Library Juice 6:22 - October 16, 2003


1. Links....
2. Sam Trosow on OCLC Trademark case
3. Mark Rosenzweig on Civil Liberties & ALA
4. ISP Rejects Diebold Copyright Claims Against News Website
5. 3 letters urging Clark Atlanta University to retain its library school
6. Amusing searches

Quote for the week:

"There is more to life than increasing it's speed."

Homepage of the week: Katherine Gotts


1. Links....


Ashcroft cartoon

[ Sent by Pat Micks to Library Underground ]


NYLA's Intellectual Freedom Roundtable newsletter "Pressure
Point" is now online at:

[ Sent by Carol Reid to the IFRT list and ALAOIF ]


Librarians issue file-sharing support [CNET],39020645,39116692,00.htm

[ from Library Link of the Day - ]


"Kill the Librarians"
Column from Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review, perhaps the most
venerable of mainstream political conservative magazines:

[ from Declan McCullagh's POLITECH list and elsewhere ]


Wired News: It Sucks, but That's a Good Thing,1282,60614,00.html/wn_ascii

[ sent to me by Dan Buki ]


"Alternative Resources on the Israel/Palestine Conflict"

[ sent to the SRRT list by Tom Twiss ]


RFID links...

Libraries eye RFID to track books [MSNBC News]

"SF library wants to track books with computers,"
San Jose Mercury News, 3 October 2003

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)

City Library Adopts Controversial RFID Chips

RFID Zeitgeist


Not The Public's Domain
Washington Post, 10/2/2003
(About legal and policy developments and needs regarding the internet
and the public interest)

[ from the Center for Arts and Culture Update ]


The Media Borg Wants You
(A series of articles on corporate consolidation of the
media industries)

[ sent to me by Don Phillips and also in LII New This Week ]


The Librarian's Guide to Writing for Publication
Rachel Singer Gordon
(A new book from Scarecrow Press)


(Industry propaganda)

[ sent to me by Joel Kahn, of Frankentoons fame ]


DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals

Hint: a good title to look up is SIMILE

[ found surfing ]


(Part of the Information Commons website: "an online publication
advocating access to ideas")

[ found in logs ]


Rennaisance Library Calendar 2004

[ sent to me by Stuart Urwin ]


Copyright and Authors, by John Ewing
First Monday, Vol. 8, No. 10

For the past several hundred years, publishers have promoted a simplistic
view of copyright. Copyright is a matter of fairness to authors, they
argue. Authors own their creations and therefore should be free to control
them. But the history of copyright and its underlying philosophy
contradicts that simple view. Copyright is not about fairness to authors;
copyright is about balancing interests, including the interest of the
public. This article provides a (very!) brief history of copyright and its
philosophy in order to show that the publishers' simple view is inaccurate,
and suggests that understanding copyright's nature is the first step to
solve the problems of copyright in the modern world.


2. Sam Trosow on OCLC Trademark case

While this issue may have passed to the back burner of library awareness,
I think this commentary by Dr. Trosow is still worth putting forward.
- Ed.

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 13:59:24 -0400
From: Samuel Trosow strosow[at];
To: plgnet-l[at], srrtac-l[at]
Reply to: strosow[at]

OCLC's recent action in filing a lawsuit for trademark infringement (and
the related theories of passing off, unfair competition, false
advertising and dilution - but not copyright infringement) against the
Library Hotel has generated much discussion on various library-related
listservs. Many have expressed surprise that the Dewey Decimal
Classification(DDC)is even the subject of a trademark and have
questioned the wisdom of the enforcement action. Others have justified
the action on various grounds ("OCLC is just defending their IP rights,"
or "they have to do this in order to protect their position," or "OCLC
has invested considerable resources in this work and therefore is
deserving of protection" or "it's really the hotel's fault because they
didn't respond earlier"). OCLC's recent release has apparently convinced many to take some
version of the later position.

I'd like to first review the substance of the complaint, discuss the
differences between OCLC's interest in trademark and in its copyright,
and then argue why I think the TM action is inappropriate and should not
be embraced by the broader library community. The text of the complaint
has been posted at

I will summarize the gist of the complaint but hope readers will take
the time to review the actual complaint in its entirety. Let's at least
get straight what the lawsuit is and is not about, exactly what
contentions OCLC is making, what factual issues they would have to prove
in order to prevail, and what remedies they are seeking. The complaint
is based on the legal theories of . . .

[begin summary of complaint]

(1) federal trademark infringement (alleging that "Defendant's wrongful
use of the Dewey Marks and misappropriation of the Dewey Decimal
Classification system as a thematic marketing concept for a hotel are
likely to cause confusion as to sponsorship or authorization by OCLC, or
alternatively, destroy the origin-identifying function of the Dewey Marks" ;

(2) Federal Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Passing Off
and False Advertising (alleging that "consumers are deceptively led to
believe that The Library Hotel originates with or is sponsored or
otherwise approved by OCLC" and that such conduct "constitute false
designation of origin, passing off and false advertising in connection
with products and services distributed in interstate commerce" ; and

(3) Dilution (alleging that "OCLC has no control over the quality of
The Library Hotel's web site, hotel, advertising and other promotional
materials, its use of the Dewey Marks, and its misappropriation of the
Dewey Decimal Classification system as a thematic marketing concept
for a hotel. As a result of such use by The Library Hotel, the
distinctive qualities of the Dewey Marks are being and will continue to
be diluted" and that "OCLC is suffering and will continue to suffer
irreparable harm and blurring of the Dewey Marks if Defendant's wrongful
conduct is allowed to continue".

Based on these three claims, OCLC seeks the following remedies:

(1) that the hotel be permanently enoined from:

(a) using any of the Dewey Marks or any variation of the word "Dewey"
specifically including, but not limited to, any term that includes
"Dewey" or a misspelling of Dewey in connection with the promotion,
marketing. advertising, public relations and/or operation of The Library
Hotel, or any other such establishment using a "Library Concept"
marketing strategy;
(b) using the Dewey Decimal Classification system as any part of a
thematic marketing concept in connection with the promotion, marketing,
advertising, public relations and/or operation of The Library Hotel, or
any other such establishment using a "Library Concept" marketing strategy;
(c) diluting, blurring, passing off or falsely designating the origin of
the Dewey Marks or the Dewey Decimal Classification system, and from
injuring OCLC's goodwill and reputation;
(d) doing any other act or thing likely to induce the belief that The
Library Hotel's businesses, services or products are in any way
connected with, sponsored, affiliated, licensed, or endorsed by OCLC;
(e) using any of the Dewey Marks for goods or services, or on the
internet, or as domain names, email addresses, meta tags, invisible
data, or otherwise engaging in acts or conduct that would cause
confusion as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation of
Defendant with OCLC;

(2) that OCLC recover its actual damages sustained or Defendant's
profits made as a result of Defendant's wrongful actions; and that OCLC
recover three times Defendant's profits made as a result of Defendant's
wrongful actions or three times OCLC's damages, whichever is greater;
(3)that OCLC be awarded exemplary damages
(4) that the Hotel pay OCLC's costs and legal fees

[end of summary of complaint]

[begin distinction between copyright and trademark]

The complaint is for trademark (etc), but not copyright infringement.
OCLC unquestionably holds a valid and enforceable copyright in the
written works that describe DDC. Even though many elements of the system
are now in the public domain for copyright purposes, OCLC maintains a
copyright in the current version of the work (i.e., DDC 22) because of
it's updates and ongoing insertion of new materials. No one is arguing
against OCLC's rights with respect to copyright. (I mention this because
some of the postings I've seen have conflated copyright and trademark
rights, that is some people may be defending the action because they
want to protect OCLC's copyright interests).

