AL American Libraries Column #9: National Library Agenda

I started this blog a year ago tomorrow, in a fit of pique at the inanity of the ALA Council passing a resolution against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. That resolution had the same powerful effect as all of the other idiotic ALA resolutions. Turns out no one cares what the ALA has to say about non-library issues. It's not even clear that anyone cares what the ALA has to say about library issues. Anyway, in the past year, I've had almost nothing good to say about the ALA, its governing council, its mission, its documents, its presidents, its allied professional association, or anything else.

This may come as a shock to people, but there's finally something coming out of ALA I agree with.

Leslie Burger has been busy, and this time she's been doing something worthwhile. Many of you have probably already read the draft of the National Library Agenda crafted at a meeting of librarians in December and supposedly discussed at ALA. I don't know what, if anything, was discussed at ALA, and if I did I probably wouldn't admit it, but the draft is up for public viewing. For library literature, it's blessedly short and coherent, and a lot better than I expected. I expected the national agenda for libraries would be to saturate us with trashy novels and video games and socialist political propaganda at the taxpayers' expense, but the group brainstorming this stuff was better than that. I know some of those participants, and it seems to me that the sum was greater than the parts in this group.

First, the draft starts off with what "The American Public Deserves":

• Friendly library service in modern, safe, accessible and inviting buildings.
• The ability to use a library days, evenings and weekends and to use a virtual library 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days per year.
• Library collections that are current, relevant and responsive to the interests of the community
• Library collections reflecting the languages of community members and students, including non-English languages, Braille, and closed captioned
• The guidance and assistance of skilled information professionals
• Access to library service in their schools, colleges, workplace, and communities
• Convenient, up-to-date, and unrestricted access to information in all its forms
• A network of adequately funded, readily accessible school, public, and academic libraries that support a learning society and informed community
• High-speed broadband access to the resources on the World Wide Web using state-of-the-art technology
• Community-centered library programs that encourage discussion, debate and civic engagement
• Libraries that value reading and create and sustain collections that encourage users to read for pleasure, information or enlightenment
• Library services that support businesses, other workplaces, and economic development to create an information literate and competitive workforce
• The opportunity to provide ideas, criticisms, compliments, suggestions on the operation and future of their libraries and volunteer for advocacy and support.

Some of this is pie-in-the-sky desiderata, but nevertheless I don't find much in that list that I can't at least agree that in an ideal world we would have that. (I do think they should be more consistent in their use of serial commas, though.)

The main agenda has the following points:

1. Libraries Preserve the Past and Provide a Bridge to the Future
2. Libraries Build and Strengthen Communities
3. Libraries Support Lifelong Learning
4. Libraries Create Information and Technology Literate Communities
5. Libraries Encourage Economic Development
6. Libraries Support Democracy

Why haven't we been getting more of this stuff from Burger and the ALA, instead of all the inanities from attacking the Boy Scouts to the Annoyed Librarian Corps to the videogaming revolution. This is more like it.

It's clear when reading the very brief elaborations on these points that someone was at least doing some thinking. This is not the same mindless rah-rah, libraries-as-entertainment-centers, lowest common denominator pseudo-philosophizing I've come to expect from ALA. This is serious stuff, kind of like Michael Gorman used to write before he became ALA President and made such an ass of himself.

According to the prefatory material, "The National Library Agenda is intended to:

• Provide a broad framework for discussion and consensus building at the national, state and local level
• Articulate a clear library agenda that resonates with the public
• Enable us to provide a positive message for our legislative and other advocacy efforts
• Provide a focus for advocacy initiatives over the next several years

To accomplish all of these goals, I think the National Library Agenda is the best thing that has come out of ALA in a long time. While the SRRT is dabbling in national politics and trying to press their political agenda on the ALA, the concocters of this Agenda were trying to come up with compelling arguments for why anyone should bother supporting libraries.

I never thought I'd say this, but the Annoyed Librarian supports the ALA on this one. Finally, good job. Let's hope it goes somewhere.

AL American Libraries Column #8: Politics and the Purpose of the ALA

This column almost didn't get written. The total relaxation of the Christmas holidays sapped my will for blogging, and I'm just now recovering from my New Year's Eve celebration. My New Year's resolution is to remember that once everyone has been sipping champagne from your shoe, it's probably time to give up dancing. I can get the dress cleaned, but I don't think the shoes will ever be the same again.

Anyway, when I make a mistake, I admit it! Well, usually, at least to everyone else except myself. I was very foolish last month to connect my arguments about the SRRT to arguments about videogaming and such in public libraries. Someone privately suggested that I was using the SRRT as a small stick to beat public libraries. It's more like I was using public libraries as a big stick to beat the SRRT. Either way the argument was confused.

The argument was confused because the two notions of public libraries--as SRRT indoctrination centers and as entertainment centers--are irreconcilable, and the promotion of one undercuts the promotion of the other. If I have to choose, I choose the library as entertainment center, and later this week I'll comment on ways that public libraries can be even more popular.

I noted that the SRRT was never a liberal group. The SRRT has always been illiberal, because the SRRT folk don't really want to give people the means to choose their own ends; no, the SRRT folk want to choose everyone's ends themselves. Their notion of "social responsibility" consists of forcing their illiberal, confused, progressivistical politics on everyone else. And if you don't agree with their illiberal, confused, progressivistical politics, then it's because you're evil and stupid and socially irresponsible. You can always spot the anti-liberals because they cannot refrain from putting scare quotes around "liberal neutrality." They don't like liberal neutrality because they don't like people to make choices. The anti-liberals want to make all the choices for everyone else.

