“Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago:” Gender, Power, and Personality and the Demise of the University of Chicago Course in Library Science 1897–1903 Suzanne M. Stauffer School of Library and Information Science, Louisiana State University, Email: [email protected]

In 1897, the University of Chicago Extension Division began offering what we today would call “bibliographic instruction” under the aegis of the Bureau of Information of the Illinois State Library Association. The program was expanded under university librarian Zella Allen Dixson, and by 1900 was designed to train librarians and library assistants. The program was severely criticized by Melvil Dewey in 1902 and by the American Library Association’s Committee on Library Training in 1903. In several let- ters of rebuttal, Dixson accused him and Katharine Sharp of conspiring to close the program for their own personal and professional reasons. This study examines the in- teractions among the three principals, and of gender, ego, and power in the demise of the program, as well as the ALA’s attempts to construct librarianship as a masculine profession.

Introduction close the school to eliminate competition with the school in Urbana. n 1896, the University of Chicago Ex- This study will examine the history of Itension Division began offering library the program in light of the interactions use courses to the general public. Katha- among the three principals (Dixson, Sharp, rine L. Sharp (1898) reported favorably and Dewey) and the role of gender, ego, on the program, but cautioned that it “was and power in the demise of the program. not recommended for the purpose of fit- It will increase our knowledge of the lives ting people for library positions in a short and careers of women in librarianship, time, but rather for the purpose of arousing particularly in the late nineteenth and early public sentiment to an appreciation of the twentieth centuries, during the formative modern library” (p. 76). years of the profession, and the role that The program was expanded under uni- they played in the professionalization of versity associate librarian, Zella Allen librarianship within the cultural context in Dixson, and by 1900 was “designed to which they lived and worked. train librarians and library assistants in the best methods of modern library economy” Literature Review (University College, 1901). The American Library Association’s (ALA) Commit- Studies of the history of education for tee on Library Training in 1903 strongly librarianship tend to gloss over the early criticized the program, resulting in its period through 1919, focusing on a few closure that same year. In several letters significant figures and institutions—Dew- to University of Chicago president, Wil- ey and his schools (Dawe, 1932; Miksa, liam Rainey Harper, Dixson accused both 1986; Vann, 1978; Wiegand, 1996), Kath- Sharp and Melvil Dewey of conspiring to arine Sharp and her schools (Grotzinger, J. of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 56, No. 2—(Spring) April 2015 ISSN: 0748-5786 © 2015 Association for Library and Information Science Education 101 doi:10.12783/issn.2328-2967/56/2/5 102 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 1966; Grotzinger, 1992), and Mary Wright Duluth (Dewey, 1889, p. 375; “Twenty- Plummer and the Pratt Institute (Brand, five years,” 1910). She joined ALA in 1996; Maack, 2000)—and then moving 1886 and was a charter member of the quickly through the various ALA com- ILA (Moore, 1897) and the Chicago Li- mittees on education to the Association of brary Club (“Twenty-five years,” 1910). American Library Schools and the begin- She was also a member of the Chicago nings of graduate education (Churchwell, woman’s club, the college alumni of Mt. 1975; Davis, 1976; Downs, 1968; Wilson, Holyoke, and president of the Mt. Holy- 1949). Others are primarily descriptive oke association of the northwest (Johnson, and evaluative of the state of education at 1904). the time of their writing (Wheeler, 1946; She was offered the position of librarian White, 1976; Williamson, 1971). Richard- at Denison University in 1888 as a result son’s (1982) history of the Graduate Li- of her earlier work (“Mrs. J. E. Dixson,” brary School at the University of Chicago 1888). She remained in that position until begins with the Chicago Library Club’s 1890, when she moved to Baptist Union involvement in 1919 and makes no men- Theological Seminary. tion of any library training at the Universi- She and Dewey maintained a cordial ty prior to the establishment of the Gradu- relationship during this period. In a letter ate Library School. dated July 30, 1890, he expressed his “trust The only references to the University & appreciation for the admirable mission- Extension program are in Grotzinger’s bi- ary work you have been doing,” and stated ography of Katharine Sharp, where it cov- that “no one of all the hundred or so people ers only the period of Sharp’s involvement who have worked with me has shown so (Grotzinger, 1992, 220-4) and in Vann’s much of this missionary spirit which you work (1960), where it is included as one of know I put first in my qualifications of the ten evaluated by the ALA’s Committee on ideal librarian.” He would reiterate in a Library Training in 1903. letter dated November 6, 1890, “I am very proud of the excellent work you are doing” History of the University of (Dixson Papers). Chicago Course in Library Science In 1891, she made the first of three trips to European libraries to study their methods Zella Allen Dixson of handling rare books. Dewey furnished her with a “circular letter of introduction” Zella Allen was born in Zanesville, dated February 9, 1891 in which he rec- Ohio on August 10, 1858 (Who was who ommends her as “an earnest, enthusiastic in America, 1962). She graduated from and successful apostle” (Dixson Papers). Mount Holyoke in 1880 and married Jo- When the Baptist Union Theological seph Ehrman Dixson the next year. When Seminary became the Divinity School of he died in 1885, she accepted a position the University of Chicago in 1892, Dixson at Columbia College library as assistant to was appointed Assistant Librarian of the Melvil Dewey and “special student” in li- newly-established university. That same brary science, most likely one of