College and Research Libraries To the Editor: I agree with Raleigh DePriest (''That In- ordinate Passion for Status," CRL, . March 1973) that the desire of librarians for aca- demic status is not merely an empty and ignoble thirst for admiration. Many librari- ans feel, probably correctly, that the regard society has for their work is inadequate, and that attaining academic status will au- tomatically give them a more elevated sta- tion. The desire for recognition rises out of deep psychological needs and is therefore by no means unimpqrtant; I believe, how- ever, that the more tangible benefits of aca- demic status-tenure, higher salaries, sab- baticals-constitute the authentic appeal that it has for librarians. · Consequently, I have no quarrel with those librarians who see their work as a direct contribution to the educational goals of their institutions, and who aspire to aca- demic status with its benefits, tangible and intangible. I have difficulty, however, with the view, evidently shared by Mr. DePriest, that librarians should be granted, or should attempt to secure, status as full-Hedged members of the faculty. Let me mention three problems, about which Mr. DePriest is silent, but which librarians must face if they wish to attain faculty status. There are other obstacles to the attainment of faculty status, but these seem to me important and worth restating here. First, the institution in which librarians practice their profession vary widely. It may be, as Mr. DePriest states, that the amount of preparation required of librari- ans in the state colleges of Pennsylvania is greater than that demanded of faculty. This is scarcely the case, however, at institutions elsewhere. At Big Ten or Ivy League insti- tutions, the preparation that most librarians have would compare unfavorably with that of the faculty, and librarians would be un- wise to use the extent of their training as a basis for requesting faculty status. No one can pretend that librarians at prestigious Letters institutions are more ·able than librarians elsewhere merely by virtue of the positions they hold; nevertheless, the criteria for fac- ulty appointments are more severe at some institutions than at others, and librarians would be hard pres.sed to meet them. Some institutions, perhaps regrettably, are more equal than others. Second, librarians have different special- ties. Mr. DePriest is able to make a reason- ably convincing case for faculty status for reference librarians and bibliographers on the ground that they teach library use or descriptive and analytic bibliography, for- mally or informally. No such case can be made for librarians in cataloging or acqui- sitions work, many of whom do not see a student or faculty member, except at a dis- tance, for days at a time. Instruction, in the classroom or. elsewhere, is not a factor in their lives. That their contribution to the development and use of library collections is as important as that of reference librari- ans or bibliographers may not be doubted, and any program to elevate the status of li- brarians which excludes catalogers or ac- quisitions librarians is unfair and, I believe, will ultimately work to the disadvantage of all librarians. Third, not all librarians are employed by academic institutions. For librarians in pub- lic or special libraries, the issue of academic status simply does not exist, and one imagines that they must take a very de- tached view of the entire controversy. Li- brarians at academic institutions who are distressed because they do not have fac- ulty status must decide where their primary loyalty lies, with their own profession ·or some other. I think of myself as a librarian, and share with colleagues at public and special libraries certain skills and work at- titudes. I have ·considerably more in com- mon with librarians at other institutions than with faculty at my own, and I suspect that this is true of librarians in general. In my experience, , it is certainly true of other I 305 306 I College & Research Libraries • July 1973 professions: physicians who are attached to schools of medicine are physicians first and faculty second; similarly, lawyers are lawyers first, clergy are clergy first, and so on. The primary recognition which the practitioner of a profession receives comes by way of his profession; genuine recogni- tion will come to librarians only to the ex- tent that we are able to establish a social need for our services, not because we have been successful in attaching ourselves to teaching faculty. None of this is meant to disparage the importance of the role librarians play in the educational process. Recognition for this role, however, must be based on the work librarians do, not on our occasional partici- pation in teaching. Nothing demonstrates our contempt for our own profession more surely than our continual agitation to be made part of the faculty. First steps toward recognition for librari- ans as librarians have been taken at some institutions. A recent management study at Columbia, for example, recommended three general classes for university