Do Librarians Oppose Censorship? Not Always…

So, you think librarians always defend free speech and oppose censorship, especially of books? Read this, and think again.

A debate within the American Library Association over whether to condemn Cuba for jailing dissident librarians grew fiercer last week after a keynote speaker at the association’s midwinter meeting accused the group of failing to defend free speech.

“Am I hallucinating? Is this the same American Library Association that stands against censorship and for freedom of expression everywhere?” said the speaker, Andrei Codrescu, a Romanian-born writer.

….

The Cuban library movement was founded in 1998 by a married couple of professors, Ramón Colás and Berta Mexidor, who later fled to Miami. The movement seeks to give Cubans access to publications deemed “counterrevolutionary” by the island’s Communist government, such as George Orwell’s Animal Farm and the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are now more than 100 independent libraries in Cuba, each one usually comprising several hundred books kept in someone’s house (The Chronicle, June 8, 2001).

The Cuban government has responded by confiscating thousands of books and jailing more than a dozen independent librarians, who have been accused of treason for collaborating with the U.S. government. (The librarians say that only some of their books come from the U.S. Interests Section in the Swiss Embassy, the highest-level U.S. government office in Cuba.)

‘So-Called Librarians’

Despite vehement protests from some of its members, the ALA has refrained from defending the independent librarians. Association officials argue that the Cuban movement — whose leaders they describe as “so-called librarians” — is more political than scholarly.

“There is some evidence to suggest that it’s really the U.S. Interests Section” that is leading the movement as part of a bid “to destabilize the Cuban government,” said John W. Berry, a former president of the association, “and that alone causes many members of ALA to want to stay a little bit clear of the politics of this situation.” Mr. Berry, who runs a network of community-college libraries in Illinois, led fact-finding missions to Cuba in 2001 and 2002. He found no evidence of censorship at Cuba’s state-run libraries, he said.

Mr. Codrescu argues that such a position is hypocritical, given the association’s outspoken opposition to what it has called the censorship provisions of the USA Patriot Act.

“I pointed out what to me seemed very obvious,” he said on Monday, “which is that the ALA should take a stand with their fellow Cuban librarians who are in prison.” He added that he had received dozens of letters from ALA librarians in support of his views.

I couldn’t make this up (fear that someone might think I had is why I quoted so much). It would be unbelievable … if it weren’t so easy to believe.

Say What? (47)

  1. Anita February 2, 2006 at 11:22 am | | Reply

    once again, we see the craziness of liberals who are not really liberal at all. jailing people because of their ideas is wrong – unless communists are doing it. religious intolerance is wrong – unless muslims are doing it. this is why i no longer call myself a liberal, because liberals are not really liberal. they don’t honestly believe in free speech or non racism.

  2. mj February 2, 2006 at 1:09 pm | | Reply

    “Association officials argue that the Cuban movement — whose leaders they describe as “so-called librarians” — is more political than scholarly.”

    Which distinguishes them from “librarians” how?

  3. actus February 2, 2006 at 3:10 pm | | Reply
  4. Sandy P February 2, 2006 at 8:42 pm | | Reply

    This has been going on a couple of years now, IIRC.

    I’ve read other articles on it.

    Disgusting.

  5. Joey Bee February 2, 2006 at 8:57 pm | | Reply

    I’m surprised the ACLU isn’t involved also. I thought they cared about freedom.

  6. Joey Bee February 2, 2006 at 8:59 pm | | Reply

    I’m surprised the ACLU isn’t involved also. I thought they cared about freedom.

  7. actus February 2, 2006 at 9:04 pm | | Reply

    “I’m surprised the ACLU isn’t involved also. I thought they cared about freedom.”

    Surprising that the American Civil liberties union, a group of american lawyers, isn’t talking about cuba.

  8. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 2, 2006 at 9:51 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    It’s true that the ACLU doesn’t ordinarily concern itself with other nations. Though there have been a few child-custody cases in which it has intervened rather heavily on the side of Communist dictatorships. Elián Gonzalez springs to mind, and some of us have not forgotten Walter Polovchak, who escaped getting shipped back to Ukraine in the then-USSR (no thanks to the ACLU) only because his case dragged on so long that he turned 18 before it was wrapped up.

    I can’t get through to http://www.ala.org. Site might be down. But really, supporting people who hoard politically-suppressed books in their homes and loan them out to anyone who wants to read them is a no-brainer for a decent librarian. And speaking up for them when they’re jailed for it would seem obligatory.

  9. Richard Nieporent February 2, 2006 at 10:25 pm | | Reply

    But really, supporting people who hoard politically-suppressed books in their homes and loan them out to anyone who wants to read them is a no-brainer for a decent librarian. And speaking up for them when they’re jailed for it would seem obligatory.

    That would be true if they really believed in freedom. However, the ALA is just another Marxist friendly Left wing organization. You can’t really expect them to go against their Communist brethren now, can you?

