Discussion about this post

User's avatar
John Wright's avatar

I'm in accord with your sentiments completely. A couple of quick comments. It's always about resources, particularly here in Alberta post-secondaries right now, as you know. Nor is the job market in Canada particularly strong (I cannot speak for the US). This isn't really about intellectual rhetorical challenges though; underlying it is how libraries put boundaries on their professional responsibilities, and how they communicate those responsibilities to 'stakeholders'. The argument we're making in the letter is for 'professional neutrality' (the old civil service ethos, if you like) and focusing resources on services and collections for their communities, not a mission creep to save all humanity. Moreover, it is strongly aimed at using good processes - including not judging users or dismissing their needs - to ensure engagement and inclusion in the library mission for library staff and for its communities of users. I strongly agree with you that inclusion and openness are core to helping all who are disengaged find a more welcoming home in libraries. And we need a younger, more diverse staff (see above about job opportunities). Finally, a more radical wording that defines the proposition is always a harder sell for funding, which does affect resources. In short: I think the changing of ALA wording will damage these goals by removing ethical and professional boundaries, and affect public support.

Expand full comment
Kathleen Lowrey's avatar

As a non-librarian, I'm interested to understand better the conditions in which this new proposal is being made. What is the job market like for new young library science grads? Bad or good?

I'd be very surprised to learn that it is good. I've come to the point of view that these declarations of "we are now 100% changing the rules of how you get to enter and work in this profession in which the jobs are pretty cool and interesting and high status" are about what Peter Turchin calls elite overproduction and the frustrated desire of new entrants to land berths. There simply are not enough berths in the system as it stands... but if the system could be shaken up in a foundational way? Surely some old folks would fall out and some young folks could scramble in.

As much as I agree with the arguments made here that "neutrality" is preferable to "empathy as defined by ME", I don't think this is a situation that will be resolved on the terrain of "persuasive intellectual rhetoric A goes mano a mano with persuasive intellectual rhetoric B"

It's really a fight over resources and indicates something pretty awful about resource allocation at present. If the traditional value librarians had something other than rhetoric to offer new young librarians -- if there were many real, paying avenues into the profession -- I don't think this fight would be happening.

In sum: I'm politically and intellectually sympathetic to traditional librarianship. But I see why the younger generation is mad and frustrated about their prospects, and if we don't figure out how to help them, these resource-allocation challenges framed as values-challenges are going to continue.

Expand full comment
31 more comments...

No posts