Archivists have many different jobs to do and most of us do them well. From choosing the right items for deaccessioning to helping setup an exhibit at the local public library, archivists have shown to be some of the brightest people in the world. They have a unique talent for management, knowledge, and charisma that is rarely seen at most corporate levels. As such, archivists should be properly commended and appreciated for their work. On the other hand, they have a specific place in our society. That place can have different meanings for different people, but we have never seen a former archivist become President of the United States. Hence, archivists tend to be fully engaged in their area of expertise and their place of business so as to make their employment more involved than other professions. Being a good archivist means knowing how to best preserve it, display it and how best to cultivate interest about a collection. This takes some work in the short-term and a career in the long-term.
The preceding paragraph does not mean that there is a right answer to the debate of choosing Schallenberg or Jenkinson. Each of those men's beliefs has their merit. In fact, they echo some of the same values. Their positions are not all that different, considering they are talking about one semi-narrow professional field. To iterate, Jenkinson believes that an archivist chooses which records are sufficient in describing "what happened". He notes that records are "impartial". Archives were created out of ‘natural accumulation’. This helps the records retain authenticity and impartiality. Schallenberg believes that archivists have a more pivotal role in the records they curate. He believes that the records an archivist handles have some usefulness past their primary use, or the use they were intentionally made for. He believes records can be used for research or evidentiary purposes.
Evidentiary is somewhat similar to Jenkinson's idea of preserving "what happened". A difference is that Schallenberg wants to infer that records such as business receipts for a major company were used. The actual information is not the primary reason for keeping a slip such as a receipt; just the fact there is one. In contrast, Jenkinson does even go that far. He believes the preservation of papers can be a very private affair. If the creator of the papers does not want his papers on display, then that is perfectly acceptable. Thus, the biggest disagreement in the literature regarding these two men is this issue. Schallenberg believes that records such as expense reports have every right to be shown if possible because that is what they are for; to learn from the past. Learning from the past is a main 'tentpole' of the archiving profession, in some people minds. It takes a long time to learn the past.
As was said previously, Jenkinson believed something is preserved because it tells "what happened". That reason alone is good enough for something to be kept. Gerald...