The American Library Association: Neutrality, Civility, and What Comes Next

The American Library Association has not had a good run under the current presidential administration.

How We Got Here

First, in a since-rescinded press release from shortly after the 2016 election, the Association offered "its expertise and resources to the incoming administration," despite that administration containing racists, Islamophobes, and white nationalists like Stephen Miller, Steve Bannon, and Michael Flynn. And despite a president-elect that, as a candidate, bragged about sexually assaulting women, called Mexicans "rapists," and mocked a reporter with a physical disability. Offering the expertise of information professionals to this group of people was understandably not well received, and the press release was updated.

Second, ALA's Washington Office presented an award to Representative Darrel Issa (R-CA) for his introduction and sponsorship of the Research Works Act, which mandates that federally-funded research be open access, a worthy goal. However, Issa was, and is, opposed to net neutrality, opposes some internet privacy measures, and has voted to cut funding to libraries on many occasions. In addition, there is some controversy over whether or not the Washington Office received adequate feedback from the ALA Committee on Legislation or an appropriate subcommittee prior to awarding Issa and a congressional colleague.

Third, the Association allowed librarians at the Central Intelligence Agency to post content from the ALA's Instagram account. The CIA then recruited from a booth in the expo hall of the ALA's annual meeting. No doubt the CIA offers good paying government jobs, with excellent benefits, but that organization is, ahem, problematic at best and there was some understandable push-back to their presence.

Fourth, and also at ALA's annual meeting, the Council amended and added an Interpretation of Article VI of the Library Bill of Rights, which pertains to meeting rooms. One such change was the explicit naming of "hate groups," left undefined, and that libraries may not discriminate based on hate speech, which, per multiple Council-members and ALA office-holders, was not presented to the deliberative body. "The statement I read and commented on, all the way up until ALA Annual in late June, had no specific mention of hate speech or hate groups," wrote one.

Taken individually, one could, maybe, forgive the first three offenses. Taken as a whole, they are a damning indictment of the ALA. In the fourth, the ALA discursively treats hate groups and hate speech as co-equals to civic clubs and groups: "If a library allows charities, non-profits, and sports organizations to discuss their activities in library meeting rooms, then the library cannot exclude religious, social, civic, partisan political, or hate groups from discussing their activities in the same facilities." The existing case law seems to support the ALA's cautious interpretations, but this was true prior to any revisions to Article VI. As a result, the amendment appears to, on some level, tacitly advertise library spaces to hate groups, potentially drawing attention to library meeting rooms as welcoming. One expects to see the sentence quoted above used in a courtroom in the near future. By counsel for hate groups, not libraries and information professionals.

As was the case with the Issa award, amending Article VI points to a disconnect between those who work for ALA and the people information professionals elect to various divisions and groups within the organization. The Washington Office chose Issa for an award, seemingly without much oversight from elected representatives. Article VI was altered and multiple Council-members expressed surprise.

More importantly, drawing attention to hate groups will do nothing for diversifying librarianship. It is hard to imagine a member of an underrepresented and historically marginalized group wanting to join the information professions given these revisions. James LaRue, head of ALA's Office of Intellectual Freedom, put the phrase "safe spaces" in quotes in response to criticism, but for some people this is literally a matter of safe space. Sure, libraries are afraid of being sued, but information professionals are afraid of being assaulted by white supremacists. No amount of wellness initiatives can make up for that, nor will pointing out, unhelpfully, as Carrie Wade notes, that free speech and free association are legally allowed.


The White, Neutral, Radical Centrism of ALA

https://i.redd.it/i69jnt27a8gz.png

It seems that few, if any, members of the ALA staff involved understand the paradox of tolerance. As a Jewish person in America, I understand my whiteness, and the privilege that comes with it, is very much contingent. White supremacists meeting in my neighborhood library make it much less likely for me to want to be there. I can stay, putting my physical and mental health at risk, or I can leave, ceding that space. There is no civil discourse to be had with such actors. That is not an option. I know many information professionals who have it much, much worse. Extremists can infiltrate library spaces, pushing out moderates. The both-sideism of the ALA here, under the guise of neutrality, is anything but. By tolerating the intolerable, they will put information professionals and patrons at risk with only potential legal liability as an excuse.

