« Toothless advocacy | Main | Selected IFRT programming @ Orlando »

April 07, 2004

Michael Gorman @ SJSU

That was a very interesting forum.

Turns out that the forum at SJSU was seeking input of LIS students, faculty and library workers on ALA's strategic direction for its next 5-year plan (the current plan expires next year).

Basic notes on the discussion can be found here.

Gorman was a generous facilitator who is very knowledgeable about ALA and librarianship ... but he's by no means a neutral facilitator. So in the midst of trying to catch all the ideas we threw at him (I was particularly guilty, I'm afraid), he threw some back:

On my introduction as someone interested in ALA, but currently more involved in SLA: "If things were properly organized, SLA would be a part of ALA." He elaborated that not having a unified organization that reflects all librarians weakens the voice of all librarians.

He referred to 21st century literacy as "a revolting term; we need more 19th century literacy". He later referred to a correlation between literacy and intellectual activity, and rejected the idea that 'visual literacy' can suitably supplant literacy.

His solution for Internet users accessing porn in libraries: get rid of the terminals and have everyone use laptops; functionally, it would be the equivalent of privately reading a book in a corner of the library

On the notion that ALA is coming around to support open access on one hand, while its Publishing unit continues to utilize traditional, strict protocols on copyright assignment and licensing: ALA Publishing is going to move toward open access licensing for its products (no timeline given).

Gorman has seen the results of 2 Congresses on Professional Education lead nowhere; he doesn't hold out a lot of hope for COPE3 (on library support staff issues -- even though the new LSS due structure that was approved at MidWinter came out of a COPE3 recommendation ... but I didn't get the chance to challenge him on that)

ALA and library schools:
The ALA council on accreditation is wrong-footed; perscriptive vs. descriptive standards; there's no objective standard of what core values and competencies below to librarianship within ALA, thus there's no independent standard to apply in the accreditation process. (my paraphrase) There was much more similarity in library school curricula 20 years ago than there is now.

ALA is not responding as vigorously as it should in regards to the closing of the library school at Clark-Atlanta University.

California has several million more denizens than Canada, but only 1/4 of the library schools. Also, having library schools in two of the most expensive areas of the state (Silicon Valley and West Los Angeles) has placed a major obstacle in drawing a more ethnically mixed, and often economically poorer, pool of students. There should definitely be a library school in Fresno, for example. Also, distance education without access to a quality library school library is a second-rate education.

All in all, an interesting afternoon.

Posted by misseli at April 7, 2004 11:52 PM

Comments

Wow... "If things were properly organized, SLA would be a part of ALA."

I am not sure I like the idea of one unified association. Point 1: Not everyone fits into the same melting pot. Point 2: Having one unified association does not automatically translate into a stronger voice of all librarians. Sometimes the reverse is true. Point 3: This is just not a "political correct" statement to make if he intends to run for the president of ALA. Thumb down on this one.

Interesting point on trouble drawing people to Californian library schools. Well, even if we have a dozen library schools in cheap neighborhoods, who is there to guarantee the students might be able to find a job after graduation? The fact that there is so few library school in CA might give us a clue where our libraries are going. The market is just not there yet.

Posted by: Sandy at April 8, 2004 03:25 PM