If the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York approves the settlement, Penguin will pay $75 million in restitution to affected consumers, plus $7 million to the states in litigation and investigation costs, and $8 million plus administration costs to the class action attorneys Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Penguin also agreed to withdraw its motions appealing their demands for a jury trial in the states’ suit, and arbitration in the class action suit.

According to Publishers Lunch, “As the last to settle, Penguin is paying the most by far of any of the settling publishers. In fact, their total cost of over $90 million is more than the $78.9 million paid by the first three settlers combined.”

Perhaps in order to spread this hefty tariff over two years, Penguin allocated $40 million in 2012 towards such a settlement. The remainder “will be expensed in Pearson’s 2013 statutory accounts as part of the accounting for the Penguin Random House joint-venture,” the company said in a statement.

Michael Kelley’s April 29, 2013 editorial “Can We Talk about the MLS?” and the 157 comments posted to that article so far prompted us to consider accountability for the American Library Association’s (ALA) accreditation of graduate programs in library and information science. We first turned to ALA’s Standards for Accreditation [PDF]:

“Accreditation assures the educational community, the general public, and other agencies or organizations that an institution or program (a) has clearly defined and educationally appropriate objectives expressed as student learning outcomes, (b) maintains conditions under which achievement of objectives can reasonably be expected, (c) is in fact accomplishing objectives substantially, and (d) can be expected to continue to do so. Accreditation serves as a mechanism for quality assessment and quality enhancement with quality defined as the effective utilization of resources to achieve appropriate educational objectives and student learning outcomes.”

Citizens expect that medical and law schools meet academic and professional standards and that their graduates are qualified to serve the public with knowledge and skill. This concept of accountability is now spreading at the State level where public colleges and universities are being required to report on student centered indicators such as graduation and retention rates to qualify for full funding. The National Council of State Legislatures provides information on how states have allocated funding of higher education institutions based on performance indicators.

The ALA Standards emphasize what programs must accomplish in terms of strategic planning and student learning outcomes. ALA does not dictate what those outcomes should be nor does it specify any particular courses that must be offered in an MLIS program. So, what does it mean to be a graduate of an ALA accredited program? Past competency debates offered philosophical positions which could not be tested without nationally based comprehensive examinations to certify library and information professionals.

Each MLIS program determines its own strategic planning goals and its own student learning outcomes. This approach protects the academic freedom of the faculty to test new ideas and create new methodologies. Nonetheless, the Standards are clear about what they are expected to accomplish:

“Within the context of these Standards each program is judged on the degree to which it attains its objectives. In accord with the mission of the school, clearly defined, publicly stated, and regularly reviewed program goals and objectives form the essential frame of reference for meaningful external and internal evaluation. The evaluation of program goals and objectives involves those served: students, faculty, employers, alumni, and other constituents.”

But this approach does not necessarily meet the intent of the Standards in providing a coherent and consistent body of knowledge to be mastered by MLIS graduates.

“…the curriculum provides … for the study of theory, principles, practice, and values necessary for the provision of service in libraries and information agencies and in other contexts.” [Standards, p. 9]

Under the current Standards, the 63 accredited programs at 58 institutions define their curricular objectives and course offerings independent of each other. The individual LIS programs define acceptable student learning outcomes at the local level combining course outcomes into program outcomes. However, ALA does not then combine the program outcomes.

If the program outcomes were merged and evaluated then ALA could report on the common knowledge skills needed by library and information professionals across all accredited programs. This, in turn, could define what it means to be an ALA accredited graduate. At the next step, if the graduate obtains a professional position and performs satisfactorily then this gives credibility to the program’s accreditation and ALA’s articulation of nationally based library and information professional outcomes.

ALA’s Committee on Accreditation (COA) uses three means to evaluate programs:

1. Program Presentations, in which the school measures itself against the Standards in a self-study;
2. External Review Panel reports, in which a visiting review team measures the school and its program presentation against the Standards; and,
3. program annual statistical and biennial narrative reports monitored by COA over time.

It is not our intent to change the first two of these processes and we propose that public accountability would be improved if Program Presentations and External Review Panel reports be made freely available. However, we do challenge the kinds of data collected and evaluated to improve accountability.

The Association for Library and Information Science Education (ALISE) has systematically collected MLIS program and statistical information from ALA accredited institutions since 1980. COA has lent its name to this ALISE effort since COA uses a small portion of the collected data in its review of MLIS programs. The data used by COA includes three general areas: faculty numbers; student enrollment with degrees given, including diversity; and, income/expenditures. Recently, the ALA Office of Accreditation’s PRISM report identified these data elements.

Trend data are useful in assessing program changes over time to assess consistency. Significant changes in program resources might be questioned. We propose adding statistical information to provide for transparency in interpreting program trends to provide additional evidence of public accountability. Institutional and program data are often used for three purposes to compare an MLIS program to: (1) a specific standard; (2) another program; and, (3) itself from one year to the next.