staff, officers of instruction, officers of administration, and officers of the library. Something like this, providing recognition for librarians as a separate academic group, is to be preferred to straight faculty status, since it would recognize the unique nature of the work done by librarians, and it would go a great way toward resolving the profitless debate about faculty status in which we now find ourselves. To the Editor: Robert Balay Head, Reference Department Yale University Library New Haven, Connecticut Library literature is so often character- ized by the same kind of drivel found in other educationally oriented journals that one despairs of ever finding an original ob- servation couched in a felicitous style. For that reason, I found Raleigh DePriest's "That Inordinate Passion for Status" in the March 1973 issue of CRL, a stimulating and enjoyable experience. The well-written article provides ample evidence of wit and learning on the part of the writer. One nodded with approval when DePriest sin- gled out Gore and scolded him for his bla- tant and fatuitous exhibitionism. In the same issue of the journal, one had to regret that editorial revision of the Mc- Anally-Downs article had not removed some of the redundancy. Fred Kilgour came through again with the same cliches. Rolland Stevens, as part of a great institu- tion which recognizes the importance of the librarian as a faculty member, does a great disservice to the Illini. To the Editor: Roy Nelson Van Note Director, Murphy Library Wisconsin State University La Crosse There is enough material in McAnally and Downs to keep the ink of commentary, if not the blood of controversy, flowing for months. The laconic Buckman note about "some effective attack on major national problems" is alone worth a major national address to the academic profession by one of the former university library directors who "opted out of" his job. In a letter to the editor it's more logical to comment on one or more of the many in- tramural problems turned up by Me. and D. I select two, both related to the library's deteriorating position in the university. ( 1) The library director should be a dean, or better yet, a vice-president in the manner of modern administration. Incidentally but surely, this would reestablish any lost rela- tionship between the director and the uni- versity president. ( 2) A library planning committee has been suggested. But the committee should also be permanent or standing. "Planning" is useful in the title as a missionary device to keep the commit- tee "honest," to prevent its agenda from slipping off into the trivial. The work of a library committee considering new facilities always seems vital. But there are other ma- jor issues and problems developing all the time though too often they are not recog- nized as such. To the Editor: Paul Bixler Librarian Emeritus Antioch College, Ohio Robert C. Sullivan's otherwise com pre- j j , ~ I I J 1 l ~ l hensive basic collection of publications in the area of microform acquisitions ( CRL, Jan. 1973) should have included Micro- form Review. Since Jan. 1972, this quarter- ly has published reviews of more than sev- enty major microform publications. Written by a subject specialist, the reviews are crit- ical and give basic information on physical format, bibliographic apparatus, availabil- ity, and terms of payment. Each issue also includes articles and brief news items on microforms, a bibliography of recent books and articles, a list of new books appearing simultaneously in hard copy and microfor- mat, and notices on current filming projects. As one of the few substantive, indepen- dent journals devoted to reviewing micro- publications, Microform Review has been of considerable value in our acquisitions program and should be consulted by li- brarians interested in microform acquisi- tions. Diane K. Goon Reference Librarian Columbia University Libraries New York To the Editor: Robert Sullivan's paper, "Microform De- velopments Related to Acquisitions" ( CRL, Jan. 1973) is a useful and needed review of the subject. Of the several microforms he discusses, the least familiar is Computer- Output-Microfilm (COM). Mr. Sullivan states that applications of COM are apt to be "painfully slow and ex- pensive" and that COM is "not suitable in a situation where the data base changes rapidly." But as an alternative to publish- ing in hard copy, COM can be produced at such an extraordinarily low cost (one quotation: $25.00, for the first run of ten pieces of 42X microfiche containing nearly 125,000 lines of data, plus $3.00 for each copy) that data change might be excessive- ly costly only if daily updating were re- quired. His cautious optimism about its ap- plication is probably because there are so few known applications to library opera- tions. One application of COM whose cost has been so low it could be called "unprice- less" is the Louisiana Numerical Register (LNR), the new regional union catalog containing locations for 1,100,000 volumes Letters I 301 in twenty-one libraries. After all costs .were added including absorbed