The Loneliness of a Conservative Librarian
 
 By DAVID DURANT

The Chronicle of Higher Education
From the issue dated September 30, 2005
 http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i06/06b01201.htm
 
 Much has been made of the left's domination of college and university
 faculties. Yet in terms of political composition, the library
 profession makes your typical Ivy League faculty look like the Heritage
 Foundation. Had the 2004 election been confined to librarians, I firmly
 believe that the presidential race would not have been between Kerry
 and Bush, but between Kerry and Nader.
 
 When David Brooks did some research into political donations by
 profession for his September 11, 2004, column in The New York Times, he
 found that for librarians "the ratio of Kerry to Bush donations was a
 whopping 223 to 1." By contrast, the corresponding ratio for academics
 was 11 to 1. As one of those rarest of beasts, a conservative
 librarian, I can attest firsthand to the stifling left-wing orthodoxy
 of modern American librarianship.
 
 The problem is not that most librarians have liberal or leftist views.
 It is that the overwhelming prevalence of such views has created a
 politicized atmosphere of groupthink and even intolerance, in which
 left-wing politics permeate the library profession and are almost
 impossible to avoid.
 
 In conversations with colleagues, on library e-mail lists, and at
 professional conferences, liberal and leftist attitudes are shoved in
 your face. Because most librarians are left-of-center politically, they
 automatically assume that you are as well. After all, only benighted
 Red State theocrats could possibly have voted for Bush. You quickly
 learn to keep your opinions to yourself, except among colleagues whom
 you know well.
 
 To be fair, the situation wasn't always this bad. When I entered
 library school, in 1997, the political composition of my chosen
 profession was the last thing on my mind. I had a vague sense that the
 majority of librarians might be liberals or leftists, but it was hardly
 something I worried about. I pride myself on my ability to coexist with
 all kinds of people, and I try hard not to let my politics get in the
 way of my job or personal relationships. Besides, I had gone to
 graduate school, so I was used to being a token conservative.
 
 I started work at my current institution in 1999 and have had no
 problems about politics with any of my colleagues. It's true that out
 of roughly 30 professional librarians here, you can count the number of
 us who are politically right-of-center on one hand, with a finger or
 two left over. Still, my colleagues have treated my heresy with respect
 and good humor.
 
 But in the wake of 9/11 and the war in Iraq, librarianship as a
 profession no longer simply leans to the left; it has become openly
 politicized. By 2004, to work in a major American public or academic
 library was to find yourself in a left-wing echo chamber.
 
 One of the most disturbing aspects of the situation is the way in which
 the supposedly nonpolitical American Library Association has become a
 platform for left-wing partisanship. The ALA's Council, its elected
 governing body, is dominated by left-wing activists who recently passed
 a resolution calling for the United States to leave Iraq.
 
 It is, of course, the right of the vast majority of my colleagues to
 hold positions I disagree with. But it's a very different matter when
 the major professional association in librarianship takes openly
 political stands on issues that have no direct bearing on the field.
 
 Proponents of the resolution on Iraq argue that abandoning the country
 to Al Qaeda would allow us to spend lots more money on libraries here
 at home. I believe that allowing radical Islam to run rampant in the
 Middle East would be utterly disastrous for libraries and intellectual
 freedom, both here and abroad. It is for individuals to choose between
 those positions; a professional organization like the ALA has no
 business adopting such a blatantly partisan resolution.
 
 The open politicization of the ALA has also trampled on the
 association's commitment to intellectual freedom and diversity of
 opinion. The ALA's Social Responsibilities Round Table, for example,
 has become the exclusive plaything of radical leftists, and they have
 made it abundantly clear that those holding differing viewpoints are
 not welcome. For instance, conservative posts to the SRRT e-mail list
 are treated with open hostility.
 
 The ALA's annual conferences have become akin to MoveOn.org meetings,
 where Bush bashing and liberal groupthink are the order of the day. At
 the association's June 2003 convention, in Toronto, the lineup of
 speakers included Ralph Nader, U.S. Rep. Bernie Sanders, Naomi Klein,
 and Gloria Steinem. That was merely a warm-up, however, for the
 blatantly political event that was the 2004 convention in Orlando, Fla.
 
 The featured speaker in Orlando was Richard A. Clarke, once a member of
 the Bush administration and now its bitter foe. Others included E.L.
 Doctorow, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Amy Goodman, the left-wing radio
 host. The highlight was a special benefit showing of Michael Moore's
 Fahrenheit 9/11, which drew a capacity crowd of over 2,000. The
 association's own magazine, American Libraries, described the
 proceedings with the headline "Opposition to Iraq War Pervades ALA in
 Orlando."
 
 The politicized atmosphere in Orlando included clear intolerance toward
 dissenting viewpoints. Whitney Davison-Turley, a liberal, spoke at the
 membership meeting against a resolution condemning the war in Iraq,
 arguing that it was inappropriate for the ALA to take a stand on the
 issue. Her comments got a hostile response. Later she wrote:
 "Protecting the freedom of speech is a core tenet of librarianship, and
 this tenet was violated during the Membership Meeting. Shaming
 alternative opinions into silence is the same as placing a gag over our
 mouths, and this is not what librarians supposedly stand for."
 
 The issue on which I am probably most out of step with the bulk of the
 library profession is the USA Patriot Act. Section 215 of the act gives
 the Federal Bureau of Investigation the authority to obtain a court
 order granting the agency access to business and other types of records
 as part of "an investigation to protect against international terrorism
 or clandestine intelligence activities." The section has become known
 as the library section -- despite the fact that it never uses the word
 "library" -- because it gives the federal government the theoretical
 ability to obtain patrons' library records. Section 215 also states
 explicitly that such an investigation may "not be conducted of a United
 States person solely upon the basis of activities protected by the
 first amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
 
 Section 215 is not without its flaws, and I firmly believe that
 ensuring the privacy of library transactions is an important priority
 for our profession. However, much of the reaction among librarians to
 the USA Patriot Act has been over the top. As an example, some
 libraries have put up posters that warn patrons the FBI can view their
 library records. That is little short of fearmongering.
 
 For one thing, the FBI and other law-enforcement agencies have always
 been able to obtain library records after getting a subpoena. In
 addition, the available evidence indicates that FBI agents aren't
 exactly trampling each other in a rush to scrutinize libraries'
 circulation records.
 
 In a study released in June, the ALA reported the results of a survey
 of more than 1,500 public and 4,000 academic libraries about requests
 for information from law-enforcement agencies. A large majority of the
 libraries that responded to the survey reported receiving no such
 requests; only 137 formal and 66 informal requests were reported since
 October 2001. Of that total, 73 came from federal agencies; the rest
 were from state or local law enforcement. The survey does not reveal
 how many of those inquiries were related to terrorism investigations,
 nor does it provide any figures from before 9/11 for comparison. Most
 important, the requests were almost certainly in accordance with
 earlier laws, given that at the time, the Justice Department said
 Section 215 had never been applied in a library or bookstore setting.
 (Section 505 of the act was evidently used this summer, according to
 recent reports, in the only known instance of the act's provisions
 being applied to library records.)
 
 Why do I not agree with most of my colleagues that the USA Patriot Act
 is a grave threat to privacy? Because my fundamental worldview differs
 so starkly from theirs. I believe that the primary threats to our
 freedom are named bin Laden and Zarqawi, not Ashcroft and Gonzales. My
 main worry is not FBI agents with subpoenas but the supporters of a
 totalitarian ideology of death that represents the antithesis of
 everything our profession is supposed to stand for.
 
 At least five of the 9/11 hijackers used computers at public or
 academic libraries to plot their atrocities. As important as it is to
 protect the privacy of library patrons, protecting the lives of our
 fellow citizens and the safety of our country is even more important.
 
 A large number of American librarians simply don't see things that way.
 Many of them honestly believe that the war on terror is merely a
 pretext to allow the FBI to fulfill its long-held dream of wantonly
 rummaging through libraries' circulation records. The idea that, under
 some circumstances, granting law-enforcement agencies access to library
 records might save lives is inconceivable to those librarians. Not all
 librarians opposed to the USA Patriot Act feel that way. It would be a
 mistake, however, to pretend that the sentiment doesn't exist in our
 profession.
 
 Librarians are supposed to stand for intellectual freedom, diversity of
 opinion, and providing access to materials that represent all points of
 view. How can we do that when many of us are intolerant of dissenting
 views? Allowing our profession to be a bastion of orthodoxy of any kind
 defeats our purpose.
 
 Do I think that the situation will change? I have to admit to a certain
 amount of cynicism and disillusionment. After three years of feeling
 that I am not wanted in my profession, I have grown increasingly
 alienated. I am so tired of having left-of-center politics thrust on me
 that I have retreated into my work, cutting myself off from much of the
 broader profession. When I do go to a professional meeting, I sit
 silently. When the conservative-bashing starts, as it so often does, I
 know better than to complain.
 
 I have responded in the only ways I can: To protest the ALA's growing
 politicization, I allowed my membership to lapse and have no intention
 of renewing it. In June 2004 I started an obscure blog, Heretical
 Librarian, where I can finally express the opinions that I would never
 dare voice among librarians I don't know.
 
 Ironically, I rarely write about library issues per se, but blogging
 has provided me with a welcome forum for laying out my own beliefs.
 Some might ask what right I have to complain about politicization when
 I talk mostly about political issues on my blog. My response is that
 that's exactly why I started the blog: It's a personal site where I
 claim to speak for no one but myself. I can voice my views in a venue
 that is separate from my professional responsibilities. That is an
 approach other librarians might want to consider. Besides, when I look
 at groups like Radical Reference or Librarians Against Bush, I feel
 more than justified in blogging not just as a conservative, but as a
 conservative librarian.
 
 I do see one positive development: A growing number of librarians, not
 all of them conservative, are calling for our profession to leave
 politics alone and focus on librarianship. As Steven Bell recently
 suggested in Library Journal, the ALA should either invite speakers to
 its meetings from across the political spectrum, or not invite
 political speakers at all.
 
 The solution is not to replace left-wing with right-wing
 politicization. Rather it is to leave politics to the individual. Just
 as we should collect and provide access to materials representing a
 broad range of beliefs, we should welcome diverse viewpoints within our
 profession.
 
 David Durant is head of government documents and microforms at East
 Carolina University.
 http://chronicle.com
 Section: Libraries
 Volume 52, Issue 6, Page B12