While copyright subsists in the work (an original expression reduced to
a tangible medium)it does not extend to the IDEA underlying the work or
the facts within a work. This "idea/expression dichotomy" is a basic
principle of copyright law. Think of a cookbook. The author (or
publisher who has been assigned the rights) could stop someone from
reproducing and redistributing copies of the recipes. But anyone can
actually use the recipes (even a commercial restuarant). OCLC's rights
in DDC 22 are similar. But what the hotel is doing here is analogous to
its restuarant using the recipes in a cookbook. That is not a violation
of copyright. Owners of copyright interests sometimes try to work around
the inherent limitations in copyright (which FWIW are rapidly
dissolving) by also wrapping their wares or services in trademarks, a
separate form of intellectual property protection. Trademark law is
designed to prevent confusion on the part of consumers with respect to a
designation, or mark, that has become distinctive and is associated with
the wares or services of a particular producer. Dilution law goes even
further and protects against the use of a mark even if classical
confusion is not present. In any event, trademark rights are lost when
the mark becomes generic, that is, the mark becomes indistinguishable in
the mind of the public from the particular ware or service itself. (i.e.
Kleenex brand tissues, Band-aid brand bandages, Xerox brand
photocopiers, ListServ brand list management software, Thermos brand
beverage containers, or Google brand internet search engines all raise
potential genericism issues). Here we are talking about the Dewey brand
library knowledge classification system. While trademark rights are of
potentially infinite duration (as opposed to the limited term of
copyright -- such as it is) they can be lost if the mark becomes generic
or if it is not diligently enforced. Hence OCLC's assertion that they
have no choice but to defend the integrity of the mark with this lawsuit.

So what we have here is an instance of trying to create an enforceable
intellectual property right in the form of trademark to prohibit conduct
that would clearly be permissible under even under the narrowest
interpretation of copyright law. And the "brand" designation in question
is something that has very arguably become generic a long time ago.
While OCLC has diligently protected its copyright in its work, the same
cannot be said about the trademark in the DDC itself. Just go to the
OCLC website and look at the various pages describing the DDC. See
(none of which have a visible TM indicia or marking)

and compare with:
(which has the registered TM notation)

For that matter, walk into any public library displaying Dewey related
symbols and look for a TM notice. You won't find it. (I've tried to
view the Dewey related items offered by the ALA store --bookmarks and
posters-- but cannot get a good enough view of the small print to see if
there is a TM notation on these wares.)

More to the point, in the minds of the relevant public, the IDEA of the
Dewey Decimal System is a notion that has long been in the public
domain. While the actual expressive embodiment of the idea (DDC 22) is
subject to copyright, the idea of the DDC itself is not. So the real
question here is whether we want to see an expansive use of trademark
(and dilution law) so as to create intellectual property rights where
they would not otherwise exist under copyright law.

[end distinction between copyright and trademark]

[start discussion]

There are serious implications should the OCLC suit be successful. I
would raise two general reasons why suit is misplaced and should not be
supported. The first is the question of general values. The second is
more particular to the contents of the complaint itself and how it
constructs members of the public. I think that if you want to support
OCLC on this suit, you have to grapple with both sets of issues and not
dismiss either of them just because alleged legal rights happen to be

First, as to the question of values: Is the Dewey Decimal system
really something that we want to see treated as a commercial brand, a
commodity wrapped in a trademark just like a box of detergent, a pair of
sneakers, or a package of smoked sausages? This is not a legal issue,
it is threshold question each of us must address whether or not we have
any legal background. It is a question of values and particularly the
values of librarianship vis a vis the growing tension between the
information commons and the proprietary enclosure of that commons.
I always thought that the Dewey Decimal system was something that
evolved over the years as a joint cooperative effort. I think most
librarians have that understanding. Even today, OCLC
represents itself on its website as a broad cooperative based non-profit
dedicated to the advancement of knowledge.

