We Support Free Speech, But...

Posted: 7/27/2009 8:26:00 PM
Author: Annoyed Librarian
Source: This article & the comments appeared on the Annoyed Librarian blog of Library Jnl.


We Support Free Speech, But...
by the Annoyed Librartian
July 27, 2009
I almost didn't write about this, since I was rather tired of writing about the ALA conference, but I've never heard of an ALA panel discussion being canceled because of protests, so here goes.

There was supposed to be a round table program at ALA called Perspectives on Islam: Beyond the Stereotyping. However, because the other speakers disagreed with the inclusion of Robert Spencer - a rather severe critic of Islam - they refused to participate and he session was canceled. I missed this when I was at the conference, because I really couldn't care less about Islam in any professional way. In the library, if someone came up to me and proclaimed they were a Muslim, I'd say, "Great. So?" I just plain don't care what religion you are as long as you don't stick it in my face, and in a professional context I don't have to be understanding or sensitive. If professionals just stick to the business at hand, they don't need to worry about exposing themselves as the bigots they probably aren't in the first place.

Anyway, back to the protest. As far as I can tell, it began with an "Open Letter" to the ALA and the Ethnic and Multicultural Information Exchange Roundtable (EMIERT) protesting the inclusion of Spencer, since he obviously has nothing nice to say about Islam, and the protesting librarians et al. apparently believe that round table discussions should follow the rule the if you've nothing nice to say you should just be quiet. Because of course Islam, and every other subject dear to the hearts of regressive librarians, is perfect and beyond criticism. Oh, and criticism is just mean, and requires thought and stuff like that.

"Even the most cursory overview of Mr. Spencer’s oeuvre makes it clear that in fact he has no place on a panel whose aim is to dispel stereotypes about Islam." That's their claim, but of course they don't prove it. "Hence a question arises as to the justification for inviting a speaker who cannot see anything positive about Islamic beliefs, cultures, societies, histories, etc. to talk to an audience in order to dispel negative views of Islam." The question arises only for the purblind protesters. The panel was about dispelling stereotypes, not "negative views of Islam." One question isn't whether Spencer is rabidly anti-Islam, but whether he's wrong. Another question is whether he deals in stereotypes, or does he deal with facts (which he might interpret in a biased way, but that's makes him no different from his opponents).

It's not a stereotype, for example, to say that many Muslim societies oppress women. They do. If you don't believe me, go be a feminist in parts of Pakistan or Afghanistan and see how well you fare. I don't think it's a stereotype to say that even in this country, Muslim men tend not to have the sort of enlightened views about women that should be more pervasive in a free and equal society. At this point you might contend that neither do a lot of men of every religion. You would be correct, though illogical since that has nothing to do with the discussion. Your red herring does nothing to disprove my assertion. Either way, even if it were true of a given male, the only thing it would mean for me personally is that I wouldn't date him. Professionally, it would mean nothing at all.

One problem with any discussions of Islam post 9/11 is the various sides don't talk to each other, but merely at each other, all equally assured of the rightness of their claims. Another problem is that principles erode in the attempt to not offend some group. We saw this a few years ago with the Danish cartoons of Muhammad. I remember when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his fatwa against Salmon Rushdie. Writers and intellectuals of the left stood proudly to defend Rushdie's right to write whatever he wanted without having some fascist blowhard try to kill him over it. And how many on the left defended "Piss Christ"? Plenty. How pathetic the left seemed in comparison twenty years later. How slimy and hypocritical were their attempts to say that while they of course they believed in a free press and the right to free speech, one shouldn't do something so blatantly offensive to any religious group as publish some cartoons. Oh, no, the horror! Cartoons! I really don't see how they lived with themselves. Such intellectual dishonesty must cause massive cognitive dissonance, and it would cause shame were shame an emotion any longer familiar to Americans.

The Open Letter maintains the same intellectual dishonesty. "While we are not advocating censorship or the removal of Mr. Spencer from the panel and we affirm the values espoused in the ALA Library Bill of Rights, we ourselves advocate the choice of panelists who would be able to highlight in a rational and scholarly manner the richness, complexity, and multifaceted elements of Islamic cultures, societies and beliefs if we are to engage in meaningful discussions of Islam that can truly go beyond negative stereotypes." That's right. While we of course believe in free speech and the free contest of ideas in general, we don't believe in them on this issue. What the protesters wanted were people who wouldn't criticize Islam in any way. There are negative stereotypes and negative truths about every religion, but somehow Islam gets a free ride.

