ALA President’s Program 1/22/06
January 26th, 2006 by Andrea MercadoThere was a lot going on in this program above and beyond the title of “The Future Of Our Profession: Educating Tomorrow’s Librarians,” but I will try to stick close to the original title topic.
There are three questions that Andrei Codrescu put to himself when considering the future of librarianship:
1. How is a librarian better than a mouse click?
His answer: “The machine doesn’t waste time caring about the quality of the information. It’s an unfair competition between machine and people.” Librarians will continue to add a human expertise to information services that a computer can never offer, especially in issues beyond just finding information. This fits in nicely with the rise in popularity of social networking software, and how users are using their own human networks to help weed through the mounds of information on the Internet. In his mind, a librarian must also be a “poet, nurse, and social worker,” due to the simple act of interacting with the public. Can you imagine Google as a social worker?
2. What can library buildings do besides holding books?
His answer: “Libraries are cultural centers for those who don’t fall prey to television and video games.”
The library will never be without books, according to Codrescu. A library like books is like a museum without art. His futuristic view of libraries is one of inflatable, mobile, gigantic dormitories, like “low flying Hindenburgs, accessible by elevators, like what you’d see in 19th century science fiction,” a place of respite for those whose “souls have not been captured by Google.”
Librarians need to feed new information into Google, “instead of letting Google turn them into Googley gophers.” I agree with Andrei in his assessment that libraries should be active participants in culture, and that librarians should assist in transforming libraries into producers of culture. This is absolutely part of K. Matthew Dames’ view of the future of libraries as multimedia information systems. While I do think that patrons are beginning to understand that libraries aren’t just books (even if it means they understand that we can offer movies, music, and free internet access), libraries need to do more to market the idea of “not just books” to our patrons.
3. What does the Freedom to Read mean to the American Library Association?
His answer: Reading banned books is why Codrescu became a writer. Fighting for the Freedom to Read and fighting against the USA Patriot Act are wonderful and necessary acts on the part of ALA, and provide a crucial assistance to libraries and the world today.
His dismay comes at ALA’s lack of action on Cuban persecution of librarians and libraries. How can ALA, defenders of the Freedom to Read and freedom of expression everywhere, look away from Cuba? ALA needs to step up and say something, “to not do so is self defeating.” Personally, I thought it a bold move for Codrescu to take an opportunity where he was invited to speak to ALA for him to get on a soapbox about how ALA was acting inappropriately in the Cuba situation.
On this point I disagree with Codrescu, and there was much banter during the question and answer period about the situation with librarians being arrested and persecuted in Cuba. In truth, Andrei was focusing on the situation of private citizens lending out books from their own private collections, and being persecuted by the Cuban government as a result. These private citizens are not considered librarians, as Michael Gorman pointed out, but Codrescu insisted that if they are people who own books lending books, what else should they be called? Question three became all about the Cuban situation, and really shed no further light on the future of libraries and librarians.
After Andrei’s presentation, Michael Gorman did say a few words on what he sees for the future, but they came mostly in the form of questions for us, the librarians, questions he was not going to answer in the moment, but that he hopes to answer in the next few months:
- Can we (ALA) as a professional association define the elements of our profession in the 21st century coherently enough to pass down to the next generation?
- Do we have enough librarians for the next generation?
- Is ALA sufficiently assertive, like, say, the American Bar Association and the American Medical Association, insuring that program that educate librarians are carrying out their responsibilities in full?
- Is it unreasonable for ALA to demand a curriculum that really meets the needs of the profession in exchange for accreditation?
These are very important questions that really do require considerate thought. I think I know my answers to these questions, but I’d like to hear more about what you, our readers, think. If you’ve got a comment or question, I encourage you to leave a comment on this post, and/or explore these questions on your blog.
Tags: ALAMidwinter2006, conferences
|
Print this post
January 27th, 2006 at 9:43 am
Thanks for a good post, Andrea, but I must disagree with you on two points: one of text and one of context.
