For an essay I’m revising, I have been buried in the history of women in the military, from Civil War soldiers to modern-day aviators. Every night I read, I write, I read, I write.
Tonight I’m going to plotz and blog for a bit (I’ll schedule this post for the morning). I love my research and my writing, but I’m knackered.
The question I want to tackle is how Michael Gorman got elected. It’s not that ALA is filled with idiots. Here’s what worked for him:
Name recognition. I benefit from that too. I am sure a lot of people who have voted for me for ALA or LITA office have no idea how I perform in governance; they know the name and trust it from my “Internet Librarian” years. Me, Gorman, and Kleenex: we’re a threesome.
AACR2. Do not overlook the cataloger contingent, out in full force to vote for the man who led them out of Egypt. Go down Gorman, way down in Catalogland; tell old Pharoah, those old fields have got to go… Support from a large contingent, in a division or not, can elect you.
The “progressive” shtick. I don’t get this one, but somehow Gorman has a reputation for being implicitly far, far more progressive than many other major muckety-mucks in ALA. He had the devoted support of many SRRT types occluded to the authoritarian-Communist school of “progressivism.” The Luddite League is still behind him, I believe. If you’re in the Venceremos Brigade and you use a typewriter, hands-down, Gorman’s your man.
Demographics. Gorman lives in California, a state with a huge population. If you want to win an ALA office, it helps to come from a big state. In 2002, I ran for reelection to Council in California, having just moved from New York. I was one of the top vote-getters. ALA Council has many great councilors–but I had two big states that knew me.
When he was running for ALA president the pressure within certain geographic regions to support him was overwhelming, and I’m going to remember that. People are entitled to support the candidate they believe in, for crying out loud. I remember groupies placing Gorman stickers on my lapel (which I gently unpeeled); I remember his virtual coronation-in-advance. No one ever explained why Gorman was our Fearless Leader. It was Gorman! We should support him! Etcetera. By the time the vote was done I was getting a bad case of the Bob Roberts DTs.
Perception as LIS education reformer. If you have listened to and read Gorman for years, this doesn’t wash. He claims to be worried about “the seductions of modern communications technology,” but his reform plan for LIS education is unclear (though I think it has something to do with pencils and p-slips), and he is as likely as the next person to suggest there is a pending librarian shortage. Yet new librarians believed ardently in Gorman as again a Pharoah-like figure out to Show The Man. I very much recall a blog post that fawned over Gorman for his leadership in rethinking library education; at the time I wrote the author and asked (but did not receive) specifics. Funny, I can’t find that post now.
What I know most of Michael Gorman are the anti-technology posts to Council lists and toss-away comments on the Council floor. I respect his work with AACR2, but I never did grasp his allure with the so-called progressives, and knew, without doubt, that he is aggressively and unthinkingly anti-technology.
The good thing to come out of that election is that Barb Stripling, a lovely person, has plenty of time for her new job as chief muckety-muck of New York City’s school libraries. I have the most wonderful memories from my time as a children’s librarian (before technology uprooted me to a new career) of Alice, a school librarian in Jamaica, Queens. She was underfunded and underappreciated and so marvelously dedicated and enthusiastic. It’s a good day when the world Alice occupies is the same one Barb occupies. Blessings to them both.
The lessons for candidates? Not much, really. Do something that gets your name out there for good. Live in a big state. Have a few blocs in your bucket. Hope nobody asks hard questions.
The lessons for voters are more important. Think about your candidates’ credentials. Do ask hard questions. Also ask yourself what you want your candidate to be. Frankly, I want an ALA president who is going to be supportive of modern library services and will be eloquent when a microphone is pushed in her face. Ann Symons, Carla Hayden, Carol Brey-Pasiano, Nancy Kranich, Sarah Long, Pat Schuman… we’ve had some great folks in office even in my time in ALA, and I’m probably forgetting a couple. Oh, and John Berry, you were good too (not to ignore the dudes).
We have a responsibility to elect the right person to office. If you’re not happy with Michael Gorman, first, I trust you voted, and second, I trust you voted this year with maybe a little more wisdom and questioning than you did the previous year. You won’t change a 65,000-member association by leaving, but you could change it by joining and getting active. Trust me, there have been periods–many–when I felt like throwing in the towel. But if ALA isn’t working for me, it’s up to me to make a difference.