costs (keypunch- ing, computer time, travel, salaries) and ac- tual dollar outlays, unit costs (each data record entry) were computed to be 5.6¢ per entry, or 2.8¢ per title. One factor in the low cost is the short data record which con- sists entirely of the LC card order number and the letter code designating the library. Initial purchase price of the fiche for par- ticipating libraries has been set at $8.00 for the fiche, a six-page manual, and a note- book-container. Annual updates will be $3.00 or $4.00 per copy. Statistics of use on the first convention- ally printed edition of the Register contain- ing half the number of volumes as the new COM edition, show that 50 percent of all interlibrary loan titles searched in the LNR were found in at least one of the sixteen original cooperating libraries. It would seem reasonable to expect that the new COM edition containing double the original en- tries would satisfy a greater number of searches and that, for the low cost of con- tinued input and updating, would identify COM as a technique warranting consider- able optimism for union catalogs and other compilations with a large number of short data records. William E. McGrath Director of Libraries University of Southwestern LouWiana Lafayette, Louisiana To the Editor: Despite Ellsworth Mason's long and suc- cessful association with the academic com- munity he shows a lack of understanding of some of the processes of academic life (CRL, Nov. 1972). His statement that "in any university of quality, this means no promotion above the rank of instructor without the Ph.D. degree" is, of course, ab- solutely false. Many situations and disci- plines do not require the Ph.D. degree for advancement. It would seem that Mr. Ma- son's prejudice against faculty status for li- brarians has prevented him from appreciat- ing the diverse composition of college and university faculties. In considering the "Joint Statement on Faculty Status of College and University Li- brarians" I would suggest that CRL read- ers look beyond the inflamed rhetoric of 308 I College & Research Libraries • July 1973 Mr. Mason's editorial to the facts of faculty status and investigate how it has been suc- cessfully implemented in many academic institutions. To the Editor: Alan D. Hogan Assistant Director Systems and Processing University of Toledo, Ohio The Jan. 1973 issue of CRL included a review by Anita R. Schiller, University of California, San Diego, which contains sev- eral errors ( p. 7 4-5). The publication being reviewed was Women and the c'Equal Rights" Amendment: Senate Subcommit- tee Hearings on the Constitutional Amend- ment, 91st Congress, edited by Catharine Stimpson in conjunction with the Congres- sional Information Service (New York and London: R. R. Bowker Co., 1972). The review states that "during one recent period 21,000 women were turned down for admission to the University of Virginia, whil~ not one male was rejected." The re- viewer was referring to testimony given by Miss P. Dee Boersma, a graduate student from Michigan, before a Senate Subcom- mittee on Constitutional Amendments of the Committee on the Judiciary, May 7, 1970 (p. 180 of the Stimpson volume). Miss Boersma, in turn, was referring to a statement by Congresswoman Griffiths be- fore the House of Representatives on March 9, 1970, in which she said (without providing documentation) : "In the State of Virginia 21,000 women were turned down for college entrance, while not one male student was rejected." (Congressional Record, March 9, 1970, p. 6396). The review attributed to one institution within the state figures that were supposed- ly applicable to the entire Commonwealth of Virginia. The review also used the phrase "during one recent period.'' It is true during the nineteenth century that the University of Virginia and several other in- stitutions within Virginia were all-male schools. The University, however, became co-educational at the graduate and profes- sional levels during the first half of the twentiety century, and was co-educational at all levels in 1970. Although less serious than the error in quotation, the review as published stated incorrectly the title of the book and also misspelled the author's first name. Kenneth G. Peterson Associate University Librarian University of Virginia Charlottesville To the Editor: Anent the illuminating and gratifying ar- ticle by Ms. Pamela Reeves, "Junior College Libraries Enter the Seventies" CRL, Jan. 1973) : in the last paragraph she paid a nice compliment to Macomb-South (Michi- gan). In 1964 I started the library, developed the concept of a learning media center ( li- brary, A-V/ETV, programed education), helped design and equip an 89,000 square foot, three-level building, etc., etc. On January 5, 1973, I was informed that my contract was not to be renewed for 1973-74. Moreover, the position, library director, has been eliminated. A real gasser, wouldn't you say? Laurence R. Ebbing Library Director Macomb County Community College Warren, Michigan To the Editor: Impressed by the following article in CRL and would like five reprint copies to share with our administration.