CAIR published a highly biased summary of the events, which was sent to the ALA Council listserv by our old friend Cranky Marxist Dude, editor, as he styled himself, of Progressive Librarian. It's the so-called progressives who give Islam a free ride from criticism, and I just don't understand it. You would never find any progressives in America lambasting anyone for being too critical of Southern Baptists or fundamentalist Christians. If for some bizarre reason there was a panel discussion at ALA about Christians, it would be about how evil they are for trying to "censor" library books all over the country. If there were parts of the country with as high a concentration of Muslims as there are Southern Baptists, do you think they wouldn't be challenging library books?

Usually the "progressive" critique is extended to Christians and even religious people in general. Probably no one would have protested Richard Dawkins speaking, but he'd say Muslims along with Christians and all other theists are more or less deluded morons whose religion is always bad for society and progressive ideas. Is it a "negative stereotype" that all true believers who accept the teachings of their religion on faith and are hostile to rational criticism are unreasonable people? What about if they also oppose free speech and the free exchange of ideas, because those exchanges tend to involve criticism and uncomfortable thoughts?

As with the Danish cartoons, I doubt the ALA or the ALA Council will have much to say about this. Like so many on the left these days, their support for free speech ends wherever Islam begins. Why should any of this matter, anyway? Why would there even be a discussion like this at ALA? In a free society, Muslims as Muslims are thrown into the mix with everyone else. As librarians, why should we care what religion people practice? No doubt the protesters would say that we have to be "sensitive" to Muslims, but we don't have to be any more sensitive to Muslims than we would be to Christians or Jews or Buddhists or atheists. As librarians, we engage with the public as citizens in a democracy, not as adherents to a religion or creed. What, are libraries not supposed to buy books because they might offend Muslims? That's ridiculous, though I bet the ALA OIF wouldn't come out with a statement on that one! If someone comes up to the reference desk, should the librarian first inquire about the patron's religion, or should the librarian answer the questions and try to help the person find information?

The protesters are just another group fighting against free expression and the exchange of critical ideas, and they should be treated as such. If there was a problem with that ALA panel, it wasn't inviting Spencer. It was inviting a bunch of other people who weren't willing to engage with Spencer and show him where he's wrong, if indeed he is wrong. That would have been a much greater debate than the lame "great debates" over Library 2.0 and other typical ALA discussions. It wouldn't have been very relevant for librarians, but it sure would have been lively.

Posted by Annoyed Librarian on July 27, 2009 | Comments (10)


Opinion


July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
Illogical commented:

"At this point you might contend that neither do a lot of men of every religion. You would be correct, though illogical since that has nothing to do with the discussion." I don't understand your logic; your assertion is a stereotype precisely because it is imprecise. Had you said "Muslim men, to a greater degree than other men, tend not to have enlightened views etc." then it wouldn't be a stereotype, but it would probably be wrong...or at least hard to prove.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
John Doe commented:

Thank you for writing this. Since I first heard about the latest ALA spat, a lot of these ideals have been bubbling in my mind.

I fully agree with your stand that we all too often forsake free speech for "sensitivity." I wonder if that is some miss guided attempt to reduce racism.

Additionally, we tend to forget what is a stereotype. Don't like what someone is saying about your group? Call it a stereotype!

If something is a fact about a group, it is a fact. A stereotype needs to be a misconception.

It is not a stereotype that women in many islamic parts of the Middle East are treated horridly. How can anyone claim to espouse positive views of Islam without addressing their many human right abuses? THAT sounds like white washing. It it were any other religion, we wouldn't allow it.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
636bk commented:


So long as you are liberal, you have the right to free speech.

If you are conservative, be prepared to have your rights taken away from you.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
NotMarianTheLibrarian commented:

Last time I checked (erp! very painful to do so) Rush and Bill-o weren't being shushed, 636bk.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
Jean-Baptiste Grenouille commented:

Funny how quickly this became a conservative vs. liberal argument. The thing is, both sides are very selective as to what "truths" they choose to proclaim and defend. Just look at the ugly history of abortion or the "Parental Advisory" stickers on music. It's so easy for people, even librarians, to get themselves caught on what they think is the "correct" side of the argument, when in fact they are just being "nice."

