Feedback

The incredible professional performance by Tina Adams deserves to be promoted (John N. Berry III, “Paraprofessional of the Year 2009: Tina Adams,” LJ 3/1/09, p. 24–25). There are some MLS librarians who would do well to look at her professionalism. I have wondered why those of us doing various librarian jobs are described as “sort of professional.” What would the harm be in using terms like clerk librarians, LTA librarian, or MLS librarian? Does it hurt so to admit that some individuals can do a professional job without the MLS? Let's be proactive and develop a system that recognizes all forms of professional performance in all levels of librarianship.

—Catherine Korthals, Adult Svcs. LTA Libn., IL

Rutgers School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies (SCILS) should not remove the word library from its title because it does diminish its long-standing history as a fine library school (“Rutgers Agrees To Drop 'Library' from Name,” Newsdesk, LJ 3/1/09, p. 14). Some librarians, ironically, are desperate to remove real books from the library and replace them with digitized versions. Following that logic, library schools seem bent on getting rid of the word library altogether. If SCILS wants to make a serious change in its library program, it should consider improving its infrastructure (buildings and facilities), most of which is outdated and crumbling. Rutgers is a fine university and as such should focus its attention on more relevant issues, like offering its library students courses on teaching and instruction—skills that students must have in order to compete in today's world. A simple name change is nothing more than a fluffy marketing ploy.

—George Germek, Asst. Faculty Libn., Monmouth Univ., West Long Branch, NJ

I graduated from the University of Michigan School of Library Science (now School of Information) in 1975. At that time, graduates either took jobs as “librarians” or “information specialists.” The only difference was that “information specialists” used computers to search the literature. Now that we all use computers to do not only reference but all of our work, why do we still cling to nomenclature whose root means “book”? I think that Rutgers, along with Michigan, is doing the profession a favor (“Rutgers Agrees To Drop 'Library' from Name,” Newsdesk, LJ 3/1/09, p. 14).

—Margo Coletti, Knowledge Svcs. Dir., Boston

My wife and I earned MLS degrees from the Rutgers Graduate School of Library Service in the early 1960s. We are both retired now. The name change seems ill-advised (“Rutgers Agrees To Drop 'Library' from Name,” Newsdesk, LJ 3/1/09, p. 14). If the people of New Jersey still want libraries and librarians as the New Jersey Library Association response suggests, the school's name should reflect where they can get the latter. I'm reading The Dumbest Generation: How the Digital Age Stupefies Young Americans and Jeopardizes Our Future; or, Don't Trust Anyone Under 30, by Mark Bauerlein. This change seems part of the same unfortunate trend.

—James Edward Agenbroad, retired, Garrett Park, MD

The report “Lawsuit over Bible-Related Financial Session” (Newsdesk, LJ 2/1/09, p. 16) ends with, “The library then changed its old meeting room policy...in apparent violation of American Library Association [ALA] guidelines.” Guidelines should be mere suggestions and certainly not something to be “violated.” It was an inaccurate representation of both ALA's role and the Clermont County Public Library's rights.

—Carla Morgan, Irving P.L., TX

In Elizabeth R. Hayford's review of Grigoris Balakian's Armenian Golgotha: A Memoir of the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1918 (LJ 3/15/09, p. 111), I was taken aback by her comment that the book is “Important for readers who want to judge whether or not this was the first genocide in modern times.” I hope she meant, “Important for readers who want to judge whether this genocidal event was the first of its kind in modern times,” rather than to give credence to those who minimize or deny it. Would you have printed such a sentence in a review of a book about the Holocaust?

—John A. Drobnicki, Prof. & Chief Libn., York Coll., CUNY, Jamaica

We did guard against just reacting to Warren Hawkes calling our film Little Brother, BIG PHARMA “poorly executed” (LJ 9/15/08, p. 92). So we reviewed his review, asked others to look at the film and the review, and have concluded that there is a disconnect.... Robert Whitaker, author of Mad in America and a principal presenter in our film, got a howl of disapproval when his book challenged orthodox psychiatry. Hawkes continues this trend, but his review is oddly restricted to the very beginning of the film.... The review is wrong and missed the mark.

—Elliot Heine, Aspect Films, Vancouver, BC