Dewey’s year, she earned an M.A. from Shephard- “pupil assistants” (Wiegand, 1996, p. 91; son College for Women, which had been “Twenty-five years,” 1910). In 1886, she incorporated into Denison University in became a traveling “library expert,” and 1900. She was promoted to Associate Li- organized some twenty different libraries brarian in 1895, and in 1902, she earned an in the Midwest, among them the Denison A.M. from Denison. None of the sources University, Kenyon College and Baptist provide any information about the fields in Union Theological libraries, as well as the which her degrees were earned. public libraries of Elyria, La Crosse and She was appointed a member of the “Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago” 103 Woman’s Advisory Council on a Con- The course at the University of Chicago gress of Librarians, sponsored by the ALA library began in January 1897, and was in conjunction with the 1893 Chicago Co- “designed to make students and readers lumbian Exposition, was invited to the more familiar with modern library meth- World’s Congresses on the Dept. of Lit- ods and enable them to acquire greater erature, and was a member of the Advi- facility in research work.” It included the sory Council of the Woman’s Branch of history of library economy to 1870, book- the Worlds’ Congress Auxiliary and of the binding, “how to obtain the greatest good Committee on Literature Sub-Congress on from the library,” and historical sketches Libraries (“Zella A. Dixon,” 1893). of great libraries of the world (University On April 23, 1894, Katharine Sharp Extension Division, 1896). requested Dixson’s permission for her The course for the 1897/98 year had al- Armour Institute class to visit the Univer- ready moved away from making “students sity of Chicago library in order “to see all and researchers more familiar with mod- the working methods.” She wrote again ern library methods” and toward teaching on May 26, 1894 and asked Dixson to the “technical details of library work.” speak “about your library studies in Eu- Three courses were offered: “The Mod- rope, especially at the British Museum.” ern Library Movement,” two quarters in She would ask to take Armour Institute length; “Cataloging and Classification,” students there again on April 1, 1895 and three quarters; and “Bibliography and April 30, 1897 (Sharp Papers). Reference Work,” three quarters (Fogg, Having published her work Library Sci- 1897). ence in 1894 and a Cataloger’s Manual of Authors’ Names in 1895 (Johnson, 1904), Course in Library Science Dixson completed her Comprehensive Subject Index to Universal Prose Fiction By 1898, contrary to Sharp’s original (Dixson, 1897) in 1896 and wrote to her vision and mandate, the program was de- “dear friend” Sharp on 2 October for the scribed as “designed to train library as- names of Armour graduates to create a sistants” and consisted of three courses: mailing list and thanked her for her “own “Historical and Literary Outlines of Li- personal order” (Sharp Papers). brary Economy,” “Technical Methods,” and “Bibliography and Reference Work” Course in Library Economy (Dixson Papers). A fourth course was add- ed in 1901, “Principles of Library Admin- In the 1896/97 school year, a course istration,” and a “course certificate, signed in Library Economy was offered through by the proper University officers” was the University of Chicago University Ex- awarded on completion. It was designed tension service under Sharp as director of “to train librarians and library assistants the Bureau of Information of the newly- in the best methods of modern library founded ILA (Grotzinger, 1966, p. 220-4). economy,” and students were required to The purpose was “to furnish information matriculate (University College, 1901). in regard to the work of a comparatively Although no entrance examination was new profession—information which may given, students were interviewed before help people in their studies or which may acceptance and were required to have two incline them to help their local library” years of college or the equivalent. Courses (Moore,1897, p. 29). It was designed for met once a week for two hours during two members of women’s clubs, teachers, and quarters “constituting the same amount of high school students, and was expressly work as a Major of the University.” It was not intended to teach the technical details designed to be completed in two years and of library work (Moore, 1897, p. 28). included practical work in the university 104 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE library. Zella Allen Dixson was listed as ready in positions to hold them, by taking the instructor of record (University Col- the training needed.” lege, 1901). She also repudiated the charge of mis- representing herself as a graduate of the Dewey’s Criticisms Albany school, “I think too highly of my reputation to do that . . . The truth is Dewey wrote to University of Chica- Mr. Dewey has himself made the state- go president William Rainey Harper in ment that I was from his school but I was 1900, accusing Dixson of incompetence not.” She enclosed a handwritten copy of as both a librarian and library school di- the relevant section of Dewey’s 1889 ad- rector and of misrepresenting herself as a dress to the 12th Annual Meeting of the graduate of the New York State Library Library Association in England, where he School. Although the letter was not pre- referred to her as “one of our pupils who served, the gist can be gathered from her was doing good work,” and claimed that lengthy written rebuttal of October 30, she asked for his permission and a leave of 1900 (Harper, 1900–1903). In this docu- absence to organize the Midwestern librar- ment, she called the letter “too contempt- ies (Dewey, 1889, p. 375). He represented ible to receive the least notice,” “a tissue himself as her mentor and inspiration, and of falsehoods,” and “carping criticism held her up as an example of “One little from the administrative officers of rival woman with her heart full of the spirit we library schools.” In the program’s de- most prize in our pupils . . . “ (Dewey, 1889, fense, she stated, “We have been training p. 375). She explained that she left the Co- librarians for the last five years yet today lumbia library because “finding myself every student who has taken our