Posted on this day, other years:
- Legacy - 2018
- Delta, would you please return my suitcase? - 2008
- Debi for Rent! - 2007
I hate to be cynical, but it seems a lot of it boils down to who you know and who knows you rather than any actual talent for the task. Then again, it is the same story for a lot of things. Having said that, I did find your response both very thoughtful and uplifting. And yes, since I have had my membership, I voted. But if you are like me, it means you have to do your research to find out about these people beyond whatever they choose to put up on their websites or blogs or platforms. And it’s not that much different than national politics, you have to win California (who knew?). And at the end of the day, ALA may not be full of idiots, just enough for him to have passed (sorry, I don’t always buy the argument of so and so had enough of a contingent to win. Democratically speaking, it was a majority, so I do wonder what it says of said majority. And unlike the national scene, ALA does not have an electoral college, does it?). At any rate, you have given me some food for thought, and I think I will hold on to the towel a bit longer. Best.
The other problem? AASL didn’t really promote the crossover from them to YALSA and ALSC, stressing that all three serve similar populations. Stripling would have spoken to all their concerns, not to mention the concerns of those working in academic and public libraries. Gorman had name recognition, but has done little for those populations beyond AACR2
I think it’s mainly name recognition; and credit “Future Libraries: Dreams, Madness, & Reality” for a big slice of that recognition. It’s been many years since I last looked at this title, so I don’t know if it has held up well. But it would probably be prominent on a list of significant works in librarianship of the past 20 years, just on the basis of its initial buzz.
Helps to have Walt Crawford as a co-author!
It’s funny: Sarah Long spoke to one of my classes last semester. At some point, in discussing “personal leadership,” she mentioned that when she was ALA President she read an article in Time magazine that irritated her, so she whipped out her ALA letterhead and wrote them a letter, and they published it. I asked 1) was the article about libraries? and 2) was she writing just as herself or as ALA President (i.e., did they identify her as such when they printed it?). She couldn’t answer either question. This exchange took place shortly after Gormangate, and I asked because the ethics and practicalities of speaking as a representative of an organization were on my mind. I guess whatever she wrote about didn’t cause much–or any–flap, but it got me thinking about the responsibilities of leadership, personal or otherwise.
Just as with Council, name recognition played a huge part. How many rank-and-file members of ALA ever get to know the candidates? You hear about them, and if you hear the name often enough, you’re more likely to vote for that person than for another.
Also, early on, I don’t remember Gorman getting the criticism he’s getting now. In December of 2003, FRL said: “We are very fortunate to have two very highly qualified candidates running for ALA president. ALA has benefited from the many contributions of both Michael Gorman and Barbara Stripling. Both of them share core values I can identify with.”
Your comment is a great example of quoting out of context. You’re referring to a post titled Barb Stripling for President which starts out the way most people a) break up with someone or b) tell someone they didn’t get the job, and then explains exactly why I was enthusiastically supporting Stripling (and hence not Gorman).
Have you ever had a potential employer call you up to say, “You’re incredibly unqualified and it was a relief not to hire you?” Look again at that post: the “but” rushed in pretty early on that endorsement for Stripling even by the standards of diplomacy from one Councilor to another. I posted three more times on Barb’s behalf, the most I have ever posted about any candidate, including Kerry. And I bravely peeled those Gorman stickers from my lapel… pretty daring of me.
I forgot: Gorman had been president of LITA, as well, so that was another small but strong division in his corner.
“It’s not that ALA is filled with idiots.”
I guess that’s about the only thing I’d disagree with you on. Either it’s filled with idiots, or, the idiots seem to have the loudest voices, I’m not sure which. From my perspective, sane voices like yours are in the distinct minority and are drowned out by a bunch of angry ankle biters. I see you, Rochelle, and McGrorty as a new group I hope will make some changes, maybe even dirve out some of the idiocy.
