ANSWER: Please see: http://www.nb.no/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0502&L=BIBLIOTEKNORGE&P=4140

In a previous comment in this thread you said:

“In sharp contrast, 76% of respondents to the only ALA membership poll on Cuba called for a condemnation of the repression in Cuba. When will the Council begin to listen to the evidence-based concerns of the membership?”

Yes, Robert Kent does indeed engage in propaganda. For instance, this is not the first electronic communication in which the claim has been made of a majority response to an ALA poll. This is false. ALA issued no such poll. “American Libraries,” a magazine of the American Library Association, has from time to time conducted online polls. “American Libraries” states that these polls are not scientific. In other words, they do not carry reliability or validity. According to the “American Libraries” web site: “These are unscientific polls that reflect the opinions of only those AL Direct readers who have chosen to participate.” And I’m not sure how many times an individual was allowed to “participate.” Yet, on at least several occasions, it has been implied that this is an official ALA poll of the association’s membership. Robert Kent is well aware of the fact that this poll does not provide “evidence-based concerns of the membership.” It has been pointed out to him on several occasions.

Robert Kent consistently distorts facts. In my opinion this is because ALA did not say and do exactly as he wished. He does not appear to value the democratic process, but seems instead to want to dictate what our association says and does. It isn’t about accepting what has been decided after reasonable periods of debate. The wishes of the few trump those of the many. At times it seems he will stop at nothing to achieve his ends. He has repeatedly spammed subject-specific discussion lists and those who have asked him to stop have been personally and publicly attacked – to the point of viciousness. He has publicly attacked ALA staff, councilors, and various members. Yes, he engages in propaganda – and slander and libel as well.

I would be very interested to know the full extent of your involvement with the Cuban “independent librarians” themselves. It is striking the way you know details like this that aren’t available to other Americans. How did you first learn about them? Were you involved in setting them up in the first place? I have heard (second hand) some rather scandalous reports from a Cuban agent about your activities there, not that I am ready to believe what I have heard. I am wondering if you would be willing to answer the question: what is your specific involvement with the “independent librarians?”

As to Michael Dowling’s new opus, isn’t it interesting that his account has no room for any mention of intellectual freedom or book burning in Cuba? Instead of worrying about U.S. government appropriations to support libraries and intellectual freedom , shouldn’t he and the ALA be more concerned about Cuban appropriations to raid libraries, burn their collections, and sentence library workers to 20-year prison terms?

Since the ALA has gone on record in the 2004 resolution as joining with the IFLA in expressing its deep concern over the 2003 crackdown in Cuba, and since the ALA also called for Cuba to allow a U.N. Special Rapporteur to visit the country to investigate this situation, the question now is how to properly follow up on this deep concern. Joining with Amnesty International and other human rights groups in calling for the release of the remaining prisoners would seem appropriate after five years of detention for these individuals who were sentenced in rigged trials. At the very least the ALA could act on its deep concern by inquiring why a UN Special Rapporteur has not yet been allowed to visit Cuba; it could also inquire about the health and well-being of the remaining prisoners and their families.

Here, Mark Rosenzweig accurately defines the methodological history of all Western socialist movements.

Regarding the dissidents’ non-status as librarians, their lack of degrees is only one small criterion. The more important facts are that they don’t consider themselves librarians, have no training in library service whatsoever, and are not attempting to function as librarians or offer any kind of library service. The name “librarian” has been applied to them as a propaganda tactic to generate sympathy from Americans, especially American librarians, as you should know because it seems to have been your and Sanguinetty’s idea in the first place.