They especially don't like the idea of libraries as popular entertainment centers. You see, that just confirms the "status quo," and is thus inherently conservative. It doesn't really matter if the status quo is good or bad, what matters is that exists and is by definition popular. If something exists and is stable and popular, then it's not moving us toward the ill-conceived revolution that the radical ideologues long for with all their self-righteous hearts.

The anti-liberals argue, somewhat justifiably, that libraries have never really been neutral because they never actually collect all information on a subject, but instead choose materials that support the status quo (i.e., are popular and what most people actually want), and haven't traditionally chosen materials that represent all the fringe ideas of the radical ideologues (i.e., the progressivistical propaganda that almost no one wants). I doubt that argument is as strong now as it no doubt once was, especially with the rise of the Internet. If the library is a popular entertainment center--with trashy novels and pop CDs and videogames--then it's less likely to be a center for progressivistical political action. You can't use the library to foster the revolution and create your incoherent utopia if everyone's busy having fun and amusing themselves to death.

The SRRT folk have been known in the past to argue that while libraries should perhaps be neutral liberal institutions, the ALA should not, since it's not a library. While libraries should provide information on all sides of an issue, the ALA can take one-sided political stances on whatever issues it wants regardless of their relevance to libraries. This argument is acceptable if you believe that whatever a small group of fanatical ideologues manage to get through a confused ALA Council should have the name of the ALA behind it, and that the ALA has no defining purpose other than to speak out on whatever issues the folks on the Council feel like speaking out about.

If you don't accept those two claims, especially the second one, then you'll probably have a problem with the ALA making political pronouncements on issues having nothing to do with libraries. Either the American Library Association exists to promote and support libraries and librarianship, or it exists to make proclamations on any issue anyone can get passed through the ALA Council. If the first is true, then resolutions about non-library related politics are foolish and wrong. If the second is true, then there is no coherent purpose for the ALA and it becomes just a large organization extracting dues from members to support anything and everything that the whim of a few political thugs deems important.

The political thugs would argue that just about anything can be related to libraries or intellectual freedom. Possibly, though if the reasonings behind some of the sillier ALA Council Resolutions is any indication, some things can obviously be related more easily than others. Only if you strain the meanings of libraries and intellectual freedom to breaking point is that true, though. The only way for everything to come under the aegis of the ALA is for words like "library" and "intellectual freedom" to mean nothing at all. When you've reached the point where you no longer understand that language is a common endeavor and words don't just mean what you want them to mean, and when your political ideology requires you to strip language of meaning because you desire victory and obedience more than truth and reason, then you're prepared for the doublespeak of the totalitarians.

And when you reach that point, then it seems increasingly clear to any non-ideologue that the American Library Association has no coherent purpose or reason for being at all. Maybe it can just become a political party and run Cranky Marxist Dude for President.

AL American Libraries Column #7: ALA APA Talking Points

The American Library Association-Allied Professional Association, besides having a really catchy name, has also produced a document with a really catchy title, the Advocating for Better Salaries and Pay Equity Toolkit. I'm all for better salaries, but "pay equity" sounds too vague to actually mean anything. I'm planning to write a couple more posts analyzing this lovely document, but today I want to look at the "Talking Points" (p. 11-12) for those who are advocating for better librarian salaries with whatever group may be relevant. The Toolkit rightly notes that advocating for salaries is a local issue, so imagine walking up to your library board/ administration/ whomever and making these points for why you need more money. They are a bit better than the top 10 reasons to be a librarian, but not much. In honor of the thoroughness that has become a byword here at the Annoyed Librarian, let's take a look at them one by one. Also, because we have been extensively educated in argumentative fallacies by the Wikipedia, let's try to classify the statements by fallacy. That adds a little fun to the game!

"● Libraries shouldn’t have to choose between paying their staffs fair salaries and buying books, adding hours or updating their technology."

I'm not really sure what kind of argument this is. Sure, libraries shouldn't have to choose between these things, but that doesn't mean libraries don't have to make these choices. Choices always have to be made between scarce resources. There's a whole social science dedicated to this. It's called economics. Perhaps you should learn something about it. And what precisely is a fair salary? How is this determined? If someone will work for those wages, how can we be sure the wages aren't in fact fair? This is the kind of stuff you might discuss in your librarian economics discussion group. I like this because it's actually pointing out someone else logical fallacy: the false dilemma. This statement is not so much fallacious as irrelevant.

"● Starting salaries for systems analysts and database administrators are almost twice those for librarians, who also have a master’s degree—$61,000 a year compared to $34,000."

So what? What about social workers? They also have a master's degree (of sorts), and for a lot of library jobs social worker would be a more apt comparison than systems analyst. This assumes that an MLS means something, rather than being an incredibly easy degree with no coherence and no core curriculum. Investment bankers often have an MBA. Why aren't we comparing ourselves to them! According to this website--which I carefully chose as being the first one that came up when I Googled "investment bankers" and mba--"Starting salaries with an MBA degree range after bonus (associate position) range from $60,000 to $135,000." Now that's more like it! And of course there's the obvious response, "well, why don't you go become a systems analyst, then." Logical fallacy--definitely the false analogy.

"● Nearly 60 percent of librarians will reach retirement age within the next 20 years. At this rate, who will take their place?"

Who cares? We'll just have fewer librarians. Are all those librarians we have now really worth it? Oh yeah, prove it! My response would be, good, then the librarians left will theoretically have more money to go around. Fallacy? Hmmm, possibly Non Sequitur. You be the judge.