" [OCLC is] dedicated to the public purposes of furthering access to the
world's information and reducing information costs." and

"Establish, maintain and operate a computerized library network and to
promote the evolution of library use, of libraries themselves and of
librarianship, and to provide processes and products for the benefit of
library users and libraries, including such objectives as increasing
availability of library resources to individual library patrons and
reducing the rate-of-rise of library per-unit costs, all for the
fundamental public purpose of furthering ease of access to and use of
the ever-expanding body of worldwide scientific, literary and
educational knowledge and information." etc.

Isn't the very idea of proprietary trademarks in something like a
knowledge classification system inimical to these values?
The library community has been at the forefront of fighting back the
enclosure of informational resources. Every time publishers have tried
to expand their IP rights at the expense of the public, the library
community has been right there, be it UCITA, the DMCA, term
extention or database legislation. In this case, a publisher is trying
to stretch trademark law to apply to an unrelated service based on
spurious claims of potential consumer confusion. Even though OCLC is a
separate entity, I'm still concerned that many members of the public
(and even some policy makers) might not make the fine-line distinction
and see this action as somewhat reflective of the broader library
community inasmuch as the DDC is generally associated with public
libraries. This was certainly the sense conveyed by the recent NY Times
piece (see "Where did Dewey file those law books" by Michael Luo, Sept
23, 2003). Given this connection, don't we seem a bit two-faced with
respect to the defense of the commons that we generally advocate? The
values of librarianship (including the stated values of OCLC itself),
especially given our strong defense of the information commons of late,
would reject the notion of trademark rights in the concept of the Dewey
Decimal system separate and apart from whatever copyright interests
remain with the publisher.

Second, as to the contentions of the complaint itself: If you study the
allegations of the complaint, you see that in order to prevail on the TM
claim OCLC needs to prove consumer "confusion," a term of art in TM law.
Remember that the purpose of TM law is to protect the expectations of
consumers with respect to the goodwill and recognition built up in
particular brands. It is not about creating yet another property
interest as such (although it often ends up doing just that). It is, at
least in theory about protecting consumers and their reasonable

Ultimately, the case will turn on a factual issue, whether, when viewed
in the context of hotel services, the references to the DEWEY marks
would somehow cause a consumer to believe that the hotel services are
sponsored, approved, authorized, or sourced by the OCLC. It is not as if
the hotel is mass-producing unauthorized copies of DDC 23 and selling
them in competition with OCLC, in which case there would be a copyright
infringement issue. Nor is the hotel misappropriating the goodwill of
the classification system in order to compete in the classification
system business (or in some other line of business that is even remotely
related to library or information services), in which case the trademark
action would be somewhat more justified. In order to prevail on the
trademark claim, OCLC will have to argue that the consumer / public
have not enough good sense to tell the difference between a catalouging
service and a hotel. This is exactly what they are alleging in the
complaint. I don't think we, as librarians, should be buying into this
construction of our patrons as such feeble minded consumers that they
will be as "confused" as the complaint alleges.

So to those who say "OCLC is just defending their IP rights," or "they
have to do this in order to protect their position," or "OCLC has
invested considerable resources in this work and therefore is deserving
of protection," you are right, they are entitled to some legal
protection. But what type of protection is another question. I would
have no objection to OCLC filing a copyright infringement action against
someone mass-producing and redistributing the current version of DDC.
But that's very different from what's happenning here which is more
analgous to the cookbook example (and a rough approximation of the
recipes in the cookbook at that).

By conflating together all of the different forms of intellectual
property devices into one big collage of IP rights, and by then taking
that big mush and raising it up to the level of an imperative that
trumps all other values and reason, we end up giving IP limitations much
more power to enclose ideas than we should.

If you want to justify this lawsuit, then you need to be prepared to
say: (1) branding something like a library classification system is
appropriate; AND (2) the public is likely to be confused into thinking
the hotel is somehow affiliated or authorized by OCLC.

That's a much harder argument to make than some of the simplistic
assertations I've seen floating around recently. I would argue that at
the very least, the library community, through its associations, needs
to disassociate itself from this lawsuit and assert that the idea of the
Dewey Decimal System itself is in the public domain, even though the
tangible expression of these ideas are contained in works under copyright.