course somewhat at variance with the methods & has held a responsible position except motives taught I took the first opportunity only those young ladies who have given to work elsewhere” (Harper, 1900–1903) up the profession to enter married life,” She concluded, “I have long held the and claimed that Dewey’s real motive was opinion that Mr. Dewey is crazy, a state- to reduce the competition with his school ment often heard in library circles and the and his graduates, as “Our students are most Christian explanation I can cherish everywhere taking the places & doing the of his actions for more than a decade” work that he seeks for his students . . . It is (Harper, 1900–1903). because our courses are a decided success Representatives of each of the “classes that he tries to kill them.” of persons whose testimony on this subject She leveled her own criticism at Dewey is of value”—students, graduates, and em- and his school, saying that “The trouble is ployers—wrote to Harper in 1901 in sup- with his method of instruction” and that port of the program, including the librar- he was not preparing “the kind of trained ian of the Field Museum of Chicago and librarians that trustees want.” She quoted the director of the Aurora Public Library. “an old librarian” who had recently told Naturally they were uniformly positive her that “Mr. Dewey is in a passion be- about the program and Dixson’s qualifi- cause so many of the big universities are cations as a teacher. Katherine Ensign, a introducing into their degree courses in- student from Duluth, noted that Dixson struction in Library Science.” had been sent “with high recommendation She claimed that their outreach to work- from Mr. Dewey and others” to organize ing librarians through the University Ex- the public library in Duluth, and as a con- tension’s correspondence courses and sequence, her father had sent her “with their acceptance of part-time students had rejoicing and a confidence which was not “especially excited his anger because we misplaced . . . to receive my training in her have made it possible for librarians al- classroom.” (Harper, 1900–1903). “Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago” 105 Josephine Robertson, a cataloger in pains . . . to investigate the different sys- the library and instructor in the program, tems . . . It was my opinion formed then also wrote a strong letter of support, say- . . . that the general principles of library ing that “this particular charge in regard to science for which Mrs. Dixson stands incompetence is only part of a longstand- adapt themselves most perfectly to the ing effort . . . to unsettle Mrs. Dixson in management of a university library.” She her position.” (Harper, 1900–1903). She could find no other explanation for “Mr. explained that while she was visiting the Dewey’s attitude except for the fact that Albany school in 1893, she was told that Mrs. Dixson does not yield allegiance to “Mrs. Dixson’s position in the University him & the school which he represents” was only temporary & [sic] from later de- (Harper, 1900–1903). velopments it would seem that they had In late 1901 or early 1902, Dixson re- done what was in their power to make it sponded to Harper’s request for what she such.” She asserted that all of the criticism thought would be “necessary to add to our of Dixson which she had heard in the in- present arrangements to have a thoroughly tervening years had been “traced directly good library school.” In her detailed writ- or indirectly through many channels back ten response, she claimed that they were to Mr. Dewey.” “ahead of any other Library School” in She gave her opinion that “library terms of enrollment and placement, and schools like the one at Champaign & the that none of their students had ever been summer school at Madison are branches of fired for incompetence, “which is more the Albany school.” She agreed with Dix- than the School at Albany can say” (Harp- son’s earlier claims that the University of er, 1900–1903). Chicago school had “drawn students from She gave it as her considered opinion the neighboring library schools” and “in- that their faculty was adequate, consisting creased the spirit of opposition which one of herself, Robertson and alumna Mary E. cannot fail to notice even in escorting the Downey. According to her, this use of li- visiting library classes through our library brary staff was typical of “all of the other year after year.” Schools.” She also stated that the quality She called Dixson’s “Historical and and hourly requirement were equivalent Literary Outlines of Library Economy” to other schools, “with the possible excep- course, “unique” and not “to be equalled tion of the School at Florence, Italy which [sic] in any library school in the country,” gives a course equal to a foreign doctor- and described the syllabus as “the result of ate.” careful study along the lines of a special- Her only criticism of the school was ist.” that it fell short in laboratory facilities; She classed Dewey among those li- she explained that the students were using brarians who had “worked out an elabo- their own personal collections for home- rate scheme with almost endless details work and therefore had “lost the greater . . . often more of a hindrance than help variety of material that a proper laboratory to those seeking information . . . not often could not fail to furnish.” If room were practicable,” while in Dixson’s system, provided in the new library building which “the scholarly is made practical & sys- was soon to open, “I feel sure we can have tem is used simply as a means to an end.” the best Library School in the country.” She also considered Dewey’s system too She proposed that students would “prac- labor-intensive and so too expensive for tice their lessons by doing the work for the most libraries to implement. University . . . from the loan desk to the Before she accepted the staff position at cataloging department.” She also request- the library, “knowing of Mr. Dewey’s at- ed that she be given the title of “Profes- titude toward Mrs. Dixson, I took no little sor of Library Science & Director of the 106 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE Library School,” as it would “give dignity printed with all reference to the University to the course.” Finally, she suggested