In the first case, you say, “The library will never be without books, according to Codrescu.” According to my memory and my notes, he didn’t look at the issue quite that simply. Codrescu certainly saw the library as a home for texts and other materials, but recognized that the place of books would change. At one point, I think I remember a comment about what other kinds of spaces could develop in the library as the shelves went away; my notes show that I specifically heard him muse about what the “library-without-books of the future” might look like or be like. That’s just before the part of the talk where we imagined the library as a place for “creation in situ of reading materials” by the community and proposed a bookmobile with plenty of space for crowds, since it would be a place for many kinds of cultural materials and events.
In the second case, you say, “Question three became all about the Cuban situation, and really shed no further light on the future of libraries and librarians.” I disagree — in fact, I think that intentionally or not, Codrescu’s comments and the ensuing discussion about the Cubans actually gave a thematic unity to the afternoon. The theme that emerged was, “Who is a librarian? Who gets to wear that title — and who decides?” Codrescu addressed the question from the point of view of the outside world — the librarian as “poet, nurse and social worker” of the information world and as freedom-fighter, defender of the First Amendment and Article 19 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Gorman, on the other hand, took the navel-gazing party line, incredulous that there were actually LIS graduates that had been unleashed on the world without having taken a cataloging class. Horrors. Honestly, look at the wording of his questions: “Is it unreasonable for ALA to demand a curriculum that [insert criteria here] in exchange for accreditation?” Sure, ALA can set its accreditation standards however it wishes, but listen to the tone — that’s not the voice of an Association that’s interested in new and different voices joining its discourse to meet changing and challenging times. That’s the strident, threatened, scared voice of one who feels cornered, the voice of old-guard turf-protection.
More on the LBR blog, here and here.
January 27th, 2006 at 11:43 am
According to my memory and my notes, he didn’t look at the issue quite that simply. Codrescu certainly saw the library as a home for texts and other materials, but recognized that the place of books would change.
My point here was that you are correct in saying that the role and place of books in the library might change in Codrescu’s mind, just simply pointing out that books would never ultimately be displaced out of the library by the current and coming digital changes. It may seem a gross oversimplification, but it doesn’t discount what you’re saying here, so I don’t see it as much as a difference of opinion.
The theme that emerged was, “Who is a librarian? Who gets to wear that title — and who decides?”
Honestly, I couldn’t see past trying to piece together Cuban discussion to see the “Who is a librarian?” question as the true meat and potatoes of the discussion, but I do very much see how your assessment of the discussion applies.
On the topic of Gorman and his harping on cataloging, I’ve heard him mention the very same point many times before, and really, it’s lame way to center his argument. I added his questions to the end of my post without answering them in an effort to spark discussion amongst librarians on these issues, since Gorman seems to have dodged the questions thus far (saying that he’ll be answering them over the next few months when really he should’ve been on them so far in his tenure), and I don’t think there’s been enough discussion amongst librarians calling out ALA on these issues.
Thank you for such good comments. I read the posts linked from your comment, and I recommend other people read them, too.
January 27th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Regarding “..private citizens lending out books from their own private collections, and being persecuted by the Cuban government as a result..”, it seems to me that the issue here isn’t whether or not they qualify as librarians, but it their activity is such that their persecution would merit the ALA speaking up on their behalf. I believe so, and in fact the ALA has addressed the issue, although not as strongly as I would wish.
January 27th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Andrei Codrescu also agreed that ALA had not acted on the issue of Cuban independent libraries as strongly as he would have liked, and it seemed (my memory is sparse here) like he was equating it to ALA not really acting at all. Since I don’t actually know much about the Cuban independent librarian situation (and thus why I devoted so much attention to trying to piece together the dialog that was happening on stage), I went poking around on the ALA site for reports and documentation. From what I could find, I understand that the following recommendation of the ALA International Relations Committee (ALA-IRC) supports your, and Codrescu’s, criticism:
Based on its extensive review, the Subcommittee recommends that the International Relations Committee of the American Library Association take no further action with respect to the current question of the “independent” collections of books and other printed materials in Cuba.
