There 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.