Newsgroups: bit.listserv.pacs-l
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 10:40:51 CDT
From:         Public-Access Computer Systems Forum <LIBPACS@UHUPVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Caste and MLS

3 Messages, 82 Lines
*----
From:         kendall <KSIMMONS@UKANVM>
Subject:      Re: MLS and Caste
Sharon Ahlers wrote that I object to the claim that a "broader philosophical
grounding in the context and concepts of libraries" is unncessary for an MLS
and even went so far to imply that there wasn't one.  MY reaction had been to
the attitude that ONLY the holder of an MLS could HAVE such a philosophical
grounding and, to quote Elizabeth Lane again, to have "an understanding of
the philosophy and ethics of access to information".  Again, I do not see
these as exclusively belonging to folk with an MLS.  THAT was what I object to.
I seem to be picking on Elizabeth (sorry, Elizabeth) but she wonders why
librarians keep shooting themselves in the foot, then makes statements that I
take as meaning that, yes, that MLS is a "guild card" that lets you in on the
secrets of the alchemy of librarianship, then wonders why all the thinly-veiled
contempt.  I would suggest that some is in reaction to the thinly-veiled
comtempt that those of us WITHOUT MLS' feel ourselves being subjected to.
Albert Tabah's remark, as Walt Crawford responded to, didn't even bother to
veil that contempt.  Well, I agree with Walt, I may not be a professional
librarian, but I am a library professional...and one who has enough brains and
common sense to be able, with little difficulty, to understand the philosophy
regarding the context and content of libraries, the philosophy and ethics of
access to information, and all that other fine stuff that I have NEVER had a
library user once ask me about in 14 years of being a library profesional.
Of course, if you want to talk long-range planning, say, I find the variety
of philosophies fascinating among all my colleagues with and without MLS'.

I personally feel no contempt towards librarians.  But I will react to those
who think that I am somehow second-rate because I chose not to get my MLS.
Or that an entire class of people is second-rate for not having one.  Such
establishing of caste systems belittles the belittler most of all.

Kendall (and it's actually Kendall-Jane) Simmons
Univ. of Kansas
*-----
From: "William J. Pardue" <pardue@iitmax.iit.edu>
Subject: Re: MLS and Caste
I don't wish to get too deeply involved in this debate, but here goes...

Having just begun my first "post-MLS" position, I do notice some substantive
distinctions between my previous five years as an LA-II and a "Librarian."

Still, it's fair to say that more than enough of our "non-MLS" co-workers
are extremely proficient in doing "librarian's work."  Perhaps the only
distinction that can be made is conceptual.  The "non-MLS" worker supposedly
has become proficient in the workings of some *particular* library.  My
MLS supposedly prepares me to work in *any* library.  Once again, any number
of examples could be cited to the contrary.

I suggest that the discussion turn towards the examination of what counts
as a *Profession*.  There is a huge body of literature on this and I trust
that anyone on this list could compile a decent bibliography.  To be exces-
ively brief, I'll just note that, according to some scholars, a profession
is established precisely to keep those outside of the profession from prac-
ticing a set of skills.  In other words, it's a move towards monopolization
and market control (the degree to which this works seems to vary from pro-
fession to profession--for librarians, it's hard to say).  Other scholars
suggest that professionalization establishes a degree of quality and a code
of ethical conduct to insure that the customer/client/patron is well-served.
I suggest that your beliefs on what it means to be a "Profession" will
influence your beliefs about whether or not "non-MLS" library workers are
properly considered "librarians."

I'll also conclude by noting the obvious...professional can be both a noun
and an adjective.  Just because the noun is properly applied to you doesn't
mean the adjective is...and vice-versa.

--Bill Pardue
*------
From:   ahall@library.carleton.ca (Alison Hall)
Remember, an MLS is not the only 'professional'qualification in
librarianship. I have an ALA from the Library Association in England
which I believe to be every bit as professional. Then there are
all the various qualifications from other countries too.

The 'equivalent' (in MLS or equivalent) can have a lot of
interpretations.

--------------------------------------------------
Alison_Hall@Carleton.CA  (613)788-2600 Ext. 8152
--------------------------------------------------
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU