Confessions of
a Male Middle Manager.\” Although I am a male, I offer these credentials in
support of my candidacy.

RL: Pay equity is another issue that is a priority for you which the other
candidates aren\’t nearly so aggressive about. What are your plans for
working towards pay equity? I think one reason the other candidates aren\’t
talking about it is that they don\’t believe it can be achieved. Are you
optimistic about pay equity?

Mr. Sannwald includes better pay for librarians in his campaign
literature, as well, but I believe you will find my approach to the issue
more aggressive. The issue of pay equity is very important to me, partly
because after my daughter, Jenna, graduated from library school last year,
she was unable to find a library job that paid a living wage. My daughter
aside, I have been involved with pay equity concerns for a long time, and
chaired ALA\’s Pay Equity Committee. It grieves me that the profession of
librarianship is so grossly undervalued and underpaid.

As President, the positive program I will have to raise library workers\’
salaries will be three-fold:

Get the research done and information amassed that clearly documents
the comparable worth of librarians with respect to other professionals with
similar educations, responsibilities, and experience.

Use the information collected to put together a toolkit for libraries
and library staff around the country to use-much in the way ALA has done so
successfully with its Information Advocacy program-to get library workers
equitable pay. ALA cannot go into local communities to change things, but
it can arm the local libraries with the tools to help them bring about
positive change.

I will create a fund for a campaign to raise library workers\’ salaries.
Included will be stronger ($) support for the ALA Pay Equity Committee.

RL: On the REFORMA listserv someone recently wrote that in 2001 minority
concerns are already being ignored in ALA. To others it probably looks
like diversity is has been a priority in ALA for a while and remains a
priority. How do you feel that ALA is doing on the diversity front, and
what would you do differently?

MF: While ALA has a clear pro-diversity stance, I don\’t know that it has
been doing everything it can to promote multicultural representation in the
library. The Spectrum Scholarship is an excellent initiative that I have
supported both in money and in spirit. Other things we need to do to ensure
multiculturalism are to work much harder to include minority
librarians–including gay librarians–on ALA committees, work to have the
ALA council better reflect the library community, and to provide support
for collection development and library services to people of color.

As mentioned earlier, I will appoint a Diversity Task Force to advise me on appointments and policies. I am confident that
some wonderful initiatives and appointments will be forthcoming from this
Task Force.

RL: In your campaign flyer you say you will fight for \”continued
recognition that libraries are physical, as well as virtual places.\” What
do you mean by that? What would you say is happening that requires this to
be fought for?

MF: A lot has been written about how librarians will soon be replaced by
computers, and indeed \”cyber libraries.\” Internet libraries have become
very popular. They are often valuable research tools for people who know
how to use them. But the library experience can and should never be
replaced by its virtual counterpart.

As libraries rely increasingly on computer technology, there are pressures
from some quarters-typically politicians and others who hold the purse
strings-to shrink the physical facilities and to staff the libraries with
technicians, rather than librarians, as is already
happening-unfortunately-in libraries across the country. They argue that
with \”everything being available on the Internet, why do you need so many
books-or, any books?\”

In response to such claims, there are some obvious and not-so-obvious
considerations that apply. First, the library is a social institution.
The physical space accommodates admirably the human need for people to be
in community with other people. People like the library because there are
other people there for them to share the space with, talk to, or learn
from.

Second, as any librarian can tell you, there are no assurances that
information on the Internet is accurate, reliable, or up-to-date. It takes
the librarian to know the good information sources. It is the librarian
who can provide the guidance that can eliminate so much of the wasted time
endured by the uninitiated user who tries to ferret out information that
may be buried in the thousands of hits by the search engine that she or he
queried. The seemingly infinite amount of information and its inherent
lack of organization, cries out for the expertise of the librarian to
navigate it. No physical library, no physical librarian.