Samuel Trosow
Assistant Professor
University of Western Ontario
Faculty of Information & Media Studies
Faculty of Law

3. Mark Rosenzweig on Civil Liberties & ALA

[SRRTAC-L:11774] Civil Liberties Action & ALA
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:55:58 -0400
From: Mark Rosenzweig iskra[at];
To: SRRT Action Council srrtac-l[at];
Cc: plgnet-l[at], srrtac-l[at]
Reply to: srrtac-l[at]

It seems to me the time has come for the American Library Association
to realize and publicize the full danger which Attorney General John
Ashcroft represents to Americans' protections under the Constitution
and its Bill of Rights.

True, Mr. Ashcroft has lashed out at librarians and ALA for our mere
defense of the rights of our patrons jeopardized by his USA PATRIOT
Acts and related 'emergency' legislation . He is with malice and
fanaticism asking now for even more police powers supposedly
necessary to fight terrorism and using his derisive attacks on
conscientious librarians to leverage his appeal. This has,
fortunately, not gone over well as yet. But this administration shows
no concern for any mandates when it comes to prosecuting its 'war'.

The Council of the ALA passed a relatively modest resolution calling
for the revision of articles of these acts enabling the confiscation
of personal records from libraries and bookstores without search
warrants and with a gag order preventing disclosure of the actions
undertaken by the authorities under the new laws. Similar and
sometimes stronger resolutions were passed by state associations,
other professional groups and even by state legislatures.This has
incensed Ashcroft and the Administration.

The fact is, however, in our not calling for the actual repeal and
rewriting of the USA PATRIOT Act we have actually been remiss in
fundamentally understating the dangers to constitutional government,
the protections of the Bill of Rights, and even the rule of law,
inherent in Ashcroft's program.

Despite far right-wing criticism that we have 'gone too far' we have,
in our timidity, contributed to misleading our patrons that, but for
a few provisions, the new 'anti-terrorist' legislation hastily passed
in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, would be effective tools for
the defense of democracy against terrorist threats.

We are hamstrung, it seems, by our own definitions of issues and
their relevance to us. By this I mean our unwillingness, just for
example, to see as threats to 'intellectual freedom' -- one of our
paramount, traditional concerns -- the stifling of such freedom by
the imposition of 'gag orders', the use of secret tribunals, and the
claim to the government's right to use torture. These were previously
brought before ALA Council, but not then considered.

I want to suggest that our responsibilities now are proven to be more
extensive than originally thought and should be revisited.

Beyond the unacceptability of the government's secret review of
reading records, in which libraries and bookstores are forbidden by
law from telling anyone the government is snooping into their reading
habits, we must, in my opinion, also take into account more general
social concerns:

* Secret arrests and detentions (and the power to "disappear" people)

* Unlimited detention without charge (including of U.S.citizens)
branded "enemy combatants" or, simply, terrorist accomplices in the
vaguest sense

* The Pentagon's "Total Information Awareness" (now "Terrorism
Information Awareness") plan to track all available data about anyone
in one massive database, looking for "patterns" thatmight brand one a
terrorist (or dissenter, perhaps) and flag a person for further
investigation, detention, or worse

* The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Courts,
operating in secrecy, with no Congressional oversight, to authorize
wiretaps, searches, and arrests, and conduct trials -- where the
accused has little or no information about the charges, or ability to
conduct a defense

All of this is anathema to our librarians' belief in the
inviolability of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

We need to understand that there are greater threats to intellectual
freedom than local 'book challenges'. There is, sad to say, the
threat of censorship by threat of imprisonment, by secrecy of legal
proceedings, by threat or actuality of torture, and --- let's not
mince words -- violation of intellectual freedom by death. We are now
become more like those countries we have long thought were so
different from us in their disregard of fundamental human rights, or,
at least , we are well on the way to legally enabling that devolution.