Report on Cuban issue, January 15, 2001
Is there anything else out there that dictates other action after this January 2001 statement?
Also, am I reading correctly that this report is truly implying that the Cuban Library Association has also forsaken the independent librarians?
January 29th, 2006 at 1:50 am
“Is there anything else out there that dictates other action after this January 2001 statement?”
Yes, there were political show trials held in Cuba in March-April 2003 in which 75 dissidents were sentenced to terms up to 28 years in prison. Amnesty International and other human rights groups strongly protested this action.
About ten of the people arrested and tried had been involved in the independent library movement. ALA council passed a resolution expressing its “deep concern” over the trials.
The trials and sentences handed out are still debated, as some activists within the ALA argue that these prisoners were just U.S. mercenaries and that they broke the law, therefore should be punished; while others, such as me, agree with Amnesty International that they are prisoners of conscience.
February 2nd, 2006 at 12:41 am
Well, there is a bit more about the position ALA has taken on the imprisonment of political dissidents in Cuba and on human rights in general.
1. ALA Resolution on Access to Information by Cuba’s Libraries
http://www.ala.org/ala/iro/iroactivities/alacubanlibrariesresolution.htm
2. Report of visit, see especially Part Four: Visits to “Bibliotecas
Independientes”
http://www.ala.org/ala/iro/iroactivities/alacubanlibrariesreport.htm
3. International Relations Committee and Intellectual Freedom Committee’s
Report on Cuba, Midwinter 2004
http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=archive&template=/contentmanagement/contentdisplay.cfm&ContentID=55475
4. #3 includes all of the relevant ALA policy which make a very strong statement and are often overlooked in this discussion.
I am just adding this information because I get very tired of this discussion not being based on all of the statements, long hours of study, discussion and heated debate that led to the ALA position. There was nothing easy about getting to this final document, #3, but it is our current statement.
July 16th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Don’t speak to me of Andrei Codrescu. I was there when he high-jacked ALA (American Library Association) President Michael Gorman’s program at our annual Midwinter Conference. It was obvious to me that he HAD NOT read all the available information and that, in fact, he had been purposefully mislead. Clearly he had listened to one perspective from few (perhaps only one) voice(s). Information was withheld from him, much to the perpetrator’s disgrace. I spoke to him personally after the event and he had been told that ALA had never even discussed this issue (False), that ALA leadership [Council] refused to even look at it (False), and that no written statements of any kind had been issued from ALA (False). He urged me to exert myself to make sure the issue was at least discussed within ALA - a comment that should make ALL parties involved in this issue roll their eyes in disbelief at his lack of awareness. Yet, as our invited speaker, he had the floor, as well as the microphone, and he spoke as if he were the expert. His chastisement of our entire organization would have been laughable, if he were not using the time that was needed (and that had been fairly and democratically allocated) for other serious issues. Whoever had led the man by the nose should hide under a rock in shame. But Codrescu is not without fault. He did not bother to check facts. He did not even bother to ask his host, Michael Gorman, about the information he’d been fed. You may hold him high as one shining example. He no longer shines in my book. He came off as pompous, condescending, rude, childish, and misinformed.
Even if he had understood all the history, actions, statements, and issues – and still held the views he spouted - he had no right to high-jack a forum intended for other important issues. Our issues may not be important to him, they may not be important to Kent et al – but they were important to those of us who had worked hard on that event. Codrescu should have fairly and honestly sought a forum of his own. In addition, he had no right to mislead Michael as he did. It was no less than an ambush. I know Michael to be an extremely good and dedicated man. He has worked his entire adult life for libraries and all they mean and stand for. It was a vile act on the part of Codrescu to treat such a man in such a contemptible manner.