"● Everyone loves libraries, but library workers can’t live on love alone. Just ask our landlords, doctors, and families."

Reminds me of another little known "Annoyed Librarian Fact"--Everybody loves Raymond, except the Annoyed Librarian! First of all, everyone doesn't love libraries. Just ask Linnypooh. Most people don't even use libraries. And of course librarians can't live on love alone, but this sounds more like a plea for charity than a pay raise. "Just ask our landlords"--this fallacy is the appeal to pity, technically known as the argumentum ad misericordiam

"● Inability to pay is no excuse for salary discrimination. Achieving equity generally costs less than 4 percent of the payroll budget."

What exactly is equity? I hope this doesn't mean anyone thinks all librarians should make the same wage. Equity with whom? However, they're right--inability to pay is no excuse for salary discrimination. An excuse for salary discrimination is that people pay what the market will bear, and if there are a bunch of library school graduates stupid enough to take a job for $27K, then that's what the market will bear. Maybe if we had higher library school standards and weeded out the chaff then the library school graduates could command higher salaries. Fallacy? A Non Sequitur of sorts, because the second statement doesn't follow from the first. Also, the lack of definition for "equity" make the argument problematic.

"● Computer/information scientists, who are mostly men, earn almost twice as much as librarians who have comparable education and responsibility."

Do they have comparable education and responsibility? The slash between computer and information is interesting, since one computer science professor I know thought information science was computer science for people who couldn't do the math. Are we really expected to believe that a master's in computer science is as easy to get as an MLS, and that duties of a computer scientist include directing people to the restrooms and clearing printer jams for the public? Under logical fallacies, I'm trying to decide if this is a false analogy or a red herring. Probably both.

"● According to the U.S. Census Bureau, men with advanced degrees are paid more than twice as much as women—$87,000 per year versus $51,000 in 1998."

Maybe the ALA-APA should read How to Lie with Statistics, just to make sure they don't think they're actually saying anything significant with this statement. The obvious response is, so what? "Advanced degrees" would cover everything from MD/PHD to MSW. This doesn't mean anything at all. This is the sort of statistical gibberish rife in the library literature, though. All those English majors who couldn't get jobs and so went to library school are now quoting statistics at us. This would have to be controlled for type of degree, job experience, years in the workplace, and probably a few other factors for it to have any relevance at all. Logical fallacy: definitely a non sequitur, and probably a red herring as well.

"● Libraries are the mind and soul of their communities, and librarians are the mind and soul of the library."

Poppycock! The "mind and soul" indeed. We are full of ourselves today, aren't we. In addition to just being gobbledygook, basing arguments for better salaries on silly metaphors isn't usually a good idea. No logical fallacy, because no attempt at logic.

"● Libraries work because library workers make them work."

This is the sort of statement that sounds clever until you start to analyze it. Okay, great. And gas stations work because gas station workers make them work. So what? Logic fallacy: Begging the question, perhaps?

"● You can’t have good education without good libraries, and you can’t have good libraries without good staff."

Possibly, but it really depends on what we're talking about. In academia, the first clause is probably true, but definitely arguable. What exactly is a good library, for example, or even good education. One could probably get a fine college education with a library of 20,000 books, if they were the right 20,000 books, and with minimal library staff. And if we're talking about school libraries, I suppose I would agree again for the most part. But what about public libraries? Can we really have no good education without them? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument to me. Not a logical fallacy. This could be put in strict syllogistic form. It's a valid argument with questionable premises.

"● Today’s librarian is a technology-savvy, information expert who can enrich the learning process of any library user—from early reader to graduate student to young Web surfer to retiring senior citizen."

Do all, or even most librarians fit this description? Look around at your colleagues. Would you really classify most of them as technology-savvy information experts? Me, either. What logical fallacy would this be? Hasty generalization. The claim that because a lot of librarians do actually fit this description, then it's an accurate description for "today's librarian."

"● Librarians are the ultimate search engine. They are trained experts in helping others find the information they need—in books, in archives, and on the Web."

But people don't want the ultimate search engine if they actually have to interact with it. They want stuff quickly and online. If librarians were like that chap in Tron, then maybe people would want them. But this is another hasty generalization. The Annoyed Librarian may be the ultimate search engine (this is another Annoyed Librarian Fact), but that doesn't mean you are.

"● Students from schools with school library media specialists score higher on achievement tests."

Keep this in mind: correlation does not imply causation. Just keep repeating it until you get it right. Fallacy: Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

"● In schools and universities, librarians teach information literacy skills that students will need to succeed throughout their lives."

Well, some reference librarians do. The rest of you are just out of luck. Not so much a fallacy as a half truth. Consider this instead: "In schools and universities, librarians surf the web and eat chocolate." True, but hardly likely to raise our salaries.

"● In a world that’s information rich, librarians bring valuable expertise. They connect us with our past, enrich our present and prepare us for the future. Library workers put the high touch in high tech."

This is all so precious. We "put the high touch in high tech." That's a catchy little phrase. Too bad it doesn't really mean anything. Librarians can bring valuable expertise, but this whole past, present, future mumbo-jumbo isn't very persuasive. Another hasty generalization of sorts, I suppose.

The toolkit notes that arguments for higher salaries have to be made locally, not nationally. These talking points are supposed to help you persuade your local group holding the purse-strings that your salary should be raised. If these are your best talking points, then I wish you good luck, because you're going to need it.