All of this is belied of course by the overwhelming sense of the
unchangingness of our legal heritage. That may very well be largely
illusory with the likes of Ashcroft in office. Let us take measure of
this and when we next meet decide how to stand against this lest we
become no better than our enemies.

Mark Rosenzweig
ALA Councilor at large

4. ISP Rejects Diebold Copyright Claims Against News Website

Online Policy Group Media Release
For Immediate Release: Thursday, October 16, 2003


Will Doherty

Executive Director
Online Policy Group
+1 415 826-3532 (please leave message)

Wendy Seltzer

Staff Attorney
Electronic Frontier Foundation
+1 415 436-9333 x125 (office), +1 914 374-0613 (cell)

ISP Rejects Diebold Copyright Claims Against News Website

EFF Defends Right to Publish Links to Electronic Voting Memos

San Francisco - Defending the right to link to controversial
information about flaws in electronic voting systems, EFF
announced today it will defend an Internet Service Provider
(ISP) and a news website publisher against claims of
indirect copyright infringement from the electronic voting
machines' manufacturer.

On October 10, 2003, electronic voting company Diebold,
Inc., sent a cease-and-desist letter to the nonprofit Online
Policy Group (OPG) ISP demanding that OPG remove a page of
links published on an Independent Media Center (IndyMedia)
website located on a computer server hosted by OPG.

Diebold sent out dozens of similar notices to ISPs hosting
IndyMedia and other websites linking to or publishing copies
of Diebold internal memos. OPG is the only ISP so far to
resist the takedown demand from Diebold.

"What topic could be more important to our democracy than
discussions about the mechanics and legitimacy of electronic
voting systems now being introduced nationwide?" said EFF
Staff Attorney Wendy Seltzer. "EFF won't stand by as
corporations like Diebold chill important online debate by
churning out legal notices to ISPs that usually just take
down legitimate content rather than face the legal risk."

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) passed by
Congress in 1998 provides a "safe harbor" as an incentive
for ISPs to take down user-posted content when they receive
cease-and-desist letters such as the ones sent by Diebold.
By removing the content, or forcing the user to do so, for a
minimum of 10 days, an ISP can take itself out of the middle
of any copyright claim. As a result, few ISPs have tested
whether they would face any liability for such user activity
in the first place. EFF has been exposing some of the ways
the safe harbor limits online speech through the Chilling
Effects Clearinghouse.

"We defend strongly the free speech right of our client
IndyMedia to publish links to Diebold memos relevant to the
public debate about electronic voting machine security,"
explained OPG Executive Director Will Doherty. "Diebold's
claim of copyright infringement from linking to information
posted elsewhere on the Web is ridiculous, and even more
silly is the claim that we as an ISP could be liable for our
client's web links."

For this release:

Cease-and-desist letter Diebold sent to OPG:

IndyMedia Web page subject to Diebold cease-and-desist

Security researchers discover huge flaws in e-voting system:

Link to Chilling Effects on DMCA safe harbor provisions:

About Online Policy Group:

The Online Policy Group (OPG) is a nonprofit organization
dedicated to online policy research, outreach, and action on
issues such as access, privacy, the digital divide, and
digital defamation. The organization fulfills its motto of
"One Internet With Equal Access for All" through programs
such as donation-based email, email list hosting, website
hosting, domain registrations, colocation services,
technical consulting, educational training, and refurbished
computer donations. The California Community Colocation
Project (CCCP) and QueerNet are OPG projects. OPG focuses on
Internet participants' civil liberties and human rights,
like access, privacy, safety, and serving schools,
libraries, disabled, elderly, youth, women, and sexual,
gender, and ethnic minorities. Find out more at

About EFF:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is the leading civil
liberties organization working to protect rights in the
digital world. Founded in 1990, EFF actively encourages and
challenges industry and government to support free
expression and privacy online. EFF is a member-supported
organization and maintains one of the most linked-to
websites in the world at

About IndyMedia:

