[1. http://www.tofugu.com/2012/03/22/japanese-textbook-controversy/ ]

I’ll never forget when I was teaching third grade, the week before Columbus Day rolled around. Another teacher approached me – noticing my lack of cheesy bulletin boards, no doubt – and said, “I can’t believe you’re not doing a lesson on Columbus!” She wasn’t referring to a lesson on what Columbus really did. Teaching such to a group of 8 year olds would probably cause nightmares and result in angry phone calls from parents (trust me on this one). She was referring to the typical elementary lesson that says, “In 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue! What a swell guy!”

Altering history through education has become commonplace. Why? Textbooks. Okay, okay, textbooks aren’t solely to blame. Definitely not. But they are a factor. We’ve seen it in the whitewashing in Texas textbooks that fail to mention Jim Crow laws or the Ku Klux Klan, and in science textbooks from South Korea that exclude any mention of evolution. However, one of the most alarming cases of altering history can be found in Japanese textbooks.

But first – a brief history refresher:

Over the course of six weeks in late 1937 and early 1938, there was a mass killing of Chinese citizens at the hands of the Japanese Imperial Army. The Japanese Imperial Army, commanded by General Matsui Iwane, seized Nanjing, China (Nanking) on December 13^th, 1937. What followed was nothing short of horrendous. Between 100,000 to 300,000 Chinese were murdered, [1. http://www.britannica.com/event/Nanjing-Massacre] and tens of thousands were raped (some sources estimate the number of rapes to be between 20,000 and 80,000).[2. http://www.history.com/topics/nanjing-massacre]  Following the end of World War II, Matsui and his lieutenant Tani Hisao were convicted of war crimes by the International Military Tribunal and were executed.

Since the events that took place in Nanking, controversy has erupted. There has been denial about the tragic event ever taking place. In 2012 Japanese mayor of Nagoya, Takashi Kawamura, said “It is true that a considerable number of people died in the course of battle. However such a thing as so-called Nanjing Massacre is unlikely to have taken place.” He insisted that there were only acts of combat that occurred, not mass murders or rapes. [3. http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/23/world/asia/china-nanjing-row/index.html]

This denial has made its way into Japanese textbooks. In Japan, the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology (MEXT) authorizes any and all textbooks used through a rigid screening process. As early as 1955, the Ministry of Education (simply known as MOE at this time, the name changed later to MEXT) in Japan banned one third of the current textbooks. [4. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/133p/133p04papers/JChapelNanjing046.htm] The Sino-Japanese War was entirely removed from its textbooks. In the 1970s, two out of the six textbooks mentioned the Nanking massacre, but had the number of those killed down to only 42,000. [5. http://www.criced.tsukuba.ac.jp/keiei/kyozai_ppe_f2_64.html] However, by 1978 the Ministry of Education removed the number of those killed out of all textbooks. The textbooks have been revised over and over again to further downplay their involvement in Nanking.

In the mid/late 1950’s, the Ministry of Education stated in regards to a textbook that did not put Japan in the best lighting:

“It is not good only to see Japan’s past war(s) as imperialist war(s). It is inadequate to say that Japan ruled China and made it miserable.

[The textbook] says, ‘Our country inflicted immeasurable suffering and damage on various Asian nations, especially during the Pacific War.’ . . . Eliminate this description, since a view even exists that [Japan] provided various Asian nations the chance for independence [from their Western colonizers] through the Pacific War.

[The textbook], in its treatment of the war, describes it as if Japan were unilaterally bad; it is not grounded in understanding of world history such as the international situation of the time.” [6. http://www.japanfocus.org/-Mark-Selden/3173/article.html ]

While the Japanese government doesn’t supervise the writing of the textbooks, they still have a major say in what gets published, and what doesn’t, through MEXT. Approved texts often require revisions until deemed satisfactory. This approval process and the textbooks authorized as a result has consequently led to several controversies and court cases. There have been three major attacks on Japanese textbooks since the implementation of the textbook screening process in the late 1940s. The major attacks occurred in 1955, in the early 80’s, and mid 90’s.

