Below is an outrageous message that I just received off-list from 
Dana Miller.  She had previously emailed me off list, so I replied to 
her, in kind. All correspondence is attached in order.  In her most 
recent message to me, I am accused of gender-based harassment and am 
somehow being threatened with her connections with "high-up" people. 
This is completely uncalled for and so I wish for the members on this 
list to archive the exchange.

Now I completely understand why so many people emailed me personally 
on this topic.  Many stated that they can't speak freely on this 
topic without animosity rising.  Apparently they are right.  So much 
for intellectual freedom.

Thanks,
John



>Check your history pal.  The status quo of degree requirement that 
>you refer to is actually a new development that came with increased 
>professionalism of the last decade or so- used to be you didn't have 
>to have an MLIS to be an archivist.  This is a fairly new thing and 
>in my opinion, we are the better for it.  Besides, if it's passing a 
>skills/knowledge test that you desire, certification is out there. 
>Has been for awhile, so ask yourself what is it you want that isn't 
>out there already. 
>
>Your arguments are reductionist, shallow, and uninformed. You don't 
>actually think you can compare suffrage and minimum job requirements 
>like apples to apples, do you?  And please don't think you can 
>harass me with anymore SHE/ feminist crap couched in a thin veil 
>academic politeness.  You'd be surprised by the number of high-up 
>people I might know in the field, so I'd be more careful what I said 
>if I were you because I do not take well to the kind of gender-based 
>harassment you're insinuating and I will not let it pass.  Let's 
>just agree to disagree and drop it, and so as to make sure, from my 
>end you'll be deleted.  Peace and good luck and please leave me 
>alone now.
>
>-Dana
>
>On 6/19/06, John Erdmann 
><<mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Hi Dana,
>
>Thanks for taking the time to write me personally.  It is not my
>intention for you to argue "my" misgivings.  I threw out a few
>relevant questions and you chose to take them on a personal level.  I
>fear that you may still be misinterpreting my intention.  But let me
>reply to you.  It doesn't matter if you reply to me or not:
>
>Well then John, I hope your MSLIS is not a waste for you.  And I 
>never said that someone could not become a lawyer without a JD- I 
>said they would not realistically expect such a thing,
>
>
>A person who studies under an attorney or judge in the state of
>California and passes the Bar exam would realistically expect such a
>thing...because it is the LAW!
>
>
>as it is expectations we are really talking about- the cold hard 
>reality is that most academic archives hire folks with an MLIS, and 
>expecting to get there without it is silly.
>
>
>What I am questioning is the reasoning behind requiring that
>certification as the sole avenue for obtaining qualifications.  That
>isn't silly at all.  That is a very reasonable question to put
>forward to professionals in our field.  And as professionals we
>should attempt to answer the question as professionally and
>intelligently as possible.  Merely stating that it is "silly" doesn't
>adequately address the question.  That has more of an "Ad Hominem"
>effect of criticizing the questioner.
>
>For example, if it were a 150 years ago, one could say that a woman
>who expects to vote would be silly, and that the cold hard reality
>is that our government doesn't allow women to vote, and expecting to
>vote would be silly of her.  It would be silly for a woman to walk in
>to a polling booth in 1850 and expect that her vote would be allowed.
>But fortunately, people questioned status quo and argued good points,
>demonstrated, and persuaded enough people to force a re-examination
>of the issues and caused change.  Such change starts by questioning
>status quo.  We should never be afraid or put off by that.  It's at
>the very heart of a democracy.
>
>
>I fundamentally disagree with your questioning of the need for
>formal library education.
>
>
>Dana, it seems odd to disagree with any question...I think it's a
>particular answer that you take issue with...not the question at
>all...in this case, I think that you disagree with the proposition
>that other avenues of obtaining certification may be equally
>valuable.  But merely saying you disagree isn't persuasive.  One must
>demonstrate well-reasoned premises that forcefully lead the
>reader/listener to your conclusion.  I was merely raising the
>question as one that is obviously important to so many people on this
>list.
>
>I think there are several types of knowledge one needs to work in 
>libraries- formal education is one of them, internships are another, 
>professional on-the-job experience is another, and self-study in 
>terms of reading the professional literature is yet another.
>
>
>But why do you think that formal education is necessary?  What is it
>about that particular method of certification that can't be addressed
>in other means?  Why can it be acceptable for California and Virginia
>to have several educational options for becoming a professional
>attorney, but only one for our field?  I guess I want to know your
>reasoning as to why you think the current system should be the only
>one for obtaining certification?
>
>
>I work with some older archivists who don't have library degrees and 
>they just don't go about their jobs the same way- they don't attend 
>conferences or read up, they tend to perform their work in an out of 
>date fashion, and they don't have a grip on any movements inside the 
>profession.  Unfortunately it has been my experience that there is a 
>education helps professionals stay involved in their field.
>
>
>But what if librarians were qualified in another manner, outside of
>an MLIS program?  What evidence do you have that it wouldn't work?
>You are closed to the idea of exploring alternative methods of
>certification (which have never been explored or implemented) because
>you see older folks around you who aren't up to snuff?  How does that
>inform you on an alternative certification method?  What I was
>exploring was the possibility of being comprehensively tested on all
>of the areas of expertise that would arise from a university degree
>program.  If those fogies can't pass the test, then they can't get
>the big buck jobs...simple as that.  It wouldn't water down the
>library gene pool.
>
>My own experience with older librarian (ones who actually have MLS
>degrees) is that they are very out of it and dislike the many changes
>that technology has foisted upon them.  Maybe that is inescapable,
>regardless of what letters follow your name.
>
>
>Anyway, why are you so against library school if you are already doing it?
>
>
>Finally, I am not against library school per se.  I will say again, I
>am exploring the question of whether or not other methods of
>education would not also be fruitful in properly training information
>professionals for their respective fields.  I was suggesting the idea
>of something like the California State Bar....where several options
>are provided for the individual, to suit his...or HER needs.....
>
>I am not looking for agreement, rather...I at least want to be
>correctly interpreted as to what I am trying to say.  I'm sorry I
>have previously failed at this attempt.
>
>Best,
>John