Indymedia is an international network working to build a
decentralized, non-commercial media infrastructure to
counter an increasingly consolidated corporate media.
Indymedia collectives have spread rapidly since the WTO
protests in Seattle 1999, with IMC groups now working
throughout North & South America, the Middle East, Europe,
Africa, Asia and Oceania, accessible through


5. 3 letters urging Clark Atlanta University to retain its library school

September 12, 2003

Dr. Walter Broadnax, President
Clark Atlanta University
Harkness Hall
223 James P. Brawley Dr. SW
Atlanta, GA 30314

Dear Dr. Broadnax,

As President of the American Library Association, I am writing to express
concern about a reported decision to recommend closure of your
ALA-accredited Master of Library Science program. ALA urges you to support
your program whose efforts are helping fulfill the University's Statement
of Purpose: "To provide an increasingly diverse population* identifiable
role models for black students."

The program at Clark Atlanta University is particularly important in that
it is one of the few programs of library science at a historically black
university. In light of the urgent need for librarians who can serve our
country's diverse communities, this closure would have a significant impact
on the quality of library service available to people of color in the
region and entire country. Clark Atlanta's program is important for all
America's people and their future in an information age.

We share significant history, as the program has been continuously
accredited by ALA for over 60 years, having earned initial accreditation in
1942. The University's letter of April 7, 2003 inviting ALA to conduct a
comprehensive program review in the spring of 2005 is encouraging for the
future. I hope you will allow that process to go forward and support the
program as it moves ahead diligently to fulfill its important mission of
educating "professionals who are culturally diverse and able to serve
successfully in libraries and information centers throughout the world."

Thank you for your consideration. Copies of this letter have been sent to
Dr. Bowles, Dr. Boone and Dr. Thompson. I understand that representatives
from the library community would like to meet with you in person to discuss
the importance of the school to the profession and to the community.
Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any further information on
the importance of this program and its preservation.


Dr. Carla D. Hayden
American Library Association

Dr. Dorcas D. Bowles
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs
Clark Atlanta University
Harkness Hall
223 James P. Brawley Dr. SW
Atlanta, GA 30314

Dr. William Boone
Associate Provost and Chair
Academic Council
Clark Atlanta University
Harkness Hall
223 James P. Brawley Dr. SW
Atlanta, GA 30314

Dr. Ruby Thompson
Chair, Curriculum Committee
Clark Atlanta University
Clement Hall
223 James P. Brawley Dr. SW
Atlanta, GA 30314


September 18, 2003

Dr. Walter Broadnax
Clark Atlanta University
Harkness Hall
223 James P. Brawley Drive SW
Atlanta, GA 30314

Dear President Broadnax:

The Association for Library and Information Science Education, an
international association of educators of librarians and other information
professionals, adds its voice to those of others expressing deep concern
over the threatened closure of the Clark Atlanta School of Library and
Information Studies.

As others have already argued persuasively, Clark Atlanta University has
historically been one of the institutions contributing most significantly
to the important goal of diversifying the profession of
librarianship. Its more than half a century of educating librarians to
serve Atlanta, Georgia, and the nation is a legacy worth preserving,
especially as the nation is becoming more diverse and more in need of its
graduates daily.

While we acknowledge the great financial difficulties in which Clark
Atlanta finds itself, we urge you to thoroughly explore all options and to
work with members of the SLIS faculty, the profession, and the faculties
of Clark's sister institutions to find a way not only to keep the School
open but to provide it with the support needed to allow it to grow and


(signed electronically)

Louise S. Robbins
Professor and Director
School of Library and Information Studies
University of Wisconsin-Madison

CC:       JESSE list
         Rep. Major Owens
         Carla Hayden, ALA President
         Dean Arthur Gunn


Dear Colleagues:

Recently, the BCALA learned that a recommendation was made to close the
Clark Atlanta School of Library and Information Studies. Since then we have
been working diligently to determine what measures the Caucus can take to
ensure that the CAU SLIS continues its role in educating librarians well
into the twenty-first century and beyond.