Additionally, scholar and textbook editor Saburo Ienaga sued the Ministry of Education three times in 1965, 1966, and 1982. The 1982 lawsuit was settled in 1997 in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ienaga, declaring that the Ministry of Education’s censoring of certain events, including the sexual assaults in Nanking, were unconstitutional. This ruling was a huge step forward for textbooks including a full, uncensored history. After the ruling, seven major textbooks were published in 1997. All seven mentioned the massacre, and five reported the death toll of Nanking at 300,000 (the other two had the number at 200,000 – a big improvement from the earlier 42,000 statistic). [7. http://www.phdn.org/negation/gravediggers/gom-2002-the_nanking_massacre.html ]

This is an ongoing battle. In 2001, more textbooks were published that were met with much criticism. One text in particular, the Tsukurukai history textbook, sparked even greater outrage than the rest. This text “questions the actuality of the Massacre of Nanjing, and erases from its records any mention of the Japanese military sexual slavery system, which was one of the largest war violence in the 20th century”. [8. http://www.wscfap.org/resources/solidarityspace/2001/2001-japan_textbook.html] The Chinese and Korean governments demanded changes be made to the text, and a two day conference was held, called “The Asian Solidarity Conference on Textbook Issues in Japan—No! To the Distorted History Textbook”. [9. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2001/06/06/national/war-victims-to-speak-out-against-contentious-history-text/#.Vi1i9jZdGP9]

The influence of textbooks is not unlike the power of archives. Archivists hold immense power (and according to Uncle Ben in Spiderman, or Voltaire or Churchill depending on your sources, with great power comes great responsibility). They get to pick and choose what’s worthy of archiving, and what goes out with the garbage. Archivists have a huge hand in what gets remembered, and what becomes a part of our history. Textbooks have a similar control. They offer a particular narrative of history that may or may not be entirely accurate. But textbooks aren’t like a Wikipedia article that the general public knows not to trust entirely. Textbooks offer a sense of authority to its readers. Textbooks, from a reader’s perspective, don’t need to be questioned. It is assumed they are unbiased and factual – regardless of if they actually are.

There seems to be an impossible balance between reporting history as it actually occurred, and reporting history as those “in charge” would like it to be remembered. Textbooks influence identity – As you read through the history books of your country, you construct an identity of the country, and of yourself as a citizen of that country. The impact of a textbook on our histories cannot be underestimated.

Ray Bradbury, the sci fi author hailed as a major influence in the gaming community, is often quoted as having said, “Video games are a waste of time for men with nothing else to do. Real brains don’t do that.” Of course, Bradbury also cursed cars, computers, the Internet, ATMs, and plenty of other commonplace technologies (Hibberd, 2001). While his point of view represents an ongoing debate concerning video games as time bandits, the effective use of interactive, digital games as revolutionary educational tools stands as one form of proof that they are important artifacts that express our culture, education, and play. It is problematic that appreciation for these artifacts is just beginning, as several generations of games have already been lost, and we still do not even have an elementary system of preservation in place. As Rosenzweig describes, “’preservation through neglect’ [may have been a system that worked in the past, but]…this ‘system’ will not work in the digital era because preservation cannot begin twenty-five years after the fact” (2003). If we wish to preserve this vast history, we have no time left to waste, and so, in exploration of the possibility of video game preservation, I have outlined some basic challenges associated with the effort:

1. Bit Rot

By far, bit rot is the most pressing issue when it comes to video game preservation. Video game storage mediums deteriorate over time; this is true for all of the familiar computer hardware (like CD, DVD, SDD, HDD, etc.), as well as cartridges. Remember blowing into old cartridges, to clear dust from connectors? Yeah, probably not the best preservation method.

Beyond hardware, software also decays. As Jason Scott, archivist and historian at The Internet Archive, says, “Software halflife is ridiculous…having a few months between the release of a game and EA going, ‘What game?’ is insane. But that’s where we’re heading now. The average multiplayer, network game is now nearing 18 months of total life before they turn the servers off… so you have a year and a half to understand if it’s even useful, and then it’s gone.” (Hall, 2015). This example expresses our current timeframe; Retrospective preservation is even more challenging. For example, many older PC games now require emulators (such as DOSBox) to operate on modern machines (due to changes in the technological environment, bugs emerged from unused code, etc), and emulation in itself is a bag of worms.

