"Deserves got nothing to do with it."
In what amounts to an effort to stonewall and avoid an issue, I have been yet again avoided in the field of combat, verbal combat that is. The subject in discussion happens to be the differences between a "privilege" and a "right" in the minds of two people, myself and the ever optimistic author of Faster Than Light. The recipients of the so-called privileges or the holders of rights are the homeless, disturbed and various other forms of detritus that frequent libraries, both public and private. The point in contention here though stems not from this so called semantic argument, but the fact that there's a cause and effect relationship that results from one principal upheld breeding a response. Before getting into that, though, let's address the issue of a privilege versus a right.
In my world, libraries aren't the "right" of the people; they may be in wording and on some engraved plaques, but they aren't, by any means, a necessity. How else can one explain the decreased funding for libraries in the last few years? Isn't it obvious that libraries aren't a number one priority in any city? If they are, as in Kansas City, they are going to be taken care of in an effort to ensure that they last for years to come and that taxpayer money isn't wasted on a facility that is surrounded by crime and undesirables. The gist of the problem that's perceived by advocates is that by taking care of library administrators will be unjustly targeting the wrong people. Well, guess what? That's too bad. Libraries are not, I repeat not, homeless shelters. They are, though, places where taxpayers, namely families, should be able to bring their children and not be afraid that they're going to have to share their space with an unkempt transient. This just isn't fair. I'm not condoning some world where parents shelter their children from the harsh realities of life, but this is a place, to quote a classmate, serves as "hallowed ground," in many shapes and forms. Because of this, it's necessary to keep the library free of miscreants and create an atmosphere that's welcoming, not filled with the stenches of the unbathed, the incoherent mumblings of the deranged, or the outright lunacy of many homeless people.
Getting back to the issue, then, it is a privilege to enter a library. People should embrace that notion. It's not a right to enter a library simply because it's there. It's not a right to steal materials, deface property, hold on to materials for long periods of time, and any other abuses that routinely plague a library. By taking materials out of a library that are "free" for the taking, you are engaging in a subtle form of contract law. It says the library trusts you to be able to be a responsible person and take "their" stuff out of the library proper. It says you'll be responsible enough to bring it back in the condition within which it was given to you. To be able to take part in this is a privilege, not a right.
Now, back to the point I alluded to above with the cause and effect. Previous posts here referred to an insecure, dolt who fancies himself a vigilante of sorts, a white knight, if you will, of all the damsels in distress under his wing. The reasoning behind my hostility regarding this individual stems from the fact that he views me as a "threat" to his underlings. I don't know why he thinks this, but I'm incensed by the fact that every time I pass this creep in the library, I'm either in store for a sideways glance to my face or a glare, at my back as I pass. Apparently, there's nothing I can do to alleviate this situation. I guess short of confronting him, nothing seems to serve as a means to calm his fears. Regardless, the reason I bring this back up is for two reasons.
One, his behavior has been rationalized, and essentially condoned, by FTL in her responses to my posts and a recent exchange on her site. What's frustrating about this is that there's no give in this back and forth. I'm resolute in my opinion that this is wrong, and FTL, in an effort to avoid conflict, for what else is it, defends this behavior, or if not defends it at least rationalizes it to a point. Essentially, I'm told to deal with it because I'm "intimidating." That could serve as either a compliment or an insult. The point, though, that this is expected behavior and defendable is utterly unfathomable to me. It's defendable on the grounds that it's akin to viewing someone as a vulnerable ditz. There's a huge difference, I think. I'm being categorized, and profiled into a stereotype, and a bad one at that. I'm being seen as a predator, which is a huge difference being viewed as a dopey blonde.
Two, if this place had its own "safe zone," perhaps there wouldn't be a need for this guy to be on his toes all the time another male is in the vicinity. The cause and effect here is that by letting everyone under the sun to walk into a library, you are courting disaster and creating an environment that's not viewed in a pleasant context. Keep the trash out and there's no need to be paranoid about patrons with ulterior motives. Maybe this guy just wants to keep an eye on his harem, and maybe that makes him feel powerful in some sense. The fact remains that there's no reason to do this if there's a set of expectations upon entering. You aren't going to run into people that are dangerous if they are kept out. Perhaps a fascist reaction? Sure, but the library wouldn't suffer and neither would the patrons who deserve to be inside.
In the end, I guess I've rationalized the behavior of my nemesis, but that's fine as long as my point is made and it makes rational sense. I hope this puts an end to this nonsense, but I doubt it will. I can feel his cold, reptilian eyes on me now.
My Own Personal 6 a.m. A vast wasteland where word bombs explode with ferocity and provoke rage, sadness, and glee.
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Saturday, April 17, 2004
Too Stupid
A fellow temp at my current assignment inspired this post.
"I don't get it."
"What do you mean. All I'm doing is converting the quarter hours to minutes. It's not that hard."
