Comments on: Enjoy the $ilence

By: I’d tell you the title of this post, but it’s been censored by libraries « Collection Development « Library Science « Information Science « tl-dr

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:21:37 +0000

[...] Ratliff Leave a comment Go to comments Email this Since when did librarians start liking the idea of censoring things? The last I heard, librarians were some of the most anti-censorship people you could meet. [...]

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:45:20 +0000

Thanks for the comment, Matt. I just think that commenting on it was a terrible idea since you’re going to piss off one of those sides. It would have been better to sit out if you’re the president-elect of ALA.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:43:46 +0000

The ALA just wants to be able to issue librarian licenses through accreditation; beyond that, it is about the libraries because people are essentially transitional while the institution is not.

I don’t think it is unreasonable to say that there are going to be a broad number of circumstances to which people signed the nondisparagement clause in order to get the payment. Yes, for the end of the spectrum you are describing, it is unfair. But I don’t see it as an unavoidable choice, even if it feels inevitable or undeniable. There’s always a choice even if the options aren’t the best.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:23:34 +0000

If you don’t mind me asking, what kind of employer was it? Was it a library? Out in the business world?

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:22:00 +0000

I’ll concede that I don’t know all of the details; some of these are the result of buyouts while others may be downsized or laid off. In terms of each employee, yes, they have their own story. I’ll note that you don’t have details either, so we are both looking at this with outside perspectives. (If you do have some inside perspectives or anecdotes, feel free to share.) So, I’m guessing that the truth is somewhere inbetween; some people took the money because they could, others because they felt like they needed it. But, as the library states plainly, it was the choice of the individual. There is still a choice by the person. We can dance around the underlying rationales, but I still see it as a choice and even more so since some departing employees decided not to sign it.

By: Andy

Andy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 21:14:00 +0000

Thanks for the comment, John. I think Francine’s editorial reads more like inside baseball; they have stories and accounts of the culture within the NYPL, but not much in the way to show the reader. It just looks bad for everyone involved, from the library to the former employees to the ALA.

By: John Jackson

John Jackson — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:54:25 +0000

To me, this sounds like a non-story. Given the budget pressures that most libraries including the NYPL are under, can we expect then to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions on legal fees to go after a former employee who makes disparaging remarks? A company like Apple might be able to do that, but most libraries cannot. I’m not against these agreements in the sense that benefit both parties and help both the employee and the library move on… hopefully, to become better each in their own way.

By: On silencing | Gavia Libraria

On silencing | Gavia Libraria — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:26:50 +0000

[...] Another form of silencing. For shame, NYPL. For shame, ALA. [...]

By: Amy

Amy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:23:06 +0000

I agree with Sunny. You’ve chosen to ignore the reality behind the “choice” of the ex-employees, i.e., they needed to support themselves and their families and thus, did NOT have a choice about accepting the clause. In addition, your characterization of their silence being bought is based on your assumption that the employees chose to leave of their own volition and thus, freely chose to accept money for silence. I wonder if these people chose to leave or were laid off/downsized, etc.
My experience in the corporate world, watching thousands of people laid off, I am sure that these people had no choice but to accept the terms or lose their severance. It’s only the executives who have any choice or freedom.

By: Mike the Librarian

Mike the Librarian — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:14:12 +0000

The mission of the ALA (from their webpage at http://www.ala.org/aboutala/missionhistory): “Founded on October 6, 1876 during the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia, the American Library Association was created to provide leadership for the development, promotion, and improvement of library and information services and the profession of librarianship in order to enhance learning and ensure access to information for all.” I do not see much in the way of advocacy for librarians, except that perhaps we are better educated for our service. In any event, virtually everything the ALA stands for appears to be libraries, not librarians. As respects the severance, I must stand with Sunny. I’ve signed nondisclosures and even noncompetes for other types of businesses because I *needed* that extra money, having suddenly been put out of work. Which is what makes them difficult to enforce: Any jury is going to know the agreement was signed under, essentially, duress. And wouldn’t it be embarrassing for the public to know that they’d paid someone off to be quiet, while still proclaiming intellecutal freedom and freedom of speech?