2. Emulation

Right now, efforts to preserve games, for the most part, are not based in the conservation of hardware like consoles and cartridges, but in software emulation for compatibility with modern hardware. Currently, computers are able to satisfactorily emulate an NES experience, for example, but as games become more technically complicated, necessary advancements in technology, and hardware, will struggle to keep up. At best, emulated games are inauthentic, but relatively intact, and playable. At worst, integral pieces of experience are lost, new bugs and glitches are created, and the game is unplayable. Additionally, sometimes, the format is simply essential. As Cloonan puts it, “A key issue in libraries and archives today is whether we need to preserve just the information in a document or the physical object itself. When is the object part of the information?” (2001). If you play Duck Hunt on a keyboard, are you extracting the same sensory information as someone who has access to the classic, orange gun? I doubt it. Thus, video games are often perfect examples of objects in which “form and substance are indistinguishable” (Cloonan, 2001).

Furthermore, most of the current emulation efforts are not led by archivists, but by avid fans, which reveals a wealth of legal issues.

3. Legality

If a game is legally owned by anyone other than those attempting preservation, keeping the game functional poses many problems in regards to copyright law, especially when it comes to emulation. Each, individual game has a slew of copyrightable elements, including design, underlying code, artwork, and sound, just to name a few. For many institutions, this means that preservation is not possible. As Rosenzweig says, “…if libraries don’t own digital content, how can they preserve it?” (2003). Jason Scott responds to this issue in suggesting that “Workplace theft is the future of gaming history” (Hall, 2015). While this may sound like a joke, and certainly is not a realistic option for libraries, it represents a significant realization in the world of preservation; much of what must be to done to create a physical history of the gaming community will entail serious risk assessment.

4. Metadata Schemas

If we begin to preserve, and collect, video games, we must also begin to accurately describe the collections. As Cloonan says, “If new technologies present preservation riddles, cataloging issues are no less perplexing” (2001). In the case of video games, it is difficult to decide authorship, bibliographic relationships, ownership of intellectual property, and so on. Currently, records of video games come from OCLC (as the Library of Congress does not record video game metadata), and the systems used by OCLC were never really intended for the medium. For example, when trying to make video games fit into existing systems, they are popularly tagged with phrases like “Imaginary Places” and “Imaginary Battles,” which are ultimately meaningless. While new schemas have been explored, they often focus on either the narrative of the game or, its gameplay, and for any system to be useful, it must incorporate both. Also, at the most basic level, we lack a controlled vocabulary for these descriptions, and even though efforts are being made, the rapid changes in video game development make it difficult for cataloguers to catch up.



Video game preservation is a race against time, and time got a big head start. Preservation efforts need to accelerate now, if any of the history is to be saved. A good starting point may be the rigorous development of an effective controlled vocabulary; No need to conquer legal battles in order to properly describe the objects. However, long term, legality will be a major focus; some possible solutions related to copyright may be reformation (but technology develops much faster than copyright law, so even a reformation could be obsolete before ever being relevant), a lean toward open source options by game developers (unlikely in a culture where code is treated like hidden treasure) or, possibly the most realistic option: game developers could begin taking larger strides toward their own, in-house preservation efforts. Finally, if we are going to continue with emulation as our primary solution, it is important to consider how emulation hardware must stay up-to-pace with the changes in gaming hardware or, a whole lot more energy will have to be put toward the exploration of options far beyond emulation.

References

Cloonan, M. V. (2001). W(h)ither preservation?. The Library Quarterly, 71(2), 231-242. Retrieved from https://lms.pratt.edu/pluginfile.php/514929/mod_resource/content/1/Cloonan%20-%20W%28h%29ither%20Preservation.pdf

Hall, C. (2015). The future of games history is workplace theft. Polygon. Retrieved from http://www.polygon.com/2015/3/6/8158649/games-history-workplace-theft-internet-archive

Heick, T. (2012). A brief history of video games in education. te@chthought. Retrieved from http://www.teachthought.com/video-games-2/a-brief-history-of-video-games-in-education/

Hibberd, J. (2001). Ray Bradbury is on fire!. Salon. Retrieved from http://www.salon.com/2001/08/29/bradbury_2/

Rosenzweig, R. (2003). Scarcity or abundance? Preserving the past in a digital era. The American Historical Review, 108(3), 735-762. Retrieved from https://lms.pratt.edu/pluginfile.php/514928/mod_resource/content/1/rosenzweig-Scarcity%20or%20Abundance-preserving%20the%20past%20in%20the%20digital%20era.pdf

The Othmer Library and Archives of the Brooklyn Historical Society are home to a comprehensive collection spanning 400 years of the borough’s history: over 33,000 books, 1,600 archival collections, 1,200 oral history interviews, 50,000 photographs, 8,000 artifacts, 300 paintings, and 2,000 maps. Such a diverse collection calls out for varied and creative preservation and presentation solutions. I recently visited the Library and saw first hand that it is equal to the task, having undertaken a variety of activities to maintain these collections and encourage community engagement with local Brooklyn history.