Currently, COA uses the third objective above in its reliance on trend data over time for each program. But public accountability might, for example, uncover the need for prospective students to compare one program’s graduation or placement rate with another program.

The accreditation of a program also provides a de facto benchmark for other programs. The current Standards may lead to devolution in quality because indicators are established locally without reference to any national benchmarks. It is in the interests of ALA and COA to have its Standards linked to identifiable data which are respected and valued by member institutions, prospective students, alumni of programs, and the general public.

Individual program statistics are now available on the ALA website but it is our assessment that the measures fall short of providing a meaningful picture of a program’s adherence to the Standards. The movement toward increased public accountability of institutions of higher education allows students and the general public to have right-to-know factual data about the programs accredited by organizations such as ALA. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) currently reports by college its default rate on student loans. Even campus crime statistics are publicly available.

COA can expect that measures of accountability will increase in the future and it would be productive to address those now rather than later. We offer new indicators to provide a better picture of an MLIS programs’ ability to meet the intent of the current Standards which state:

“Prospective students, employers recruiting professional staff, and the general public concerned about the quality of library and information services have the right to know whether a given program of education is of good standing. By identifying those programs meeting recognized Standards, the Committee offers a means of quality control in the professional staffing of library and information services.”

Public accountability measures can initially focus on indicators of interest to prospective students and employers. These might include:

1. Applicants to the MLIS program: number applied, admitted, rejected, enrolled
2. Qualification for admission for those enrolled: average GRE, TOEFL, and undergraduate GPA; percent holding other graduate degrees and percent waived rom meeting each admission criterion
3. Number and percent of: (a) students enrolled exclusively in campus, online, and hybrid courses; (b) courses offered as campus, online, and hybrid courses
4. Number and percent of matriculated students who graduate (retention)
5. Average student time in months to completion of Master’s degree
6. Percent graduating in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 or more years
7. Placement: number and percent of graduates who report full-time employment within one year of receiving Master’s degree and average length of time it takes to obtain full-time employment
8. Average number of students per course section for campus, online, and hybrid courses
9. Average number of students taught by full-time faculty members and part-time faculty members per section
10. Percent of students taught by full-time faculty members and part-time faculty members

It is important that the statistics collected provide some indication of the academic rigor or quality of the program. At this time, the Standards are liminal, providing only a threshold which must be reached, and not aspirational. According to the Standards, quality is defined as “…the effective utilization of resources to achieve appropriate educational objectives and student learning outcomes.”

Academic preparedness is difficult to assess and major universities often rely on standardized test scores as an indicator of academic rigor in the admissions process. GRE and TOEFL test scores are indicators of success in graduate school and the Educational Testing Service (ETS) produces reports depicting the relationship between GRE scores and performance in graduate programs.

Not all ALA Masters programs require standardized test scores for admission which could place them at a disadvantage when compared to the business, law, and academic programs in their Universities. A number of Universities appear to have allowed their LIS departments to eliminate the GRE requirement from MLIS applicants and this may suggest that these programs have changed their standards for this requirement. The validity of the GRE as an unbiased and strong predictor of success for graduate students is firmly established beyond ETS and it might appear to the general public that the dropping of this requirement is related to concern over the admission of those with low scores. For example, one ALA accredited program informs applicants they do not need to submit GRE scores, letters of recommendation, an essay, or a resume since the program does not consider them in the MLIS admissions process.

Prospective students and the general public should be informed of how admission decisions are made based on past student performance and other indicators. Availability of retention and placement data are also matters of public concern for professional degree programs. There is tremendous diversity in the design and structure of MLIS programs across Universities. There are programs with over 2,000 students and those with fewer than 100 students. Some are totally online and others only offer instruction on campus. Some might be regarded as library centric and others may be information focused.

These differences among accredited MLIS programs can be significant but each must adhere to the same set of ALA Standards if they wish to have their program accredited. We endorse such diversity but also note that the student experience at such different programs may need to be captured and shared since MLIS graduates receive the same accredited degree. It might be productive for ALA to sponsor social media opportunities where students can publicly share their experiences applying to and attending accredited programs. This information could enhance the public’s understanding of the quality of individual programs. Recent reactions in the blog appended to Kelley’s LJ editorial suggest that students have a variety of views about the value of earning an MLIS degree and its prospective value in seeking gainful employment.

Conclusion

Our proposal for change does not address other potential indicators. These might include the need for a critical mass of faculty to cover of knowledge in LIS, measures of faculty scholarly productivity, tenureability, measures of institutional support for faculty, and adequate program administration. We hope that others might suggest ways to improve accountability for ALA accredited MLIS programs.

Some programs require students to create portfolios to demonstrate student learning outcomes achieved across courses to include intern positions. The portfolios can also be shared with prospective employers. Assuming the employers have the time to review the portfolios of applicants, it shifts the burden of review from relying on the reputation of the program and University attended to scrutiny of the course work of the applicant. Our recommendations are to suggest that certain markers are important in distinguishing one MLIS program from another and that employers might favor graduates of a program with known indicators of quality.

Of paramount importance is the availability of consistent, reliable, transparent data. We are advancing a position to expand that data to include additional indicators. These statistical indicators, the Program Presentation, and the External Review Panel Report should be available on ALA’s website as a central source the public can refer to when seeking information about accredited MLIS programs.

Photo: Perspective: Lecture hall, Attribution License

The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) has been publishing for 102 years, and has an impact factor of 3.9. It is ranked by Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge (formerly ISI Web of Knowledge) as having the third greatest impact in its category. This is hardly the picture one thinks of if one follows the recent discussion of predatory journal publishers. Yet its public access policies have always been very restrictive, and they are about to get more so, in a way that makes “predatory” exactly the right word.

At the moment, AJPH, which is published by the American Public Health Association (APHA), is listed by the SHERPA RoMEO database as a “white” publisher, which means that authors are not allowed to self-archive either a pre-print or a post-print of their articles. From the journal’s own web site we learn that the only rights authors retain if they publish in AJPH are the rights to use their own work in dissertations, theses, books or other journal articles they are writing “at no charge.” And even the exercise of those “retained” rights apparently requires a formal permission request from APHA.

Most significantly, from the perspective of promoting public health, AJPH makes articles open access only under two conditions—if an open access fee of $2,500 is paid, or on the journal’s own website after two years. The public is told that linking to those two-year-old open access articles is permitted “for educational purposes,” as if APHA believes it can prevent linking for other purposes to material it makes openly accessible.

From these policies as they stand, we should be able to discern that profit is more important than fostering public health to the Association. But even with that context as preparation, the message they sent to authors late last month was a shock. Those authors who did not pay for immediate open access believed, at the time they published, that their articles would be fully accessible after two years. But on June 1, the APHA is changing the rules, according to an email from their Publications Editor. The window for open access will be closed much further—only articles that are ten years old or older will be open access. The American Journal of Public Health has decided that the public deserves access to only decade-old materials it has published, which is a useless gesture, given the pace of health-related progress.

If there is a public health-related justification for this change in policy, I can’t think of what it could be. I emailed the Publications Editor asking for comment or an explanation, but received no answer. What his original email does suggest, however, is that there is a clear motive to increase profits behind this move. Authors who were informed of the change were also told that, if they still wanted public access to their articles in spite of the APHA having slammed the public access window closed, they could buy such access for the “steeply discounted rate of $1,000 per article.”

So it seems clear that authors who have already published with APHA over the past decade are being treated as cash cows that can be milked for additional funds—“pay up or the public loses the benefit of access to your work in public health.” And eight years of health-related information is clawed back out of public hands (except for those articles also available by federal mandate in PubMed Central). I have sometimes complained about lists of predatory open access journals because I think the criteria used are not always the right ones. But if any publishing practice can be viewed purely as an attempt to exploit open access in order to extract money from authors while offering little added benefit, this change in policy is such a practice.

I take three lessons from this remarkably mercenary and regressive step by the APHA.

First, impact factors are deceptive, because they measure only a tiny slice of true impact. For a journal in public health, the most obvious impact would be on the public and on those who provide health services to the public. But it is this audience that will be most obviously affected by the removal of articles from public access. On the other hand, this change will almost certainly not have any negative impact on the impact factor, which only measures citations of AJPH in other journals. So the association will continue to be able to brag about its impact factor while reducing its actual ability to influence public health. All for the purpose of drinking from a new revenue stream.

Second, this announcement illustrates the urgent need for the implementation of the White House directive on public access to federally-funded research and for passage of the FASTR Act—Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act, now pending in Congress as H.R. 708 and S. 350. These are initiatives to require that the public have access to the articles that grow out of research funded by taxpayer money. Publishers often express opposition to such measures for a variety of reasons, but often one of those reasons is the claim that they, the publishers, are making research articles adequately available without being compelled to do so. But with the APHA we have a “non-profit” society publisher (they are a 501(c)3 entity and will happily take your donations) that is pulling back on public access in the quest for new profits. The only articles they cannot close up fully are those in other databases, because of funder mandates. So the benefits of open access, especially in a field as important as public health, cannot be entrusted to groups such as this (much less to publishers who are more open about profit motives). We have here a clear and compelling lesson that mandates must be employed to promote science and the public welfare.

Finally, we should learn from the negative example that the AJPH has offered and fight for the shortest possible embargo periods for all public access mandates. A ten-year embargo in public health is simply absurd, and it should remind us that not only must we require public access, but we should require it at a point where the taxpayer-funded research can still do some good. The standard publication process is already very slow, so a one-year embargo is really an 18- to 24-month delay. There simply is no excuse for embargos of more than six months. Publishers might tell us that they need a longer period of exclusivity, but the AJPH illustrates clearly and painfully that this is a “give them an inch and they will take a mile” proposition. Once we compromise on the basic principle that the public deserves access to research they have funded and that is intended to create a public good, we will lose that principle entirely, as the window through which citizens can peek gets closed further and further.