that of Chicago omitted. the courses should count toward a Univer- Dixson sent a second letter to Harper on sity degree. These final two requests were October 7, 1902. She reminded him that never granted (Harper, 1900–1903). “the last matter of this kind was a letter Later that year, Harper received a letter from Dr. Dewey written under the inspira- from the “College and University Section tion and representation—or misrepresen- [sic] of the American Library Associa- tation of Miss Sharp” in order to “prevent tion” (Harper, 1900–1903) [The copy of the close competition our library classes the document retained in the files is typed are making the . . . [University of ] Illinois on plain paper, with no date and no signa- school,” which had opened under Katha- ture. The rebuttal, also undated, is attached rine Sharp’s direction in September 1897. to it. Internal evidence in the letter and in “The same hand is in this matter . . . she Dixson’s rebuttal places them in 1902. In now stirs up a small body of a dozen per- 1902, the section name was College and sons with a big name . . . to have our work Reference Library Section. The reason for stopped” (Harper, 1900–1903). the error is unknown.] The writer of the While she used this letter to argue for document charged that “the course in li- the “success of the work,” she stated, “Per- brary training offered by the University sonally, I do not care how you finally de- of Chicago is not of as high a grade as cide the matter. I took up the work in obe- is legitimate to expect of such an institu- dience to your orders and shall be ready to tion.” In particular, it was not inspired by lay it down in the same way.” She contin- the proper library spirit to “do all the good ued “I very much prefer to use my private they can, to all the people they can in all time for my own private work,” and could the ways they can.” “employ the energy and ability I am put- Specific charges leveled in the docu- ting in these classes in ways that will bring ment were that there was no entrance re- better results to me financially” (Harper, quirement for the course; that only 200 1900–1903), referring no doubt to the “in- hours of study were required for com- teresting craft-print shop” she had recently pletion; that the school employed only opened in her home (“Twenty-five years,” one instructor who was “regarded by the 1910, p. 211). profession as not possessing the quali- She reminded Harper that there were fications essential in such work, and one fifty-six students enrolled in the program, whose own library in use, administration that library students were doing the work and influence is considered by librarians of “a half dozen assistants” in their ap- in general as lamentably weak”; that the prenticeships, and it would require “a bet- course is “wholly theoretical” without any ter excuse than the unreasonable envy of opportunity for application; and that stu- Mr. Dewey the president and founder of dents “receive assurance of positions . . . the College section of the A.L.A. and Miss [which] is not made good.” Sharp, who hates everything connected In a letter of rebuttal (undated), Dixson with the University of Chicago” to hire (Harper, 1900-1903) declared that “each that many additional library assistants as and every statement . . . is untrue . . . [there- well as return $1120 in tuition (Harper, fore] the conclusions drawn from them are 1900–1903). equally false and misleading.” She further In conclusion, she reiterated, “feel per- made the accusation that articles sent to Li- fectly free to decide it any way you please” brary Journal and Public Libraries about and furthermore, “If I thought that my res- the Course had been suppressed and that ignation would help you to be rid of this information about positions which gradu- petty dictation, you should have it today.” ates had secured was either suppressed or However, “nothing will satisfy them but to “Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago” 107 have Mr. Dewey and his friends in charge Mary Wright Plummer later attributed to of library administration.” the impact of the report (Vann, 1961, p. In a letter of support, Mary E. Downey 115), was made by October of that year wrote that, after considering all options, and resulted in a flood of letters of protest she “chose the University of Chicago to the dean of the University College, only course because it was more practical than one of which was forwarded to Harper those of Albany, Champaign, Pratt or by his secretary “just for courtesy’s sake Drexel” (Harper, 1900–1903). because it is somewhat representative” (Harper, 1900–1903). In this letter, Mary ALA Committee on Library Training E. Downey wrote a strongly emotional Report appeal as “President of the University of Chicago Library Students Club,” calling Shortly thereafter, in July 1903, the the closure “a great wrong—a most dis- ALA Committee on Library Training re- honorable injustice” and “a dishonor to the leased its report. The Committee consisted University of Chicago.” She referred to of the heads of six of the library science the “humiliation suffered by the students, programs under evaluation—Mary Wright especially in this last year, from schools of Plummer, Pratt; Salome Cutler Fairchild, Library Science elsewhere,” and said that New York State Library School; Katha- the University owed it to the students and rine L. Sharp, Illinois; Alice B. Kroeger, graduates “to have a Department or School Drexel, and Mary E. Robbins, Simmons. of Library Science second to none.” She Except for Fairchild, all were graduates of asked, “How can any University of Chi- the New York State Library School (Vann, cago library student ever be able to answer 1961, p. 107). In the preamble to the re- the thrusts given if the work is dropped?” port, even the committee acknowledged She closed by appealing again to the Uni- that “it might have been composed of per- versity to “be more loyal” to the students, sons less likely to be thought prejudiced” as they had been to it. Her pleas fell on (Plummer et al., 1903, p. 83). Information deaf ears. [Mary E. Downey was later one was gathered by means of a question- of the women whose charges of sexual ha- naire only. The report on the University rassment led to Dewey’s expulsion from of Chicago program was a mixture