The Society’s Brooklyn Heights home opened in 1881.

The Library’s reading room, housed on the second floor of a beautiful landmark building in Brooklyn Heights, is open to the public during the Society’s regular hours. Many materials, such as historical maps, are readily available to patrons without an appointment. The practices in the main reading room demonstrate the Library’s efforts to strike a balance between unrestricted access and the protection of archival materials. When possible, even very old materials are publicly accessible, and where necessary patrons will be instructed in proper handling of delicate items or provided with tools like cradles or special weights. All of these materials are well protected – for example a collection of fire insurance maps, dating from 1846 to 1932, have been flattened, placed in protective sleeves, and organized in bound volumes for researchers to peruse as they wish.

Many materials, in particular those which are too delicate to remain in the open public stacks, are stored in the archives on the second level of the reading room and may be visited by appointment. The Library’s collection of directories, dating from 1736 to 1938, are one of the extraordinary resources stored upstairs, and contain a wealth of information on the local residents and commerce of their day. These materials are frequently used by patrons researching genealogy or property histories – as I learned, these are the most frequent public uses of the Library – finding connections to local history with the help of archival materials.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Delicate newspapers in an upstairs conservation corner (l); closed stacks books (r)

The Library is also digitizing its collection of photographs, and to date has digitized approximately 33,000 from its collection. 4,000 of these are accessible online and the remaining can be viewed on-site. These photographs include images of Brooklyn, dating back to the 1870s, and family portraits and candid photographs of Brooklyn residents. In their pre-digital states these images run the gamut of photographic formats such as daguerreotypes, tintypes, cartes de visite, glass negatives and slides, stereographic prints, and negatives. This digitization process is ongoing, and additional images are regularly digitized, including by patron request.

The Library also plans to digitize oral history recordings currently stored on tape. The oral history collection includes over 1,200 individual interviews in English, Spanish, Cantonese, and Mandarin. When available, researchers can access the audio and video of interviews in addition to the transcript, adding additional layers of understanding that may not be gleaned from simply reading words on a page. So long as interviewees have given permission for their oral histories to be shared, these records are available in the Library without an appointment. Librarians can also send transcripts to patrons who wish to access oral history information remotely.

In addition to providing public access through on-site and online research, the Library participates in educational initiatives with local schools. For example, beginning in 2011, the Society partnered with colleges like Long Island University, City Tech, and Saint Francis College in the Students and Faculty in the Archives (“SAFA”) program to teach students through primary archival materials. Professors set aside selected materials and students learn to properly handle them, demystifying what could otherwise be an intimidating and unfamiliar setting. Making archival materials available to students and to the general public – not just professional scholars – promotes community engagement, connection, and dialogue. Students learn that the Library contains their history, and they are empowered to use Library resources to create their own projects.

Brooklyn is a large and diverse urban center, and developing a collection that adequately reflects Brooklyn is, and will always be, a work in progress. From its founding in 1863 until 1985 the Society was called the Long Island Historical Society, and its collections spanned beyond Brooklyn to general United States history. Such materials were deaccessioned in the mid-twentieth century in an effort to narrow the Society’s focus. Today, the Library’s Collections Committee evaluates all proposed donations to ensure that they fit with this concentration, and will decline donations that would be better suited to a different home. Also, there are shelves of unprocessed Library materials stored in the closed stacks, which will steadily be incorporated into the collection or deaccessioned. Curating the collection and ensuring that new materials fit the Society’s mission, as well as creating meaningful finding guides, is a large task that cannot be accomplished overnight. Librarians have prioritized quality end results over rushed completion of processing.

Equally impressive are the Library’s efforts to maintain collections that reflect Brooklyn’s diversity. One major oral history project, for example, is called “Crossing Borders, Bridging Generations” and reflects experiences of growing up with a mixed heritage. Another interesting collection, stored in the archives and available by appointment, are the slavery pamphlets – eighteenth and nineteenth century copies of speeches, sermons, and reports from anti-slavery or colonization societies – primary sources from an important era in Brooklyn history. In a similar vein, a current exhibit in the Society’s museum – which draws heavily from the Library and Archive collections – is entitled “In Pursuit of Freedom” and explores Brooklyn’s abolitionist movement. Another exhibit examines the Disability Rights Movement in New York City, with audio versions of the exhibit and braille copies of exhibit labels made available. Clearly, the collections are not limited to the history of any single Brooklyn population.

