I responded to an argument which I wanted to respond, and not to what you actually wrote. I also should have read some of your other, numerous posts to afford your argument some context. My apologies. Thanks for hearing me out though, even though I went off on a sharp tangent.

Cheers mate,
cavendish

Cavendish – thanks for your comment – you obviously have a lot to say about the topic, but I disagree with your assessment of my understanding of academic freedom. I believe I understand it well. The post was not intended to show how much I know about academic freedom. Rather I want to try to expand my understanding of it – and perhaps I did not succeed. And your discussion of whether or not academic librarians deserve tenure is certainly disproportionate to my mention of it. I’m not saying that I think tenure will help librarians earn respect from faculty. I’ve gone on record previously saying that you should earn respect from faculty based on what you accomplish and do for faculty. I’m simply listing some of the reasons that librarians have given in the past for why they can benefit from tenure. At that point your comment takes a sharp departure from my discussion of what academic freedom can mean for librarians. My post isn’t an argument for why librarians should have tenure. Rather it’s an exploration of the nature of the work of academic librarians and how it does or does not reflect the need for academic freedom – something that I think we should find interesting to explore and debate.

Within most university settings, librarians, archivists, and curators all share a common “type” of academic appointment. Whereas the other “types” of full-time academic appointment include professors, research scientists, and lecturers. The core functions of each type of academic appointment are clear. Professors have teaching and research obligations, research scientists usually have only research obligations, and lecturers have only teaching obligations. The core function of librarians, archivists, and curators is roughly, as you state, is to “collect, organize and make accessible collections.”

I absolutely agree with Fish that tenured status should only be considered for the necessity of task performance. Tenure ensures academic freedom. However, I believe you display a misunderstanding of what academic freedom, as a tool, is really for. You write that the incident regarding the carrels “helps to shape my perspective on the need for academic librarians to have academic freedom.” I wholeheartedly agree with Barbara Fister that you trivialize academic freedom. I found your use of this anecdote bizarre and would suggest that the placement of furniture has nothing to do with academic freedom in the slightest.

Refocusing the analysis on our shared primary function of collections development proves more appropriate. Fish describes the forces and influences of subversion which can impede an academic in their core functions. Academic freedom is a tool which can defend against these possible subversions. However, it is important to distinguish which individuals are most at risk of being subverted and not throw tenure appointments around like confetti.

I agree that it is collections development can become subverted. However, we must look at the degree of risk of subversion when discussing the notion of tenure for academic positions. I believe, as it is commonly agreed upon, those who are most at risk are professors who teach and publish heavily, creating often controversial new knowledge. Teaching and publishing are not part of librarians, archivists, or curators core tasks. I often see librarians claim that they do teach – they teach research methods. I do the same, and teaching research methods is valid in its own context. However, teaching research methods classes are not equivalent to teaching a 4-4 course load. To claim this is embarrasing for everyone in the field of librarianship and it has more to do with a librarian’s insecurity amongst the university professorship rather than any notion of well-balanced reality.

You write that tenure could help librarians to “earn respect from faculty colleagues.” Be honest. Isn’t this what this entire tenure argument is really about? It’s time to drop the facade on this entire debate, as I have followed it for some time through the librarianship literature. I would hope that clarifying this point would help usher out all those in the librarian, archival, and curatorial fields who subscribe to this concern. We are in distinct fields from the professorship and playing the insecure comparison game is very childish. This seems to be a big fear among academic librarians, getting “respect” from the professorship. If one of the best reasons you can suggest for awarding academic librarians tenure is to get “respect” from the “cool kids” in the lunchroom, I believe it is time for a wholesale reevaluation of where academic librarianship is going. Even when librarians, archivists, and curators are awarded tenure, the process doesn’t nearly comprise of the same level of intensity or scrutiny of that of a tenured professorship position. If anything, this type of tenure process, the current type implemented at academic libraries, lowers the level of respect professorship has for academic librarians. They know the process is not nearly as difficult. Again, the entire notion of begging for “respect” is embarrassing.

Regardless of this inane “respect” argument, our positions should be viewed as academic. The nature of our work calls for this designation. However our positions and core tasks do not carry the same level of risk of subversion as the position of professor and do not require tenure. The professorship puts themselves “out there” through their teaching and publishing to a degree that is much more apt to stir a backlash directed at them as individuals. Librarians, archivists, and curators professionally exist a great deal more solely behind the metaphorical ivy-covered, iron-clad gates of the university and rarely would be in a position where they would be challenged individually. A professor’s course is hu’s intellectual property, as his any published material hu writes. The potential backlash this may create will come at the professor as an individual first and foremost. This differs from the dynamic of the librarian, archivist, or curator. While we put a great deal of personal care into our collections development, they are not our own collections. They are not our intellectual property. They are the property of the university and it is the university which will feel the great majority backlash if a controversy occurs from our collections.

I appreciated your article. Thanks!

Your example seems to me to trivialize academic freedom. A library director would be more likely to say “I spent good money on this furniture and I’m the boss” than to claim furniture choice has anything to do with academic freedom.

To my mind “academic freedom” should be less narrowly framed than Fish does to mean “the faculty, who have been chosen as colleagues and rigorously vetted by their academic peers, should be allowed to do their jobs without interference” – “their jobs” defined as teaching and research, not choosing office furniture. And the reason this social contract should be extended to faculty is because these jobs involve finding and professing truth (or as near an approximation as we can manage) without predetermining it based on external factors, such as funding or job security.

Call me a romantic …

By the way, it’s not just furniture. The Navy had to rethink barracks in San Diego when people using Google Maps realized the buildings were Swastika-shaped.

The “swastika” carrels issue is just insane. I feel so bad for Steven and his library. I suppose it can become a chance for a campus-wide discussion on sensitivity and the limits of political correctness. Obviously, the library was not exercising free speech or academic freedom in choosing those carrels; but the group protesting the carrels was.