Kansas ALA Councilor

Janet Swan Hill is a long-term ALA Councilor.  She posted the comments, copied below, to the council list.  I asked if I could copy and paste them here because I thought they did an eloquent job of looking at the issues.

There is also a Cuban Update prepared by the ALA International Relations Office which is quite helpful in providing historical perspective and a timeline of activities, to date.  It is a very long document, so I have not copied it here, but I would be happy to forward it to you if you are interested.  Just send me an email at rbanks@tscpl.org and I will respond. 

Quoted from Janet Swan Hill-Councilor at Large:

"One of the hot buttons regarding the issue of the jailing of this particular group of Cuban dissidents is the fact that those who wish ALA to take some kind of action keep referring to the dissidents as "independent librarians".

It seems that they believe that if someone is a librarian, ALA will (or

should) automatically come to their rescue, or at least take up cudgels on their behalf.

There are problems with this approach that have contributed to ALA's being unwilling to support any of the resolutions that has been brought forward:

-- The people being referred to are not actually librarians.

-- The people have not been jailed for being librarians.

-- It can be disputed that they were engaged in librarian-like activities, and it can be disputed that having information in your home that you may or may not lend is in any way equivalent to operating a library

-- Even if they were librarians, ALA does not have a responsibility to jump to the defense of people solely because they are librarians. Librarians are capable of crimes just like anyone else, and a librarian who steals a car, or jaywalks, or commits fraud, or violates copyright, or unlawfully pickets is not going to inspire the support of ALA. -- Even being a prisoner of conscience won't necessarily garner support. There are many beliefs that someone might espouse that could get them in trouble with the authorities that most in ALA would not be in sympathy with. (bigamy, racism, etc.)

Nevertheless, there appears to be little argument that these people in Cuba are "prisoners of conscience" .... that is, it appears that they broke the laws of their country primarily out of a conviction that what they were doing was right. And there seems to be little argument that the trials they received were not all they should be, and that the sentences that some received seem to be excessive for the offense.

So, for the sake of discussion, let's remove the appellation "librarian", and let's not even think about whether or not these people were "operating a library".

In that case, would ALA believe it to be its business to condemn a foreign country for arresting dissidents, trying them in brief and flawed trials, and issuing jail sentences that seem to be out of proportion to the crime?

Would our answer be different if the people were targeted because of their beliefs? Would our answer be different depending on the particular beliefs in question?

It's those things that will determine how Council acts on any resolution having to do with the so-called "independent librarians". Insisting on calling them librarians, and on calling their home-based collections libraries is deceptive and manipulative, and instead of increasing the likelihood that ALA will take the action proposed, it decreases it.

BY THE WAY .... I don't know the answers to the questions I asked above.

I'd be interested in hearing opinions."