4.5.1 Downs Intellectual Freedom Award for Librotraficante
Since 1969, the faculty of the Graduate School of Library and Information Science (GSLIS) at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign has selected an annual recipient for the Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award to an individual or group that has advanced the cause of intellectual freedom (Illinois School of Information Sciences, 2013). The 2012 Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award recognized Librotraficante “for its efforts to oppose the censorship of ethnic and cultural studies materials in Arizona” (Illinois School of Information Sciences, 2013). Tony Diaz, “El Librotraficante,” accepted the award on behalf of his fellow co-founders and the entire movement during the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Seattle, Washington on January 26, 2013.
4.5.2 Freedom to Read Foundation issues amicus brief
On November 25, 2013, the FTRF, ALA, and several other library, education, and free speech organizations filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for the case of Arce v. Huppenthal, a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of A.R.S. § 15-112(A). The student plaintiffs extended an invitation to the FTRF to file an amicusbrief. According to FTRF, “The brief argues that the statute, which led to the disbanding of Tucson’s Mexican American Studies (MAS) program, violates Arizona students’ First Amendment rights to
143
receive information and is unconstitutionally overbroad” (2013, p. 1). The other groups that supported and signed this brief were the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, Asian/Pacific American Librarians Association, Black Caucus of the American Library
Association, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, National Association for Ethnic Studies, National Coalition Against Censorship, National Council of Teachers of English and
REFORMA National. Barbara Jones shared how numerous groups wanted to sign on, and were reaching out to ALA OIF to sign on (BJ, personal communication, October 26, 2017). The amicus brief stated, “This banning of books and courses from the classroom – both by direct application and by chilling effect – violates the First Amendment rights of students” (Brief of Freedom to Read Foundation et al., 2013, p. 4) and that “Arizona Revised Statute § 15-112 violates the First Amendment” (2013, p. 31).
In her role as FTRF director, Jones stated that all students have a right to a curriculum based on educational merit, not political motivation (FTRF, 2013). The brief stated that the First Amendment protect students’ rights to information in the classroom and that A.R.S. § 15-112 threatened these rights, and targeted the TUSD MAS program for partisan and political reasons (Brief of Freedom to Read Foundation et al., 2013). The brief noted, “There is strong evidence that the statute itself was motivated by political animus toward the MAS program specifically and toward Mexicans and Mexican-Americans more generally” (Brief of Freedom to Read Foundation et al., 2013, p. 11). Jones shared that the attorneys at FTRF knew the legal case was a good case and did not worry about the timeline of the case or whether justice would prevail. She was used to these processes taking long and both Teresa Chmara, General Counsel of the FTRF and Deborah Caldwell-Stone, Deputy Director of ALA’s OIF, thought it was a good case.
144
Jones expressed confidence that the case would turn out fine sooner or late (BJ, personal communication, October 26, 2017).
4.5.3 AzLA reports on MAS case
AzLA did not act on the MAS case until 2013 and did not report out until 2014. In the January/February 2014 issue of the AzLA Newsletter, the Message from the President, Ann Boles, reported that early in 2013, the AzLA Executive Board had passed a resolution
supporting the ALA’s opposition to the TUSD MAS case (Boles, 2014). To clarify, AzLA did not pass a resolution expressing their opposition to the MAS case, but supporting ALA’s
opposition to the case. This demonstrated a lack of support, or at least a distanced support, for the MAS case. President Boles announced to membership that the FTRF had filed an amicus brief, and “Because of an email glitch, the AzLA Board did not learn about the filing in time to join in, but we will probably have a chance to show our support in some way at a later date” (Boles, 2014, p. 2). Her message ends with the inclusion of the FTRF press release about its amicus brief52 (Boles, 2014). This distanced reporting and diverted support compounded the association’s bias against the MAS case.
Overall, AzLA’s 2010 and 2014 public statements were vague, non-committal, and never resulted in substantive action. The organization never communicated attempts to break through supposed barriers to taking a position or providing support. When they shared detailed information about TUSD MAS with their membership, also announcing their resolution, it was one year after their own resolution was passed and two years after the resolution they were supporting and the ending of TUSD MAS. AzLA leadership cited a glitch that prevented them from joining the FTRF amicus and stated “…we will probably have a chance to show our
145
support in some way at a later date” (Boles, 2014, p. 2). The phrasing of this statement (i.e., “probably,” “in some way,” “at a later date”) did not commit AzLA to taking any action, and no further action was taken. The examples of AzLA’s omission, invisibility, distance, lack of support or even acknowledgement of the MAS case illustrate an example of systemic, structural racism within LIS against this Mexican American case.