McKinzie addresses the issues of ethics and professional responsibility that we have discussed in class. He compares reference librarians to doctors and lawyers who have special professional skills that no one else can provide and deplores the practice of putting paraprofessionals at the reference desk. His argument is that such a practice is a violation of ALA's Code of Ethics because it does not provide the "highest level of service" to library users. Paraprofessionals are not unintelligent or unskilled, but their training is not that of a reference librarian, and they cannot provide the same level of service that a librarian can.

The reason that medical and legal paraprofessionals aren't expected to write prescriptions or stand up in court but library paraprofessionals sometimes serve at the reference desk is a difference in perception of the professions. For one thing, McKinzie assumes that librarianship is a full profession, with the same standing and responsibilities as medicine and law. His point is valid, but others may not see the situation the same way he does.

Librarians, with their innate sense of egalitarianism, their intrinsic parsimoniousness, and their mock modesty, may be reluctant to insist on professional standards and professional responsibilities. They may be unwilling to claim there are some things that librarians can do and no one else. That is understandable, but it is also tragic. It is a mistake for us to under-value the quality of professional library service, just as it is a dereliction of our responsibilities to underplay our users' needs. It comes down to this: If librarians aren't willing to champion the uniqueness of their calling and the professional dimensions of the profession, then who will?

Even librarians apparently don't see their skills as incredibly unique. Joe Janes keeps telling us that librarians aren't like normal people, but what is it that makes us different? Particularly, what is it that makes us with a ML(I)S different from library technicians?