of fact ALA and NYLA in 1906 (Wiegand, 1996, and misinformation. It incorrectly named p. 301)] Robertson as the director and only instruc- tor, but correctly noted that two years of Dixson’s Final Years college were required for admission, that a certificate was awarded for completion, Dixson remained at the University of and that two years of apprentice work in Chicago as Associate Librarian until her the University library were required. The retirement in 1910 (“Twenty-five years,” committee, however, stated their opinion 1910), just prior to the library moving into that the standard for admission should be its new building. Although she served as three years of college or an entrance ex- administrative head of the library, Harper amination. It also reprimanded both the never promoted her to University Librar- Chicago and Columbia programs for al- ian. Her expressed reasons for retiring at lowing students to complete only part of the comparatively young age of 52 were the program because of possible misrepre- that she had “moved the library five times sentation or misunderstanding by students and feels that in its sixth and final remove or employers that they were fully qualified someone else should have the burden,” graduates (Plummer et al., 1903; see also and to “enable her to devote all her time Vann, 1961, p. 108–111). and energy to her literary work” and craft- The decision to close the school, which printing through her Wisteria Cottage 108 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE Press (“Twenty-five years,” 1910, p. 211). for Dewey’s “huge ego,” evangelical zeal A book-plate collector, she had printed for his cause, “obsessive need to control,” and published her Children’s book-plates insistence on “conformity to the order and in 1902 and Concerning book-plates: a rules he defined,” demand for unquestion- handbook for collectors in 1903 (Who was ing loyalty, and vindictive nature, as well who, 1961). She was awarded an honor- as his paternalistic attitude toward women ary Doctorate of Humane Letters by Shur- (Wiegand, 1996, p. 376). He is depicted as tleff College (now part of Southern Illinois an unconventional, if charismatic, teacher, University) in 1906 and died January 12, whose eccentricities led at least one stu- 1924 in Chicago. dent to withdraw from his school because he could not endure such “rubbish” (Wie- Analysis gand, 1996, p. 205-6). The University of Chicago school was The immediate reaction to the history of likely one of the inspirations for Dewey’s the University of Chicago Course is con- 1903 criticisms against library training fusion. The reader is left to wonder what programs being offered in libraries, as happened to change “trust & pride” into summer schools, and through correspon- accusations of incompetence and misrep- dence courses. He characterized their in- resentation and “my dear friend” to some- structors as “dabblers and charlatans,” and one who “hates everything to do with the warned against the dangers of “the zeal of University of Chicago.” The answers are the unequipt [sic] or incompetent” (Vann, to be found in the intersections among gen- 1961, p. 103). der, power and ego, as expressed through He also had a personal relationship with the personalities involved and their inter- Harper which began in 1891, when Dewey actions with each other. invited Harper to speak in Albany (Dewey, 1891). The relationship was strengthened Gender, Power, Ego in 1892 when Harper attempted to hire him as head of the University of Chicago In turn-of-the-century America, gender library and the extension division, as well and power were synonymous and interact- as “dean of the library school” (Wiegand, ed with socioeconomic status. This power 1996, p. 144). Such a relationship en- expressed itself through the “ability to im- sured that Dewey’s opinions would carry pose a definition of the situation, to set the far more weight than Dixson’s. Whether terms in which events are understood and Dewey recommended Dixson for the posi- issues discussed, to formulate ideals and tion in his stead is not known, but given define morality, in short to assert hegemo- that as late as November 1890, he was ny” (Connell, 1987, p. 107). And this was writing letters in praise of her work, it is a power Melvil Dewey was never hesitant entirely possible. to employ. In addition, Harper was well known Although Dewey’s power and influ- for his indifference to, not to say disdain ence were declining due to his manipula- for, the university library and the author- tions in securing the ALA presidency for ity of its librarian, which included per- Herbert Putnam in 1897 (Wiegand, 1996, mitting faculty to take books from the li- p. 224-30), he would remain a force in brary without checking them out (Shera, American librarianship for several more 1972, p. 229). He officially reprimanded years. As suggested by Wiegand’s bi- Dixson for demanding that a university ography of Dewey (1996) and history of faculty member return such books to the ALA (1896), Dixson’s and Robertson’s library, writing that her tone did not con- assessment of his actions was not far off vey the proper respect and deference due the mark. Both studies provide evidence to a faculty member (Dixson Papers). He “Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago” 109 appointed Ernest DeWitt Burton, a noted There is also indirect evidence that New Testament Scholar at the University Sharp could very well have wanted to as her successor and University Librarian, eliminate any rival schools in the state. In rather than a graduate of a library school. late 1902, she proposed moving library ex- The role of sex and sexuality in the tension from the oversight of the ILA to the relationships among Dewey, Sharp, and School of Library Science as part of a cen- Dixson cannot be ignored. “There is an ter that would be empowered to establish emotional dimension, and perhaps an erot- new libraries, reorganize existing ones, ic dimension, to all social relationships” develop study clubs, and manage travel- (Connell, 1987, p. 111), and this dimen- ing, home and house libraries. It would be sion may be hostile as well as affection- modeled on a similar center which Dewey ate. The relationship between Dewey and had established in New York. Sharp appears to have taken the form of a