AL American Libraries Column #6: A Reply to Some of My Critics

This month's American Libraries column is about a subject dear to my heart--me. Well, it's really about my critics but I just liked saying that. It's been a tempestuous month here at the Annoyed Librarian and my whole team of writers and researchers is so worn out that I've decided to take the helm myself today and address my critics and detractors directly.

If the AL has any coherent purpose other than allowing me to say whatever I like in a public forum, and I'm not sure it does, then that purpose is to provide some criticism and some humor about the ALA and the library profession in general. Too many library publications and library blogs are just avenues for aggrandizing the profession and its professional organization and "education." To some blogs, everything is HOT!! Well, not to me. There's enough of that out there that I think some obstinate criticism is a good thing. It's even possible that in pursuit of my critical goal I exaggerate some claims for effect. You'll just have to figure out which ones.

I've been pleasantly surprised at how many people have been reading the AL as well, considering that this blog is something of an acquired taste and that many of my posts turn out to be so, well, long. It's certainly no mainstream blog and never will be, but I would estimate a few hundred people read it most days, which is not bad considering I've only been blogging in earnest for about six months. It will never reach the number of readers of, say, the Shifted Librarian (with 36K Bloglines subscriptions), but on the other hand the Shifted Librarian has been performing a useful and neutral service for several years, while I just criticize and make jokes.

And I've also been pleasantly surprised that some people seem to read the AL who more or less disagree with what I say. I think it shows a healthy intellectual openness to read what you don't agree with and engage it critically. I welcome critics, and gladly debate them. My critics range from those who provide thoughtful responses to the issues, or at least thoughtful responses to the irrelevant side issues that come up in the comments, to those who just splutter incoherently. Both provide their own kind of pleasure.

Some of my claims almost no one bothers to rebut. Library school is an intellectual joke, for example. Or that the ALA has been misrepresenting the "librarian shortage." Or that one of the stated goals for the ALA SPECTRUM initiative is both theoretically unjustified and practically impossible. Or that a lot of library jobs really suck. Or that the "Top 10 Reasons to be a Librarian" the ALA highlights on their website are pathetic. Or for that matter that the ALA Council shouldn't be passing non-library related political resolutions. No one's bothered to rebut that.

No, it seems to be irrelevant politics that brings out the hostile critics. Some people don't like it when you disagree with them on politics. That implies that you think they're mistaken, and how could they possibly be mistaken when they've spent years believing the same things and have read many other writers who confirm their prejudices? No one really cares about the ALA or library education; that's why no one bothers to respond to those criticisms. But just say how foolish Marxists and the radical left are and the Marxists and sentimental fellow travelers come out of the woodwork.

What I've found puzzling, though, is how many of my critics try to evade the questions I bring up, sometimes in a rather hostile manner. Few critics want to address the real claims of my arguments.

In my response to my claim that Cranky Marxist Dude was attempting to smear an opponent rather than engage in debate, Cranky Marxist Dude and his minions replied by smearing the AL. By at least a handful of nitwits posting either to the AL or the ALACOUN listserv, I found myself characterized as a fascist, racist, hatemongering, violence-inciting moron. I feel a little like the Pope. "So you say I'm waging an irrational and vicious smear campaign? I'll show you! I'll wage an irrational and vicious smear campaign on you, AL!" Someone even very foolishly claimed I was making fun of genocide. No, I wasn't making fun of genocide, I was making fun of you! Posting nasty and untrue comments about the AL certainly tells me that you're indisputably stupid and irredeemably vulgar, but it doesn't tell me that I'm wrong.

I suppose some of my opponents are so used to preaching to the choir that they've forgotten how to engage in rational debate, if indeed they ever knew how. This probably explains why my central claim about the politics of the ALA--that the ALA has no business making proclamations and passing resolutions about non-library related politics--has been met with hostility, attacks, and smears, but with absolutely no arguments that the ALA should in fact be doing this. This comes as no surprise, because when you don't have any good arguments you certainly can't offer any. Hence the vicious and insubstantial attacks.

When I joined the revolution, I was met by some irrelevant but very good-natured comments trying to get me to admit that not all leftists were childish and ignorant, which I'd implied but certainly not claimed, and that Marxism wasn't just juvenile nonsense. However, instead of arguments about the validity of Marxist theory, I got assertions about how influential and inspirational Marxism has been. I gracefully conceded to my opponents that I would agree that Marxism has been very influential and inspirational nonsense. However, these non-sequiturs and red herrings just distract from the main issue--the irrelevant politicization of the ALA.

Religion also seems to erode some people's critical faculties and bring out the non-sequiturs and red herrings. In September, you may remember, I posted about Islam and intellectual freedom, in which I argued that Muslim violence in response to free speech and criticism of Islam posed a very real threat to intellectual freedom, which is an issue supposedly dear to the ALA. I suggested with some seriousness that if the ALA wanted to make a statement about intellectual freedom, they should address that issue. (Somehow I doubt the ALA Council would have the courage to pass that resolution, though.) Imagine my surprise when some purblind, frothy-mouthed anti-Christ tried to argue in the comments that Muslim violence against free speech and intellectual freedom was nothing compared to the rhetoric of some Christian cult down in Texas that no one's ever heard of and that absolutely no one fears but, apparently, him. I felt like I was taking crazy pills. Again, odd responses like this tell me that you hate Christians and that you are illogical, but they don't tell me that I'm wrong.

Even in a recent post about jobs, I was told that I'm frequently out of my depth and that any readers who agree with me are dimwitted minions. It's certainly possible that I'm out of my depth on a lot of issues, including library jobs. However, maligning my readers and attacking my veracity just tells me that you're excitable and that you disagree with me, but it doesn't tell me that I'm wrong. I was also called "elitist." Again, that tells me you consider "elitist" a term of opprobrium, but it doesn't tell me I'm wrong.

A couple of different incoherent splutterers have implied that I delete all my hostile critics and leave only the cheering section, which as anyone who has ever looked at the comments knows is ridiculous. But I think it bothers some of my critics that so many other people would agree with something the critics find so disagreeable. The very fact that a few people agree with me, at least on some issues, just irritates the hell out of some of my detractors. They remind me of Mencken's definition of a Puritan as a person possessed by the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might be happy. Political ideologues are possessed by the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might find them ridiculous.

Another of my critics called me a hatemonger who belittles my profession, my boss, my colleagues, and my library. I mention this only because it's so amusing. It's amusing because it shows almost a complete ignorance of my blog. While I do criticize the profession of librarianship relentlessly, nowhere do I say it's unimportant. If anything, my criticism is of others who make the profession seem ridiculous by their ALA resolutions or their incredibly easy library "education" or their frenzied calls for blindly following every foolish trend. The fact that I bother satirizing the things I think are wrong in the profession shows that I think the profession is worth satirizing.

And as far as I can remember, I've never said anything about my library, and have in fact praised both my boss and some of my colleagues. I suspect this comment was by one of the political ideologues who sees what he believes rather than believes what he sees. "Someone told me you were evil, so I'm going to claim you're evil!" Comments like this tell me you are dogmatically ignorant and incapable of understanding plain English, but they don't tell me that I'm wrong.

So to all my critics, no, only to my especially hostile spluttering critics, I have a polite request. The next time you read a sentence or a paragraph with which you disagree, stop spluttering, calm down, and take a deep breath. Reply in a calm and rational way and address the issue at hand. Because if you can't do that, I'm certainly not going to take you seriously and neither is anyone else.

AL American Libraries Column #5: On Getting No Respect

Well, here goes another Annoyed Librarian American Libraries column. The topic of this one was almost about how if I got through it I'd only have seven more to go, and then I'd be through it and have only seven more to go.

I'm going to assert, just for the sake of argument, that librarians get no respect, or at least very little respect. When people think of glamorous or challenging careers, the don't think librarian, unless of course they're deranged somehow. When people think of interesting and desirable professions, the same thing. And when people think of challenging and worthwhile education, they don't think MLS. People think of librarians as staid, boring, nice, chubby, cat-loving, bun-wearing, poorly dressed, middle-aged women. And, as we all know from looking around us at our libraries and library conferences, there's a reason for that. Except we're not all nice.

But what can librarians do to get respect? What is respectable about our profession? My regular readers (thanks, you two!) will probably be surprised to hear that I'd say lots of things. I could list a few, probably, if I scratched my brain really hard, but instead I want to discuss two different ways to think of librarians, and consider which one of the two is the more respectable and the most likely to gain librarians the respect they desire.

First, librarian as retail clerk. Earlier this month I criticized someone for trying to make librarians into retail clerks. While it's true that public librarians need to, in some sense, give the patrons what they want, and all public service librarians need some of the skills we might label "customer service" skills, I think modeling librarians after retail clerks and libraries after malls are huge mistakes, and will prove detrimental to the status of librarians. Retail clerks don't get any respect, and if librarians model themselves after retail clerks, they'll get even less respect than they do now. Any worker who, when abused, takes the Christian injunction too far and turns all four cheeks to the abusive patron will never get any respect. Bootlicking sycophants and servants get no respect and deserve none, and as long as this toadying image is promoted and tolerated among librarians then they don't deserve any respect.

But what about libraians as intellectual workers? I don't mean as "intellectuals," since often people who identify themselves as intellectuals are usually just pretentious and annoying. But librarians certainly perform intellectual work. They don't do much physical labor, which is why they're in such bad physical shape.

But most librarians do perform some intellectual work. Catalogers analyze and organize information. Reference librarians have to understand the organization of knowledge and be able to mediate between library patrons and that knowledge. Bibliographers have to know the organization of various fields and what to purchase. These are intellectual tasks that rely opon our brainpower.

Certainly librarians often have to do things that require very little brainpower. Clearing printer jams is my bete noire. But these are the tasks that seem the most unlibrarianlike. They are the biggest waste of any education and ability we bring to the job. Tolerating abusive patrons is something else that doesn't require much brainpower, and as long as librarians continue to act like abused puppies longing for love then they'll be treated with disdain.

So there is a choice of how librarians present themselves. Are we sales clerks or intellectual workers? Which do you think will get us the most respect? Or the most money?

One of the things the ALA could be doing is promoting this image of librarians instead of the image of handmaidens to the public, tech geeks gone wild, or idiots who don't understand what censorship is. The problem, I suppose, is that if we promoted the image of librarians as intellectual workers, eventually we'd have to back up our claim.

AL American Libraries Column #4: Can the ALA Speak with One Voice?

Last month in this column I discussed the mission statement of the American Library Association, and among other things criticized Priority Area A, Goal 2: "ALA speaks with one voice for the profession." I opined that the "difference in priorities and experiences just between academic and public libraries sometimes seems staggering." This month I want to elaborate on this statement and consider it in relation to the ALA goal of speaking with one voice for the profession. There are many reasons why this is a silly goal, but I shall consider only one. The ALA can’t speak with one voice for the profession because there is no coherent profession to speak for. The ALA voices the concerns of public libraries and not, for example, academic libraries. Let’s consider the difference.