Anyone who is around me for long periods of time knows that I'm not afraid to make judgments on people regarding their intelligence capacity. I realize that these are, for the most part, off-the-cuff remarks that aren't backed up by any real evidence, but I like making them nonetheless. Call it "Lewis Blackitous," if you will. In all my days, though, I've noticed a curious phenomenon that one can encounter in various venues, those people who try, for who knows what reason, to be much more stupid than they necessarily are in reality. Akin to those individuals who feign being tired all the time, these people act dumber than can conceivably be the case. Simple tasks, explanations of simple concepts, as related above, and all manner of simple interactions become harrowing ordeals that baffle the minds of this breed of creature.
The above fragments of conversation came from an episode yesterday in which I was trying to add up my time for the last week for the purpose of submitting my timesheet. This timesheet equates fifteen minute intervals into quarter-hours, so fifteen minutes equals twenty-five, thirty minutes equals fifty, and forty-five minutes equals seventy-five. Not all that complicated, right? I didn't think so, but for the purposes of adding up my minutes, I just converted the quarters back into their minute equivalents, so I made fifty into thirty minutes and seventy-five into forty-five minutes. Still keeping up? So forty-five minutes plus thirty minutes equals an hour and fifteen minutes.
Now, the only reason I asked for help from my co-worker was for her to explain to me where to put some overtime hours. This is where the trouble started. At first, she thought I hadn't reached overtime the previous day, which was wrong. I'd surpassed and exceeded forty hours the previous day. I added them up, and came up with a total. I even used a calculator. She tried the same thing but came up with a different number, and claimed that I was cheating myself of time because I wasn't adding correctly. Trying to explain the conversion drew a serious of blank stares, mumbled utterances, and a sleepy-eyed look of total bafflement. Why was this so hard?
At the risk of sounding like a total elitist, I have to offer that this girl has offered clues that her ability to cognitively function on a plain of reality akin to those of most functioning adults may be lesser than those of an average high-school student. Her intellectual incuriosity is overwhelming. I can converse with her, and a supervisor even commented on the fact that we appeared to know one another since we got along so well, but I can tell there's not much to her than the base in nature. To top it off, and what should be the tell-all sign of problems regarding this, is the fact that she's a journalism major who doesn't like to read. I hear gasps of disbelief. "What?" "Is that possible?" I'm afraid it is, and it's a scary fact of life to comprehend.
These creatures aren't foreign to me, and I'm sure most others who attended college. Even my undergrad classes were populated with people who had no interest in the subjects they were supposed to be majoring in, in this case English and Literature. Why people are drawn to liberal arts degrees yet have no actual interest in the material is best left to another post altogether.
Back to the original query. Why do people seem to act dumber than they are? Is it just an effort to avoid having to think? Or is it boredom? Or perhaps a combination of all the above. I don't know, but it's a perplexing phenomenon that grows more and more intriguing everytime I encounter it. I'm thinking that, in the grand scheme of things, that acting dumb can be an advantage to some, and this just naturally extends to all encounters in their lives. Being dumb grants you immunity from being expected to do too much. If you don't know anything, how can you be responsible for anything as well? Right, you can't. These people, though, are, I think, stranger than those I mentioned above who operate in a zombie-like haze induced by countless nights of little or no sleep. Those people seem to be just trying to avoid conversations with people they don't want to talk to. It's easy to appear distracted and tired. That gets you off the hook for so many things. Acting stupid does as well, but it comes with a worse set of labels. I would rather be thought of as being overworked than stupid, but I took English classes because I like to read, so I'm probably not the best person to consult on the matter.
A fellow temp at my current assignment inspired this post.
"I don't get it."
"What do you mean. All I'm doing is converting the quarter hours to minutes. It's not that hard."
Anyone who is around me for long periods of time knows that I'm not afraid to make judgments on people regarding their intelligence capacity. I realize that these are, for the most part, off-the-cuff remarks that aren't backed up by any real evidence, but I like making them nonetheless. Call it "Lewis Blackitous," if you will. In all my days, though, I've noticed a curious phenomenon that one can encounter in various venues, those people who try, for who knows what reason, to be much more stupid than they necessarily are in reality. Akin to those individuals who feign being tired all the time, these people act dumber than can conceivably be the case. Simple tasks, explanations of simple concepts, as related above, and all manner of simple interactions become harrowing ordeals that baffle the minds of this breed of creature.
The above fragments of conversation came from an episode yesterday in which I was trying to add up my time for the last week for the purpose of submitting my timesheet. This timesheet equates fifteen minute intervals into quarter-hours, so fifteen minutes equals twenty-five, thirty minutes equals fifty, and forty-five minutes equals seventy-five. Not all that complicated, right? I didn't think so, but for the purposes of adding up my minutes, I just converted the quarters back into their minute equivalents, so I made fifty into thirty minutes and seventy-five into forty-five minutes. Still keeping up? So forty-five minutes plus thirty minutes equals an hour and fifteen minutes.
Now, the only reason I asked for help from my co-worker was for her to explain to me where to put some overtime hours. This is where the trouble started. At first, she thought I hadn't reached overtime the previous day, which was wrong. I'd surpassed and exceeded forty hours the previous day. I added them up, and came up with a total. I even used a calculator. She tried the same thing but came up with a different number, and claimed that I was cheating myself of time because I wasn't adding correctly. Trying to explain the conversion drew a serious of blank stares, mumbled utterances, and a sleepy-eyed look of total bafflement. Why was this so hard?
