ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries


738 / C&RL News

may also contact A C E ’s Project HEATH (Higher Education and Adult Training for people with 
Handicaps). The director o f HEATH is Rhona C. Hartman, HEATH Resource Center, One 
Dupont Circle, Washington, DC 2 0 0 3 6 -1 1 9 3 ; phone (20 2 ) 9 3 9 -9 3 2 0  or (800) 5 4 4 -3 2 8 4  (voice/ 
T D D  on both lines) or fax (202) 8 3 3-4760. The A C E materials are quite helpful but are not 
geared to specific library situations.

From these materials it appears that most campuses have been complying with the spirit 
and letter o f the ADA. However, additional accommodations may be required on some 
campuses. The ADA is expected to be enforced more aggressively than the Rehabilitation Act. 
Finally, and most importantly, the ADA will significantly increase opportunitiesfor disabled 
persons. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 10.5 percent o f students 
enrolled at all levels o f postsecondary education have one or more handicapping conditions.

L etters

Kudos for conference coverage
To the Editor:

I wanted to extend my compliments to you for the 
article in the September 1991 issue covering the 
ACRL programs at ALA. As one who was unable to
attend the conference, I had planned to nag col­
leagues and friends for information on certain o f the 
meetings. The summaries supplied answered most
of my questions, negating the need to nag my
colleagues (about the conference, at least). I hope 
to see articles like that one in the future.— L in d a
Musser, Penn State University

Rust support evil?
To the Editor:

ACRL & ALA have NO business in being con­
cerned about RU ST. The library profession should
be concerned about libraries, nothing else! Besides, 
in common sense, RU ST is about whether my tax
dollars will be used to espouse abortion. I for one, 
do NOT want my tax dollars to support abortion! It
has nothing to do with the first amendment. It’s 
about whether my tax dollars will be used to encour­
age abortion. I am adamently [sic] opposed to using
my tax dollars and my ALA membership to support
what ultimately is nonsense & evil!— Virgil F. 
M assman, Saint Paul, M innesota

E d  note: We asked Ann Levinson o f ALA to
respond to Mr. Massman.

Dear Mr. Massman:
I  believe there has been a serious misunder­

standing of ALA’s position and motivation in filing
an am icus brief before the United States Supreme 
Court in Rust v. Sullivan. You state, “The library
profession should be concerned about libraries, 
nothing else!” This is exacdy why the American 
Library Association and the Freedom to Read Foun- 
dation filed a brief in Rust.

The essential point of the brief is this: While 
libraries take no position on the underlying issue of 

 abortion, they do make information from all points 
o f view available and accessible. Material which 
espouses or advocates abortion, as well as material 

 which vehemently opposes it, is available in library 
 collections. Library users, having access to all of 

these materials, are thus able to fully inform them­
 selves about the underlying issues.

The “gag rule” which ALA argued against in the 
Rust v. Sullivan case allows the government to link 
ideological, viewpoint-based restrictions to the ac­
tivities it funds. Taken to its logical extreme, this 
notion could limit the information libraries acquire 
with federal funding on any potentially controver­

 sial topic. It is essential, however, that libraries be 
able to provide ideas and opinions from all points of 

 view— after all, a person who has strong feelings on 
a topic will never be able to argue their case effec­

 tively unless they can counter the opinions o f those 
who disagree. To do that, one must be informed 
about those opinions and positions. Thus the Rust 

 v. Sullivan decision has everything to do with the 
 First Amendment. W e must guard against the chill­

ing precedent set in this case being extended to 
libraries.

Finally, your tax dollars, and your ALA member­
 ship, go to support the provision of professional, 

equitable, and principled library service. This will 
be impossible if the government (or any individual!) 
is allowed to dictate which information will or will 
not be available in publicly supported libraries, 

 based solely upon their personal convictions and 
opinions. In the process, First Amendment rights 

 will obviously suffer irreparable harm.
I hope I have clarified ALA’s motivation for 

filing, and the concerns behind, our brief in Rust v. 
Sullivan.— Anne E. Levinson, Assistant D irector, 
ALA O ffice f o r  Intellectual F r ee d o m  ■  ■