-McAnally, Arthur M. and Downs, Robert B., ccThe Changing Role of Directors of University Libraries," CRL 34:103-25 (March 1973). Although addressed to directors of uni- versity libraries, I found much of the ma- terial very relevant to my work as director of a modest-sized but growing college li- brary. Professionally, I have two suggestions. It would be good to develop a symposium around our ". . . Changing Role.'' Mter more than a decade of service in three col- lege libraries, I have concluded that not only the director but each professional li- brarian has a unique status and service role as a librarian. We are neither administra- tors although we have administrative du- ties-nor are most of us "full" faculty. The faculty will be the first ones to inform us that we are not teachers as they are. Yet most of them admit that we have a suppor- tive teaching service. Caught in this profes- sional dilemma, I have been working on an article, "The Librarian as a Tertium Quid,, or third substance, neither divine faculty nor down-to-earth human administration; but ·a librarian-the best of both; of course. My other suggestion is to share with my colleagues the following poem. The Mc- Anally-Downs article stresses, along with other things, our need for more money in the library. It is a comfort to know that large university libraries have the same problems we do in colleges across the coun- try. More than once a week I gain some solace from the perspective of the lines which Sam Walter Foss read at an ALA meeting in 1906. It is good to know that more than two decades before I was born, librarians were concerned about their need for more money. The following poem sits on my desk: "Sing, 0 Muse! the Head Librarian ... weighted with the lore of time, Trying tb expend a dollar when he only has a dime; Tailoring appropriations-and how deftly he succeeds, Fitting his poor thousand dollars to his million dollar needs." From 'fhe Song of the Library Staff, written by Sam Walter Foss and. read by him at the 1906 Annual Meeting of the American Library Association. To the Editor: Charles E. Nairn Director of Library Lake Superior State College Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan The late Arthur M. McAnally and Rob- ert Downs' very interesting piece, c'The Changing Role of Directors of University Libraries," ( CRL, Mar. 1973) seems to raise more questions than it answers. The issues and solutions that are presented only partially identify and treat the ailments generated by the increasing number of head librarian positions vacant at major universities in the United States. Some of the problems that were omitted or briefly discussed are: the lack of leadership by li- brary directors, the errors in the selection and appointment process for new library directors, the poor administrative prepara- tion, the myth of the Ph.D. as a credential for administration, the composition of fac- Letters I 309 ulty search committees and their reliance on other head librarians, the limited admin- istrative talent available in the heirs ap- parent, and the failure of librarians to or- chestrate their opinions concerning the changing role of library directors to faculty and university administrators and decision makers. Many head librarians could generate con- siderable support from their presidents, chancellors and upper echelon administra- tors if they could marshal information con- cerning their problems and then dissemi- nate it via a medium used by these individ- uals. Before this happens, however, all of the problem areas should be uncovered, even if they . cause several head librarians and aspiring young directors anxiety. I be- lieve that Paul Wasserman's words on li- brary leadership should be read carefully (in his recent book The New Librarianship: Challenge for Change), along with Warren Bennis' recent article on "The University Leader" (Saturday Review, Dec. 9, 1972). Concerning the development of a screening mechanism for library managers, Robert C. AI brook's article, "How to Spot Executives Early," based on Dr. Saul Gellerman's re- search (Fortune, July 1968) should· be re- quired reading. This leaves ACRL, ARL, and the Council on Library Resources with the question, "what are you doing about this problem and how do you intend to communicate it to academic faculty and ad- ministrators?" If more research is needed, how about letting some young Turks get in on it? Obviously, the changing role of library directors is a growing problem. However, all aspects of the problem should be inves- tigated. For getting us to focus our atten- tion on this matter, the article by McAnally and Downs deserves great praise. Thank you, CRL, for printing it. Robert P. Haro Associate University Librarian University of Southern California To the Editor: Arthur McAnally and Robert Downs have written one of the finest articles I've seen in CRL. Directors must adapt to en- dure, they say. True enough. But others will say this makes directors mere pawns of the times. I say the pawns who gain con- 310 I College & Research