It's "nice" not to choose not to order that book about homosexual penguins. I mean, it certainly does make our lives easier when we don't have to defend our choices to the public. It's unfortunate that I have to have such extensive talks about censorship with my fellow librarians. It's upsetting that it has become such a nice profession instead of one that can be relied on to make the right decisions.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
rke8n commented:

*Funny how quickly this became a conservative vs. liberal argument*

It should not even be a question of left v. right, but one side decided that it would be such in about 2001--which is why you find some of them spouting on such grave nonsense as the Jews were behind 9/11.

Then, of course, you have the fact that critics of Islam tend to end up dead in nations where the population is unarmed [the Netherlands, Sweden, Bali, Indonesia, Philippines]. The Left doesn't criticize anything with teeth.

It should be common sense for both sides to utterly reject a fundamentalist movement that seeks to murder non-adherents of their faith simply for the sake of them being non-adherents. Did the GOP of the 40s think it was illegal or immoral to shoot down Yamamoto's plane or attempt to kill Hitler or his inner circle? Heavens, no.

Just the other day Senator Russ Feingold described a plan which would have killed top Al-Qaida members as "immoral"...let that sink in for a few moments. Also consider that Mr. Feingold would be slaughtered like a halal goat by these same people simply because of his last name. Truly unbelievable.

Then you have the absurd utterances by some fatally afflited multicultis that anti-islamism is racism, as if all Muslims shared the same race or ethnicity.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
Jean-Baptiste Grenouille commented:

rke8n -

Are you actually a librarian?

"It should not even be a question of left v. right, but one side decided that it would be such in about 2001--which is why you find some of them spouting on such grave nonsense as the Jews were behind 9/11."

I assure you that if you look closely enough, you will find that there are a lot of crazy people writing crazy ideas about a lot of different aspects of 9/11. For instance, there are those crazies that believe Jews were behind the attacks, those that this is a sign of the end times, those that though Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and those that think our current President is nothing other than an Islamic sleeper agent with a made-up birth certificate. And perhaps, on a bad day, if you look in a mirror, you might find one staring right back at you...





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
librarEwoman commented:

I did wonder, when I saw the name of this program at ALA, why it was included. How is it relevant to libraries and librarians? There are stereotypes about every type of patron I serve at the library--some of them more vicious and hurtful stereotypes than others. However, what was the connection of a discussion of negative stereotypes about Muslims to our professional enrichment as librarians? If this type of program is related to our professional enrichment as librarians, why were there not programs about negative stereotypes about atheists, members of various Christian denominations, Jews, Pagans, etc, etc?

I definitely agree, however, that any discussion is more interesting to listen to if there are opposing views represented. Otherwise, it is like listening to a lecture or a sermon.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
Mr. Kat commented:

This is a heck of a lot more imprtant than that little resolution the ALA decided to waste press ink on instead!!!

Just watch, this "Problem" will become the defining motion of the 21st century - which is sadly nothing more than a continuation of the thousands of years of Muslim V. Judeo-Catholis-Christian wars.

I believe we have far too many instances in history wher ethe solution for a group of people who "just don't get it and WON'T get it and INSIST on forcing themselves on the rest of the world" is rout annihilation. Sound horrible? Well, it is, until you recognize their alternative; all of us either die or give up our culture and assume theirs.

I believe in the freedom of ideas and speech, up unto the point where others [and myself] use that freedom to eradicate freedom meant for all.

GREAT post, AL.





July 27, 2009
In response to: We Support Free Speech, But...
get it straight commented:

"go be a feminist in parts of Pakistan or Afghanistan and see how well you fare."

Which parts of Pakistan, AL? Why do they prove your point? What about the other parts? What about the parts where there's a lot of people with secular outlooks? Go read what Jinnah said about women. Pakistan's identity is complex. Don't tout "parts of Pakistan" as your evidence so cavalierly.

ALA should have let that guy participate, whether he's right or wrong. He was partly wrong, as is AL. It's not a matter of black and white.