>>Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:35:14 -0700
>>From: "Dana Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>>To: "John Erdmann" <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: anti-education is nonsense
>>
>>Well then John, I hope your MSLIS is not a waste for you.  And I 
>>never said that someone could not become a lawyer without a JD- I 
>>said they would not realistically expect such a thing, as it is 
>>expectations we are really talking about- the cold hard reality is 
>>that most academic archives hire folks with an MLIS, and expecting 
>>to get there without it is silly.
>>
>>I fundamentally disagree with your questioning of the need for 
>>formal library education.  I think there are several types of 
>>knowledge one needs to work in libraries- formal education is one 
>>of them, internships are another, professional on-the-job 
>>experience is another, and self-study in terms of reading the 
>>professional literature is yet another.  I work with some older 
>>archivists who don't have library degrees and they just don't go 
>>about their jobs the same way- they don't attend conferences or 
>>read up, they tend to perform their work in an out of date fashion, 
>>and they don't have a grip on any movements inside the profession. 
>>Unfortunately it has been my experience that there is a education 
>>helps professionals stay involved in their field.
>>
>>Anyway, why are you so against library school if you are already doing it?
>>
>>But we should really drop the thread.  I have a collection sitting 
>>on my desk that needs processing and I don't have anymore time to 
>>argue your misgivings.
>>
>>DM
-- 
John Erdmann
Graduate Student
Library & Information Science
Email:  [log in to unmask]
Phone:  206-685-5240

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List sponsored by the Society of American Archivists, www.archivists.org.
For the terms of participation, please refer to http://www.archivists.org/listservs/arch_listserv_terms.asp.

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to [log in to unmask]

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>