Further, the applications of "equal treatment" will be anything but. Power and social relations are asymmetric. Here is the head of OIF, prior to his accepting the position, siding with the powerful, for example.

https://twitter.com/jaslar/status/768918655308488705

That link leads to:

nextdraft.us2.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=ed102783e87fee61c1a534a9d&id=644f08388d&e=06ef6feea7 …

That a white man who heads OIF does not understand the power asymmetry at work here is sadly to be expected, but also gives me pause because of the office he holds. The University of Chicago's Dean of Students' words played well with donors, boards of trustees, and wealthy alumnae/i, but not with faculty or students. Whose speech, whose expression, was being suppressed here, and at whose expense? I am not convinced that he, or any of us, really, know how to accommodate hate speech while making people feel welcome and safe to speak, and one can also see this in the response from Martin Garnar, co-chair of ALA’s Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Implementation Working Group. That is the paradox of tolerance. There is a choice here. Neutrality is a myth, benign neglect and the status quo are choices. I was not convinced at the Midwinter meeting, and I'm not convinced now.

A Black Lives Matter group wanting to meet in peace in a library is not the same as a white supremacist group, given that this country is a white supremacist state. Power matters, intention much less so. "They fundamentally do not understand that the presence of white folks is inherently more dangerous to People of Color than the inverse due to the structures of oppression and discrimination built into our profession and society," per Wade.

Having white people in charge leads to organizations that take the concerns of people of color less seriously, because it, however defined, doesn't happen to white people. Dismissing critiques of ALA policies on social media is ignoring peoples' lived experiences (and LaRue should know, because he has been the target of trolls). Social media, a powerful organizing tool, is where people of color are more likely to be. They're not the ones writing and implementing these policies. There's a reason not as much criticism is taking place on ALA Connect.


What Do We Do? Exit, Voice, Loyalty

I don't know what's to be done with ALA. It's a truism that it's the American Library Association and not the American Library Staff Association. They are, by some accounts, a very effective lobbying organization. And yet they can't seem to get out of their own way lately.

If these four occurrences, plus more, I'm sure, make the ALA irredeemable in your eyes, I understand. I really do. And maybe so does ALA, having dipped below 60,000 members, and facing with declining conference attendance. These are not unrelated, just as these four incidents did not occur in a vacuum.

You're tired? I get that. Fight elsewhere if that's what you think is right. That's Exit.

I've seen both Council-members and ALA staff complain about social media push-back to ALA policies, resolutions, and press releases, especially since the most recent annual conference. Consider this Voice, and also consider using the ALA Position on Hate Groups in Libraries google doc as a way to express your opinions.

You could vote. Only twenty percent of ALA members bother to do this even though it's done online over the course of a few weeks, which is to say it's absurdly easy. Voting won't solve the disconnect between Council and ALA staff, but having conscientious people like Emily Drabinski, April Hathcock, and Jessica Schomberg represent you is a good thing. Given that we are information professionals, I find the low turnout in ALA elections to be especially dispiriting, and I encourage ALA members to vote for people of color in particular. People who look like me are far more likely to think as the OIF does, because we do not bear the brunt of "free speech" or library "neutrality." Consider voting for people who will not treat such policies as an intellectual exercise, but as tangible and corporeal, with real, material consequences for both library staff and patrons.


via GIPHY

Anyway, given that an employer pays my dues, Voice is where you can find me for the foreseeable future.

But however the organization responds, the damage is done. OIF's revisions have no doubt already been Internet Archive'd, pdf'd, and Wayback Machine'd. We'll see those words in a courtroom, used against us.

The Library Bill of Rights Interpretation as it is written with a special call out for hate groups will INCREASE the likelihood of lawsuits not decrease it.

— April (No one illegal, no one banned) (@AprilHathcock) July 11, 2018

As for loyalty, well... it hasn't gotten us much so far since November, 2016.

Libraries, Beer, and Lobbying in Washington, DC

On Monday, May 5th and Tuesday, May 6th hundreds of librarians will descend on Capitol Hill to lobby Congress for funding. National Library Legislative Day is in its fortieth year, and one need not be in Washington, DC to participate.

But what if it were thousands? Tens of thousands?

Every year craft brewers arrive in DC to throw a party called SAVOR. The event takes place in DC in no small part because the brewers can have a legislative day, reminding Congress that breweries are small businesses that employ Americans and use agricultural inputs. The one year that SAVOR skipped DC, the Craft Brewers Conference was here instead, affording yet another legislative day.

I understand that politics, lobbying, and asking for money strikes some as distasteful, but if you are in a position of leadership in a library, or even if you're not, this is something you should be doing. The money you're asking for supports your communities and if you want to speak the neoliberal language of return on investment (ROI), libraries have you covered there, too.

• Every dollar spent on an academic library returns about four dollars.
• Every dollar spent on a public library returns between three to six dollars (page 3-4 of this pdf for both those numbers, though other dollar amounts are available elsewhere. Sorry, I don't know if there's research on special, law, governmental, and other libraries).