It should be painfully clear, thanks to the American Journal of Public Health, that the only group we can really trust to have custody over public health research and information is the public itself.

Peter Workman

The New York publishing world—and beyond—turned out in force on May 14 to pay tribute to Peter Workman, whom Barnes & Noble chairman Len Riggio termed “one of the brightest stars, and greatest minds, in the history of publishing.” Few of the nearly 1,000 attendees at the memorial service held at Columbia University would disagree.

As family, friends, and colleagues looked on, photos from Workman’s life well lived spooled on a huge screen: skier, outdoor lover, bar mitzvah boy, high school and college grad, husband, father, grandfather, and publisher.  Perhaps an omen of things to come, Peter Workman proposed to Carolan Raskin in front of the stamp collection at New York’s 42d Street Library. (In an aside, she said, “I really don’t want anyone messing around with that library.”)

The renowned founder and leader of the still-independent Workman Publishing Company, who died April 7 from cancer, pushed books like the What To Expect When You’re Expecting franchise, The Silver Palate Cookbook, and Sandra Boynton’s numerous titles to perennial best-sellerdom in bookstores and libraries through a combination of obsessive attention to detail and marketing genius.

His secret, said Riggio, was “looking at books through the eyes of the consumer… almost as if his customers were collaborators in the publishing process.” He gave them books they didn’t even know they needed, and “he created each book as a work of art,” said Riggio. Workman considered not just the content but the ink, the paper, the cover, the end papers, and more, and his books often went late to press as he reached for perfection. “My books are keepers,” Riggio recalled Workman telling him, and then, ever the salesmen, added, “They should all be facing out.”

The family, friends, and business colleagues who spoke at the service, including Carolan, Katie, and Elizabeth Workman (his daughters), all alluded to the “paradox” of the man. He was a “tough teacher” as a boss and “tough and a pussycat,” as a friend, said Elizabeth Scharlatt, publisher of Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill, which Workman bought in 1989, and which published such star titles as Water for Elephants, A Reliable Wife, Mudbound, and The Girl Who Fell from the Sky. “He hired people who had no experience” in the jobs they were hired for, said Scharlatt, yet many of those same people are with the company today. “He led us all to be our most competent selves.” Like Riggio, Scharlatt, too, gave Workman’s secret of success: “Care deeply, deeply. Make sure everyone around you feels deeply, too. Have a very good time….”

Described as a “public-private-people partnership,” the event is being further described as “the largest ever to bring together citizens from around the country to work with local, state, and federal governments—as well as private sector organizations—with the common goal of improving their community through technology,” according to the IMLS announcement.

The announcement notes that tech-savvy citizens and entrepreneurs have developed many apps that utilize publicly released government data to a variety of ends, such as helping people report potholes to their local streets department, helping people communicate with local food shelters to identify shortage and excess in different neighborhoods to facilitate redistribution, or simply helping people catch a bus or train on time.

IMLS will present participants with two challenges. A public library challenge will encourage programmers to build tools that help users explore data from IMLS’s annual public library data collection efforts in new ways, and a museum data challenge encourages participants to develop tools that could enrich IMLS national museum data collection efforts using administrative data from the Museums Count survey. More information is available at the hackforchange.org website.

“Libraries and museums are centers for civic engagement in communities across the country,” IMLS Director Susan Hildreth said in the announcement. “We encourage them to join us in this first ever National Day of Civic Hacking by hosting events and by using their own in-house expertise to rise to the challenge with new civic hacks that address community needs. We can’t wait to see what kind of useful tools the nation’s online citizenry can create with IMLS data.”

National Day of Civic Hacking is backed by the White House through the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and currently 20 federal agencies are participating. To date, events have been registered in more than 80 cities in 32 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Ebooks make up a fifth of the trade market, according to BookStats, and were one of the growth drivers, growing by nearly half (44 percent) to over $3 billion in net revenue and grew almost as much in number of titles sold (42.8 percent). Adult Fiction is still the big fish in the ebook pond, growing almost 42 percent since 2011 to about $1.3 billion. Children’s and YA, though smaller to start with, experienced rapid growth, more than 117 percent, to $469 million.

Overall Trade eBook Growth

Source: BookStats

Downloaded audiobooks also saw healthy double digit growth, with a 21.8 percent rise in revenue and 24.4 percent in units.

While ebooks do cannibalize print sales, they are mostly coming out of mass market paperbacks: hardcovers and trade paperbacks “continued to hold steady,” the survey found, even making tiny gains (1.3 percent and 0.4 percent respectively.)