Libraries • July 1973 trol of the center make it possible to endure in the end game. And those directors who read the title as "Changing Role of Univer- sity Libraries" will be the ones who will en- dure. Those who don't, will resign. William E. McGrath Director of Libraries University of Southwestern Louisiana Lafayette, Louisiana To the Editor: If and when you are ready to move with a separate organization for academic librar- ians, you can be assured that I will be avail- able to do whatever is needed to get it off the ground. To the Editor: H endrik Edelman Assistant Director Cornell University Libraries Ithaca, New York I am writing to answer a question you asked in the editor's note preceding the article "The Academic Job Crisis: A Unique Opportunity, or Business as Usual?" by W. A. Moffett, CRL 34:191-97 (May 1973). In response to the question, "Should a subject specialist Ph.D. be required to ob- tain a library degree as a demonstration of professional commitment?", I feel he most certainly should. How can librarians refer to themselves as members of a profession if the library degree is not required for mem- bership? Though we all know it is possible to achieve competency in many fields without a degree and that a degree itself is no guar- antee of competency, formal educational re- quirements are prerequisites for member- ship in most professions. To teach in an elementary or secondary school one must complete certain education courses, even though it is possible for one to become a successful teacher without education courses. One can learn law without obtain- ing a law degree, but a law degree is re- quired in most instances to qualify one to take the bar examination. Why should librarianship be different? If librarianship is a profession, there should be formal degree requirements for member- ship. Perhaps the library school curriculum should be changed but not the requirement that one must first obtain a library degree to become a member of the profession. This requirement should be vigorously sup- ported as a demonstration of professional commitment. Not to require the degree de- feats the integrity of the profession which many have worked to achieve. John E. Pickron Head, Acquisitions Department Tulane University Library New Orleans, Louisiana To the Editor: As a recent library school graduate who is a subject specialist as well as former Ph.D. candidate in English, I believe I am in a very good position to comment upon the issues raised in Mr. Moffett's article. Mr. Moffett cites a surplus of Ph.D. holders "in every major discipline," and as an historian, goes on to discuss the especially critical oversupply in his field. My own field is En- glish literature which most observers agree is as overcrowded as history. It is my belief that it is primarily from these two fields, English and history, that the library pro- fession is getting the greatest number of refugees. There are other routes for the job- hungry mathematician or sociologist to take, but the options available to the exprofessor of history or literature are strictly limited. We need more subject experts in the fields of physics, economics, and especially com- puter science, to become librarians. How many history or English bibliographers can the nation's libraries employ? Also, I believe that the library schools are currently attracting many applicants like myself who switched from a Ph.D. pro- gram in English (or history, philosophy, languages, or art) into library science. My own decision was made after I taught in a liberal arts college for a short time and came to the conclusion that it simply was not worth the effort, time, and money re- quired to finish my Ph.D. degree (at least not at that time) when I would probably not find a teaching job after I completed it. I did a small scale study of the changing job market for librarians while I was in li- brary school in which I came to the con- clusion that the library profession is facing a massive influx of frustrated humanists who have not been able to find teaching jobs, es- pecially on the college level. My reading, conversations with colleagues, and experi- 1 ~ j I 1 '1 I 1 ence as a job seeker have all been confirm- ing this opinion in the almost two years since I wrote that paper. I sincerely believe that we librarians are in danger of allow- ing our profession to become as over- crowded and suicidally competitive as the profession of college teaching in the human- ities. We seem to have learned nothing from the experience of these other fields. Enroll- ment in our library schools grows and grows, despite a contracting job market and a gen- erally gloomy economic climate. Enrollment at my own ·library school rose 30 per cent the year that I began my studies there. Who is going to take the responsibility for trying to prevent our already tight job market from becoming ridiculously over- crowded? I feel that many library school administrators are deceiving themselves by saying, "'There are plenty of jobs available, look at the vacancy listings in Library Jour- nal, C RL Newsletter, American