According to this morning’s Inside Higher Ed, The Association of College and Research Libraries [a division of the ALA] has issued an updated list of the top issues facing its members. Among them: … debates about intellectual property rights, demands for free access by the public to information, and a sense by students that they are “customers” of libraries.
The ”list” informs us that
In the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled in support of legislation that assured the right of Americans to their privacy. Librarians have always recognized the importance of protecting the privacy of library users’ personal records and have informed their communities about the importance of this issue. Most recently, the library profession has opposed relatively recent government laws such as the USA PATRIOT Act that threaten the right to privacy. Some librarians have gone so far as to refuse to comply with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) requests for library patron records (American Libraries, 2006). Becky Albitz (2005) describes the climate of suspicion and mistrust the USA PATRIOT Act has created. In a recent document issued by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General, the authors noted that, “according to FBI data, the FBI issued approximately 8,500 National Security Letters (NSLs) in the calendar year 2000, the year prior to the passage of the Patriot Act. . . . The number of NSL requests increased to approximately 39,000 in 2003, approximately 56,000 in 2004, and approximately 47,000 in 2005.” The Office of the Inspector General later stated that these numbers are underreported for various reasons. ALA has publicly criticized the Department of Justice for its use of these letters in libraries. The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized in 2006.
You’ll recall that trustee Wagner has labeled the ALA (of which the ACRL is a division) a bunch of “liberal busybodies,” in part because of their stance regarding the Patriot Act. Owing to such "facts," the board has prevented our colleges from membership in the ALA. See Wagner vs. ALA.
6 comments:
"Owing to such "facts," the board has prevented our colleges from membership in the ALA."
Excuse my ignorance, but what does it mean to not be a part of the ALA ? I.e. why is it bad?
If I remember correctly from your prior coverage, didn't Wagner ask almost exactly that: How does your district benefit from being a member of the ALA to justify the spending of public money? Chunk, you haven't reported any answer to that reasonable question. You just go about assuming it's an unreasonable question, the answer self evident, and the board without authority to question district spending.
Also, again working from memory, it seems to me, Chunk, that you even quoted from some bigwig at the ALA in one of your original posts and conceded at least that Wagner's representation of the ALA positions was generally, if not entirely, accurate. Who knows whether he's right about the public supporting such positions? But that's his and your board's call, isn't it? You should either show them they're wrong, show them that the benefits outweigh any negatives, or shut up.
Try actually making an argument.
I'm glad 7:17 is so worried about the vast amount of public money ALA membership may cost.
Is this person similarly worried about RM's massive yearly stipend?
7:17-
If you can't see that Mr. Wagner's action re the ALA was a pure example of "tossing red meat" to his rightwing supporters, then I don't now what to tell you. Nothing could be plainer. This whole "ALA" business has virtually nothing to do with the actual merits or demerits of the ALA.
The ALA, like all such professional organizations, is imperfect and sometimes embarrassing. No biggie. But it is certainly not the anti-child, soft-on-terrorists entity that Wagner seemed to describe. The ALA's positions re "access" have more to do with its central place as a defender of access and opponent of government restriction (any Libertarians out there?) than anything like an indifference to the welfare of children (or an embrace of porn) or foolishness re national security.
My argumen, 7:17, is this: if one steps back to view the ALA, its stature, it's reactive politics, its values, etc., it becomes clear that it is NOT the offensive organization that Wagner paints it as being. It is a player in politics, both in a good and bad sense. That some of its members and some of its policies reflect or express foolishness does not distinguish the ALA from any other organization in the universe.
All things considered, the SOCCCD/ALA issue is a molehill masquerading as a mountain. But it illustrates a dark fact about Mr. Wagner: that he cares more about his career (or, to be more charitable, his role in the rightwing critique of higher education) than about doing his job, which I take to be making our colleges better. As in the case of our Accreditation struggles, Wagner refuses to just work with the decent and hard-working people (yes, there are some) that tend to hold leadership positions in the colleges; instead, he annoys them and leaves them to fend for themselves while he makes "points" with the ignorant rightwing voters (as opposed to the ignorant leftwing voters).
If Wagner really cared about working with the larger district/college community, who would apologize for proceeding (as he clearly did) on the assumption that librarians are not "faculty" (are, as he would no doubt say, "mere" librarians).
But he won't do that. He doesn't want to work with faculty. Sadly, he's not on the board to do that. He's on the board to pursue an agenda that has little or nothing to do with making our colleges better.
Am I wrong, Don?
Ask him, Chunk. In the meantime, answer my question and Bohrstein's question. As to the ALA, if "some of its policies reflect or express foolishness" why should public money go to fund it? Your post is mostly an ad hominem attack with a sprinkling of the typical liberal "everybody does it" claim about other groups. You're supposed to be a logician. Surely you know that doesn't work as effective argument.
As to the ALA, if "some of its policies reflect or express foolishness" why should public money go to fund it? Your post is mostly an ad hominem attack with a sprinkling of the typical liberal "everybody does it" claim about other groups.
Actually Chunk's point seems to make sense to me here. If it is true that all groups can be considered "silly" at times (which sounds reasonable), then according to your ways of thinking, we should not be a part of any groups (even the more useful ones). Maybe that is true, but that's not the point here (I'll get to that in a minute).
Also, that was not my question. My question was a very simple "What are the perks to being a part of this club?"
Anyways, I carry a San Bernardino library card in my wallet from the one time trip I took to San Bernardino library. If I decided myself to get rid of it, I probably would never look back at it again (i.e. I could care less about this flimsy piece of plastic I've used only once). However, if someone confiscated it because they are attempting to limit the amount of information I have access to - that is another problem, and I think this is what Chunk is trying to get at (I think). This is bigger then the simple loss of an ALA membership - it's a matter of "principle" (ironically enough, that's how Donny boy put it).
None the less, the "perks" I was simply asking for can be found here : Clicky
Don's being annoying, and "micromanaging" as has already been mentioned. He is crowding the kitchen.
Post a Comment