Feedback
By Staff -- Library Journal, 3/15/2005
I can't restrain myself after reading Gabriel S. Farrell's "Stuck at the Bottom" (NextGen, LJ 1/05, p. 68). A second-career librarian, I obtained two graduate degrees through my own sweat, student loans, and sheer stubbornness…. At the beginning of each career I learned that to earn the respect of my peers, I had to pay my dues…listen to the opinions of those who had more experience…before offering my own. I had to consider the more experienced professionals as potential teachers and not assume that with my new-minted degree, I knew it all. Having the degree wasn't enough; I had to learn my craft from others and it was my responsibility….
Farrell complains that his employer won't fund his MLS education. The employer…that pays for an advanced degree is very rare. If he isn't willing to pay for his education (via loans, scholarships, or an extra part-time job), Farrell doesn't deserve it….
Farrell…claims that anyone who works in a library is "a type of librarian." He fails to realize that librarians are professionals trained in a specific discipline who have completed a master's-level degree…. Paraprofessionals do important library work…different work from that of librarians. Nobody who wants to be a librarian is prevented from moving up the ladder by educating himself and learning from those with more experience…. Professional prominence doesn't come in a day and must be earned. It's just possible that the MLS-holders know something you don't and haven't had a chance to learn yet…. Stop complaining…join some professional organizations, volunteer for projects that need extra hands. Use your time to develop yourself. You get the career you build….
—Elisabeth McKechnie, J.D., MLIS, Public Svcs. Libn., Law Lib., Univ. of California, Davis
I just read "The Google Opportunity" by Stephen Abram (LJ 2/1/05, p. 34–35). Is it possible to elect Abram God of Libraries? Emperor seems small praise. I have never read an article in a professional library publication that was so dead on. For once, someone didn't rattle off platitudes or social policy from the 1960s. Yes, our profession faces serious challenges, and we seem to be behind the curve instead of ahead of it. Thank the Lord someone is offering solutions instead of bemoaning the gloomy future. Librarians should be leading the future, not reacting to it.
A final comment: on the last point he is dead wrong. At the Great Dying, the Age of Reptiles did not end. They became administrators. Kudos to Abram. He has given me a ray of hope on a cloudy February day.
—Michael J. Schott, Dir., Health Sciences Lib., West Virginia Univ., Charleston
Your editorial captured part of the meaning behind my statement that ALA (the American Library Association) is a business (John Berry, "ALA Is a Business!" LJ 2/15/05, p. 8). ALA's mission and goals form the keystone supporting all of ALA's activities. To carry these out, ALA must earn money. In that respect, it is a business.
Libraries and librarians need a strong ALA now more than ever. That is why our governing bodies have voted to use ALA funds to support causes such as intellectual freedom and equity of access to information. ALA is, indeed, in the words of Ken Haycock, an association made of "a group of people who voluntarily come together to solve common problems, meet common needs, and accomplish common goals." I am certain, though, that LJreaders will understand that reaching these common goals and solving these common problems carry a cost. Millions of association dollars have been used over the past four years to support conference programs, to award scholarships and grants that promote librarianship, and to appeal court decisions that contravene our values.
In order to advance the collective missions and values of its members, and to respond to member needs, ALA must be responsibly managed and, therefore, operated utilizing sound business practices. Thus, association decisions are made based on members' needs and goals, not on profit. ALA staff, the Executive Board, and the endowment trustees are all fiscally prudent and good stewards of ALA's funds. In partnership with ALA's members, they work to earn the maximum resources possible in order to serve members by spending these resources at the right time and in the right place to achieve our common goals and carry out ALA's mission. To do otherwise would truly shortchange our members.
—Teri R. Switzer, Treasurer, American Lib. Assn., Chicago
Please tell Kim G. Kofmel ("Sci-Fi 101," LJ 9/1/04, p. 46–47) that the term "sci-fi" strikes most readers and writers in this genre about as well as fingernails across a blackboard. I have been reading science fiction for more than 40 years and writing it for 15. You can call it science fiction, you can call it sf, you can even, if feeling frivolous, call it skiffy. But please don't call it sci-fi. Most professionals in the genre consider that a derogatory term.
—Ashley McConnell, Albuquerque, NM