Libraries, and the Sunday New York Times.'' Yet, upon closer examination, these advertise- ments usually are for middle level manage- ment positions or for other types of jobs which require experience in the profession. It seems to me that this problem simply must be faced immediately by both the li- brary schools and our professional organiza- tions. ACRL should strongly recommend that library schools consider limiting en- rollments. Perhaps even some kind of quota system is needed for limiting the influx of excollege teachers in the humanities. Aca- demic libraries need economists, psycholo- gists, mathematicians, computer experts, and not an ever increasing horde of humanists. I would also like to comment on the edi- torial remarks at the beginning of Mr. Mof- fett's article. I am aware that some people have contended that subject specialists do not need a general knowledge of the prin- ciples of librarianship, and I disagree with this contention. It is vitally important that the subject specialist librarian know inti- mately the book trade, and the bibliographic structure of his discipline as well as possess a vast knowledge of the subject matter it- self. The mere possession of an M.A. or Ph.D. degree certainly does not qualify the holder as a subject specialist librarian. This is not to say that the possession of an M.S. degree in library science qualifies its holder as a librarian either. What is essential is Letters I 311 a lot of experience with libraries, and with library related work. This includes a real understanding of the operations of a li- brary, e.g. acquisitions procedures, classi- fication systems, etc. This is the knowledge that is needed by the subject specialist if he is to effectively serve the needs of his academic constituents. He must be able to interpret the library and its operations to the members of his department. We all know many professors who are very com- petent in their narrow specialities, but who do not have the bibliographic sophistication needed to carry out a literature search in some other related area, even one that is within the limits of their own disciplines. Thus it seems to me that a subject spe- cialist Ph.D. needs this grounding in the principles and practices of librarianship not only "'as a demonstration of professional commitment" but also as a real preparation for offering quality library service to the academic community. Eric ]. Carpenter Bibliographer, English and American Literature Lockwood Memorial Library Buffalo, New York To the Editor: The librarian has been called the "last of the generalists," and Dr. Moffett's sugges- tion in your May issue of CRL that having a specialty piled higher and deeper is a necessary advantage is erroneous, except for those few huge academic libraries that can support a subject specialist in a spe- cific subfield. Thank God the day is past when the typical librarian was a retread from another profession who averted his glance and mut- tered in embarrassment when you asked what he did for a living. Today's librarian is a proud librarian who may go back for some additional training which he has judged will improve his performance. So, when Dr. Moffett receives his library degree, I'd advise him to apply for a posi- tion as a librarian who just happens to have an advanced degree in history which might be of some use. After all, it's a truism in personnel ad- ministration that you never offer a position to the applicant who can't find another job; 312 I College & Research Libraries • July 1973 you offer it to the one who is already in demand. Phillip Wesley, Director Educational Resources Center California State College Dominguez Hills, Califomia To the Editor: It was touching to read "Professionalism Dismissed?" The usual present day de- bunking, iconoclastic, and hopeless view- points· were expounded with sophomoric academicism. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to discuss one of the newer, lesser professions analogously with ·older, prestigious ones. Let real librarians rather be busy, as they have been, doing their often demanding, and intricate work (for example, the cata- loging of rare books) in their .own unassum- ing, ethical, and professional manner. May the present, and future generations carry on this fine and commendatory work with ''their eyes straight before them," instead of being diverted by present day systems of looking in all directions, and getting little of worth accomplished, but rather, attend to their own business, and a higher and more recogized professionalism will be the inevitable result. To the Editor: Harold B. Marlin Librarian, Philadelphia City Planning Commission Philadelphia, · Pennsylvania I found Simmons student Leo N. Flana- gan's article on "Professionalism Dismissed" (CRL, May 1973) interesting and provoca- tive. Carefully avoiding the dust-worn tradi- tional Webster's 3rd outside my office door, I came home this evening to my Random House to seek out advice on what the word ''professional" means in a modern context. The first definition stated that it meant "following an occupation as a