Lobbying and asking for things doesn't always work, but sometimes it does. For example, the Food and Drug Administration wanted to test the spent grain of breweries for various pathogens, and it wanted either breweries or the farmers who use that spent grain to feed livestock to foot the bill. Costs would no doubt be passed on to consumers, too. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY, and more importantly Amy Schumer's uncle) and Mark Udall (D-CO), among others, intervened, citing the economic impact to craft breweries that donate spent grain to farms. Two bills, the Small BREW Act and the BEER Act, probably won't pass, but to quote Lifehacker, "you don't get shit you don't ask for." Asking is important, as are building relationships within our admittedly broken political process.

And that brings us to the American Library Association. The ALA Annual Meeting, or at least the Mid-Winter one, should be regularly held in Washington, DC for the same reason that craft brewers come to town. We need more advocacy, we need it more regularly, and we need to build relationships over the long term. The Congresspersons in the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms. What if at least once a term thousands of librarians from all over the country met with them?*

What's at stake?

• Net Neutrality
• Funding for the Institute of Museum and Library Services
• Funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities (these two via Rep. Paul Ryan's, R-WI, proposed budget)
• Open access for taxpayer-research
• Online privacy
• A whole host of education-related issues
• And much much more.

Speaking of SAVOR, here is DCBeer.com's coverage of the event, which takes place on May 9th and 10th. Craft brewers will be on the Hill on the 8th and 9th. The National Beer Wholesalers Association held their annual meeting, again, always in DC, last night. There was beer and ice cream.

Drinking beer in museums, National Portrait Gallery edition. Cc: @nbwabeer pic.twitter.com/CAgVR8Yhw1
— Jacob Berg (@jacobsberg) April 29, 2014

Beer and ice cream pairings, anyone? pic.twitter.com/aZug7kNrLI
— Jacob Berg (@jacobsberg) April 29, 2014

SAVOR Behind the Scenes: How the Brewery Selection Process Works
I also wrote a few profiles of some breweries:
Crux Fermentation Project
Funkwerks
Lickinghole Creek Craft Brewery
Societe Brewing

Anyway, more lobbying and advocacy in DC, and in state capitals, which means state library association meetings in capital cities, too, please.

* And yes, as a DC resident, it is selfish of me to ask for this. I'd also add that DC has no "stand your ground" law, same-sex marriage, some of the more robust transgender protection laws in the country, a human rights commission, and many minority-owned businesses, among others. 

The ALA Midwinter 2014 Post #alamw14

Thanks to an extensive campaign of unrelenting peer pressure, I will be at the American Library Association's Mid-Winter meeting in Philadelphia on Saturday, January 25th. I'm taking the bus up from DC early in the morning and taking whatever the equivalent of a red-eye bus ride is back late that night. I'd love to see you, dear readers, and if you'd like to see me, here's where I'll be.



10:30 to 11:30am - I hope I'm not late to this, but I'll be at the Copyright Discussion Interest Group in room 303 AB. I'd like to get some tips and strategies on how to best promote awareness of copyright, fair use, and maybe open access issues on my campus.

Lunch thereafter, may-haps at Reading Terminal Market?

1:00 to 2:30pm - GameRT Forum in room 103 A so I can finally meet (IRL) and provide moral support to this guy.

Mid-Afternoon - Mainlining coffee, socializing, and wandering around the Expo Hall, picking up swag and office supplies.

4:30-5:30pm - Challenges of Gender Issues in Technology Librarianship in 201 C. This is the main reason why I'll be attending Mid-Winter. More on why I'll be at this panel here. And maybe drinks with some of the panelists afterwards.

There's also a tweet up on Saturday night that I might make an appearance at, but I also heard something about music, and loud music is not conducive to conversations.

Get off my lawn! Clint Eastwood in Grand Torino, via Giphy.

Philadelphia is a great city to eat and drink in, and Drexel's Tom Ipri has many suggestions here.

I hope to see you there. If you'd like to meet up, let me know below, or via twitter.

Dear Aspiring Librarians (On MLIS Program Rankings)

Every so often, someone comes across this space because they are interested in learning more about graduate programs in library and information science. Recent searches that led to this blog include "mlis jobs," "job market mlis," "mlis entrance essay," and "mlis graduate admissions essay," and that's just in the last week.

With that in mind, US News and World Report has released their 2013 rankings of the best programs for graduate study in library and information science. Here are the top fifteen programs:

Screenshot from here.

I'm number ten!