  10. actus February 2, 2006 at 10:51 pm | | Reply

    “Elián Gonzalez springs to mind, and some of us have not forgotten Walter Polovchak, who escaped getting shipped back to Ukraine in the then-USSR (no thanks to the ACLU) only because his case dragged on so long that he turned 18 before it was wrapped up.”

    That family-hating ACLU.

    What’s intervening ‘heavily’ for a non-profit group of lawyers?

    “That would be true if they really believed in freedom. However, the ALA is just another Marxist friendly Left wing organization. You can’t really expect them to go against their Communist brethren now, can you?”

    From the ALA website:

    “ALA supports IFLA in urging the Cuban government to eliminate obstacles to access to information imposed by its policies, and IFLA’s support for an investigative visit by a special rapporteur of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights with special attention given to freedom of access to information and freedom of expression, especially in the cases of those individuals recently imprisoned and that the reasons for and conditions of their detention be fully investigated.”

  11. Steven Jens February 3, 2006 at 4:27 am | | Reply

    The ACLU is supposed to do what, now? Sue Cuba? And if they’re more interested in issues closer to home, that’s equivalent to saying “yay, Castro”?

    Certainly, as Michelle points out, the ACLU will sometimes fight on the side of wrong. I’d rather reserve my ACLU-bashing for such occasions.

  12. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 3, 2006 at 1:05 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    That ALA statement, vague as it is, is incompatible with Mr. Berry’s in the quoted article. I mean, how do you reconcile

    [ . . .] to eliminate obstacles to access to information imposed by its policies [ . . . ]

    with

    [Berry] found no evidence of censorship at Cuba’s state-run libraries, he said.?

    Obstacles other than censorship, perhaps? Maybe they have all the banned books on the shelf, but if you try actually to check one out you’re arrested? I suppose that would count as an “obstacle.”

    And this mealy-mouthed phrase:

    [ . . . ] especially in the cases of those individuals recently imprisoned and that the reasons for and conditions of their detention be fully investigated

    doesn’t suggest any particular outrage, does it? The “reasons” are clear: These people were in possession of banned books, and even letting other people read them. This isn’t a complicated issue, folks. It’s not that hard to sneak in something like “condemn in the strongest terms,” is it? Try it and see.

    But then we might be contributing to the insidious Swiss/American plot to “destabilize” the Cuban Government. Which would be very bad.

    Re the ACLU, actus, the Gonzalez situation was complicated by his being so young. But Polovchak and his elder sister (who turned 18 right after the case began, so was out of it) were quite old enough to know what they were doing. I doubt very much that the ACLU gets involved in cases where a child flees an abusive home in this country and then is forcibly returned to it — not, at least, on the side of the parent(s). Why did they do so in this case? I don’t mean that the elder Polovchaks were personally abusive to their children, but dragging them back to an enormous prison state when they’d known it, known freedom, and preferred the latter is a kind of abuse in my book.

    Still, Steven is right that there’s not a lot the ACLU could do in this case. (Query: I know the ACLU opposes the Cuba embargo and travel ban. What did it think of the South Africa divestment campaign? That caused a lot of things not to get shipped to South Africa, including, not incidentally, books.)

  13. actus February 3, 2006 at 6:09 pm | | Reply

    “I don’t mean that the elder Polovchaks were personally abusive to their children, but dragging them back to an enormous prison state when they’d known it, known freedom, and preferred the latter is a kind of abuse in my book.”

    Were they abusive parents or not? Can people in that country have kids, or is the US entitled to steal them?

    “But then we might be contributing to the insidious Swiss/American plot to “destabilize” the Cuban Government. ”

    Should we also be concerned with the fact that US embargo on Cuba extends to books? It would seem like that is something that the American Library Association can talk about. It being a US policy, after all.

  14. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 3, 2006 at 6:26 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Were they abusive parents or not? Can people in that country have kids, or is the US entitled to steal them?

    “Steal them,” actus? Who is supposed to have done the “stealing”? They wanted to remain here. It’s hardly as though the US Gov’t abducted them and held them hostage.

    I repeat: What “American civil liberties” was the ACLU defending here? The liberty of Ukrainian families not to be split up because the children wanted to do one thing and the parents wanted to do another thing? Since when is the fate of an Ukrainian family within the ACLU’s purview — since you’ve been assiduously pointing out that Cubans jailed for owning copies of Animal Farm are outside it?

    And I also repeat: I don’t know of, and really can’t imagine, a case in which the ACLU would act or has acted to restore an American child unwillingly to the custody of his or her parents. If you do know of one, please supply a reference.

  15. actus February 3, 2006 at 7:29 pm | | Reply

    “”Steal them,” actus? Who is supposed to have done the “stealing”? They wanted to remain here. It’s hardly as though the US Gov’t abducted them and held them hostage.”

    Like I said. Is it abusive to send a child back to be with their parents, just because their parents live in a communist country? Can we take any kids that we want? That’s what you seem to be saying.

    “I repeat: What “American civil liberties” was the ACLU defending here?”

    Family values. The underdog. Parents that are presumed to be abusive because they live in the Ukraine and thus are apparently not entitled to have children.