At the risk of sounding like a total elitist, I have to offer that this girl has offered clues that her ability to cognitively function on a plain of reality akin to those of most functioning adults may be lesser than those of an average high-school student. Her intellectual incuriosity is overwhelming. I can converse with her, and a supervisor even commented on the fact that we appeared to know one another since we got along so well, but I can tell there's not much to her than the base in nature. To top it off, and what should be the tell-all sign of problems regarding this, is the fact that she's a journalism major who doesn't like to read. I hear gasps of disbelief. "What?" "Is that possible?" I'm afraid it is, and it's a scary fact of life to comprehend.
These creatures aren't foreign to me, and I'm sure most others who attended college. Even my undergrad classes were populated with people who had no interest in the subjects they were supposed to be majoring in, in this case English and Literature. Why people are drawn to liberal arts degrees yet have no actual interest in the material is best left to another post altogether.
Back to the original query. Why do people seem to act dumber than they are? Is it just an effort to avoid having to think? Or is it boredom? Or perhaps a combination of all the above. I don't know, but it's a perplexing phenomenon that grows more and more intriguing everytime I encounter it. I'm thinking that, in the grand scheme of things, that acting dumb can be an advantage to some, and this just naturally extends to all encounters in their lives. Being dumb grants you immunity from being expected to do too much. If you don't know anything, how can you be responsible for anything as well? Right, you can't. These people, though, are, I think, stranger than those I mentioned above who operate in a zombie-like haze induced by countless nights of little or no sleep. Those people seem to be just trying to avoid conversations with people they don't want to talk to. It's easy to appear distracted and tired. That gets you off the hook for so many things. Acting stupid does as well, but it comes with a worse set of labels. I would rather be thought of as being overworked than stupid, but I took English classes because I like to read, so I'm probably not the best person to consult on the matter.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Turncoat
"Kingmob, the reception area is for clients only."
"Oh, okay."
That's how it started.
After a mindnumbingly long period of separating, compiling, and assembling quarterly reports, I figured I was entitled to a little respite, a brief amount of time to decompress before moving on to the next task in what is becoming a veritable routine of the mundane. It was a little less than a half an hour until the place closes officially, but that's not to say that a good portion of the staff, including those I work for, don't stay later. So, I grabbed my coffee cup and waltzed upstairs where I returned it to the kitchen. After washing the cup, which wasn't required but seemed like the right thing to do since the washing machine was already in the midst of its last cycle, I walked back down the hall and glanced at a copy of the Wall Street Journal, which this business receives multiple copies of daily. Instead of standing at the counter, I decided I could take it to the sofas that are arranged around the room for clients to wait for their appointments with their financial advisors. I sat down, looked at the first page, and was suddenly interrupted by the receptionist.
She knew my name, which was the first surprise. Clients only, eh? I may be exaggerating, but this sounds an awful lot like some form of segregation in effect. I have to admit I was taken aback by this, but I figured, being a lowly temp and all, that it was best just to return the paper and go back downstairs, which I did. I went back to work and thought nothing of it but that it was a tad strange. A few minutes later, I was summoned by one of my superiors.
I have to admit that I was half tempted to tell them about it immediately, but I refrained, not out of fear, but I figured there wasn't any real point. She asked me to take a box of envelopes upstairs that were ready to be mailed out. She then uttered in an obviously sarcastic tone, "No more reading newspapers." I was floored.
"Did she call you?"
"Yes."
"Oh, man, I can't believe that. She's ratting me out for reading a paper."
Needless to say, I was full of rage. I wanted to storm back up there toss the box at her and demand an explanation why she was compelled to call about my transgression almost immediately. Of course, I did neither of these things, but I had to act as if I didn't know she just told on me, and, unknowingly, she had to abide by the fact that she didn't know that I knew.
What kind of person begrudges someone five minutes to leaf through a paper close to the end of the day when, in all likelihood, there was little or no chance of any "clients" coming in? A sick person, that's who. This woman is a little loopy, and I'm not saying that out of pure rage at the fact that she is nothing but a tattletale. I told my coworker, and she wasn't surprised. She told me she wasn't very friendly anyway, so, in other words, don't worry about it. It didn't surprise her in the least.
What irks me beyond the fact that it happened is the reasoning behind the action. What purpose did it serve? I wasn't likely to sprawl out on the couch and take a good leisurely read of the paper. I was simply going to leaf through it. Five minutes, tops. But what bothers me the most is that it ruined my day. No matter how much I thought about ignoring it, I couldn't. No matter how many wisecracks I made about it to my superior, about not taking too long in the bathroom or going up to the sofas, now that everyone is gone, and taking a nap, I couldn't help but feel nauseous. No matter how much it appeared that she didn't care in the least, I was still pissed off about it. I was having a really good day up until then, but that killed it, which is, obviously, my reason for writing about it here. This woman, who probably told on her classmates about their misdeeds the days the regular teacher was out and replaced by a substitute, is a rotten excuse for a human being. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing and a vile disgrace to humanity. The worst of the worst, at least in the office world. Someone who minds everyone else's business except their own.
Of course, I'm filled with all manner of responses I would have liked to have said to her now that I'm removed from the situation. I won't say a word, but I'm through being nice to this woman. I was nice enough to make sure that door to the stairwell didn't slam when I was coming or going. No more. Slam away, baby. I can't believe it happened, but it did, and there's nothing I can do about it but stew. Oh, and let the door slam.
"Kingmob, the reception area is for clients only."
"Oh, okay."
That's how it started.
After a mindnumbingly long period of separating, compiling, and assembling quarterly reports, I figured I was entitled to a little respite, a brief amount of time to decompress before moving on to the next task in what is becoming a veritable routine of the mundane. It was a little less than a half an hour until the place closes officially, but that's not to say that a good portion of the staff, including those I work for, don't stay later. So, I grabbed my coffee cup and waltzed upstairs where I returned it to the kitchen. After washing the cup, which wasn't required but seemed like the right thing to do since the washing machine was already in the midst of its last cycle, I walked back down the hall and glanced at a copy of the Wall Street Journal, which this business receives multiple copies of daily. Instead of standing at the counter, I decided I could take it to the sofas that are arranged around the room for clients to wait for their appointments with their financial advisors. I sat down, looked at the first page, and was suddenly interrupted by the receptionist.
She knew my name, which was the first surprise. Clients only, eh? I may be exaggerating, but this sounds an awful lot like some form of segregation in effect. I have to admit I was taken aback by this, but I figured, being a lowly temp and all, that it was best just to return the paper and go back downstairs, which I did. I went back to work and thought nothing of it but that it was a tad strange. A few minutes later, I was summoned by one of my superiors.
I have to admit that I was half tempted to tell them about it immediately, but I refrained, not out of fear, but I figured there wasn't any real point. She asked me to take a box of envelopes upstairs that were ready to be mailed out. She then uttered in an obviously sarcastic tone, "No more reading newspapers." I was floored.
"Did she call you?"
"Yes."
"Oh, man, I can't believe that. She's ratting me out for reading a paper."
Needless to say, I was full of rage. I wanted to storm back up there toss the box at her and demand an explanation why she was compelled to call about my transgression almost immediately. Of course, I did neither of these things, but I had to act as if I didn't know she just told on me, and, unknowingly, she had to abide by the fact that she didn't know that I knew.
What kind of person begrudges someone five minutes to leaf through a paper close to the end of the day when, in all likelihood, there was little or no chance of any "clients" coming in? A sick person, that's who. This woman is a little loopy, and I'm not saying that out of pure rage at the fact that she is nothing but a tattletale. I told my coworker, and she wasn't surprised. She told me she wasn't very friendly anyway, so, in other words, don't worry about it. It didn't surprise her in the least.
What irks me beyond the fact that it happened is the reasoning behind the action. What purpose did it serve? I wasn't likely to sprawl out on the couch and take a good leisurely read of the paper. I was simply going to leaf through it. Five minutes, tops. But what bothers me the most is that it ruined my day. No matter how much I thought about ignoring it, I couldn't. No matter how many wisecracks I made about it to my superior, about not taking too long in the bathroom or going up to the sofas, now that everyone is gone, and taking a nap, I couldn't help but feel nauseous. No matter how much it appeared that she didn't care in the least, I was still pissed off about it. I was having a really good day up until then, but that killed it, which is, obviously, my reason for writing about it here. This woman, who probably told on her classmates about their misdeeds the days the regular teacher was out and replaced by a substitute, is a rotten excuse for a human being. She's a wolf in sheep's clothing and a vile disgrace to humanity. The worst of the worst, at least in the office world. Someone who minds everyone else's business except their own.
Of course, I'm filled with all manner of responses I would have liked to have said to her now that I'm removed from the situation. I won't say a word, but I'm through being nice to this woman. I was nice enough to make sure that door to the stairwell didn't slam when I was coming or going. No more. Slam away, baby. I can't believe it happened, but it did, and there's nothing I can do about it but stew. Oh, and let the door slam.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
Respite
After yesterday's fiasco regarding my bombardment by the oldies, I was pleasantly rewarded today with an answer of "Yes" to my inquiry about listening to the radio while I worked. Giddy with excitement at placing a buffer between me and the strains of "Nowhere to Run," I quickly jacked into the computer, clicked on the Media Player and set to work finding a station. Lucky for me, the listing on the application provide me with a plethora of stations to choose from. Soon after, I was listening to the BBC news broadcast followed by NPR's "Day to Day, ""Fresh Air," and "All Things Considered." Woo-Hoo!!! I never thought I'd enjoy the mindnumbingly bad interviewing skills of Terry Gross so much.