How did US News and World Report get these rankings? Did they toss a bunch of papers in the air and then pick them up in this order? Did they conduct a rigorous, scientific study taking into account curricula, graduation rates, job placement (wouldn't it be nice if the American Library Association made MLIS programs release those rates?), and reputation? Sadly, it appears to be the former.

The library and information studies specialty ratings are based solely on the nominations of program deans, program directors, and a senior faculty member at each program. They were asked to choose up to 10 programs noted for excellence in each specialty area. Those with the most votes are listed. (Source)

Um, yeah. That is poor social science. What we have here is a lazy, crude metric that attempts to get at something like "reputation," but the magazine's staff doesn't know how and doesn't care to know how to really do it. Those numbers on the right-hand side of the table above are based on a "peer assessment score," with 5.0 being the highest; the numerical result of asking the aforementioned small, incestuous sample. Just one more reason why there's a Wikipedia section devoted to this magazine's rankings.
Sportsball analogy alert: these rankings are to library and information science what the USA Today Coaches Poll is to college football.

You don't know about this series?  Bad librarian! Bad!

Through analyzing a Coach’s Difference Score (CDS), we found that coaches had a positive bias towards their own team. That is, they vote their own team higher than their peers. We also discovered that coaches tend to vote schools from their own conference higher than do coaches from outside that conference. Finally, we concluded that coaches from the six Automatically Qualifying (AQ) conferences were biased against schools from the smaller N-AQ conferences. (Source)

If you're going to choose an MLIS program based on these rankings, please reconsider. Don't do it. Look at course catalogs. Talk to faculty in the program. Talk to deans and administrators. Ask them about job placement rates and opportunities for real world experience in a variety of settings. Are there opportunities to publish and present at conferences? To learn marketable skills? Talk to librarians. We're a friendly bunch. Talk to students in these programs. They're training to be a friendly bunch. Find programs that feel right, that have a "fit." And take a course or two in research methodology, so you don't graduate and then publish misleading, faux-authoritative rankings like this one.

Actions as Votes

The Provost and I have a standing weekly meeting, and this week an unusual topic came up. Our library is fortunate to have Academic Services in the library building. This is win-win. Students and other patrons going to see Disability Support Services, for example, walk through the library. They see us. Patrons using the library see the Writing Center. Foot traffic has increased since the move (and the sum total of our traffic together is greater than it would be separately), as we in the library and Academic Services reinforce and support each other.

The Provost informed me that on Sunday night someone, a patron, we suspect, moved a chair across the first floor, from the desk of a Career Services employee to a study room. The Provost knows this because the Director of Career Services mentioned it to her, who told me. Both the Director and the Provost are concerned that a patron would go into staff space for a chair, move it, and not replace it. I share this concern, but I have a different take. I think the patron just voted, just told us that our furniture, which does tend to move about at times (and is usually replaced), is not up to snuff. That someone would take a staff chair through three rooms, over 80 feet... that, to me, is a data point. It says something.
Food for thought.

*Speaking of voting, it's ALA election time. Please inform yourself and vote.

Guilty as Charged, or Yet Another MLIS Post

The Library Loon has glibly captured the sentiments, if not the actual words, of the Beerbrarian within the first sentence of her most recent post on rigor in Masters of Library and Information Science programs. The Loon's chief complaint with the Beerbrarian's suggestion on improving library schools is that doing so would make them more like regular graduate schools. On this point, the Beerbrarian is guilty as charged, hence, his apologies to those who've already seen this deceased horse, the title of this post.

The Beerbrarian has worked in many libraries, all of them academic in nature. The Beerbrarian is also a product of a liberal arts education and a Master's program in addition to his MLIS. The Beerbrarian has cognitive biases. He sees academic, regular graduate school nails with his cognitive hammer. That should not have happened, and will not henceforth. The Beerbrarian is most grateful to commenter Eric on this point, and to the Library Loon for hammering it home, if you will, the next day.

And yet, the "soulless bankrupt moribund enterprise" that is regular graduate school prepared the Beerbrarian well for an MLIS. Perhaps too well. The MLIS was, with a few notable exceptions, much easier than regular graduate school for the Beerbrarian. He maintains that the student population he encountered in regular graduate school seemed, on balance, more intelligent than his MLIS cohort. Just as troubling, the MLIS program was nowhere near as stimulating for the Beerbrarian, though he admits your mileage may vary, and it is damning with faint praise that each of these Masters programs seemed equally divorced from reality in his eyes.