Dr. Virginia Lacy Jones in her essay, "A Dean's Career," in E. J. Josey's
book, The Black Librarian in America, said "the Atlanta University School
of Library Service began in the fall of 1941 with 25 carefully selected
students." That was 62 years ago. During these 62 years, this institution
of higher education has contributed significantly to the development and
improvement of African American school libraries in the South. Before the
establishment of the School of Library Services at Atlanta University,
there were few school libraries for African American students in the
South. By 1961, a mere 21 years after the founding, the School of Library
Services at Atlanta University had begun admitting white Americans and
international students from Asia and South American countries. The library
school had made a significant impact on the education of African American
librarians. Dr. Jones was proud that the School of Library Services at
Atlanta University had educated more than half of all African American
librarians serving in libraries across America.

In spite of its glorious history, the Clark Atlanta University School of
Library and Information Studies, is now in danger of being closed. We have
learned that because Clark Atlanta University is having financial
difficulties, a committee advising the University President and the Provost
of Clark Atlanta University has recommended that the school be closed to
save the University money. According to a letter from Dr. Authur Gunn, Dean
of the Library School, it appears that the committee is not aware that the
library school receives $500,000 each year from the state of Georgia to
support scholarships for Georgia students who attend the library school.
This information was not mentioned in the committee's final report which
recommended the library school's closure.

We urgently request that every member of the library school alumni write
letters to the Atlanta University president, the provost, and the board of
trustees to remind these officials of the importance of the Clark Atlanta
University School of Library and Information Studies to the nation in
general and to historically black colleges and universities and the black
community in particular.

We must save this important institution. We are requesting that all
librarians and educators join the alumni of the library school in sending
letters to the president of Clark Atlanta University to express our
opposition to the closing of the library school, a school that has
contributed significantly to American libraries, African American
librarians and the African American people in general. The School of
Library and Information Studies at Clark Atlanta University must not be

Bobby Player, Sr.
President, BCALA 2002-2004

6. Amusing searches

The following are search expressions that led from search engines, mostly
Google, to pages on during the month of September.

human milk embarrassed
"Weird pictures of jesus"
glamour secretary highly-sexed
herbs to remove adhesions
the 265 popes and their contribution
scooby -doo
i want to be rory gilmore
ants in cartoon style
all about the bad fidel castro
what does the future hold
where can i find a picture of Huckleberry Finn's father to print
articles with the words germinate and humdrum
mark rosenzweig director ALA
how bullies operate
what effect does telescopes have on peoples lives?
how to become very rich
"how tall a man has to be"
michael mcgrorty genius
persuasive people to consume more juice
"time to assemble a car"
how to get wonderful relation with man
"Why should we care about Russia?"
Just a flag of Junta
is evil gendered in children's fantasy
censorship vocabulary making a book suitable for the whole family
pseudo-generic man
"welfare scum"
popeye the man

L I B R A R Y  J U I C E

ISSN 1544-9378

| Library Juice is supported by a voluntary subscription
| fee of $10 per year, variable based on ability and
| desire to pay. You may send a check payable in US funds
| to Rory Litwin, at 1821 'O' St. Apt. 9, Sacramento, CA 95814,
| or, alternatively, you may use PayPal, by going to:
| To subscribe, email majordomo[at] with the message
| "subscribe juice".
| To unsubscribe, email majordomo[at] with the message
| "unsubscribe juice".
| Other majordomo commands are available in the help file,
| which you can get by emailing majordomo[at] with the
| message "help".
| Library Juice is a free weekly publication edited and
| published by Rory Litwin. Original senders are credited
| wherever possible; opinions are theirs. If you are the
| author of some email in Library Juice which you want removed
| from the web, please write to me and I will remove it.
| Copyright to material in Library Juice should be considered
| to belong to the original authors unless otherwise stated.
| Works by Rory Litwin may be used freely for non-commercial
| purposes with appropriate attribution.
| Your comments and suggestions are welcome.
| Rory[at]