Folding educational, professional, and scholarly publishing into the equation, however, dulls the outlook. The publishing industry as a whole saw net revenue drop slightly (by less than one percent) to $27.124 billion since 2011, despite mild growth, 5.7 percent, in net units sold. According to BookStats, the K-12 education publishing sector was the key factor in the decline, as the recession “significantly affected states’ and municipalities’ buying decisions.”

While the BookStats interactive data dashboard is available this week, the full survey will become available in June.

U.S. Attorney Barbara L. McQuade on Tuesday charged Cromer, the Detroit Public Library chief administrative and technology officer, with taking more than $1.4 million in bribes and kickbacks from library contractors.

Cromer, 46, who had earned an annual salary of $145,323, is charged in a 21-count indictment along with contractors James Henley and Ricardo Hearn.

McQuade’s office claims that Cromer “helped” Henley create a business, Core Consulting & Professional Services, in 2007 which then bid on information technology services contracts at the library.

Read the Complete Article

Former top Detroit library official charged with taking $1.4M in bribe (via Detroit News)

A former top official of the Detroit Public Library was indicted Tuesday on allegations he took bribes and kickbacks totaling $1.4 million — money that could have saved branches closed by the struggling system.

[Clip]

The 21-count indictment of former chief administrative officer Tim Cromer and two contractors followed a November raid by the FBI of library offices and his home. The charges didn’t shock library officials and users — but the size of the alleged bribes did.

[Clip]

The system closed two branches, Mark Twain and Richard, in 2011 to save about $1 million a year and reduced the hours of other branches. Cromer helped make recommendations to close the branches.

“The employees and the public appear to be the victims of a conspiracy whose scope was larger than anyone ever speculated,” said Russ Bellant, president of the library board.

Read the Complete Article

USA v. Cromer, Hearn, Henley–Indictment

See Also: FBI Raids Main Branch of the Detroit Public Library Looking for Financial Records (November 20, 2012)

As a fairly new academic library director, I decided to attend a leadership training program geared to college library directors. During first day introductions, each participant explained how he or she came to become a director. Like most of us, I worked my way up through the ranks—from reference librarian to assistant director—and then decided it was time to try leading a library, based on a personal vision of what an academic library could be. Then we came to what looked like the youngest member of our group, who told us that the previous director resigned when she was a reference librarian. The next day the provost came to her office and asked if she wanted to be the director—and apparently she did. That’s one way to become a library administrator. While our profession is known to have its share of “accidental administrator” stories, about colleagues who suddenly and unexpectedly find themselves in managerial positions at any level, even as the library director, the vast majority of academic librarians who move into administration do so with serious intent and career planning. If you are giving thought to moving into library administration, I applaud your desire to advance your career. Our thinking about a future role in library administration rarely includes what it means to serve as part of a broader institutional administration. There are a few things you may want to know about becoming a higher education administrator.

Dark side

Perhaps the first thing you need to know is that higher education administrators are typically the target of faculty angst and mistrust. That’s why faculty who decide to become academic administrators are often accused of going over to the “dark side” by their former colleagues. While no one maintains statistics, the number of “no confidence” votes for university presidents is said to be on the rise. This is becoming an increasingly popular way for faculty to express their distaste for their institution’s top administrators. It rarely results in the removal of a president, but it does ratchet up the tension between the faculty and administration. Whether you are a president, dean, or chair, in higher education an adversarial relationship between the faculty and administration is an accepted state of being. Perhaps because colleges and universities tend to be more liberal, democratic, and supportive of individual freedom, it’s reasonable to expect that leaders are perceived as practitioners of command-and-control management, less trustworthy, and having weak values and integrity.

Doom by Association

Effective higher education leaders are able to rise above the mistrust and bring labor peace to their institutions. Library directors are generally on better terms with the faculty than the president or provost, but just try making a decision unpopular with faculty—such as eliminating parts of the collection or just moving them off campus without their approval—and you may find yourself subject to the wrath of the faculty. Even if the library leader maintains a “do no harm” relationship with faculty, administrative association alone may target him or her for faculty or labor union anger. Be prepared to have almost any problem at your institution blamed on the administration, and yes, that includes library administrators, too. Pay attention to those Deans and Chairs who know how to weather the storm and even use it to their advantage. There are leadership lessons to be learned there.

Going Corporate

Many individuals who work at colleges and universities are there because they have a disdain for the world of business. Higher education is regarded as a not-for-profit refuge from corporate America. Those who pursue formal leadership positions at a college or university may fear how their colleagues will react to the decision. Though it may lead to accusations of going corporate or selling out, higher education leaders are, in fact, significantly different from their corporate counterparts. In fact, according to the report Leadership Traits and Success  in Higher Education by the firm Witt Kieffer, while there are a few similarities, in many ways higher education and corporate leaders are worlds apart. On the issue of “money, profits, and business opportunities,” higher education leaders had lower aptitudes than corporate leaders. Corporate leaders scored high for “hedonism and pleasure” and low for “helping others; contributing to society.” Higher education leaders were just the opposite. Both, expectedly, scored high on “initiative and a desire for leadership roles.” As you make your move into leadership, if anyone accuses you of going corporate, just point to the Witt Kieffer study as evidence that, in many ways, higher education and corporate leaders are as different as night and day. As a higher education administrator, in both thought and action, you’ll excel by staying true to those noble reasons that inspired your transition to an administrative position.