After yesterday's fiasco regarding my bombardment by the oldies, I was pleasantly rewarded today with an answer of "Yes" to my inquiry about listening to the radio while I worked. Giddy with excitement at placing a buffer between me and the strains of "Nowhere to Run," I quickly jacked into the computer, clicked on the Media Player and set to work finding a station. Lucky for me, the listing on the application provide me with a plethora of stations to choose from. Soon after, I was listening to the BBC news broadcast followed by NPR's "Day to Day, ""Fresh Air," and "All Things Considered." Woo-Hoo!!! I never thought I'd enjoy the mindnumbingly bad interviewing skills of Terry Gross so much.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Blitkrieged by the Oldies
I've always been intrigued by reports in the media of the military using loud music, mostly heavy metal, to try to break the wills of their prey, whether it's prisoners from Iraq or those detained at Camp X-Ray in Cuba. They used it in Panama with Noriega and in Waco with the Davidians, and I'm sure they've done it countless other times as well with varying amounts of success. Well, it came as a surprise today when I was assigned, in my second day of a temporary assignment, to work at a computer, the only available one, next to the head secretary, on the second floor, in a financial consulting firm. Since where we're working is out of the view of the public and no clients are coming and going, there's a somewhat more realized attitude that pervades the second floor. How this secretary exercises her freedom is to have her radio on all day. It just so happens that the radio stays on the same station all day as well, an oldies station.
Now, I'm not an ardent opponent of the oldies, far from it. I like a lot of "classic" tunes, and I heard quite a few of them today as I typed away at my project. However, no one should have to be subjected to this prolonged exposure to a station most likely heard in dentist's or doctor's offices. When you're there, you're only bound to have to stay for a finite period of time, and most people realize that and thus have little or no reaction towards whatever music is playing around them. It's all background noise, and that's better, I guess, than dead silence that's only disrupted by those who are brave enough to deign it acceptable to hold a hushed conversation. In fact, I'm sure that's the only purpose this music serves in this situation as well, background noise, but this just goes on and on for hours, exposure to which, I'm sure, can result in some serious neurological damage as well as sudden homicidal impulses.
I sat there quietly praying that she'd change the channel to anything, preferably NPR, but no such luck. Just about on the verge of tears. I heard her shuffling around and shutting things off, getting ready to leave for the day. "Oh, thank you, Lord," I said to myself. The music was off, and I was done listening to the likes of the Temptations, Martha & The Vendellas, and Bob Seger. I was even scheming, planning a way to turn the dial to something else after she left. It was all for naught, though. As she exited, I looked at the clock. It was 4:57. I was done at 5:00. So much for escaping the likes of the 5th Dimension in favor of "All Things Considered." I was a broken man, and I knew the worst part was that tomorrow it would all start over again. Trapped in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
I've always been intrigued by reports in the media of the military using loud music, mostly heavy metal, to try to break the wills of their prey, whether it's prisoners from Iraq or those detained at Camp X-Ray in Cuba. They used it in Panama with Noriega and in Waco with the Davidians, and I'm sure they've done it countless other times as well with varying amounts of success. Well, it came as a surprise today when I was assigned, in my second day of a temporary assignment, to work at a computer, the only available one, next to the head secretary, on the second floor, in a financial consulting firm. Since where we're working is out of the view of the public and no clients are coming and going, there's a somewhat more realized attitude that pervades the second floor. How this secretary exercises her freedom is to have her radio on all day. It just so happens that the radio stays on the same station all day as well, an oldies station.
Now, I'm not an ardent opponent of the oldies, far from it. I like a lot of "classic" tunes, and I heard quite a few of them today as I typed away at my project. However, no one should have to be subjected to this prolonged exposure to a station most likely heard in dentist's or doctor's offices. When you're there, you're only bound to have to stay for a finite period of time, and most people realize that and thus have little or no reaction towards whatever music is playing around them. It's all background noise, and that's better, I guess, than dead silence that's only disrupted by those who are brave enough to deign it acceptable to hold a hushed conversation. In fact, I'm sure that's the only purpose this music serves in this situation as well, background noise, but this just goes on and on for hours, exposure to which, I'm sure, can result in some serious neurological damage as well as sudden homicidal impulses.
I sat there quietly praying that she'd change the channel to anything, preferably NPR, but no such luck. Just about on the verge of tears. I heard her shuffling around and shutting things off, getting ready to leave for the day. "Oh, thank you, Lord," I said to myself. The music was off, and I was done listening to the likes of the Temptations, Martha & The Vendellas, and Bob Seger. I was even scheming, planning a way to turn the dial to something else after she left. It was all for naught, though. As she exited, I looked at the clock. It was 4:57. I was done at 5:00. So much for escaping the likes of the 5th Dimension in favor of "All Things Considered." I was a broken man, and I knew the worst part was that tomorrow it would all start over again. Trapped in the 50s, 60s, and 70s.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
With Liberty and Justice for All, except Me
In what has become an increasingly difficult, frustrating search for employment in the library field, which I imagine is akin to looking for the Holy Grail or the Lost Ark, I was greeted with an email that read as follows: (Note: all names have been deleted and changed to protect, namely, me.)
Hello Kingmob.
I have received your application for the law reference librarian position. I
am at a conference in Richmond, so I may not be able to respond too quickly
until next week.
I would like to arrange to talk with you over the telephone next week about
the position. What time would be good for you next week?
I look forward to talking with you.
Mr. X
Information & Technology Librarian
Liberty University School of Law
Sounds promising, right? Well, think again. In what amounted to a misguided attempt at applying for a job that, on the outside, sounds incredibly interesting, challenging, and right up my alley, I took myself out of contention for the position mentioned above for various reasons, which I will document below.