The Beerbrarian also pleads guilty to "the union card" critique. The Beerbrarian, prior to entering a library and information science program, had already worked in circulation; preservation, including digitization; and cataloging at a variety of academic institutions, large and small. He also arrived with five years of teaching experience at an R1, albeit the majority of those as a teaching assistant. He knew to advance he needed an MLIS. The Beerbrarian did not arrive at an MLIS program with a chip on his shoulder, but did arrive with an ego, perhaps justifiably so when compared to many of his 22-year old colleagues, so many of who seemed unsure of the real world, united only by their love of reading. Could the Beerbrarian have learned more with a more open mind? No doubt. Did the Beerbrarian work as hard as he could have? No. Disdainful and entitled? To a degree. Lazy? At times. On these last two matters, the Beerbrarian guesses he was not above average in either of these conceits among his cohort. Did the Beerbrarian take only the easiest classes and skate by? Absolutely not. He took courses on what interested him and on what skills he did not already have or wanted to improve, such as copyright, adult reference services (the former), digitization, information literacy, and research methodologies (the latter). He sought out people who would put in their fair share on group projects and assignments, and is pleased that he is still friends with and collaborates with many of these colleagues.

The Beerbrarian is also pleased that this discussion is taking place, for it is one worth having. He asks you to please read commenter Eric's and The Library Loon's suggestions for improving the Masters experience in library school, such as portfolios, capstone experiences, and assignments with grounding in the real world of librarianship, among others. For academic librarians, and possibly others, the Beerbrarian maintains that some trappings of regular graduate school are necessary, and that some combination of theory and praxis is ideal for all. He knows that on this, the Loon agrees. He also knows that the ALA is made up of librarian members, all of whom have a vested interest in the profession of librarianship, in the many forms that may take. He encourages each and every one of us to do what we can to improve MLIS programs, be it at the national level, or a local one, such as teaching at a library school or mentoring new and prospective library(-ish) professionals.

In light of the above, the Beerbrarian is thrilled to learn that the ALA is considering some changes to its accreditation regime, and hopes that these are both procedural and substantive in nature. He also hopes that instructors like the Loon share what works in terms of MLIS instruction. The Beerbrarian guesses that within hide-bound MLIS programs, there are quite a few innovative instructors, assignments, and teaching methods to be publicized and celebrated.

Making Masters of Library and Information Science Programs More Rigorous

Ahhh, library school: so easy to get into, and even easier to get out of. If you're like me, you were surprised to find out that some library science programs actually do reject half, or more, of the people who apply. I started, but did not finish, the application process at one MLIS program and was still invited to enroll within two weeks of the fall semester, and have heard similar tales from other librarians, so I expressed my disbelief via Twitter, per usual.

What we have to work from when making admissions decisions: 

• Academic transcripts (pre-winnowed because of the minimum-GPA requirement)

• A résumé

• An application essay

• Three recommendation letters

I understand and respect the Loon's position on the admissions process (better her than me reading all those essays), but am curious as to why we, as librarians, as members of the American Library Association, can't affect some measure of change on the graduation process. That is, once in, let's make it harder to get out of. There are a few ways of going about this.

• Comprehensive exams: Some MLIS programs already do this, and hypocritical me, I avoided applying to those that have these as a requirement, having already suffered through comps in a political science program, a process that left me feeling a strange combination of never smarter thanks to all the reading and analysis, yet also never dumber thanks to a laser-like focus on the discipline. But what if every program had these as a requirement? The exams could take place at the end of the first year, or the semester before one graduates. The ALA could even play nanny state and mandate core content on exams.
• Theses: Again, some programs require theses as well, but what if they all did. Force librarians to come up with a research topic, execute it, and then maybe even publish it (open access, please). 
• The Loon, above, mentions the role of job placement stats on MLIS programs. I'd like her to expand on this. As I understand it, job placement data could play a role in ALA accreditation, and publicizing this data on the ALA website could drive potential librarians towards the programs that are more rigorous. This would increase rejections at some programs, but overall the field of librarianship would be better for it.
• Got more? Please share them in the comments, or on Twitter. 
• UPDATE, 3:45PM on 3/9/12: Thank you, Eric, for an excellent comment that fits into this category. 

Not only would these measures weed out people in MLIS programs, they might make prospective applicants think twice about applying in the first place.

Why do this? There are two reasons. First, I want better librarians. I want academic and law librarians to have a better idea of what goes on in academia and law schools (theses, comps, research, and the like). I want school media specialists and children's librarians to know more about early-childhood education and educational psychology. I want reference librarians to be as familiar as possible with research. You get the idea. Second, I want librarianship to be more respected as a career. That doesn't happen without more rigor in MLIS programs. While the costs of changing admissions policies might be beyond the pale, the costs of changing the curriculum of MLIS programs are not.