Generally a Good Thing

Another sign that higher education leaders enjoy their work and find it rewarding is a less rigorous but interesting study from two column authors at Insider Higher Education. In their StratEDgy column, the authors Dayna Catropa and Margaret Andrews polled an audience of higher education employees, and found that the administrators who responded were generally happy with their work. Encouraging others to seek careers in higher education administration, the respondents indicated that their work is rewarding because it is a way to make a difference for many students. They noted that it helps to be at an institution that makes a good personal fit. Having a high comfort level with institutional politics is an asset for success as well. Of particular interest was the recommendation for higher education leaders to keep learning. One respondent said, “Learn as much as you can and plan on continuing to learn throughout your career. Prepare for opportunities.” This statement certainly reflects my experience that higher education administration is a process of ongoing learning as a leader. What makes it challenging are those occasional changes in institutional direction or strategy that require library administrators to adapt to new situations and demands on their leadership skills.

All Librarians ≠ Administrator

For those non-librarians who found their way to this column, I suspect you may be thinking that all academic librarians are administrators anyway, so why am I describing a transition to administration as a career advancement strategy for my colleagues? That’s not surprising, given that surveys or statistical reports on higher education personnel frequently categorize librarians as either administration or support. It’s not that we expect to be included with faculty, although those academic librarians who are appointed faculty status at their institutions would probably appreciate it. But academic librarians are frequently directly engaged in or support educational activities at their institutions. They advance the integration of the library into the teaching and learning process at their institutions. A smaller segment of the staff at your academic library is responsible for the types of administrative work typically associated with Chairs and Deans: strategic planning; budgeting; personnel matters; high-level purchasing decisions; etc. So not all librarians are administrators. Becoming a library administrator happens by choice.

Feeling Like Aquaman

Is it a choice you are willing to make? One aspect of becoming a higher education administrator that may seem intimidating is becoming a part of the institutional administrative team. For library directors, that usually means the Dean’s Council. As a member of this group, you may occasionally feel like you are the Aquaman of the Justice League—not so useful, consulted, or included. Joining this group is actually a good way to advance your learning about higher education and leadership. Hopefully your administrative partners are inviting, inclusive, and open to your ideas. Where they are, library leaders often make a difference. As always, it can help to find a mentor who can help you to better grasp the power dynamics of the group, and how to best get things accomplished as an administrator at your institution.

You Can Do This

For some librarians, there is no choice. They must do it. It is in their blood. Others may need to first dip their toe in the waters of library leadership. If you are at that stage, I’d recommend that you read Andy Burkhardt’s post on how you can start exploring your leadership potential and talent from your current non-administrative position. Every academic library and higher education institution offers opportunities for grassroots leaders to emerge, and, from there, perhaps transition to a more formal leadership role. For the librarians who complain about the ineptitude or weakness of their administration and who point to it as a rationale for never becoming a higher education administrator, I say that it sounds to me like you may be the exact person in your organization who has a vision for how to lead an academic library to better things. What are you waiting for? Higher education administration needs you.

A rather absentminded but upstanding professor (Emil Jannings, The Last Laugh) seriously falls for a sultry nightclub performer (Marlene Dietrich), leading to a downfall that leaves him playing the clown in more ways than one. Josef von Sternberg’s classic early sound-era tragedy benefits from a restoration effort that improves on Kino’s 2001 two-disc DVD release but fails to include its alternate English-language version and extras (interview, screen test, commentary, etc.). A valuable core collection foreign-film title.

The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. 2 discs. color. 163 min. Criterion Collection. 1943. DVD ISBN 9781604657036. $29.95; 1-disc Blu-ray ISBN 9781604657029. $39.95.

An honorable British officer (Roger Live­sey) who served in the Boer War and in World War I and then as a retired general in charge of the home front campaign in World War II adheres to a code of fair play exemplified by his friendship with a German officer (Anton Walbrook) who ends up marrying his gal (Deborah Kerr). Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger’s lavish fictional biopic has been stunningly restored, and while the lauded picture should be embraced by classic-movie buffs, Powell’s The Red Shoes dances circles around it.

The Other Son. color. 105 min. In French, Hebrew, & English w/English subtitles. Cohen Media Group. 2011. DVD UPC 741952741091. $24.98; Blu-ray UPC 741952742098. $29.98.