First off, to provide some context, the ad for the position appeared in my inbox courtesy of a list-serv I subscribe to that is devoted to law libraries, both private and academic. The ad, which is rather long, read as follows:
Reference Librarian
Liberty University School of Law Library
Lynchburg, Virginia
The Law Library at Liberty University School of Law is seeking a Reference
Librarian. LU School of Law is a new law school committed to academic and
professional excellence in the context of the Christian intellectual
tradition. The inaugural class will begin orientation on August 19, 2004 and
classes will begin August 25, 2004. The Reference Librarian will join a
growing staff of five, which currently includes three professional
librarians. This position reports to the Director of the Law Library.
Responsibilities: This is a new position in a new law library at a new law
school. The Reference Librarian will have a unique opportunity to establish
and significantly direct all public services offered by the Law Library. The
Reference Librarian will have primary responsibility for provision of
extensive reference and research services in a technologically advanced
environment.
The Reference Librarian will provide legal research instruction in the
Center for Lawyering Skills, and conduct research workshops, advanced
research classes and instruction in other forums. The Reference Librarian
will author research guides and other instructional and promotional
materials in print and electronic formats, participate in collection
development, assist in developing library policies and procedures, and may
participate in developing the Law Library Web presence.
Qualifications and Experience: Candidates must have a mastery of legal
research sources and techniques using both print and electronic materials,
database and Internet searching expertise, and knowledge of current
information delivery methods and publishing formats. The successful
candidate will have excellent oral and written communication skills, a
strong service orientation, a commitment to continuous improvement and
innovation, and the ability to work in a collegial and cooperative
environment. Candidates must be flexible and interested in assisting with a
wide range of duties necessary to open a new law library. Experience in an
academic law library environment is highly desirable. An MLS from an
ALA-accredited institution is required; JD strongly preferred.
Salary and Benefits: Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and
experience. Liberty University offers a competitive benefits package.
Available: August 1, 2004.
To apply: Send a letter expressing your interest in the position along with
a current resume and the names of three references to (Deleted)
Liberty University School of Law, as a new school, is neither fully nor
provisionally approved by the American Bar Association. The Dean is fully
informed as to the Standards and Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law
Schools by the American Bar Association. The Administration and the Dean are
determined to devote all necessary resources and in other respects to take
all necessary steps to present a program of legal education that will
qualify for approval by the American Bar Association. The law school makes
no representation to any applicant that it will be approved by the American
Bar Association prior to the graduation of any matriculating student. The
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia granted approval to Liberty
University to confer the Juris Doctor degree.
Liberty University School of Law recognizes the image of God inherent in all
people and thus the dignity of all members of the human family. The law
school prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, age, disability, or status as a veteran. The law school is open
to all persons whose conduct does not undermine its historic Christian
character and who respect and abide by the mission, goals, and policies of
the school of law.
Having read this ad, I was struck, as I'm sure most everyone else was, by the terms "Christian Intellectual Tradition" and the entire last paragraph. Apparently, everyone subscribing to the list-serv was struck by the last paragraph as well, and took it to be an offensive, racially intimidating, and, in some instances, illegal set of requirements that, if read correctly, provided the university the right to refuse applicants for consideration. Some replies stated that they assumed that anyone who may be, for instance, Jewish, homosexual, or any other trait, wouldn't be welcome in applying for the position. This, to me, sounded like a rather off-the-cuff reaction that served as a way to generate controversy and discussion rather than an actual concern for the legality of the way in which the ad was worded and how the position itself would most likely be filled. On a sidenote, this entire episode is an example of how conversations via email or any other discussion forum can spiral out of control. It's a phenomenon that I've witnessed many times before, and I assume this won't be the last time.
As for the former term, "Christian Intellectual Tradition" and its counterpart "Christian Legal Tradition," it seems to assert, from what I could glean from their site, that the courses offered at this university are framed within the context of Christian Doctrine and that the law itself derives not from man himself but originates in God, Who in turn bestows this knowledge upon us. Fine, this is something that I don't necessarily agree with or see as being relevant, but I'm sure some people few deconstruction or any of the literary premises that I subscribe to in much the same way. All in all, this sounds like a curriculum that I could live with being surrounded by; I might not like it or agree with it, but I don't know that it would actually be that uncomfortable for me to have to work in that type of environment.
After the discussion snowballed into its inevitable conclusion, Mr. X posted a reply to the list encouraging those interested in the school to look at their website for the Liberty University School of Law. Also, he pointed out that the ad was placed on this list-serv because it is a public list that encourages job postings. As one would expect, the conversation died quickly after that since their was little or no ammunition left to generate offense and outrage. So, with all this in mind, I figured I would apply just to see what would happen. I sent my materials via email and waited for a response. As posted above, I received one.
Before I sent a reply, I sought the counsel of several of my superiors. I received several differing opinions regarding the school itself, the controversy surrounding the ad, and the true meaning of the ad and the intent of the school. One piece of advice that didn't differ, however, was that I should at least talk to the gentleman to see what I could find out. Well, before I had a chance to send a reply, my phone rang. The proceeding conversation was one of the most disjointed exchanges I've ever had over the phone.