Public and academic libraries have very little in common. Sure, they have catalogs and computers and books (so does Borders), but they have very different priorities, goals, and clientele. The ALA has all sorts of concerns: the Patriot Act, Banned Books, Intellectual Freedom, CIPA, DOPA, increased funding, etc. Those are mainly concerns in public libraries. Obviously I’m speaking in generalities and there are exceptions, but in general, none of these are concerns in academic libraries.

Academic libraries generally don't have to worry about some book being challenged because of its politics or because it's ten feet from the children's section and has an illustrated guide to sodomy. They don’t have to filter their computers. They don't have to worry about some kids viewing porn on the library computers. If someone is in the library viewing porn, it might very well be legitimate research for a senior thesis or something. They don't have to worry about their foreign language collections being challenged because it's just "catering to illegal aliens" or something. Nothing is outside the scope of an academic library; the only restraint is money. They don't have to worry about some library board dictating what they should do. They don't have to lure teenagers into the library to justify funding.

There is the Patriot Act, you might say. Again, this issue has hardly affected academic libraries in the way it has public libraries. I haven’t seen any stories about the FBI storming into an academic library wanting to see patron records. And if anyone was using an academic library to do research on bombs or something, it would still probably be legitimate research. I also haven’t noticed any stories of perverts trying soliciting sex from minors on academic library computers, and the librarians preventing the police from examining them.

In my experience, academic libraries are just vastly different places from public libraries. I’ve worked in both, and in “public services.” But in academic libraries I’ve seldom had to deal with the random general public, so there I haven’t gotten all the irritating abuse that many receive in public libraries. Rarely have I encountered rude patrons, the technologically illiterate, the genuinely illiterate, the loud, the vulgar, the smelly, the potentially or actually violent. Or gigantically fat tatooed morons leering at me and asking where the serial killer section is. Or children running through the library screaming at everyone.

In academic libraries, I’ve worked mostly with undergraduates and professors, and they've rarely been annoying. I like undergraduates, at least the ones where I've worked. I’ve probably seen only the geeks, but the students I’ve worked with have generally been bright and engaging. They haven’t necessarily wanted to research in the library, because that's boring, but they've been polite. The professors have also been polite. Perhaps I've just been lucky.

I've noted that I'm not sure public libraries have a coherent purpose any more. Some public libraries want to be all things to all people in the community, anything to bring people in the door. But academic libraries don't have to worry so much about bringing people in.

In a lot of academic libraries, that sort of goal--bums on seats--isn't a problem. Academic libraries have a captive audience. Students have to use the library, and the collection isn't designed to draw them in, it's designed to support their research, whether it's a small liberal arts college library or a gigantic state university research library. Even if unstated, there's much more of an assumption that what the "customer" wants isn't really that important. The "customer" is seldom right. I put that in scare quotes because academic libraries don't work on the model of a retail store trying to adapt its wares to its customer base. That's what public libraries seem to do.

Academic libraries work more on the model of a consultation service. In academic reference, librarians are paid for their expertise, which they share with students. When it comes to library research the librarians know how to do it really well, the students don't. Period. It's not about making the students happy by meeting every perceived need they might have. It's about teaching them to do better what they need to do. It doesn't matter if they like it. They don't really have a choice. Anything fun or entertaining about the academic library is just icing on a very serious cake. Personally, I think library instruction can be made engaging and entertaining; it should teach and delight, as Horace might say. But if it only teaches and doesn't delight, then the job is still done, and if the students don't want the benefit they're the losers. When academic librarians try to get the students in the library, it’s from a desire to help the students do their research, not just to get the usage stats up.

So in my experience academic and public libraries are vastly different. The cultures, the concerns, the clientele, everything. The larger point is that there's really no unity among librarians beyond the title, and the ALA cannot possibly speak for all. And yet, it claims to. Sure, it's just an umbrella organization, you might say, that supports other more relevant divisions for a lot of librarians. There's ACRL, for example. Or LITA. Or LAMA. Or RUSA. You might join ALA but really focus on one of the divisions and ignore ALA proper. I can't help noticing, though, that when those dues get paid, the biggest chunk goes to the main organization, an organization that claims to speak for all librarians as professionals, but speaks only for public libraries, and, as I've noted on a number of occasions, when it does speak for public libraries I often don't like what it says anyway.

AL American Libraries Column #3: The Mission of the ALA

The Mission of the ALA

The Annoyed Librarian is as proud and grateful as you all to have an organization dedicated to her profession, and one so venerable and respected as the American Library Association. It leaves a warm glow in my delicate heart when I think of the ALA and its dedication to my professional well being.

Wait. Sorry. I just woke up from my cozy dream. You may have been under the impression that the American Library Association was a professional organization dedicated to the professionals who support it through their dues. You would, of course, have been mistaken. The official mission of the American Library Association has almost nothing to do with promoting the interests of librarians. I guess if it did it would be called the American Librarian Association.

Consider the official mission statement: "The mission of the American Library Association is to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all."

Library services. The profession of librarianship. Enhance learning. Ensure information access.

The mission of the ALA is identified with the mission of libraries to others, not of the ALA to librarians. It is a professional organization whose very mission statement implicitly denies any responsibilities to its professionals. And the ultimate goals are to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all. Anything else is subsidiary to these vague goals. And we've seen by the actions and arguments of the ALA that many librarians are incapable of making any distinctions about types of library users or types of information. All information for all people, presumably all the time. This semi-coherent goal drives the ALA.

