The Case Against the South African Boolc Boycott

LOGOS The case against the South African boolc boycott "^ Tony Hooper Fohowing the passage of the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 in the United States, American pubhshers and booksehers were threatened with the loss of substantial domestic accounts if they continued to seh books and other educational material to cus tomers in South Africa. The immediate result was that those with book businesses in South Africa sold them to local buyers, while others stopped Educated in Zimbabwe, South Africa exporting books to South Africa. This is one of the and the United States, Tony Hooper few occasions in the history of the book when pub is a career librarian, having held lishers have applied a trade boycott to an entire country, out of abhorrence for that country's posts in Harare, Pretoria and domestic pohcies. Pietermaritzburg before assuming This action was not confined to US deal his present post as Director of ers and pubhshers. The Danish government, for libraries at the University of Cape example, also passed a law (subsequently Town in 1980. He was President of repealed) prohibiting trade with the Repubhc of South Africa and Namibia. Libraries in South the South African Institute for Africa were inundated with letters from trading Librarianship and Information and exchange partners ah over the world cutting Science from 1984 to 1986, and is off contacts. Some writers were apologetic. Most a member of the Board of the South were polite. They had decided not to trade with African Bibliographic and any South Africa book dealer, hbrary, university or school. The boycott was applied irrespective of the Information Network. political stance of the institution being subjected to it. Some pubhshers reported that members of their editorial boards had threatened to resign h trade with South Africa continued. Parcels of books which did get through often had anti-South African slogans written on them by packers or handlers in their countries of origin. As a statement of censure and as a politi cal act by independent, autonomous trading competitors, the academic boycott of South African institutions must be unique. How, one wonders, can it be reconciled with the fundamen tal ethic upon which most publishers would agree—that the free flow of information and ideas is the best way to ensure evolutionary and demo cratic change? The tension created by the choice LOGOS 1/3 <c, WHURR PUBUSHERS 1990 The case against the South African book boycott between the desire to abide by a behef in ^he deprivation of ah possible access to banned materi importance of promoting the free flow of ideas t.iid al. Even in the most liberal institutions—those information on the one hand and, on the other, the most opposed to censorship—there was general desire to make a powerful pohtical statement out consensus that the best strategy to follow was to of abhorrence of events and ideology in a distant abide by the constraints of the law and apply it in country, is the essence of drama. Can one fight as hberal a manner as possible. So far as I am censorship by applying it? Can one beat oppres aware, no library or librarian has been prosecuted sion by oppressing others? Can one promote under the law, nor deprived of the privilege of education by denying the resources of that educa acquiring and making banned material available to tion to those who need it most and who are "the students and researchers. front-hne troops" in the war against the common Legislation in South Africa which provid enemy? ed for the censorship of political opinion was Governments, rulers and legislators symptomatic of xenophobia which has its origins have never had any hesitation in using the fact that in the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, and before knowledge is power. For centuries, those in power, that in the British occupation of the Cape. Despite in both church and state, have sought to control access to books and information in order to stay in ...one of the few occasions in power or to protect the minds of their constituents the history of the book when from hostile or heretical views. Equally, those 79publisher s have apphed a seeking power have enhsted the aid of the presses to persuade others of their views and ideologies. trade boycott to an entire The world's presses have done battle, recruited by country, out of abhorrence one side or the other, to preserve or change the for that country's domestic pohtical status quo. But usually publishers have pohcies. competed with one another by promoting oppos ing views. the changes that are taking place, the Pubhcations South African censorship is a good case Act remains, but we are assured that the repeal of study of "protecting the minds of constituents bannings of books because of the pohtical views from hostile or heretical views". Certain books they espouse is in full swing. and other pubhcations were banned in South While the Publications Act remains a Africa in terms of the Pubhcations Act No. 42 of focus of current controversy in South African 1974 or in terms of the Internal Security Act, and library and pubhshing circles, the boycott, intend sometimes in terms of both. However, specified ed to protest censorship as weh as a whole libraries, including university and legal deposit constellation of apartheid laws, also has been a libraries, could acquire these materials and make centre of controversy in America and in interna them available to bona fide students and tional library circles. The Association of American researchers under certain specified conditions. University Presses (AAUP) was the first US body Those conditions are stipulated in the relevant Act to criticize the book boycott of South Africa, and responsibihty for administering the Act feh on declaring, in December 1987, that h opposes "ah the hbrarians concerned, irrespective of their attempts to interfere with the unrestricted passage political or ethical views on the matter Failure to of books among the countries of the world" and enforce the Act could lead to the librarian being reaffirming its behef in the "unfettered right of held culpable and the institution concerned being access to whatever has been written because we deprived of the right to acquire and make available deny that any man or woman has the right to any banned publications at ah. decide what another may read". The AAUP state For the hbrarian intent on making litera ment concluded: "We beheve that books have no ture as freely available as possible, this created the place in an embargo. The right of the oppressed to dilemma of abiding by the law and its provisions of read and to learn is no less urgent than our need restricted and hmited access to banned publica to learn about them and to learn from them." tions, or of breaking the law and risking the In January 1988, the Association of .

Load more