ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


April 1 9 9 2 /2 6 5

Section, w ith th e  a p p ro v al o f th e  B oard o f D i­
rectors o f ACRL, m ay h o ld  clo sed  m eetings o r 
joint m eetings w ith  o th e r sections.

Section 3- Q u o ru m . M em bers o f th e  Section 
p resen t at a n  an n u al m eeting shall constitute a 
quorum .

Article X. Amendments
Section 1. Proposals. A m endm ents to  th e  By­
laws m ay b e  p ro p o s e d  b y  an y  com m ittee o f 
the Section o r b y  petitio n  sig n ed  b y  te n  m em ­
bers o f the Section. P ro p o sed  am en d m en ts shall 
be p re s e n te d  in w riting to  th e  chair.

Section 2. Procedure. P ro p o sed  am endm ents 
m ust b e  a p p ro v e d  b y  th e Executive C omm ittee 
o f th e Section an d  b y  the B oard o f D irectors of 
ACRL, follow ing review  b y  th e ACRL Constitu­
tio n  a n d  Bylaw s C om m ittee b efo re m em b er­
ship can  b e  notified o f the p ro p o s e d  revisions.

S e c tio n  3- V o tin g . T h e  B y la w s m a y  b e  
a m e n d e d  b y  a tw o-thirds vote o f th e  m em bers 
p re s e n t a n d  voting at a n  an n u al m eetin g  o f th e 
Section o r by  m ail v o te a p p ro v e d  b y  tw o-thirds 
o f th e  m em b ers voting. N otice o f the p ro p o s e d  
ch an g es m u st b e  p u b lish e d  n o t less th a n  o n e 
m o n th  b efo re final consideration. ■

Letters
To th e Editor:

T hom as G. Reid J r.’s vitriolic letter (M arch 
1992) reveals th e  p u rb lin d n ess o f his reactio n ­
ary ilk. It is h e w h o  is eith er c o n fu se d  o r h y p o ­
critical o n  th e  issue o f ALA’s p o sitio n  o n  the 
gag rule im p o se d  b y  th e R u st decision.

Reid conflates sim ply m ak in g  referrals o r 
pro v id in g  in fo rm atio n — w h a t b o th  librarians 
and health professionals do — w ith nefarious ad­
vocacy. R u st d id  n o t just “sto p  [federal em p lo y ­
ees] from  saying o n e  w o rd  in  fa v o r  o f ab o r­
tio n ,” as R eid claim s. It p ro h ib ite d  a n y o n e  
receiving Title X fun d in g  from  pro v id in g  n e u ­
tral inform ation a b o u t it, e v en  from  p o in tin g  at 
the listings in  th e  y ellow  pages.

For R eid’s strained analogies to  m ak e sense, 
it w o u ld  b e  illegal for staff in federally s u p ­
p o rted  libraries to  refer read ers to  b o o k s th at 
c o n tain ed  racial slurs ( H u c k  F in n ) o r sexual 
h arassm ent (.Clarissa), o r to  co m m u n ist o r a n ­
archist tracts, o r to  publications o f th e  H em ­
lock Society. T alk a b o u t PC! …

M oreover, R u st w e n t further th an  a sim ple 
prohibition: it p rescrib ed  a u n iq u e, fixed state­
m ent that health professionals m ust utter if q u e ­
ried a b o u t abortion. This is m o re th a n  c en so r­
ship— it is political ventriloquism . W ere su c h  a 
positive in ju n ctio n  e x te n d e d  to  th e  realm  o f 
p o litical e c o n o m y , w e  w o u ld  b e  fo rc e d  to  
m o u th  w o rd s  d e v is e d  b y  th e  H eritag e F o u n ­
d a tio n  a n d  a p p ro v e d  b y  p re s id e n tia l a p p o in ­
tees.

All o f this is precisely w h y  it w a s legitim ate 
an d  e v en  n ecessary  for th e  A m erican Library 
A ssociation to  in terv en e in  th e  R u st case o n  
the side o f freed o m  o f ex p ressio n — e v e n  for

federally fu n d e d  operations.—Jeffry Larson, bib­
liographer, Yale University

To th e Editor:
I w a s g lad  to  se e  th e  favorable account, 

w ritten  by G ail Junion-M etz a n d  Ray E. Metz, 
o f ACRL-New Y ork’s 1990 sym posium . H ow ­
ever, I w as su rp rised  b y  th e  sh allo w  in terp re­
tation o f m y talk a n d  a sto n ish ed  b y  th e  state­
m en t th a t I called u p o n  p u b lish ers to  practice 
“b ibliographic birth c o n tro l.” T his is a p h rase I 
w o u ld  n ev er u se seriously an d  ex p resses a co n ­
cep t I w o u ld  n e v e r su p p o rt. I w as ridiculing 
th o se  w h o  w o u ld  advocate su ch  an  unlikely, 
sim plistic, a n d  co u n ter-p ro d u ctiv e “so lu tio n ” to 
th e  p ro b le m  o f inform ation overload.— M ary 
Biggs, D irector o f  Libraries, M ercy College 

T he au th o rs respond:
T h e inform ation o n  th e  N ew  Y ork m eeting 

w h ic h  w e  u s e d  in o u r C&RL N ew s article w as 
o b ta in e d  from  th e  W inter 1991 issu e o f th e 
M etropolitan N ew  Y ork ACRL C hapter N ew s­
letter. T h e article titled “H ighlights o f A ccess to 
Excess? Issues o f the Inform ation E xplosion” 
co n tain s a tw o -p a ra g ra p h  d e scrip tio n  o f Ms. 
Biggs’s com m ents. T he follow ing is from  that 
description: “W hile p u b lish ers sh o u ld  practice 
v o lu n tary  ‘b ibliographic birth c o n tro l,’ librar­
ians m u st h e lp  sift ‘essen ce from  e x cess.’ If in 
o u r  a tte m p t to  e n s u r e  th a t m o re  lib ra ria n s 
learn ed  a b o u t this im p o rtan t program , w e  in­
advertently m isin terp reted  th e  s p e a k e r’s intent, 
w e ’re sorry.— R a y  E. M etz, Case Western Reserve 
University, a n d  G ail J u n io n -M e tz, C leveland 
State University ■