Consider the priorities of the ALA mission. After Access to Information, Legislation/Funding, Intellectual Freedom, and Public Awareness comes Priority Area E: Personnel Resources. And only after library school education and accreditation come goals such as salaries and professional development. Goal 2 of Priority Area E is, "Master's level programs are effectively accredited." Library school education is a joke, completely lacking in coherence and intellectual rigor. Is that what the ALA means by effective accreditation? If so, I don't see much hope for the ALA doing anything worthwhile about goals even further down their list of priorities. The MLS is little better than a "union card," some say. But it's a union card with no benefits and no supportive organization behind it.

So the personal and professional well being of librarians comes very low on the priority list for the ALA, and only then in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all. Supposedly, the librarians come before Priority Area F: Library services, development, and technology. However, the ALA is probably more devoted to that than to Area E, though not any more effective.

What are some of the more important goals for the ALA? Consider Priority Area A, Goal 2: "ALA speaks with one voice for the profession." That's one of their most important priorities, and it's completely impossible, no matter what the ALA leadership tries to say. Part of the reason library school is incoherent is that the profession is incoherent. Besides their title of "librarian," what do the following jobs have in common: children's librarian, archivist, bibliographer, corporate librarian, systems librarian, etc.? Not much. The difference in priorities and experiences just between academic and public libraries sometimes seems staggering. The concerns of the ALA seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with academic libraries, and very little with most special libraries. Based on this goal, it seems clear that the ALA can't even formulate proper and coherent goals, much less fulfill them.

But at least one of the final goals of the ALA is being met. Organizational Area C. ALA human resources, Goal 1: "ALA membership is large and stable." See, that's an important goal because they need our money to do all those things they do that don't at all improve our lives. But they seem to have met at least part of this goal. Every time I go to ALA I notice that the ALA membership is very large indeed, though based on the ravings of some of those SRRT folks, I'm not sure how stable it is.

Annoyed Librarian American Libraries Column #2: ALA versus the Librarians

Attending the ALA conference in New Orleans gives me a little more faith in librarians, though no more in the ALA.

The upper echelons of the ALA are a wasteland of irrelevant political intrigue and foolish commentary. The ALA Council either is itself composed mostly of scoundrels, or (as I believe) lets itself be hijacked by political scoundrels who, in the words of one SRRT scoundrel I overheard in New Orleans, "really know how to get resolutions passed." She considered it a point of arrogant pride that they were able to herd the other librarians like sheep. I was too polite to tell her what a rude and ill mannered little troglydyte she was. And of course how unimportant she is.

But if you looked at the programs on offer, it's hard to criticize the work of the divisions and sections and the programs they presented the way one sometimes can with an organization like, for example, the Modern Language Association. For all the idiocy of the proposed Laura Bush protests (which I don't think happened), and all the preconference criticism of luminious political and librarian pundits such as Michelle Malkin and the Annoyed Librarian, not much political silliness actually went on, and what did go on was ignored by a stunningly overwhelming majority of librarians.

I'm possibly beginning to disagree with Greg McClay at SHUSH about one thing. He asserted on his website before the conference that if you would be in New Orleans and were interested in change but didn't go to the membership meetings, then you were just wasting your time. I considered that, and in fact made time in my very busy schedule to attend one of the membership meetings (my first ever after I don't even remember how many ALAs), the one where the irrlevant Darfur resolution was brought up. Greg bravely and intelligently spoke against it. A couple of others noted their reservations. Almost everyone in the room voted to send it on to Council, though, as I knew would be the case. That just confirmed to me that direct engagement wasn't much use.

But one thing I noticed about that meeting compared to many programs and events I've attended both at this conference and at other conferences is that hardly anyone was there. They needed 75 ALA members out of approximately 10,000 there to make a quorum, and barely made it. I heard many of the programs were packed, even with the relatively light conference attendance.

What this tells me is that the majority of librarians, even those active within ALA or its divisions, find the activity by the ALA membership and the Council to be utterly worthless. That should send a signal to SRRT and others, but it doesn't. They think they are pulling something over on the rest of us by hijacking the meetings, but they are really like the children we let loose in the play area while the rest of adults go off to do the real work of the conference, which is mostly learning about and sharing things in the profession that are important for the profession or for our particular jobs.

Except for a couple of programs about "diversity" which really have nothing to do with librarianship, it was hard to find a politically motivated and yet completely irrelevant program. Probably the most politically motivated program I noticed was "Out of the Closet and Into the Library: Access to Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Materials for Teens." Even if one disagrees politically with the content, it's hard to argue that it isn't focused on librarianship.

Though one might not realize it to read the professional mockery of the Annoyed Librarian, I am quite active in one of the divisions of ALA, and find myself rising in the organization almost despite myself. It's a blessing, and a curse. The work I do is useful (I think) and very much focused on the field of librarianship, and the librarians I work with are almost all dedicated, intelligent, considerate, and non-political about librarianship and their jobs. Are they mostly to the left of me politically? Probably, though my political views are sometimes rather complicated. Does that matter for the work we do together or our common desire to make that work as good as possible? Nope.

I suspect this is the experience of those who are active at the division level for most of the divisions, expecially those divisions specifically devoted to a type of library or even better a type of service. I'm thinking here of ACRL/PLA or ALCTS/RUSA. The librarians there are dedicated to librarianship.

But the more one is removed from librarianship, and the more one moves in those exalted circles that have nothing to do with the profession and everything to do with the professional organization, the less useful and relevant one becomes. That's the level with the idiotic and irrelevant political resolutions. That's the level where even Council members of good will say things like "Well, remember, 10% of the people do 90% of the posting" when talking about foolishness on the Council listserv. That's the level where dedicated librarians start to become embarassed by the actions of the political ideologues.