Codrescu has since claimed that he was not informed of any given topic for the forum and that he never discussed what he would speak on with Michael Gorman. That is a nothing but a lie.
I campaigned for Michael Gorman and was appointed to his presidential advisory committee on library education. Library education is an issue near and dear to me. But these folks refuse to care about anything but their own issue. The issues of others mean nothing to them. They care not that our committee worked for almost 2 years to address serious issues and that the program with Codrescu was one means of moving forward. Codrescu agreed to speak on library education and he discussed the talking points with Michael prior to the program. He did not speak on the agreed upon topic and he never informed Michael of his change of plans. Michael was left on a stage in front of hundreds with unusable notes. It was not just rudeness to his host. And it was not just rudeness to all of us who had worked so hard and cared so much. And it was not just rudeness to ALA. It was rude, most certainly, but also it was a vicious tactic. Underhanded. Spineless. Codrescu demonstrated to me that he is not an honorable man.
It was clear to me that some in the audience knew what Michael did not. A few people sat in the row directly in front of me whispering with great glee about how Michael was “in for a big surprise.” Clearly this was orchestrated by a number of people and they were pulling the puppet strings. These people alternated great delight with snearing – both verbally and facially during most of the program. They turned around often to connect with what I assume to be other conspirators. They all but rubbed their hands together anticipating their victory. When Michael introduced Codrescu with the gracious words, “But I know you aren’t here to see me…” They loudly stated, “YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!” Then they laughed. It was not a wholesome sounding laugh, I assure you. As the event was nearing completion, they got up and ran up the aisle and out the door with smug expressions. I have seen this sort of behavior in young teens, but never adults. It was truly odd – even creepy, somewhat scary.
Codrescu owes Michael Gorman an apology, at the very least. If he had any sense of fairness and honor – if he had integrity - he would repay his $5,000 speaker fee to ALA!
We had issues too. We worked hard on them and cared deeply about them. I personally put portions of my career in jeopardy to work on this - giving many, many volunteer hours. We went through channels accepted in a democratic society - such as elections - to get our programs and ideas before our colleagues and the public. This was our right. And these people took it. They stole it. They high-jacked it. Because their cause is more important than anyone else’s. Because they are right and anyone trying to work toward any other goal is wrong. Because they are the crusader and anyone who is not with them is their enemy. Any ends justifies their means. They not only attempt to silence and falsely discredit those who oppose them they have no qualms about abducting with, or even silencing, all other forums and discussions but their own. These are vile behaviors – behaviors of the Hitler regime and the Bush regime. And the Castro regime. These people bare far too close a resemblance.
THEY HAVE BECOME THOSE THEY CLAIM TO HATE. They need to revisit “Animal Farm.”
Because I strongly oppose their vile tactics, these folks have assumed that I am either uninformed on the issues or that I am against their views on these matters. They do not know what I think. I will tell you this, in the 20-some years I have supported Amnesty International, I have yet (to my knowledge) disagreed with any stance they have publicly taken. I will also tell you this, ALA has also issued a written statement and I don’t disagree with it either.
You see cognitive dissonance here. There is none. I attended ALA Council when much of these discussions took place. I know that this was a highly contentious issue within our association and that massive amounts of time was given and that massive amounts of discussion took place. Compromises were made. The process was a fair one. I support the result. If they cannot live with the result, they are no friend of democracy and no friend of ALA. But then, that’s been clear for some time now. I believe their ruthless, vicious, unfair and unfounded attacks on ALA and individuals within the association are seen by the vast majority for what they are - and that they see these people for who they are. (I thought to compare them here with children who throw tantrums when they don’t get their way - but children have a sense of fair play - so the analogy fails.)
These people are militant - to the exclusion of all other voices, opinions, and issues. To them, this is a war. And war is a dirty business. There are no winners. I want no more to do with these people.
Sharon McQueen