I realize that the differences between this odd caricature of my previous message and what I actually said are obvious and don’t require a detailed rebuttal.

 

But I do want to emphasize that by pointing out the fact that libraries are not the source of the funds that they inject into the scholcomm system, I neither said nor implied that librarians are either “powerless” or not “strong.” Nor did I characterize examples of libraries “successfully redirecting money towards various openness initiatives” as “marginal”; I actually called them “very impressive.”

 

Yrs. in lucid thinking,

Rick

 

 

 

 

This is a very common misconception among people who don’t work in libraries, and for some reason it’s proven very difficult to dislodge. The actual reality is that libraries are not sources of money at all; they’re conduits through which money flows. The source of that money is the libraries’ host institutions.

Rick makes a gallant attempt to demonstrate the powerlessness of librarians within their institutions. What he is really referring to is an instance of institutional politics where librarians, while not in a dominant position, nonetheless enjoy a degree of power and some ability to negotiate. What I am referring to is that when librarians become aware of their real power (which is not all that great, but, once again, is not zero), they have to think lucidly on how they can put some direction and coherence on their conduits.

If I were to believe that librarians are truly passive conduits, I would pity them deeply. I have too much knowledge about, admiration for and faith in that profession to know that librarians can do more than what Rick states. He himself admits that it exists. He tries to reduce this to marginal exceptions, but that is another question that some evidence-based scholars can solve, I believe. One only has to think about the book-banning efforts in the US and how librarians react. This is a strong and generally courageous profession.

Jean-Claude