    “Since when is the fate of an Ukrainian family within the ACLU’s purview — since you’ve been assiduously pointing out that Cubans jailed for owning copies of Animal Farm are outside it?”

    Because this is a case in an american court. If the US government puts me in jail for sending books to Cubans in violation of the embargo the ACLU can represent me. But they can’t if the Cubans or the Ukranians do it. They’re american lawyers, that deal with american law.

    “And I also repeat: I don’t know of, and really can’t imagine, a case in which the ACLU would act or has acted to restore an American child unwillingly to the custody of his or her parents.”

    I don’t know much about any ACLU custody cases. Try googling them. They do work on it.

    I don’t know if the Ukranian or Elian case were even properly custody issues. It looks like the wishes of non-abusive parents were rather clear.

  16. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 3, 2006 at 10:23 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    Family values. The underdog. Parents that are presumed to be abusive because they live in the Ukraine and thus are apparently not entitled to have children.

    Really, now. A superpower and a teenage boy’s parents want him safely back under totalitarian control, and siding with them is backing the “underdog”? And when did the ACLU consider “family values” “civil liberties”? And who ever said that people in Ukraine didn’t deserve to have children? (Apart, obviously, from the Soviet bureaucrats that tried to starve the entire province to death.)

    At the time of the Polovchak case, George Will wrote that the ACLU was fighting the other side of a similiar case — similar, that is, except that the minor was trying not to be sent back to Chile, rather than the USSR.

  17. actus February 4, 2006 at 12:50 am | | Reply

    “Really, now. A superpower and a teenage boy’s parents want him safely back under totalitarian control, and siding with them is backing the “underdog”? ”

    Who do you think is the underdog when it comes to sending a kid back to his parents behind the iron curtains? There’s a million jingos here ready to equate that with being an abusive parent. Ready to say that people behind the iron curtain don’t love their kids.

    “At the time of the Polovchak case, George Will wrote that the ACLU was fighting the other side of a similiar case — similar, that is, except that the minor was trying not to be sent back to Chile, rather than the USSR.”

    Lets have the facts. Of course, there is also the issue that Eugene Volokh has recently pointed out: that there is not 1 ACLU, but several in the different states. So its perfectly expected that they would take contradictory positions on difficult questions.

  18. actus February 4, 2006 at 12:58 am | | Reply

    wow. I didn’t know that the polovchak boy was 12 when ‘asked’ for asylum rather than return with his parents. Nuts. And other adults came to make a propaganda victory out of him.

  19. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 4, 2006 at 2:05 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    So what do you think of Natalie Polovchak, then? Should she have been shipped back also as a matter of course? Is going where your parents want you now a “civil liberty”? Or is the “civil liberty” having your kids wherever you want them? Whether you’re a US citizen or not?

    I remain perplexed that the ACLU got involved in these cases at all, and doubly perplexed that you apparently approve.

  20. actus February 4, 2006 at 2:44 pm | | Reply

    “So what do you think of Natalie Polovchak, then?”

    Whats her deal? I read about the 12 year old boy.

    I think that family wanted to be together, and there being no danger, they should be. its not the US government’s business to be kidnapping foreign children and runaways that ‘ask for asylum’ when they are 12. Of course, we shouldn’t send kids over to dangerous situations, such as to face things like female genital mutilation.

    But there’s really no claim that it is abusive to raise a kid in the Ukraine, that no Ukranian parent is entitled to their kid. Of course, there is still room for specific claims of future abuse.

    “I remain perplexed that the ACLU got involved in these cases at all, and doubly perplexed that you apparently approve.”

    Whats to disapprove? People looking to score political victories are ready to supply the lawyers to tear a family apart. Whats the matter with a parent being able to take their kid to the Ukraine?

  21. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 4, 2006 at 4:22 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I think that family wanted to be together, and there being no danger, they should be.

    So Walter and Natalie didn’t “want” what they said they “wanted,” is that it? And parental wishes are all except when they’re really nasty, as in FGM. Going back involuntarily to a police state is no biggie. Because there’s no “danger,” being within a police state. Except maybe if you want to get out.

    Whats the matter with a parent being able to take their kid to the Ukraine?

    Well, there’s a lot that could be said about that, beginning with “What business is it of the ACLU’s to intervene against a claim of asylum by a foreign national”? This has to do with the “civil liberties” of Americans how exactly? I repeat that I don’t recall the ACLU intervening to relocate runaway kids in the US forcibly to their families, so I do not see why they did it in this case, which didn’t even involve US citizens.

  22. actus February 4, 2006 at 5:13 pm | | Reply

    “Because there’s no “danger,” being within a police state. Except maybe if you want to get out.”

    We have an asylum policy that requires a well founded fear of specific prosecution. I don’t think kids should be forced by anyone to go back to that. Barring that, I’d take family values over our decision that a 12 year old that doesn’t want to go back with ihs parents can stay here.

    “What business is it of the ACLU’s to intervene against a claim of asylum by a foreign national”?”

    If there’s no standing then there’s no problem.

    “This has to do with the “civil liberties” of Americans how exactly?”

    The ACLU quite regularly represents non-americans in US courts. Is that a problem? One can have a liberty interest facing harm that can be remedied by a US court while not being an American.

    “I repeat that I don’t recall the ACLU intervening to relocate runaway kids in the US forcibly to their families, so I do not see why they did it in this case, which didn’t even involve US citizens.”

    You not knowing what the ACLU does doesn’t tell me much.

  23. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 4, 2006 at 9:49 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I think you mean “specific persecution.” And FGM is not exactly “specific,” is it? “Endemic” is more like it.

    Walter Polovchak was “persecuted” as a Christian, among other things. George Will’s column, which I can’t lay my hands on at the moment, IIRC says that among other things he was kept late after school on Christmas Eve and made to sing Soviet “mass songs” for that particular secular sin.

    I am quite sure that the ACLU doesn’t believe “family values” are a “civil liberty.” Certainly the organization doesn’t ordinarily act to enforce them as such, despite, oh, I don’t know, a gazillion custody disputes, and many thousands of runaway teenagers who are running away from things other than totalitarian governments. So why was this case important to them? Just because it involved the USSR? Really, it has to be that; it can’t be anything else. Your civil liberties in America include the right to be shipped back where you came from — not, obviously, if you’ve arrived illegally from Mexico, but if you’ve come legally from a totalitarian state, and are under age, and your parents want you to come back home to prison.

  24. actus February 5, 2006 at 12:20 pm | | Reply

    “I think you mean “specific persecution.” And FGM is not exactly “specific,” is it? “Endemic” is more like it.”

    What I know about asylum is that one would have to show that they face it, rather than just it is practiced in a place. So specific meaning it will be faced by this specific person seeking asylum. No problem with that.

    “Walter Polovchak was “persecuted” as a Christian, among other things. George Will’s column, which I can’t lay my hands on at the moment, IIRC says that among other things he was kept late after school on Christmas Eve and made to sing Soviet “mass songs” for that particular secular sin.”

    So it looks like he has a claim. I don’t know if that rises to asylum level persecution for a 9 year old boy to sing songs at school. Here it would be if he was forced to say the pledge of allegiance.

    “Certainly the organization doesn’t ordinarily act to enforce them as such, despite, oh, I don’t know, a gazillion custody disputes, and many thousands of runaway teenagers who are running away from things other than totalitarian governments.”

    The ACLU has done custody work. Google it.

  25. John Rosenberg February 5, 2006 at 9:46 pm | | Reply

    What I wrote here a good while ago about the deportation of Elian Gonzalez is, I think, relevant to this discussion:

    Back then I wrote an article, “Hillary Flip-Flops on Kids Rights” (Wall Street Journal, 4/27/2000, p. A26; link/search requires registration/fee), noting that Hillary Clinton had abandoned the position at the foundation of her legal career, a series of articles arguing that childen can have legally recognized rights at odds with their parents, and the competency to assert them in court.

    There were those (I was one) who regarded the deportation of Elian as akin to a slave mother drowning as she swam to freedom with her child only to have the child ripped from his relatives in the North and returned to his loyal Uncle Tom father who, when offered freedom with his son, chose to remain on the plantation. Anyone who felt that way then who does not protest to the State Department now is guilty of Hillary-class hypocrisy.

  26. actus February 5, 2006 at 11:43 pm | | Reply

    “There were those (I was one) who regarded the deportation of Elian as akin to a slave mother drowning as she swam to freedom with her child only to have the child ripped from his relatives in the North and returned to his loyal Uncle Tom father who, when offered freedom with his son, chose to remain on the plantation. ”

    This is what is so sick about this. A father wanting to be where he lives with his family and son is an uncle tom in the plantation. Because we have to make politics about this family tragedy.

    I bet you loved that video made by the miami relatives of the little elian full of toys saying ‘no papa.’

  27. sharon February 6, 2006 at 3:39 pm | | Reply

    I’m trying to figure out why 12-year-olds are smart enough that courts allow them to determine which parent they want to live with but not smart enough to want to escape communism.

  28. actus February 6, 2006 at 11:37 pm | | Reply

    “I’m trying to figure out why 12-year-olds are smart enough that courts allow them to determine which parent they want to live with but not smart enough to want to escape communism.”

    I don’t think the courts allow kids the power to solely decide which parent to live with. But i’m not a a family law guy.

  29. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 7, 2006 at 7:22 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I don’t think the courts allow kids the power to solely decide which parent to live with. But i’m not a a family law guy.

    They don’t; but Googling “child custody preference” turns up a ton of material, much of it suggesting that a child’s preference, when the child is judged to be sufficiently mature to make an independent judgment, is an important factor. Some states evidently set the bar at age twelve, while others leave the “maturity” determination to the family court judge. The general idea seems to be to make sure that the child hasn’t been coached by one parent to make a particular declaration.