means of livelihood or for gain." The ninth and last was "an expert player, as of golf or ten- nis, hired by a club, community, etc .... " The rest were not much better. Several were worse! Frankly, it appears that the term "professional" has lost its meaning in recent decades. Could it be that we could drop this whole fetish about professionalism and · bury Mel- vii Dewey's unfortunate statements about it? It is possible to replace it with having our nameplates followed with our advanced degrees: M.L.S., M.S.L.S., Ph.D. We should notice that our doctor does not call himself "doctor" but rather John Doe, M.D. And your dentist calls himself a D.D.S. Why not a similar identification for librarians? To the Editor: David Y. Sellers Planning and Budget Officer Cornell University Libraries Ithaca, New York Leo Flanagan's "Professionalism Dis- missed" (CRL, May 1973) has several in- teresting and some valid conclusions, but his . discussion is not sufficiently rigorous. For example, he falls into the error of assuming that because all librarians are not at the top peak of professionalism, that li~ brarianship is not a profession! But the ex- istence of unlicensed (or bad) doctors or accountants does not invalidate these pro- fessions. What should have been mentioned in the very valuable· article is a real definition of what professionalism involves. If I may at- tempt an ad hoc description, it would do along these lines: A professional person is one with a spe- cifically trained capability in a definite field of intellectual knowledge or service. This field is so specialized (e.g. tax law) that the majority of the public is obliged to con- sult the professional in his professional ca- pacity in order to get any insight in the field. But the catch to all this as far as library work is concerned is that librarians are sup- posed to be familiar with all knowledge, or at least know where to find out about vir- tually anything. So perhaps in the strictest sense of being professional, that one knows everything about one's field, it is impossible for a li- brarian. Even Goethe, as the Duke of Hesse- Weimar's librarian, could not know every- thing. (But which doctor knows every- thing about medicine?) Yet in a very real sense, a librarian can know where to find out about say 90 pe.r cent or more of what he is likely to be asked, which is something only an excep- tionally well-trained professional could be expected to do. Evidently, no untrained or unprofessional person could handle this type of work, on this level. Flanagan's comparison to a grocer is in- valid; even a supermarket does not need a card index, and most people shop unaided. I have liked to compare a library with a shoe store, in that all sizes have to be kept in stock, in spite of knowing that they will not all be used. But for a real comparison to a library, it is necessary to come up with a competitor, e.g. a book store. Now a book clerk with the subject guide to Books in Print under the counter can be fairly know- ledgeable, but I think it is evident that he will not know books and information sources as a librarian will. And of course a librarian has more reference books at hand. So a librarian is a professional informant in a way that a book clerk is not expected to be. But it seems a little extreme for Mr. Flanagan to imply that without the library equivalent of the A.M.A., we are not a profession! We know that national associa- tions of this type have a tendency to be- come more interested in lobbying than in maintaining professional standards. But the criteria for a professional association are not its wealth and its clout, but whether its members are a profession. (And the def- inition of a professional as a member of a professional association is putting the cart before the horse. Training, ability, and ex- pertise are the criteria of professionalism, not simply card-holding.) There may not be any way of determin- ing what the relative percentage of request types is on a general basis, but I would say that the average inquiring patron wants to know: 1. the answer to a specific question (i.e. information), or 2. a book or article on a specific subject (say, "book"). Thus it is not as important for the li- brarian to know "everything" as it is for him to know how to put information in the patron's hands in usable form. I.e. knowl- edge is most valuable as improving com- munication technique. Also it is vital for a librarian not to be an ideologue who has the "authority" to force his views on a patron. The patron is Letters I 313 assumed to be able to make up his own mind on presentation of the "evidence." Any librarian worthy of the name will learn as much or more from an unusual or different- ly stated question than the patron himself, rather than being an omniscient superior be- ing who can lay down the law. The comparison with a druggist (or rath- er pharmacist) is also invalid; the pharma- cist bears the same type of relationship to a doctor that a bookseller does to a li- brarian. Of course librarians who are more in- volved with management or processes are not as