Lastly, it seems idiotic to have to defend the printed page and the print
medium, but the ignorance that is a manifested by these attacks on the need
for the bricks and mortar library requires a response. The easy answer is
that there is still a wealth of information that is not available on the
Internet. The other easy answer is that reputable publishers tend to take
seriously the validity of the information they publish-that\’s why libraries
are more apt to buy non-fiction publications from some publishers and not
others. In effect the material on the shelves has been put through a
selection process-the information on the Internet can be the publication of
the most respected scholar or institution, or the village idiot or some
crackpot group.

It is wonderful that public and many academic libraries bring the Internet
to people who otherwise have no free access. It is our duty to help library
users satisfy their information needs: in some cases it will be through
assistance in navigating the Internet, or, in other cases, by helping them
find the print material(s) that they need.

We need physical libraries. I have seen threats to the buildings and the
size of library collections, and have had to answer the question repeatedly
as to why libraries are needed now that we have the Internet and all of
these wonderful on-line databases, etc. It is an issue that will not go
away. The ALA President will have to be a vigorous advocate for the full
complement of library services.

RL: At the candidates\’ forum you emphasized the importance of school
libraries and children\’s services in public libraries. What are the issues
facing school librarians and children\’s librarians and what do you propose
to do about them?

MF: Two major issues I see for librarians who serve children and young
adults are pay equity and support for filtering challenges. Another problem
that I haven\’t already addressed is simply the lack of qualified people
willing to take employment in school and public libraries. Because of this
staffing crisis, school and public libraries are dealing with non-MLS
teachers and adult specialists, respectively. I would work with AASL, ALSC,
and YALSA to develop recruitment and retention plans to attract and retain
a greater number of talented children\’s and YA specialists.

I also am deeply concerned about the trend among school boards to
eliminate the position of librarian, especially in elementary schools. I
am concerned as well by the censorship of school librarian selections and
the more insidious non-selections, i.e., not selecting something because
the librarian knows it will be trouble.

I also know that initiating collaborative efforts between school and
public libraries is essential. I helped create and manage the Tall Trees
Initiative, a grant-based Westchester program that developed innovative and
creative ways to foster collaboration between school and public libraries.
The increase in test scores and overall performance of the participating
students was amazing.

ALA must make strengthening the positions of school libraries and youth
services librarians a priority.

RL: I understand the differences between you and Ken Haycock, but I can\’t
help thinking, isn\’t it likely that some other year in the next five to ten
years, two really bad candidates will be nominated, making a Freedman
candidacy really necessary? Why did you choose to run this year rather
than another year?

MF: This question could be asked of any of the three candidates. Whether
asked by the Nominating Committee or a number of library leaders (as in my
case), the candidate must be in a position to take the time to wage the
campaign, and if successful, have the time to be President.

I was asked by the Nominating Committee to run in past elections but did
not because job demands made it impossible. This year was the first year I
felt that I could find the time to wage a successful campaign for ALA
President. My first responsibility is to my job, and I can\’t shortchange
it. In another way, the time is right for someone with my lobbying and
negotiating skills, and with my deep commitment to intellectual freedom,
fair use, and unfiltered access to the Internet. The threats from the
federal and other levels of government in these areas are intensifying. If
the ALA membership wants someone who will provide the leadership and the
commitment to address these issues, I believe that my candidacy is the one
that they should support.

RL: Is there anything else you want to talk about?

MF: My positions on the issues continue to evolve, but my fundamental
position on librarianship is the same. It\’s a service profession-unless
we\’re providing service there\’s not much basis for our existence.

Other than that, I just want to say thanks for interviewing me for Library
Juice, a publication for which I have great admiration.

The UK journal Information for Social Change has a new issue out, No. 12. The articles on the web are as follows:

• Editorial. John Vincent
  
• Clause 28. Anne Ramsden
  
• Clause 28 and its effects.
  
• Changing times: information destinations of the lesbian, Gay, bisexual and transgender community in Denver, Colorado. Martin Garnar
  
• Barriers to GLBT library service in the Electronic Age. Ellen Greenblatt
  
• Book review: Ian Lumsden\’s Machos, maricones and gays: Cuba and homosexuality. Review: John Pateman and John Vincent
  
• Social Exclusion Action Planning Network
  
• Book review: Fidel Castro\’s Capitalism in Crisis. Review: John Pateman