    Incidentally, I realize the ACLU gets involves in custody cases, but a lot of Googling has not turned up a single case in which it has represented parents insisting on the forcible return of a child against his/her wishes to the parents . . . except Polovchak and the like. There are many, many runaway children, but evidently getting them back is a “civil liberty” only if your next intention is to return them to a Communist dictatorship.

  30. sharon February 7, 2006 at 10:18 pm | | Reply

    “I don’t think the courts allow kids the power to solely decide which parent to live with. But i’m not a a family law guy.”

    It might not be true everywhere in the U.S. or in every case, but I know for a fact that there are social workers who will always recommend that the 12-year-old go live with the parent they’ve declared a preference for if the SW decides the homes are equal. I had a SW who said he was too overworked to worry about things like the effect on other children in the home, and that, in fact, the court didn’t worry about such matters unless those children had a guardian ad litem. This same SW also recounted a 12-year-old who decided to live with one parent and 6 mos later to live with the other and the SW recommended the change both times. Most judges rely quite heavily on these recommendations and it was astonishing to me how little thought was put into them. Sorry that this is a bit off-topic.

  31. actus February 7, 2006 at 10:38 pm | | Reply

    “They don’t; but Googling “child custody preference” turns up a ton of material, much of it suggesting that a child’s preference, when the child is judged to be sufficiently mature to make an independent judgment, is an important factor.”

    I’m sure its a factor. I’m sure there are others, like how we don’t take children from parents just because they live in a socialist country.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if courts had Elian stay if his mother had survived but his father wanted him back.

    “There are many, many runaway children, but evidently getting them back is a “civil liberty” only if your next intention is to return them to a Communist dictatorship.”

    Why do you keep on imagining that this is just like a runaway case? There was no allegation of abuse here. You think there is in runaway cases?

  32. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 7, 2006 at 11:13 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    I’m sure its a factor. I’m sure there are others, like how we don’t take children from parents just because they live in a socialist country.

    I swear you post stuff like this purely to provoke me. I don’t give a damn what its economic system is (though the kinds that don’t actually starve millions of people to death are, on the whole, preferable); what I care about is that once you get into a totalitarian state, it’s rather complicated to get out again. You think the Berlin Wall was built just for kicks?

    Why do you keep on imagining that this is just like a runaway case? There was no allegation of abuse here. You think there is in runaway cases?

    What, in every single one? You don’t think there are domestic runaway cases with no abuse involved?

    So show me one domestic runaway case in which the ACLU argued that the parents of the runaway child could claim forcible custody of the child. Just one. Show me that the ACLU ever thought having your children in hand was a “civil liberty,” except in this single context.

    One would do. Really. Then I’ll shut up on this subject. I don’t think you will find one, though.

  33. actus February 8, 2006 at 12:09 am | | Reply

    “what I care about is that once you get into a totalitarian state, it’s rather complicated to get out again. ”

    So? Does that mean we can take kids away from their parents in those countries?

    “You don’t think there are domestic runaway cases with no abuse involved?”

    I’m not the one that talks about the ACLU’s work with runaways, so I don’t know. I would guess that there is abuse, or at least some sort of deficiency in parenting, in quite a few, if not also mental illness. I don’t know about all, or alot.

    “So show me one domestic runaway case in which the ACLU argued that the parents of the runaway child could claim forcible custody of the child”

    Why? I don’t know about the ACLU’s work with runaways. I don’t know if they represent any parents or runaway kids.

    Whats the matter with them taking a side in an unusual case? Is it that they don’t take that same side in other cases? Must they only do positional work? they can’t see an injustice and then work on it?

  34. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 8, 2006 at 1:01 am | | Reply

    actus,

    “What’s the matter with [the ACLU] taking a side in an unusual case”? Well, for starters, what’s unusual about it? We have a kid basically fleeing parental custody. Already I start to wonder — not whether his parents have a case in trying to retrieve him, but why the heck the ACLU thinks forcibly retrieving him is a victory for “civil liberties.”

    So what’s “unusual” about this case, exactly? Well, for one thing, it doesn’t involve American citizens, though why that specially commends it to the American Civil Liberties Union’s attention is anyone’s guess.

    And if you think Polovchak’s case was an “injustice,” I strongly suggest trying to talk to Polovchak. He’s still around, living in Florida IIRC.

  35. actus February 8, 2006 at 1:33 am | | Reply

    ” Well, for starters, what’s unusual about it? We have a kid basically fleeing parental custody. ”

    That the objectionable thing about the parents is they live behind the iron curtain. You don’t think this is unusual?

    “Well, for one thing, it doesn’t involve American citizens, though why that specially commends it to the American Civil Liberties Union’s attention is anyone’s guess.”

    You really don’t follow the ACLU’s work at all do you?

  36. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 8, 2006 at 2:37 am | | Reply

    [me:] “Well, for starters, what’s unusual about it? We have a kid basically fleeing parental custody.”

    [you:] That the objectionable thing about the parents is they live behind the iron curtain. You don’t think this is unusual?

    And that makes getting the runaway kid back a high priority for an organization devoted to American civil liberties? Um, why?