Teenaged Israeli and Palestinian boys switched at birth, along with their parents and siblings, experience the gamut of emotions—denial, anger, acceptance—in dealing with such an affront to their identities. Complex enough without its political implications, director Lorraine Lévy’s film scrupulously examines personal, religious, and cultural conflicts with commendable conviction but little in the way of surprises. Predictable but still credible, Son offers a lesson on prejudice for open audiences.

That Obscure Object of Desire. color. 103 min. In French w/English subtitles. Lionsgate. 1977. Blu-ray UPC 012236123187. $29.99.

Tristana. color. 98 min. In Spanish w/English subtitles. Cohen Media Group. 1970. DVD UPC 741952740896. $19.98; Blu-ray UPC 741952741893. $24.98.

Spanish filmmaker Luis Buñuel (1900–83), a subversive surrealist best known for Belle de Jour (LJ 3/15/12), gives fresh meaning to the phrase “love is blind” in Desire. An older, well-to-do widower (Fernando Rey) becomes obsessed with his maid—an attractive woman whose alternately hot-and-cold demeanor is realized by having different actresses (Angela Molina and Carole Bouquet) portray her from scene to scene or even within the same scene. In this swan song, the mischievous director delves into sexual politics and the absurd nature of attraction. Tristana is the first pairing of Buñuel with his Belle star, Catherine Deneuve. Here, she is an orphan taken in by a womanizing aristocrat (Rey, again) who finally takes her as his lover. Seamlessly segueing into dream sequences that reveal Tristana’s feelings toward her guardian, the film follows the doomed course of a relationship built on manipulation. A 30-minute interview with Buñuel scholar Peter Evans sheds welcome light on the director’s work. For serious film buffs.

For 20 years after first being exposed to the works of German choreographer Pina Bausch (1940–2009), acclaimed filmmaker Wenders (Wings of Desire; Paris, Texas) wanted to bring her unique dances to the screen. However, existing film technology did not allow him to achieve his vision. With new advances in 3-D film technology, he had what he needed. He and Bausch were working to bring the project to fruition when she died suddenly in 2009. The project was canceled, but the dancers reminded Wenders that several of Bausch’s masterpieces had been specifically scheduled in the coming season so that they could be filmed. With that, the project began anew as a tribute to Bausch rather than a chronicle about her. The film focuses on four of Bausch’s best works: Le Sacre du Printemps, Café Müller, Kontakthof, and Vollmond; all are performed by the dancers of Bausch’s Tanztheater Wuppertal. The commentary addresses the unique forms of production and choreography; soloists perform original pieces in her honor, often outdoors in the town of Wuppertal. Extras include audio commentary by Wenders, The Making of “Pina” featurette, deleted scenes, the theatrical trailer, and an English subtitle translation. An accompanying 38-page booklet features interviews, credits, and additional information on the production. VERDICT This reviewer regrets not having seen the original 3-D version of the film, which was met with great critical acclaim for bringing the viewer into the dances. Still, this high-def version is stunning. The creativity, choreography, and dancer involvement are brilliant. Very highly recommended for dance or entertainment collections; a great purchase for any library.—Tom Budlong, Atlanta

 Duke. color. 87 min. Mark Jean, Vet Street Prod. for Hallmark Movie Channel, dist. by Gaiam Vivendi Entertainment, 800-869-3603; Amazon.com. 2013. DVD UPC 883476092188. $14.93. Closed-captioned. F/TV

Inspired by a true story, this heart-warming and gut-wrenching film recounts the experience of U.S. Marine sergeant Terry Pulaski (played with understated grace by TV veteran Steven Weber), who returns from a tour of Afghanistan disabled from shrapnel in his back and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The combination ruins his marriage, his relationship with his daughter, and his ability to hold down a job and cope with life in general. Duke is a stray border collie who wanders into the Pulaski family’s life and provides the comfort and companionship for Terry that he doesn’t find with humans. Feeling overwhelmed and alone, Terry and Duke take to the road and live as vagabonds for ten years. When Duke falls seriously ill, a penniless Terry leaves his canine friend at a vet’s office to be euthanized. In true Hallmark fashion, miracles happen and a heartbreaking event becomes a means for reconciliation, illumination, and renewed spirit. The fast pace of this story doesn’t leave much opportunity for either character or plot development, yet it by no means spoils this joyful viewing experience. According to the Nielsen Ratings, Duke received the second-highest rating for an HMC premier film. VERDICT A comment from Terry while he’s repairing a young girl’s bike sums up the movie: “everything is worth fixing.” That couldn’t be truer. Highly recommended.—Edell M. Schaefer, Brookfield P.L., WI

Copper: Season One. 3 discs. color. 440+ min. BBC America, dist. by BBC Home Entertainment, www.bbcdvd.com. 2012. DVD UPC 883929264285. $49.98; Blu-ray UPC 883929264278. $59.98. SDH subtitles. F

