Feedback

I agree with some of John Berry's “The Vanishing Librarians” (Blatant Berry, LJ 2/15/08, p. 10). Before I landed a position in reference and then my current professional post, I was a circulation manager. I was told time and time again that my staff and I were unnecessary because there are automated checkout systems and patrons don't really care to deal with a human. Most of the patrons at our service desk weren't checking out books. They had questions no machine could answer.... Librarians are responsible for some of these trends, particularly those who are “too important” to work a desk and hide in their cubicles chasing tenure while uninformed graduate students and undergraduate clerks staff the reference desk. At my current institution, even our dean works the reference desk (as does every librarian, no matter their specialty)....

Fewer and fewer “librarians” are taking any but the basic reference course in “library” school. Programming and technology classes are pushed.... This leaves us with few reference librarians who can master both the electronic and what some might call the archaic—like the skills to know and use print indexes. In the academic library...we may think that the dispersal of service desks, staff, and professionals working in public areas goes unnoticed. It does not. It is noticed by students and faculty, particularly those who were accustomed to knowledgeable professionals and good service. As libraries change to a more businesslike model, with more automation and more outsourcing, student achievement at our universities is declining. That is a very disturbing trend of which we should be wary....

What concerns me is the laissez-faire attitude often taken when making field-altering decisions and the disappointed faces of patrons when they don't like what we're doing. It is fine to evolve and adapt, but to do so by eradicating our very roots and the reasons our profession exists is shortsighted at best.

—Colleen Harris, Asst. Prof., Reference & Instruction Libn., Univ. of Tennessee, Chattanooga

Right on, John Berry (“The Vanishing Librarians,” LJ 2/15/08, p. 10). In public librarianship, there has been a consistent trend away from seeing the role of the librarian as educator and the role of the public library as “the people's university.” Hand in hand with this is a failure to realize that the difference between the public library as commercial bookstore and the public library as engine of community education and transformation is one that goes to the very heart and soul of what was once a proud profession.

—Peter A. Neenan, Dir., Labor Market Research & Statistics, Raleigh, NC

There are way too many doom and gloom articles like John Berry's “The Vanishing Librarians” (Blatant Berry, LJ 2/15/08, p. 10). They remind me of “the end is near” sandwich boards paraded around the streets by sackcloth-clad, ash-covered cartoon figures. The truth is that nothing replaces the services of a trained librarian. Because we don't have the power of Madison Avenue advertising behind us like Barnes & Noble, not everyone realizes this. Barnes & Noble has its place, and we have ours.... The more information and the more access to it, the more important our work, to point out the way, to teach discernment, evaluation, and critical thinking. Amid the dross of the information age, we are the beacons!

—Tomas M. Garnica, Student, New York

If staff members and some of the administration at the New York Public Library (NYPL) felt comfortable speaking out, much more of this story would be known (Francine Fialkoff, “Two NYPLs or One?” Editorial, LJ 2/1/08, p. 8). Unfortunately, those involved who have clear, well-reasoned ideas are afraid for their jobs. Offices and jobs are being eliminated with incumbents (or previous incumbents) unsure of their new roles.

Hours are being increased without sufficient staff to support it, leaving some staff unable to reconcile work with life. Collections such as World Languages (at Donnell) are being decimated with no indication as to how the users will be served in future. The quality of branch collections is threatened by a desire to match the circulation of the Queens Library.

In general, the public does not catch on to change until segments of it suddenly find themselves with longer hours but cookie-cutter collections, limited neighborhood public programs, and the elimination of other services that once made NYPL so special. While everyone understands that public entities need to be accountable to government and funders—opening as many hours as possible, having collections that circulate well—too much of a bottom line mentality ultimately diminishes and degrades the quality of collections and services. For every question asked, the top administration has...glib, canned answers to staff and the public. These answers may play well (or at least acceptably) in and for the New York Times. But you can't fool the people who daily go to work at NYPL.

—Emlynn P., Libn., New York