    [me:] “Well, for one thing, it doesn’t involve American citizens, though why that specially commends it to the American Civil Liberties Union’s attention is anyone’s guess.”

    [you:] You really don’t follow the ACLU’s work at all[,] do you?

    Actually, I do. I realize that the ACLU has done a lot of valuable work in defending non-citizens in tight spots. That still doesn’t explain why they took on the Polovchak case. I don’t know what “civil liberty” was involved that wasn’t equally involved in a thousand runaway-teenager cases that interested the ACLU not at all. They were involved with this one purely because Walter Polovchak and his almost-forgotten sister Natalie were arguing that return to Ukraine under the conditions they’d known there would be abusive. But the ACLU position was that you can’t defect until you’re 18. Because anything else would be an affront to civil liberties.

  37. actus February 8, 2006 at 9:07 am | | Reply

    “And that makes getting the runaway kid back a high priority for an organization devoted to American civil liberties? Um, why?”

    Because its american courts that are splitting up his family.

    ” I realize that the ACLU has done a lot of valuable work in defending non-citizens in tight spots. ”

    They do LOTS of immigration work. I have never heard of them limiting themselves to citizens. What makes you think its out of the ordinary for them to not handle citizens?

    I think they took on the case because they saw an injustice, and they wanted to correct it. Perhaps those parents couldn’t afford lawyers, perhaps their actions were unpopular. I dont know why this one local ACLU made the decision, but I can guess the sorts of things that would motivate a person to not want the US governmetn to be splitting up families.

  38. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 8, 2006 at 1:02 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    They do LOTS of immigration work. I have never heard of them limiting themselves to citizens. What makes you think its out of the ordinary for them to not handle citizens?

    You asked me what made this case “out of the ordinary,” relative to the thousands of American runaway-child cases yearly in which the ACLU doesn’t file a brief recommending forcible return of the child to the parent(s). My response was that it was perhaps that it didn’t involve American citizens. I certainly don’t think that the ACLU ignores actions of American courts that affect noncitizens; quite the contrary. I am just curious why they were interested in this case. I have not seen any pattern of ACLU actions in pursuit of restoring runaway children to their families.

    What, again, is the “injustice,” and how is it different from any other runaway or custody-dispute “injustice”? I mean, in this country it’s perfectly possible — indeed, routine — for one parent to have custody of a child, and move a couple thousand miles away, so that the other can technically visit whenever s/he wants, just has to pay several hundred dollars in airfare per visit. Flying to the US from the USSR would be a little more cumbersome and expensive, but not all that much. Assuming they trusted you enough to let you out, of course.

  39. actus February 8, 2006 at 1:34 pm | | Reply

    “My response was that it was perhaps that it didn’t involve American citizens. ”

    And I tell you that’s quite regular for the ACLU.

    “I have not seen any pattern of ACLU actions in pursuit of restoring runaway children to their families.”

    I don’t see any pattern of injustice of that NOT happening. Of our courts being used to pull families apart.

    “I mean, in this country it’s perfectly possible — indeed, routine — for one parent to have custody of a child, and move a couple thousand miles away, so that the other can technically visit whenever s/he wants, just has to pay several hundred dollars in airfare per visit.”

    Right. One parent. Not both. The injustice here is we have two perfectly good parents who have their child taken from them because they don’t want to live on welfare in chicago but instead want to go back home.

  40. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 8, 2006 at 4:02 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    The injustice here is we have two perfectly good parents who have their child taken from them because they don’t want to live on welfare in chicago but instead want to go back home.

    So one “perfectly good parent” being separated from his/her kid(s) by thousands of miles is no biggie. Gotcha.

    The living-on-welfare-in-Chicago business I mistrust. (I know where you saw it; I can Google too.) As I remember the case — and the Google results are so tangled up with the Elián Gonzalez case that it’s hard to sort out the material actually mostly about Polovchak — the parents weren’t emigrants; they had Soviet gov’t permission to come to the US, on the understanding that they were coming back. Could foreign nationals receive welfare in 1980?

    two perfectly good parents who have their child taken from them

    “Taken”? By whom? The State Department? Can’t you possibly conceive that maybe, just maybe, Walter Polovchak decided to defect on his own?

    actus, suppose a 12-year-old girl resisted returning to Saudi Arabia with her parents, and requested asylum on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is hostile to women. Suppose she had near relatives in the States who were happy to adopt her. Which side do you suppose the ACLU would take in such a case?

  41. actus February 8, 2006 at 7:11 pm | | Reply

    “So one “perfectly good parent” being separated from his/her kid(s) by thousands of miles is no biggie. Gotcha.”

    Not according to the idea that there’s only 1 child and a divorce. No. What are you going to do?

    “Could foreign nationals receive welfare in 1980?”

    I have no idea. But the ACLU or legal aid might help you get it

    “”Taken”? By whom? The State Department? Can’t you possibly conceive that maybe, just maybe, Walter Polovchak decided to defect on his own?”

    Sure. And the law refused to return him to his parents. And someone provided the lawyers for that.