It started off innocently with the question about why I applied and what interested me in the job. As anyone in my position will tell you, their immediate response might be to shoot back, "I just need a job." I didn't do this, but what I did tell the man was that I was intrigued by the possibility of working in a new library supporting a new law school. This was where I erred immediately. This was not the type of answer I was supposed to give regarding the job, and I could tell immediately by the change in tone. What followed was a back and forth exchange that provided me with little or no information that clarified any of my questions regarding the requirements of the position and how "religiously tainted" my advice would have to be to perform my task as a reference librarian. I know the expectations of a reference librarian in an academic law library, but this, I assumed, would be different due to the ever present "Christian Legal Tradition." Mr. X seemed to feel that he was providing me with answers in a roundabout way, but the uncertainty in his voice betrayed his confidence in his answers. Any time someone concludes by saying, "Does that help or make things more confusing?" you know you're not receiving clear-cut information that will educate you. I wouldn't go so far as to label this "doublespeak," but it was much more confusing in nature than one would assume that someone whose main task is to provide concise answers to complex questions could and should provide.
The main sticking point regarding the position's requirements dealt with the issue of professing one's faith and demonstrating one's ability to quote Scripture, neither activity of which I would be able to pull off convincingly had I wanted. In this, I found that best course of action would be to end the conversation right there by making it clear to him that, in no uncertain terms, that I would not be able to provide the "right" answers regarding these and other religiously oriented questioning. Thus, I took myself out of contention and hung up the phone.
What irks me the most about this is that I've had so little success in applying for jobs that when one does reply it has to be connected to an organization that is affiliated with a man who I feel is offensive, intolerant, and downright morally reprehensible, Jerry Falwell. Falwell just happens to be the founder and chancellor of this fine university. Short of being contacted by a group adhering to the basic tenants of fascism or the Nazi party, I couldn't think of a more intolerant individual to work for or be responsible to in any way, shape or form. I can say that I didn't lose anything, money or time, by applying to this position, but I wish that I would appeal to someone other than a fanatically religious university that indoctrinates their students in ways that are beyond my ability to comprehend.
In what has become an increasingly difficult, frustrating search for employment in the library field, which I imagine is akin to looking for the Holy Grail or the Lost Ark, I was greeted with an email that read as follows: (Note: all names have been deleted and changed to protect, namely, me.)
Hello Kingmob.
I have received your application for the law reference librarian position. I
am at a conference in Richmond, so I may not be able to respond too quickly
until next week.
I would like to arrange to talk with you over the telephone next week about
the position. What time would be good for you next week?
I look forward to talking with you.
Mr. X
Information & Technology Librarian
Liberty University School of Law
Sounds promising, right? Well, think again. In what amounted to a misguided attempt at applying for a job that, on the outside, sounds incredibly interesting, challenging, and right up my alley, I took myself out of contention for the position mentioned above for various reasons, which I will document below.
First off, to provide some context, the ad for the position appeared in my inbox courtesy of a list-serv I subscribe to that is devoted to law libraries, both private and academic. The ad, which is rather long, read as follows:
Reference Librarian
Liberty University School of Law Library
Lynchburg, Virginia
The Law Library at Liberty University School of Law is seeking a Reference
Librarian. LU School of Law is a new law school committed to academic and
professional excellence in the context of the Christian intellectual
tradition. The inaugural class will begin orientation on August 19, 2004 and
classes will begin August 25, 2004. The Reference Librarian will join a
growing staff of five, which currently includes three professional
librarians. This position reports to the Director of the Law Library.
Responsibilities: This is a new position in a new law library at a new law
school. The Reference Librarian will have a unique opportunity to establish
and significantly direct all public services offered by the Law Library. The
Reference Librarian will have primary responsibility for provision of
extensive reference and research services in a technologically advanced
environment.
The Reference Librarian will provide legal research instruction in the
Center for Lawyering Skills, and conduct research workshops, advanced
research classes and instruction in other forums. The Reference Librarian
will author research guides and other instructional and promotional
materials in print and electronic formats, participate in collection
development, assist in developing library policies and procedures, and may
participate in developing the Law Library Web presence.
Qualifications and Experience: Candidates must have a mastery of legal
research sources and techniques using both print and electronic materials,
database and Internet searching expertise, and knowledge of current
information delivery methods and publishing formats. The successful
candidate will have excellent oral and written communication skills, a
strong service orientation, a commitment to continuous improvement and
innovation, and the ability to work in a collegial and cooperative
environment. Candidates must be flexible and interested in assisting with a
wide range of duties necessary to open a new law library. Experience in an
academic law library environment is highly desirable. An MLS from an
ALA-accredited institution is required; JD strongly preferred.
Salary and Benefits: Salary will be commensurate with qualifications and
experience. Liberty University offers a competitive benefits package.
Available: August 1, 2004.