My visit to the Brooklyn Historical Society Library demonstrated the complexities of maintaining an archive and supporting a cultural heritage institution in today’s digital world.  It is not enough just to preserve collections through paper enclosures or mylar sleeves and organize them for scholars. Archives must also also ensure public access through digitization and education programs, and grow collections to reflect the diversity of the local population. If archive development and digitization are said to create and foster cultural heritage and social memory, then the Brooklyn Historical Society’s Library collections are building an inclusive and dynamic Brooklyn heritage.  The Society’s commitment to community engagement is admirable and a model for modern archives.

References:

Brooklyn Historical Society, The Othmer Library. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.brooklynhistory.org/library/about.html.

Crossing Borders, Bridging Generations. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://cbbg.brooklynhistory.org/.

Dalbello, M. (2009). “Digital cultural heritage: concepts, projects, and emerging constructions of heritage,” Proceedings of the Libraries in the Digital Age (LIDA) Conference, 25–30 May, 2009.

Teach Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.teacharchives.org/.

 

Homeless patrons are an important topic that many in the library professions, if not all, discuss. Even so, it seems that not much has been done. It is a difficult subject to approach because of the all the varying variables. Librarians are trained as librarians not social workers. That doesn’t mean that librarians can’t help. Libraries provide a crucial service to both homeless and other patrons. Libraries are full of resources that the homeless can utilize to improve their overall state of life.

Unfortunately, there is a limit to how much service can be provided. Libraries as of today are not equipped to handle to the complete needs of the homeless patrons. However, there are some libraries that are going the extra mile to ensure that they provide different services to their homeless patrons. As I mentioned in class, one such is the San Francisco Library, who hired a social worker. In an interview with Leah Esquerra, the social worker, she described her role in the library and how she reaches out to homeless patrons to discuss different options they can take. Another library offered showers to their homeless patrons. As a result, their job opportunities grew because they could appear somewhat cleaner to potential employers.

While these libraries have put forth great ideas to help the homeless people of their communities, these ideas aren’t feasible for all communities. Not all libraries can afford or accommodate those changes into their space. For example, the overwhelming population of homeless in New York would make it increasingly difficult for libraries if that population used those resources. Unless the library focused an unreasonable amount of their resources on this situation, the situation won’t be resolved. Does that mean that these libraries should them? Of course not! There are limitations to all actions, but there are actions that can be taken. Like I mentioned before libraries can offer the services they do provide to them.

Even with all these advances there are a lot of difficulties when approaching homeless patrons. The mentally ill homeless patrons are a clear example. In some cases, they can become violent. In these cases, there isn’t anything anyone not trained to handle the situation can do. These situations can alienate the other patrons libraries serve. When the conflict arises where a library has to choose between serving all customers and most customers; the easiest solution is to choose the majority. You can’t please everyone. But you can try and please as many people as possible. That then leaves the homeless and other “undesirable” patrons behind. That begs the question; do libraries have a moral obligation to serve homeless patron if there is a possibility that they can alienate other patrons.

Personally, I would like to believe that everyone, on a moral level, feels the need to help those in need. Unfortunately, the world doesn’t work that way. Those inclined to do so, can ignore the struggles of another in favor of assisting someone else. One person was Blaise Cronin. In his statement in the Library Journal, Cronin stated:

A library is not a community masturbation center. A library is not a porn parlor. A library is not a refuge for the homeless. A library is not a place in which to defecate, fornicate, or micturate. A library is not a bathing facility. A library is not a dumping ground for latch-key children. Many librarians can follow his ideas and choose to alienate themselves from that part of the community.

For those that think differently, there are a ton of resources libraries and librarians have to help themselves understand and eventually help those in need. There are guidelines outlined by the American Library Association that other libraries can incorporate into their own policies. In the ALA “Library Services to the Poor” policy, outlines different objectives to ensure that the homeless or poor are thoroughly considered in the library’s overall view.  Libraries can reach out to organizations within their communities that are better equipped to handle serious situations. Social workers can offer tips and advice for how to communicate with homeless patrons who may have mental disabilities or be victims of serious crimes.