When Kevin Corcoran (Tom Weston-Jones) finishes his second tour of duty with the Union army, he returns home to find his young daughter dead and his wife missing. As a New York City metropolitan police detective, his attention is soon diverted by other violent crimes and punishments. Moving back and forth between the mean streets of Five Points and affluent Fifth Avenue in the waning days of the Civil War, Corcoran finds only deceit and lies. He may be the last honorable man in this debauched, lawless, and corrupt city. This gripping BBC America original production features an ensemble cast of actors relatively unknown to U.S. audiences, excellent writing, and outstanding set design and wardrobe. Unlike many other British period pieces that have come to our shores, there is nothing genteel about these characters, the stories, or the setting; a second season is already in production. VERDICT A brutal, raw, and compelling cop show set in New York City, with a historical twist. Viewers who enjoy adult police dramas will want to seek out this one.—Linda Frederiksen, Washington State Univ. Lib., Vancouver

The following titles are reviewed in the May 15 print issue. Visit Book Verdict for the full reviews.

FICTION

Brooklyn Brothers Beat the Best. color. 97+ min. Ryan O’Nan, Tide Rock Films Character Brigade & Taggart Prods., dist. by Oscilloscope Labs, www.oscilloscope.net. 2013. DVD UPC 896602002470. $29.99. F/COMEDY

Lillie. 4 discs. 672+ min. John Gorrie & others, ITV Studios, dist. by Acorn Media, 888-870-8047; www.acornonline.com. 2013. DVD ISBN 9781598288766. $49.99. Closed-captioned. F

ARTS & HUMANITIES

 Fela Kuti: Teacher Don’t Teach Me Nonsense; Berliner Jazztage ’78. color. 146 min. Dennis Marks, BBC TV, dist. by Kino Lorber, www.kinolorber.com. 2012. DVD UPC 738329099121. $24.95. MUSIC

 In Good Time: The Piano Jazz of Marian McPartland. color & b/w. 85 min. Huey, Films by Huey, dist. by AV Café, 877-228-2233; www.theavcafe.com. 2012. DVD ISBN 9780972929455. MUSIC

Orchestra of Exiles. color & b/w. 85+ min. Josh Aronson, Aronson Films, dist. by First Run Features, 800-229-8575; www.firstrunfeatures.com. 2013. DVD UPC 720229915359. $27.95. music

China Heavyweight. color. 89+ min. In Chinese & Sichuanese w/English subtitles. Yung Chang, Eyesteelfilm, dist. by Zeitgeist Films, www.zeitgeistfilms.com. 2013. DVD UPC 795975114936. $29.99. SPORTS

The Four Minute Mile: A Brilliant Moment in Sports History. 2 discs. color. 184 min. Jim Goddard, CB Seven Prods., dist. by BFS Entertainment, www.bfsent.com. 2012. DVD UPC 066805309724. $29.98. SPORTS/biopic

Knuckleball! color. 85+ min. Ricki Stern & Annie Sundberg, FilmBuff, Break Thru Films in assoc. with Major League Baseball Prods., dist. by MPI Media, www.mpimediagroup.com. 2013. DVD ISBN 9780788616310. $24.98. SPORTS

SOCIAL SCIENCES

 Time Team: Unearthing the Roman Invasion. 3 vols. 582+ min. Robert Marshall & others, dist. by Athena Learning, 888-870-8047; www.acornonline.com. 2012. DVD ISBN 9781598287707. $59.99. SDH subtitles. ANCIENT HIST

Feeding Your Baby. color. 25 min. Kara Korhonen, Bite Size Babies, www.bitesizebabies.com; Amazon.com. 2012. DVD UPC 884501774956. $24.95. PARENTING

 It Was Rape. color. 60 min. Jennifer Baumgardner, dist. by Soapbox Prods., 646-486-1414; www.soapboxinc.com/shop. 2013. $250. Public performance.

Lockers: A Teen Relationship Series. color. 52 min. with tchr’s. guide. Anthony Ladesich, Mile Deep Films & Monkjack Prods., dist. by Metropolitan Organization To Counter Sexual Assault (MOSCA), www.mosca.org. 2012. $189 + $7 s/h. Public performance. PSYCH/SOC SCI

The Dordogne: A Video Tour of the Perigord Region of Southwest France. color. 56+ min. John Woods, Woods Prods., dist. by Amazon.com. 2012. DVD UPC 726779209191. $14.95; Blu-ray UPC 884501786843. $19.95. Public performance. TRAV

Wonder Women! The Untold Story of American Superheroines. color. 54+ min. Kristy Guevara-Flanagan, Vaquera Films, dist. by New Day Films, www.newday.com. 2013. DVD ISBN 9781574881105. $95; acad. libs. $295 (Rental: $95) + $15 s/h. Public performance; closed-cationed. WOMEN’S STUDIES

SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Out on a Limb. color. 61+ min. Daria Price, Under the Sign Prods., www.outonalimbdocumentary.com. 2012. DVD UPC 614141999996. $125; acad. libs. $295. Public performance. MED