directly concerned with information- giving to the public. But I don't see how anyone can claim that managers are not professional, even if it is a different type of profession. Nor is the librarians supposed to be con- cerned with the souls of men, except to the extent of presenting the truth to make men free to discover their own souls. Even a philosopher could not give usable "soul" in- formation to the average patron; this is a field for the professional social worker or minister. It would not be reasonable to ex- pect librarians to take on such moral re- sponsibilities outside their profession. But they should fully explain to the patron what advisory services of this type are available, and provide direct contacts if necessary. (This doesn't mean that one can never of- fer a patron a book that will inspire him.) The library profession is not one of faith (except in knowledge), but of works. The last thing that a librarian should be is the priest of a faith, even of Dewey. Informa- tion is often too transient to become a mat- ter of dogma to be imposed on the public. Besides, the average patron would refuse to be brainwashed in this way. (The '1ifetime of personal growth" that a librarian should strive for is not a matter of faith, but of expanding his professional capacity, i.e. his works) [ditto, his wanting to "serve his fellow men"].) It is unreasonable to expect librarians to "first become masters of" all subjects be- fore providing information on them. No one, not even a scientist, knows what elec- tricity really is. Yet librarians must be able to recommend appropriate books on electricity every day. Nor does anyone know the solutions to all of the social and econom- 314 I College & Research Libraries • July 1973 ic problems of today. But we stili must know the best answers that are available, and go to any reasonable (or unreasonable) lengths to provide such material for patrons. Librarians should be masters of books (in preference to theoretical knowledge as such) and lackeys, or rather servants, of the public. (cf. Gilbert's "We are Venetian gon- doliers-your equals in everything except our calling, and in that at once your masters and your servants.") "When librarians acquire professional faith and professional competence . . ." is clearly th e wrong emphasis. Not all the faith in the world can substitute for the minimum adequate competence that a li- brarian must possess before he should at- tempt to stand before the public as an expert. Mr. Flanagan's credo, "Professionalism . . . implies the power to do what one says one w ants to do" is unclear. Ail librarians should work for the reform of their institu- tions, and maximizing their effectiveness in providing the public with required infor- mation. But the very professionalism that Mr. F lanagan so forcefuily and ably urges would not be furthered by having each li- brarian be a power unto himself to do his own thing as if in a vacuum. Professional- ism means working within the profession. It is difficult to believe that most librar- ians would not find the foiio wing activities mentioned by Mr. Flanagan a drag, and a distraction from their primary informational func tion: 1. "deciding new systems" (only a board can do this) ; 2. "finding money and spending it" (fund raising?!); 3. "diverting government spies" (!) (Mata Haris in the stacks?); 4. "diverting shifty politicians"; 5. "diverting self-appointed censors ." "The broad knowledge" that librarians should acquire in these mostly extraneous fields could only be at the expense of pro- fessional requirements. The picture of the librarian as vigilante and self-righteous crusader is not an attractive one. A librarian who seeks to impose his views as infallible on everyone inside and out of the library is primarily an indoctrinator on an ego trip rather than someone who genuinely wants to improve both institutions and public ser- vice. Would a lawyer who wanted to write his own law be considered professional? Most of Mr. Flanagan's recommendations for longer education for librarians are sensi- ble and valuable. (Although Ivan IIIich's cure for the schools, i.e. closing them, would not work for libraries either.) But implying that the A.L.A. should be the equivalent of the A.M.A., is again the wrong emphasis; professional standards cri- teria are more important. Perhaps what we need is something like the British chartered librarian standard; like the C.P.A. certificate for accountants. It is not clear what Mr. Flanagan means by "big unions" "taking over libraries and librarians' functions." The other biggies are ali too evident. But should libraries try to compete with IBM by buying a computer system? And the implication that indoctrina- tion or "political" type polarization of li- brarians is the answer for combatting the electronic information media monopoly is a delusion. (The author evidently needs more experi- ence in the field , where he will surely make his mark. His idealism is tonic, and may his sense of the practical soon be equally impressive.) Philip L. Forstall Rand McNally Library Skokie, Illinois j