I have a pretty cynical view of ALA presidency; what can the ALA president actually accomplish in their 2 year term, that is really meaningful? So, since IMHO, it is merely a figurehead type position, I had absolutely no problem with a political mover like Michael Gorman getting the job, and actually think he’s pretty well-suited for the job. This thought was reinforced when he came to speak at my library school, UW-Madison SLIS – I think his position as a library education reformer has solidified a bit – he did not talk about pencils and p-slips, althought there was a lot of glorifying of the “library” word, and dissing “informatics”. In the end, though Gorman did have (at least!) one really good idea – reform the process of accrediting library schools. Currently, ALA’s Comittee On Accreditation accredits schools because they are working towards the goals stated in their own mission statement – that they wrote themselves! Instead, Gorman proposes that ALA propose a certain set of courses, say 6 core courses, that all schools are required to teach- teach those, you get accredited. Don’t, and you don’t. Given the current floundering around in many library schools about what’s the core and what prepares us to be librarians in the digital age, I think this is a darn good idea. And it could actually be accomplished, or at least the groundwork could be done) in an ALA presidential term. (I have not forgotten Michael’s tenure as LITA prez – his legacy with us was a web page design based on his mission statement for LITA that endured for several years after his term ended…) Anyways, overall, my continuing problem with Michael is that much as we all might want to hate him, he often has a few good ideas, and says some really good things.
I met Gorman once, when he spoke to a library class I was auditing. He seemed like a pretty nice guy and gave an interesting talk. Some of his articles I have read seem a bit intemperate, but on the other hand I am curious to know, why is he popular with the leftist activists within the ALA?
It is late in the game here but I haven’t had much time to read library blogs for the past week or so.
I think that I basically agree with a lot of Karen’s analysis of how Michael Gorman was elected. And still,I feel a need to comment. Maybe this is because I did vote for Michael Gorman. I don’t often tell people how I vote but I thought that I would this time just for the sake of the discussion. Yes, I am one of the few who actually votes.
Karen and I often do not vote the same on ALA Council and possibly in the world of candidates for ALA offices. However, we do respect each other and do agree in many areas. But this election was not one of them. I have watched how Barbra Stripling votes on ALA Council, how she worked on the last two studies on the organizational structure of ALA, and in other areas. I have often disagreed with her. And so, I did not vote for her.
I have also watched Michael Gorman over the years since attending the U. of Ill. when he was there. I have often enjoyed his lectures, writing and contributions to discussions. I have watched how he votes in ALA Council meetings and find that we often agree. I suspect this is why some other SRRT members supported Michael. On top of that he is a member of SRRT, which does make a difference as it does to any group who has a one of their members running for an office. He did run once before and lost, and yes, it was after AACR2 and he pretty soundly lost. Even with the name recognition.
Both people were/are very capable of presenting ALA well to the public. In many ways I think this is one of the most important critera for being ALA President.
They also need to be able to run a meeting well and I must admit that I am very unsure about Michael’s skills in this area. I suspect that Barbara does well. However, I have been surprised many time about how well the person that I did not expect would do a good job in this area does an excellent job.
I don’t expect any one ALA President to make great changes in ALA. They are only president for one year, which is plenty of time for a volunteer but not a lot of time for making change. However, whoever is elected to this office serves on the ALA Executive Board for at least 3 years and that does make a difference. These changes aren’t always obvious but show up over time. The real changes in ALA come from each of us and how much we contribute to the organization.
In a slightly different area…
It always amazes me how unprogessive people who call themselves progressives are. I am often equally amazed at what limited vision people who call themselves bloggers have about the possibilities of blogs. Maybe it equals out some how.
I to find it frustrating when people writing about blogs only view them as glorified diaries. This is a narrow vision and seems to come from people who never read blogs or who never have tried blogging. Their comments seem to rely on rumor more than actual content. On the other hand you bloggers need to keep thinking creatively because it would seem that there is so much more that can be done with blogs in the library world.
I also get really frustrated with “progressives” that seem so against change. There seems to be some disconnect here. Change can be good. The challenge is to take hold of the possibilities for change, including those in the world of technology, and work with them. Make sure that ethical standards are in place and find ways to take advantage of these changes to benefit humanity.
Does all of this make me an idiot in ALA? 😉
And this is my diatribe for the week — or maybe just the evening.