This Post Didn't Start Out as an Anti-MLA Rant

Click here, and read T. Scott P.'s "issue of strategic focus for MLA", for in the first paragraph, he has captured the essence of what medical librarians face in our very near future.

The best line, in my opinion:
"Libraries are important; but librarians make the essential difference, and the library walls should no longer hold us back."

I was even enthused with the first sentence of the next paragraph:
"MLA has a key role to play in helping us imagine the multitude of new ways in which we can become indispensable to our organizations."

But then:
"By defining the community in which we engage with each other, by providing the continuing education avenues in which we learn new skills and develop our talents, and by presenting the dynamic image of 21st century librarians to the public, MLA is an invaluable asset in helping each one of us become more effective every day."

I say, in the dulcet tones of a tantruming toddler, "No, no, NO, NO, NO!.

No, MLA does a terrible and exclusionary job of definging the community in which we engage with each other. It's too expensive, too small, and too focused on MLS librarians.

No, MLA's continuing education is often between two and five years behind what even ALA is putting out, which is two to five years behind what librarians really need.

And double-no, continuing education and credentialling are not going to save us!

Arrgh! I've got to go to a meeting, and I may not get back to this today. I wanted to do a quick post about the sentence I liked, to emphasize and agree with, "It's not the library, it's the librarians." However, I can't agree with the same-old, same-old coming out of MLA. The association has not been able to effectively manage the problems of the professions with these methods in the past--how can they be effective means of managing it for the future?

WDT