Ms. Sandra Miranda
Director
White Plains Public Library
100 Martine Avenue
White Plains, N.Y. 10601
Dear Ms. Miranda:
Thank you for answering my letter of July 23, 1992. Let me reiterate, from the outset, that, contrary to what you have stated, my letter to Ms. Young dated June 24 remained unanswered. Since her only letter to me is dated June 18 and my only letter to her is dated June 24, I don't know how you can conclude from this chronology that she answered my letter?
Your letter raised two substantive points:
1. The first one is what you referred to as access. In fact, access is not the issue. You misrepresented what I have said in my letter to Ms. Young and to you when you wrote: "You have not, however, established that the Library's collection denies access to the point of view available in the magazine you offered." I have never said that, and how could I since the Library has a subscription to Middle East Policy. The point I am raising, and you chose to ignore, is that of balance, not access. The computer printout you enclosed with your letter indeed shows a number of articles presenting the point of view available in the Washington Report. But It doesn't take a statistician to recognize that this is a drop in the ocean of articles presenting the Israeli point of view. And my subscription gift to this Library is my humble contribution to redress this imbalance. You can only appreciate my position if you know that the mainstream media is viscerally pro-Israel. Its selectivity and half-truth approach, when it deals with the Middle East, is all too obvious, especially to those who know the WHOLE story. I. F. Stone reviewing, in the August 3, 1967 New York Review of Books, a special issue of Les Temps Modernes, initiated by Jean-Paul Sartre, on the Arab-Israeli conflict wrote: "If in this account I have given more space to the Arab than to the Israeli side it is because as a Jew, closely bound emotionally with the birth of Israel, I feel honor bound to report the Arab side, especially since the US press is overwhelmingly pro-Zionist (emphasis added).
2. a. The second point you raised is that of indexing. You seem to overemphasize this issue. You are absolutely right when you said that lack of indexing "makes the Washington Report useless for research purposes." It is also true that "browsing and serendipity are not acceptable substitutes for subject access." But does that mean that White Plains Public Library is only open to researchers? That browsing in libraries is a contemptible activity that should be discouraged and some day banned? The Public Library Association Board of Directors in Philadelphia adopted on July 13, 1982 "A Statement of Principles" that said: "The ideas and information available through the public library span the entire spectrum of knowledge and opinions. The uses made of the ideas and information are as varied as the individuals who seek them" (emphasis added). It seems to me that diversity of people as well as of information should be acknowledged. Conducting research is certainly a legitimate activity. So does browsing. And permit me to add a personal note. Serendipity, while not a substitute for subject access is just too valuable to be discarded. Stone's quotation in paragraph 1 is a case in point.
b. By overemphasizing the idea of indexing one can easily get the wrong impression that every publication carried by the Library is indexed. For instance, The New York Times is mentioned a number of times in your computer printout. The New York Times is indeed indexed. But the Library carries also other dailies like the New York Post, the Daily News, USA Today etc. To my knowledge, these are not indexed. If this is the case how can you account for having them in the Library?
c. Nor is the criterion of indexing applied across the board for periodicals. As far as I can tell, American Hiker, Aramco World, Chess Life and Community Television Review, to mention a few, are not indexed in InfoTrac - General Periodicals Index or in Public Affairs Information Service, both available at the Library. If this is the case, how can you account for receiving these magazines, and maybe others, while rejecting the Washington Report?
I am not asking you to accept the Washington Report to be accommodating
but I am asking you that the reasons you give for rejecting it be free
of inconsistencies. Inconsistency spells double standard. I am not suggesting
either that indexing be relegated to a minor role but I am suggesting that
the diversity of Library goers should not be ignored and the multiple roles
of the public libraries should not be minimized. The Statement of Principles
I referred to above defined the multiple roles of public libraries as follows
(emphasis added):
With all due respect, I don't think that an entire community is made up of researchers whose main concern is to consult indexes. Many library goers are browsers. They go to the library just for that: browsing. While a scholarly journal like Middle East Policy might not be attractive to an average person, a magazine like the Washington Report with its pictures, short articles and special features could be more suitable to him. I would be very surprised if this average person, that the public library is also supposed to serve, worries too much about whether the Washington Report is indexed or not.
In conclusion, I would like to draw the attention to an article entitled "American Library Association Criticizes Israeli Censorship" which appeared in the latest issue of the Washington Report (copy enclosed). Given the inconsistencies I mentioned, I still don't know the real reason for the rejection. I would hate to think that censorship is involved. American public libraries are the last place on earth where I expect to find censorship.
Sincerely,
Medhat Credi