In a letter dated December 17, 1902, paternal/filial relationship. His son, God- Dewey advised her on how best to ap- frey, commented that “she had an under- proach Carnegie and ended “You better let standing loyalty to my father’s ideas and me see the letter of application . . . when ideals, which made her a particularly val- you have got it ready” (Sharp Papers). In ued member of the official family” begin- his letter to Carnegie, dated January 14, ning with her student days in Albany in 1903, he enumerated all of the advantages 1890 (Grotzinger, 1966, p. 269). Dewey of the University and stated that “they have famously recommended her for the posi- offered the best course of instruction in li- tion at Armour Institute with the phrase, brarianship” in the state (Sharp Papers). “The best man in America is a woman” University of Illinois President W. S. (Grotzinger, 1966, p. 60) and to the Uni- Draper signed the January 19, 1903 let- versity of Illinois as “the best woman li- ter sent to Carnegie, but the text suggests brarian in America” (Grotzinger, 1966, p. that it was written by Sharp or under her 81). He wrote her more than once about direction (Sharp Papers). The letter notes the need to avoid overworking herself and that “The School . . . has tried university she spent time vacationing at his resort extension lectures on the use of libraries to in Lake Placid on numerous occasions prove need of traveling instructor” (Sharp (Grotzinger, 1966, p. 259–62, 265, 270– Papers, 1903). The impression given was 71). She retired there in 1907 and died that it was a project of the Illinois school, as the result of an automobile accident in rather than of the ILA, and there is no June 1914 (Grotzinger, 1966, p. 272–77). mention of the University of Chicago. The relationship between Dewey and The letter also claims that the Univer- Dixson followed a different trajectory. sity of Illinois is “the only school which While his initial attitude toward her was offers library instruction in general under- affectionate and paternal, it soon turned graduate courses, preparing the general hostile and aggressive. He doubtless student . . . in addition to preparing library viewed her rejection of his methods of students,” which was technically correct, teaching and librarianship as a personal re- if misleading (Sharp Papers, 1903). The jection, as well as professional disloyalty, University of Chicago Course was still and utilized all of his power and influence open and admitting general students as to punish her rebellion. There is no evi- well as library students in January, 1903. dence that Dixson made any effort to re- However, although it admitted general pair the rift between them or even that she students to the courses, it did not allow desired to do so. She also appears to have students to apply the credits to their de- been unaware of or blind to the relation- gree and, as a correspondence program it ship between Dewey and Harper and its was not considered a general undergradu- implications for her career and her school. ate course. 110 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE Carnegie’s secretary, James Bertram, culture, and guardians of social morality replied on April 17, 1903 with an unquali- (Stauffer 2005a, p. 347; 2011, p. 135). fied negative: “The field which Mr. Carn- According to an 1894 survey, seven egie has adopted . . . is proving more than years after Dewey opened his School at sufficient to take up all the time he can Columbia, the majority of the profession give. . . therefore, your papers can not re- still believed that librarianship was best ceive attention” (Sharp Papers). learned on the job, with 77 of the library directors preferring to train their own em- Social Construction of Profession and ployees (Wiegand, 1986; Vann, 1961). Professional Education ALA leaders themselves were split on the issue. The question of whether ALA even This, however, does not explain the needed a library school committee was motivation for the actions of all of the still being debated in 1899 (Vann, 1961, members of the Committee on Library p. 113). The first section on “Professional Training. When viewed from a greater Training for Librarianship” was not estab- perspective, it is clear that the Course was lished by ALA until 1909 (Vann, 1961, p. part of the greater struggle over the appro- 1986, 121) priate preparation for librarianship, which The Committee on Library School and was part of the conflict surrounding the Training Classes refused to “distinguish construction of the profession itself. between a library school program and a Scholars recognize that the traditional training class” and William I. Fletcher, di- construction of “profession” is a reflec- rector of the Amherst Summer School, de- tion of Western cultural masculine ideals clared that librarianship was not a “learned which confirm masculine identity while profession” (Vann, 1961, p. 80). Putnam repressing, denigrating or denying cul- urged in 1898 that educational or certifica- turally-signed female qualities. Central to tion requirements be instituted, while Wil- this construction is expertise derived from liam H. Brett proposed that librarianship formal training based on science and the follow the example of the legal profes- control of knowledge and its application sion by creating an examining board that (Lo, 2005; Witz, 1990). The conflict over would certify librarians, regardless of the education for librarianship and entrance source of their training (Vann, 1961). Al- into the profession can be seen as a strug- though holding that all forms of training gle to establish the profession as “mascu- were valid, John Cotton Dana encouraged line” even while the majority of its practi- librarians to achieve equal status with “the tioners were female. learned professions” through establishing As Shera (1972) established, early educational and training programs (Dana, training for librarianship was driven by 1900). Mary Wright Plummer, a strong the sudden and immediate need for staff advocate for university library schools, for the newly-constructed public libraries accepted apprenticeships as equally valid built in the aftermath of the Civil War, fu- preparation, at least for certain positions. eled in part, but by no means exclusively, She argued against training for “the born by Andrew Carnegie’s largesse. As such, librarian,” reserving that for those who it consisted primarily of apprenticeship did not possess such native ability (Vann, programs and on-the-job training (Shera, 1961, p. 128). The Committee on Stan- 1972; Vann, 1961). It appealed to white, dards for Library Training agreed that for- middle-class women who were entering mal training in a library school was prefer- the public sphere for the first time through able and also that experience and training the rubric of “municipal housekeeping,” on the job were perfectly adequate (Vann, an extension of their role as caretakers 1961). of their homes and families, arbiters of Formal training was seen as a way to “Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago” 111 reconstruct the profession as masculine. awarded, and bibliography was a key com- In 1902, Arthur E. Bostwick reiterated ponent of the curriculum (Vann, 1961 ). that “library schools are trying to do for librarianship what the law school does for Conclusion the legal profession, West Point for the army, the normal school for the teacher, Whether Dewey was, indeed, crazy, or the theological school for the ministry” and whether Sharp hated everything to do (Vann, 1961, p. 137). Aksel G. S. Joseph- with Chicago and manipulated the Com- son called for a “school of bibliography mittee on Library Training are conclu- and library science, affiliated with one of sions which are beyond the scope of this the great universities” (Vann, 1961, p. 81), paper. While it is possible to conclude in order to improve the image and status that the Course closed because it was sub- of librarianship and attract more men to standard, such an explanation ignores the the profession while Fletcher and Ruben complex factors which contributed to its Gold Thwaites argued that library school demise, not the least of which was gen- training was beneath the dignity of “the der and its intersection with personality, men [known] foremost as bibliographers power and profession. Sharp allied herself and scholarly librarians” (Vann, 1961, p. with a powerful, influential man in the li- 87). H.L. Elmendorf proposed that a one- brary community, while Dixson not only year program in library administration and failed to secure a powerful male ally, she policy be designed for men, who had no made a personal and professional enemy interest in or need for training in library of Sharp’s mentor. He utilized all of his methods (Vann, 1961). As late as 1912, influence in support of the one and to the Chalmers Hadley recommended that the detriment of the other. In addition, Sharp curriculum provide instruction in admin- had the confidence, respect and support of istration and policy in order to attract the president of her university, while the more men to the field and criticized ex- actions of Chicago’s president suggest isting programs as appealing “largely to that he viewed Dixson as a subordinate the house-wifely instincts” (Vann, 1961, charged with minor administrative duties. p.149). Dewey’s influence in both relationships The leaders of the ALA envisioned li- cannot be discounted. Harper’s motives brarianship as a traditional Western mas- in closing the program are unknown, but, culine profession. Entrance would be given his disdain for librarianship in gen- dependent upon formal training in the eral, he may have agreed with Dewey that academic discipline of “library science” the program detracted from the scholarly and accreditation or certification awarded reputation of the University. by the professional organization. Profes- Sharp assimilated the masculine con- sional roles would be those which were struction of profession that was current at historically and culturally constructed the time and designed her school accord- as appropriate for each gender; leaders ing to its dictates, while Dixson employed and administrators would be men, while a different model, one which privileged women performed the routine, “house- the “house-wifely” duties of librarians, wifely” tasks and provided the emotional with its focus on practical, pragmatic so- and moral support on which the work of lutions to everyday problems. The Com- the administrators depended. mittee was concerned with improving the Unlike Dixson’s school, Katharine image and status of librarianship as a pro- Sharp’s followed this model of profession- fession and increasing the number of men al education: the faculty were all library in it by making it the equivalent of the school graduates, three years of college other “learned professions,” and evaluated were required for admission, a B.L.S. was the programs in that light. 112 JOURNAL OF EDUCATION FOR LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE The ALA’s goal of reconstructing the Dixson, Zella Allen. (1904). In R. Johnson (Ed.) profession and professional education as (1904). Twentieth century biographical diction- ary of notable Americans, 261. Boston: The masculine predicts Harris’ finding that Biographical Society. Downs, R.B. (1968). Edu- “the gender gap in library education” con- cation for librarianship in the United States and tinued through 1985, making Harris’ ar- Canada. In L. E. Bone (Ed.), Library education: ticle additional evidence for the validity An international survey (pp. 1–20). Champaign: of this interpretation. The ultimate conclu- University of Illinois Graduate School of Library sion is that librarianship continues to be a Science. Fogg, E. (1897, February 25). [Courses in library female-intensive profession that attempts economy]. University of Chicago Weekly. to construct itself as masculine, denying Grotzinger, L.A. (1966). The power and the dignity: its own history, values, and identity. Librarianship and Katharine Sharp. New York: Scarecrow Press. References Grotzinger, L.A. (1992). Remarkable beginnings: The first half century of the Graduate School of Bostwick, A.E. (1902). Report of Committee on Library and Information Science. In R. F. Del- Library Training. Papers and proceedings of the zell, & W. C. Allen (Eds.), Ideals and standards: 24th General Meeting of the American Library The history of the University of Illinois Gradu- Association, June 14-20, Boston and Magnolia, ate School of Library and Information Science, Massachusetts, 135–140. 