    “actus, suppose a 12-year-old girl resisted returning to Saudi Arabia with her parents, and requested asylum on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is hostile to women. Suppose she had near relatives in the States who were happy to adopt her. Which side do you suppose the ACLU would take in such a case?”

    The side against the abuse.

  42. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 8, 2006 at 8:35 pm | | Reply

    actus,

    What are you going to do?

    Well, as I understand it, what they used to do was to prohibit the custodial parent from moving more than 100 miles or so away from the noncustodial one, so that the latter didn’t have to spend a thousand bucks or so every time s/he wanted to see the child(ren). This seems to be out of fashion these days, though.

    You have “no idea” whether it was possible for foreign nationals to collect welfare in 1980, but a couple posts up there is

    because they don’t want to live on welfare in chicago.

    In other words, you saw something on somebody’s site and believed it. Fair enough.

    And the law refused to return him to his parents. And someone provided the lawyers for that.

    The next time the ACLU intervenes in a custody dispute and its side wins, can we say that the child was “taken” from the other parent by the ACLU? Because, I mean, provision of lawyers and all . . .

    [me:] actus, suppose a 12-year-old girl resisted returning to Saudi Arabia with her parents, and requested asylum on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is hostile to women. Suppose she had near relatives in the States who were happy to adopt her. Which side do you suppose the ACLU would take in such a case?

    [you:] The side against the abuse.

    If that isn’t Jesuitical, actus, I don’t know what is. Could you possibly be a little more specific about which abuse and by whom?

  43. actus February 8, 2006 at 9:35 pm | | Reply

    “In other words, you saw something on somebody’s site and believed it. Fair enough.”

    Sure. Why not? I have no idea of their immigration status. Green card people can. Citizens can.

    “The next time the ACLU intervenes in a custody dispute and its side wins, can we say that the child was “taken” from the other parent by the ACLU? Because, I mean, provision of lawyers and all . . .”

    Sure. We can say that the child was taken from one parent and put with the other. No denying that. If one parent is abusive and gets no visitation, I’m proud to take the child from that parent and give it to the other.

    “If that isn’t Jesuitical, actus, I don’t know what is. Could you possibly be a little more specific about which abuse and by whom?”

    Your facts don’t tell me who is abusive.

  44. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 9, 2006 at 12:10 am | | Reply

    actus

    Your facts don’t tell me who is abusive.

    Jesus. It was a hypothetical. Reprise:

    [S]uppose a 12-year-old girl resisted returning to Saudi Arabia with her parents, and requested asylum on the grounds that Saudi Arabia is hostile to women. Suppose she had near relatives in the States who were happy to adopt her. Which side do you suppose the ACLU would take in such a case?

    So you are saying that the ACLU will take “the side against the abuse,” when you say yourself that you haven’t the foggiest idea which side that might be.

    OK, I will try again: 12-year-old girl, from Saudi Arabia, not wanting to go back because women have rather a sh*tty time of it there; parents who want to take her back there, relatives in the US happy to adopt her. On those facts, can you imagine the ACLU filing a brief on behalf of the parents? I can’t.

    actus, you know as well as I do that the reason the ACLU got into the Polovchak case was that his asylum petition hinged on the idea that return to the USSR was abusive. Evidently this was controversial. The fact that getting out of the USSR or its Eastern European puppet states was terribly difficult doesn’t seem to figure in the analysis. I would say that Polovchak knew quite well that the door once opened to him wasn’t going to be opened again.

  45. Michelle Dulak Thomson February 9, 2006 at 12:30 am | | Reply

    actus,

    [me:The next time the ACLU intervenes in a custody dispute and its side wins, can we say that the child was “taken” from the other parent by the ACLU? Because, I mean, provision of lawyers and all . . .

    [you:] Sure. We can say that the child was taken from one parent and put with the other. No denying that. If one parent is abusive and gets no visitation, I’m proud to take the child from that parent and give it to the other.

    No, if the ACLU did the litigation, we have to say that the ACLU did the “taking.” Because, after all, “someone provided the lawyers for that.” And that appears to be your standard for who “took” a child from whom: who booked the lawyers.

  46. actus February 9, 2006 at 1:14 am | | Reply

    “No, if the ACLU did the litigation, we have to say that the ACLU did the “taking.” Because, after all, “someone provided the lawyers for that.””

    But I didn’t say that whoever booked the lawyers was taking the child. I said the law did.

  47. sherri July 16, 2006 at 2:58 pm | | Reply

    Don’t speak to me of Andrei Codrescu. I was there when he high-jacked ALA (American Library Association) President Michael Gorman’s program at our annual Midwinter Conference. It was obvious to me that he HAD NOT read all the available information and that, in fact, he had been purposefully mislead. Clearly he had listened to one perspective from few (perhaps only one) voice(s). Information was withheld from him, much to the perpetrator’s disgrace. I spoke to him personally after the event and he had been told that ALA had never even discussed this issue (False), that ALA leadership [Council] refused to even look at it (False), and that no written statements of any kind had been issued from ALA (False). He urged me to exert myself to make sure the issue was at least discussed within ALA – a comment that should make ALL parties involved in this issue roll their eyes in disbelief at his lack of awareness. Yet, as our invited speaker, he had the floor, as well as the microphone, and he spoke as if he were the expert. His chastisement of our entire organization would have been laughable, if he were not using the time that was needed (and that had been fairly and democratically allocated) for other serious issues. Whoever had led the man by the nose should hide under a rock in shame. But Codrescu is not without fault. He did not bother to check facts. He did not even bother to ask his host, Michael Gorman, about the information he’d been fed. You may hold him high as one shining example. He no longer shines in my book. He came off as pompous, condescending, rude, childish, and misinformed.