But why don't they speak out? Because it's not important, that's why. Also, I suspect, they're just too nice to say anything. They let the rude and inappropriate behavior of the SRRT go on, because they don't want to be rude themselves. That's just the way gentle people often are around children behaving badly. When was the last time you saw a rude child in a restaurant and actually said something to the child or the parents? I don't mean just mumbled to yourself or complained to your date, but actually went up to the parents and told them what a little brat their child was. I'd bet for most of us the answer is: never. Well, that's how sensible librarians are around the SRRT folks.

Perhaps the answer is to promote not active engagement with the ALA Council, but active disengagement from it. Not faithful attendance of irrelevant and annoying meetings, but active boycotting of such meetings to the point where quorums can't be achieved.

If an ALA Council resolution is passed in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?

Annoyed Librarian American Libraries Column #1: ALA versus the Boy Scouts

The Annoyed Librarian admits she lives in a fantasy world, and trust me, baby, it's a lot more exciting than the real one. And in this fantasy world, the Annoyed Librarian has her own American Libraries column! See, I told you it was exciting! For an experiment, I'm going to try on the first of every month for one year to write a non-satirical piece that would be my column in American Libraries, if they dared to publish it. You hear that, ALA?

There'll be some funnier stuff tomorrow. Well, maybe it'll be funny.
-----

ALA versus the Boy Scouts

ALA Annual 2006 in New Orleans is just around the corner. I’m already looking forward to kicking back with a few Hurricanes at Pat O’Briens (if they still serve a drink called that after last year) and sweating like the pig I am in the noxious heat. Oh, and maybe attending a few really exciting talks and committee meetings.

But ALA Annual also means that the ALA Council will be meeting, and you know what happens when they come together—the passing of irrelevant leftist political resolutions under the aegis of the American Library Association. (And there's no telling what that pesky SRRT will be up to.)

From what I’ve heard, possible irrelevant resolutions coming up this time are resolutions against libraries associating with the Boy Scouts and for impeaching President Bush. I’m going to ignore the possible resolution for impeaching President Bush, because there’s no need to make an argument against it. It has absolutely nothing to do with libraries, and if it’s even brought up for consideration it will be because members of the council want the backing of the ALA for their entirely personal political views. Shameful, yes, but completely irrational and therefore incapable of refutation.

But what about the Boy Scouts?

The leftists on the Council (and scads of leftists throughout the organization) don’t like the Boy Scouts because they exclude atheists, agnostics, and homosexuals. It should also be pointed out that the Boy Scouts exclude girls. If some 8-year-old boy wants to join the Boy Scouts, I think they drag him into a room and demand to know if he’s an atheist, or an agnostic, or a homosexual, or a girl. Just in case he doesn’t understand all the terms, they also ask if he’s a pansy or plays with dollies or likes people who hate God. If he says no, then he’s in.

This does seem like an absurd scenario. I’m trying to imagine some little boy who wants to join the Scouts so he can go camping or learn to tie knots or whatever it is they do and being offended by the code of the Scouts. But of course it’s not the little boys who are offended. And it’s not the parents who are offended. It’s the leftists who are offended that any organization they don’t approve of might actually exist and do good things and that someone might want to be a part of it.

How is this related to libraries? Well, some say, libraries shouldn’t show any support for groups that exclude people based on their religion or sexual orientation. That’s a plausible argument. But would the same people object to libraries participating with groups that exclude people based on their religion if the group was anti-Christian? And what about their politics? Would they object to groups that excluded people based on their political preferences if those preferences were conservative? Somehow I doubt it. All groups exclude people for some reason. The ALA Council should know all about that.

One premise of the leftist rationalization against the Boy Scouts is that libraries shouldn’t have anything to do with any Christian groups, or any religious groups for that matter. This does not in fact mean that libraries should be neutral, but that they should be specifically anti-Christian, and for that matter anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. Should some small-town public library be excluded from participating in any programs with a local church youth group because that youth group by definition excludes non-Christians? What about with a synagogue that excludes non-Jews? Or a mosque that excludes non-Muslims? Would that really make sense? I needn’t point out that a Muslim group would most likely exclude homosexuals as well.

Perhaps the ALA Council should go even further. Perhaps they should vote that libraries shouldn't even be allowed to hire any Christians or Muslims. After all, if a librarian is a Christian, she would automatically believe that Muslims are wrong about religion, and vice versa. By hiring Christian or Muslim librarians, wouldn't that be saying that the library supported people who excluded the worldview of other people? Imagine, library funds in the form of salaries going to people like conservative Christians or Muslims who might think that it's wrong to be an atheist or anything else against their religion. This is scandalous!

Better yet, perhaps libraries should refuse entry to Christian, Muslims, opponents of gay marriage, and anyone else who doesn't support the leftist agenda of the radical librarians. We don't want those people around. They might infect us with their neolithic ideas.

But of course the anti-Boy Scout librarians don't want to disassociate themselves completely from Christians, Boy Scouts, or their supporters. No, they definitely want to take their money through taxation to support the numerous programs that such benighted citizens ordinarily would be horrified to pay for.

I suspect the real thinking behind such resolutions is something like this: We “progressive” librarians don’t want libraries having anything to do with groups that don’t support our leftist political agenda 100%. We don’t tolerate disagreement, because “intellectual freedom” means the freedom to think like us.