To apply: Send a letter expressing your interest in the position along with
a current resume and the names of three references to (Deleted)
Liberty University School of Law, as a new school, is neither fully nor
provisionally approved by the American Bar Association. The Dean is fully
informed as to the Standards and Rules of Procedure for the Approval of Law
Schools by the American Bar Association. The Administration and the Dean are
determined to devote all necessary resources and in other respects to take
all necessary steps to present a program of legal education that will
qualify for approval by the American Bar Association. The law school makes
no representation to any applicant that it will be approved by the American
Bar Association prior to the graduation of any matriculating student. The
State Council of Higher Education for Virginia granted approval to Liberty
University to confer the Juris Doctor degree.
Liberty University School of Law recognizes the image of God inherent in all
people and thus the dignity of all members of the human family. The law
school prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, age, disability, or status as a veteran. The law school is open
to all persons whose conduct does not undermine its historic Christian
character and who respect and abide by the mission, goals, and policies of
the school of law.
Having read this ad, I was struck, as I'm sure most everyone else was, by the terms "Christian Intellectual Tradition" and the entire last paragraph. Apparently, everyone subscribing to the list-serv was struck by the last paragraph as well, and took it to be an offensive, racially intimidating, and, in some instances, illegal set of requirements that, if read correctly, provided the university the right to refuse applicants for consideration. Some replies stated that they assumed that anyone who may be, for instance, Jewish, homosexual, or any other trait, wouldn't be welcome in applying for the position. This, to me, sounded like a rather off-the-cuff reaction that served as a way to generate controversy and discussion rather than an actual concern for the legality of the way in which the ad was worded and how the position itself would most likely be filled. On a sidenote, this entire episode is an example of how conversations via email or any other discussion forum can spiral out of control. It's a phenomenon that I've witnessed many times before, and I assume this won't be the last time.
As for the former term, "Christian Intellectual Tradition" and its counterpart "Christian Legal Tradition," it seems to assert, from what I could glean from their site, that the courses offered at this university are framed within the context of Christian Doctrine and that the law itself derives not from man himself but originates in God, Who in turn bestows this knowledge upon us. Fine, this is something that I don't necessarily agree with or see as being relevant, but I'm sure some people few deconstruction or any of the literary premises that I subscribe to in much the same way. All in all, this sounds like a curriculum that I could live with being surrounded by; I might not like it or agree with it, but I don't know that it would actually be that uncomfortable for me to have to work in that type of environment.
After the discussion snowballed into its inevitable conclusion, Mr. X posted a reply to the list encouraging those interested in the school to look at their website for the Liberty University School of Law. Also, he pointed out that the ad was placed on this list-serv because it is a public list that encourages job postings. As one would expect, the conversation died quickly after that since their was little or no ammunition left to generate offense and outrage. So, with all this in mind, I figured I would apply just to see what would happen. I sent my materials via email and waited for a response. As posted above, I received one.
Before I sent a reply, I sought the counsel of several of my superiors. I received several differing opinions regarding the school itself, the controversy surrounding the ad, and the true meaning of the ad and the intent of the school. One piece of advice that didn't differ, however, was that I should at least talk to the gentleman to see what I could find out. Well, before I had a chance to send a reply, my phone rang. The proceeding conversation was one of the most disjointed exchanges I've ever had over the phone.
It started off innocently with the question about why I applied and what interested me in the job. As anyone in my position will tell you, their immediate response might be to shoot back, "I just need a job." I didn't do this, but what I did tell the man was that I was intrigued by the possibility of working in a new library supporting a new law school. This was where I erred immediately. This was not the type of answer I was supposed to give regarding the job, and I could tell immediately by the change in tone. What followed was a back and forth exchange that provided me with little or no information that clarified any of my questions regarding the requirements of the position and how "religiously tainted" my advice would have to be to perform my task as a reference librarian. I know the expectations of a reference librarian in an academic law library, but this, I assumed, would be different due to the ever present "Christian Legal Tradition." Mr. X seemed to feel that he was providing me with answers in a roundabout way, but the uncertainty in his voice betrayed his confidence in his answers. Any time someone concludes by saying, "Does that help or make things more confusing?" you know you're not receiving clear-cut information that will educate you. I wouldn't go so far as to label this "doublespeak," but it was much more confusing in nature than one would assume that someone whose main task is to provide concise answers to complex questions could and should provide.
The main sticking point regarding the position's requirements dealt with the issue of professing one's faith and demonstrating one's ability to quote Scripture, neither activity of which I would be able to pull off convincingly had I wanted. In this, I found that best course of action would be to end the conversation right there by making it clear to him that, in no uncertain terms, that I would not be able to provide the "right" answers regarding these and other religiously oriented questioning. Thus, I took myself out of contention and hung up the phone.
What irks me the most about this is that I've had so little success in applying for jobs that when one does reply it has to be connected to an organization that is affiliated with a man who I feel is offensive, intolerant, and downright morally reprehensible, Jerry Falwell. Falwell just happens to be the founder and chancellor of this fine university. Short of being contacted by a group adhering to the basic tenants of fascism or the Nazi party, I couldn't think of a more intolerant individual to work for or be responsible to in any way, shape or form. I can say that I didn't lose anything, money or time, by applying to this position, but I wish that I would appeal to someone other than a fanatically religious university that indoctrinates their students in ways that are beyond my ability to comprehend.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)