    Even if he had understood all the history, actions, statements, and issues – and still held the views he spouted – he had no right to high-jack a forum intended for other important issues. Our issues may not be important to him, they may not be important to Kent et al – but they were important to those of us who had worked hard on that event. Codrescu should have fairly and honestly sought a forum of his own. In addition, he had no right to mislead Michael as he did. It was no less than an ambush. I know Michael to be an extremely good and dedicated man. He has worked his entire adult life for libraries and all they mean and stand for. It was a vile act on the part of Codrescu to treat such a man in such a contemptible manner.

    Codrescu has since claimed that he was not informed of any given topic for the forum and that he never discussed what he would speak on with Michael Gorman. That is a nothing but a lie.

    I campaigned for Michael Gorman and was appointed to his presidential advisory committee on library education. Library education is an issue near and dear to me. But these folks refuse to care about anything but their own issue. The issues of others mean nothing to them. They care not that our committee worked for almost 2 years to address serious issues and that the program with Codrescu was one means of moving forward. Codrescu agreed to speak on library education and he discussed the talking points with Michael prior to the program. He did not speak on the agreed upon topic and he never informed Michael of his change of plans. Michael was left on a stage in front of hundreds with unusable notes. It was not just rudeness to his host. And it was not just rudeness to all of us who had worked so hard and cared so much. And it was not just rudeness to ALA. It was rude, most certainly, but also it was a vicious tactic. Underhanded. Spineless. Codrescu demonstrated to me that he is not an honorable man.

    It was clear to me that some in the audience knew what Michael did not. A few people sat in the row directly in front of me whispering with great glee about how Michael was “in for a big surprise.” Clearly this was orchestrated by a number of people and they were pulling the puppet strings. These people alternated great delight with snearing – both verbally and facially during most of the program. They turned around often to connect with what I assume to be other conspirators. They all but rubbed their hands together anticipating their victory. When Michael introduced Codrescu with the gracious words, “But I know you aren’t here to see me…” They loudly stated, “YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!” Then they laughed. It was not a wholesome sounding laugh, I assure you. As the event was nearing completion, they got up and ran up the aisle and out the door with smug expressions. I have seen this sort of behavior in young teens, but never adults. It was truly odd – even creepy, somewhat scary.

    Codrescu owes Michael Gorman an apology, at the very least. If he had any sense of fairness and honor – if he had integrity – he would repay his $5,000 speaker fee to ALA!

    We had issues too. We worked hard on them and cared deeply about them. I personally put portions of my career in jeopardy to work on this – giving many, many volunteer hours. We went through channels accepted in a democratic society – such as elections – to get our programs and ideas before our colleagues and the public. This was our right. And these people took it. They stole it. They high-jacked it. Because their cause is more important than anyone else’s. Because they are right and anyone trying to work toward any other goal is wrong. Because they are the crusader and anyone who is not with them is their enemy. Any ends justifies their means. They not only attempt to silence and falsely discredit those who oppose them they have no qualms about abducting with, or even silencing, all other forums and discussions but their own. These are vile behaviors – behaviors of the Hitler regime and the Bush regime. And the Castro regime. These people bare far too close a resemblance.

    THEY HAVE BECOME THOSE THEY CLAIM TO HATE. They need to revisit “Animal Farm.”

    Because I strongly oppose their vile tactics, these folks have assumed that I am either uninformed on the issues or that I am against their views on these matters. They do not know what I think. I will tell you this, in the 20-some years I have supported Amnesty International, I have yet (to my knowledge) disagreed with any stance they have publicly taken. I will also tell you this, ALA has also issued a written statement and I don’t disagree with it either.

    You see cognitive dissonance here. There is none. I attended ALA Council when much of these discussions took place. I know that this was a highly contentious issue within our association and that massive amounts of time was given and that massive amounts of discussion took place. Compromises were made. The process was a fair one. I support the result. If they cannot live with the result, they are no friend of democracy and no friend of ALA. But then, that’s been clear for some time now. I believe their ruthless, vicious, unfair and unfounded attacks on ALA and individuals within the association are seen by the vast majority for what they are – and that they see these people for who they are. (I thought to compare them here with children who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way – but children have a sense of fair play – so the analogy fails.)

    These people are militant – to the exclusion of all other voices, opinions, and issues. To them, this is a war. And war is a dirty business. There are no winners. I want no more to do with these people.

    Sharon McQueen

Say What?