1893–1993 (pp. 1–22). Urbana: University of Il- Brand, B.B. (1996). Pratt Institute Library School: linois at Urbana-Champaign. The perils of professionalization. In S. Hilden- Harper, W.R. (1900-1903). Correspondence. (Se- brand (Ed.), Reclaiming the American library ries 1, Box 26, Folder 8). Office of the President. past: Writing the women in (pp. 251–278). Nor- Harper, Judson and Burton Administrations. Re- wood: Ablex Publishing. cords 1869–1925. Special Collections Research Chicago Library Club. (1906). Circular of informa- Center, University of Chicago. tion. Chicago: Author. Harris, R. M., Michell, B. 1., & Cooley, C. (1985). Churchwell, C.D. (1975). The shaping of American The gender gap in library education. Journal of Ed- library education. Chicago: American Library ucation for Library & Information Science, 25(3), Association. 167–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40323104 Connell, R.W. (1987). Gender and power: Society, Lo, M.M. (2005). The professions: Prodigal daugh- the person, and sexual politics. Stanford: Stan- ters of modernity. In J. Adams, E. S. Clemens, & ford University Press. A. S. Orloff (Eds.), Remaking modernity: Poli- Dana, J.C. (1900). Report of the Committee on Li- tics, history and sociology (pp. 381–406). Dur- brary Schools. Library Journal, 25, 83–86. ham: Duke University Press. Davis, D.G., Jr. (1976). Education for librarianship. Maack, M.N. (2000). “No philosophy carries so Library Trends, 25(1), 113–133. much conviction as the personal life”: Mary Wright Plummer as an independent woman. Dawe, G.G. (1932). Melvil Dewey: Seer, inspirer, Library Quarterly, 70(1), 1–46. http://dx.doi. doer, 1851-1931. Lake Placid Club, NY: Melvil org/10.1086/603153 Dewey Biografy [sic]. Dewey, M. (June 10, 1881). Letter to William Rain- Miksa, F.L. (1986). Melvil Dewey: The profession- ey Harper. (Series 1, Box 1, Folder 18.) William al educator and his heirs. Library Trends, 34(3), Rainey Harper Papers 1872–1938 Special Collec- 359–381. tions Research Center, University of Chicago. Moore, E.L. (1897). Illinois Library Association. Dewey, M. (1889). On library progress. The Li- Library Journal, 22, 28–29. brary, 1, 367–379. Mrs. J.E. Dixson. (1888, October 6). Denison Col- Dixson, Z.A (1876-1910). Papers. Special Collec- legian, no page number. tions Research Center, University of Chicago. Plummer, M.W., Fairchild, S.C., Sharp, K.L., Dixson, Z.A. (1897). Comprehensive subject in- Kroeger, A.B., Robbins, M.E., and Anderson, dex to universal prose fiction. New York: Dodd, E.H. (1903). Report of the Committee on Library Mead. Training. Proceedings of the 25th General Meet- Dixson, Z.A. (1902). Children’s book-plates. No ing of the American Library Association, June place: No publisher. 22–26, Niagara Falls, New York, 83–101. Dixson, Z.A. (1903). Concerning book-plates: A Richardson, J. (1982). The spirit of inquiry: The handbook for collectors. Chicago: Wisteria Cot- Graduate Library School at Chicago, 1921–51. tage Press. Chicago: American Library Association. “Mr. Dewey is Crazy and Katharine Sharp Hates the University of Chicago” 113

Sharp, K.L. (1894–1903). Papers, 1881–1919, the publication of Williamson’s Report on train- 1962–1963. University of Illinois Archives, Uni- ing for library service. Chicago: American Li- versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. brary Association. Sharp, K.L. (1898). Instruction in library economy Vann, S.K. (Ed.). (1978). Melvil Dewey: His endur- through university extension methods. Library ing presence in librarianship. Littleton, CO: Li- Journal, 23, 75–78. braries Unlimited. Shera, J.H. (1972). The Foundations of education Wheeler, J.L. (1946). Progress & problems in edu- for librarianship. New York: Becker and Hayes. cation for librarianship. New York: Carnegie Stauffer, S.M. (2005a). Polygamy and the public Corporation. library: The establishment of public libraries in White, C.M. (1976). A historical introduction to li- Utah before 1910. Library Quarterly, 75(3), 346– brary education: Problems and progress to 1951. 370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/497312 Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press. Stauffer, S.M. (2005b). “She speaks as one having Who was who in America: a companion biographi- authority”: Mary E. Downey’s use of libraries cal reference work to Who’s who in America. as a means to public power. Libraries and Cul- (1960). Vol. 3. Chicago: Marquis Who’s Who. ture, 40(1), 38–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ Wiegand, W.A. (1986). Politics of an emerging lac.2005.0018 profession: The American Library Association, Stauffer, S.M. (2011). “A good social work:” 1876–1917. New York: Greenwood. Women’s clubs, libraries, and the construction of Wiegand, W.A. (1996). Irrepressible reformer: A a secular society in Utah, 1890–1920. Libraries biography of Melvil Dewey. Chicago: American & The Cultural Record, 46(2), 135–155. http:// Library Association. dx.doi.org/10.1353/lac.2011.0012 Williamson, C.C. (1971). The Williamson reports Twenty-five years of library service (1910). Public of 1921 and 1923, including Training for library Libraries 15, 211. work (1921) and Training for library service University College. (1901). Special circular No. (1923). Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press. 1. Library science: courses of instruction 1900– Wilson, L.R. (1949). Historical development of ed- 1901. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ucation for librarianship in the United States. In University Extension Division. University of Chica- B. Berelson (Ed.), Education for librarianship: go. (1866). Course in library economy. Chicago: Papers presented at the Library Conference, Author. University of Chicago, August 16–21, 1948. Chi- University of Chicago. (1918). Annual register of cago: American Library Association. the University of Chicago. Chicago: University Witz, A. (1990). Patriarchy and professions: of Chicago Press. The gendered politics of occupational clo- University of Chicago library classes. (1897). Li- sure. Sociology, 24(4), 675–590. http://dx.doi. brary Journal, 22, 22. org/10.1177/0038038590024004007 Vann, S.K. (1961). Training for librarianship be- Zella A. Dixon [sic]. (1893, February 20). Chicago fore 1923: Education for librarianship prior to News-Record, no page number.