In one example, the Madison Public Library, there are spaces designated for non-profit organizations to assist the homeless and poor patrons. The spaces have been redesigned to accommodate all patrons as best as possible. I feel like this a great response to the conversation in class. Many expressed that there are services already available to the homeless but because they are underfunded, they don’t can’t always help. The idea was that there should be a greater focus on helping those organizations so that they can focus on the people they are meant to help. By partnering with these organizations, libraries are providing support to those organizations. The community then sees that both the library and the other organizations are providing for everyone, which can have a great impact on how people approach this topic.

One a larger scale, museums face the same situation. How can all educational informational institutions assist homeless patrons when they haven’t been trained to do so? Should museums enforce strict polices to limit what kind of patrons enter their space in order to protect their artifacts and priceless collections? Why does the state of one’s clothing matter when a person is trying to enrich their knowledge and overall state of life? Can museums and libraries be faces of change when it comes to how the public addresses homelessness and the homeless?

I believe so. I believe that every institution can demonstrate to the rest of their communities that the homeless should not be excluded, ostracized or demeaned because of their state of dress, smell, or mental state. They are humans like every other human on this planet. They have the same rights even if they are not mentally aware of them. Through small acts such as providing them with information guides, books, locations to help, museum and library staff can demonstrate to the rest of the world that they value the homeless patrons as much as the other patrons.

I think there needs to be a large initiative by all museums and libraries to address these issues to ensure that the homeless patrons have voices in their own communities.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/library-social-worker-helps-homeless-seeking-quiet-refuge/

http://www.ala.org/offices/extending-our-reach-reducing-homelessness-through-library-engagement-7

A Home to the Homeless

http://www.soic.indiana.edu/news/story.html?story=Library-Journal-Commentary-Dean-List-What-Library-Is-Not

 

There are those who see our reverent notions of progress as problematic, as it has us progressing into a future without humanness, not only through ominous disruptions of the marketplace and various time-honored traditions, but also through the lack of general and specific skills gained through raw & direct experience; the subtle nuances revealed in the doing; the joi ne se qua of acting & bumbling throughout life. We have progressed to the point where all aspects of being alive is now mediated through machines of some sort.

In an article from the New York Review of Books “How Robots & Algorithms are Taking Over,” they glumly review Nicolas Carr’s book The Glass Cage: Automation and Us, which highlights some of his poignant statements, for example, he says “as we grow more reliant on applications and algorithms, we become less capable of acting without their aid… that makes the software more indispensable… [thus] automation breeds automation.” So much for free-will!

There is no denying machines have infiltrated every aspect of our lives and continues to do so at an exponential rate, as the derogatory term ‘drone’ illustrates, automation’s ubiquity has permeated our values and societal norms. The ‘drones’ see the world through a lens of handed-down rationalizations, believing efficiency is the most cost-effective way of living, therefore walking & talking as if mass produced on an assembly line; an existence of herding about in chain stores and speaking in platitudes. And yet, isn’t there something natural in all of this? To adapt and subtly embody whomever or whatever you spend your days with is unavoidable; to develop idiosyncrasies that reveal your daily doings and musings is only natural; similar to, let’s say, a dog that starts looking and acting like its owner. So then, are we merely wearing techno-collars leashed to progress? In the end won’t we be fed & happy like our adorable canine counterpart? Nicolas Carr doesn’t think so, he believes that we are undergoing a massive “deskilling” of the population, “as more authority is handed over to machines,” making us into “mindless sloths” who rely on the internet for every fact & figure. The result is a loss of expertise that comes with experience, which of course is never gained as we no longer have direct unmediated experiences, moreover, we no longer have unmediated knowledge. Carr sees our individuality and humanness dwindling as we adapt to the grinding uniformity and banality of machinery.

we are undergoing a massive “deskilling” of the population, “as more authority is handed over to machines,” making us into “mindless sloths” who rely on the internet for every fact & figure. The result is a loss of expertise

Yet every coin has a flip side. Can machines, specifically artificial intelligence, be a social endeavor? Something to enrich humanity in our pursuit of happiness? Phoebe Sengers believes so, in an essay “Practices for a Machine Culture,” Sengers calls for a merger between cultural theory and artificial technology research, dubbing this merger “cultural informatics.” After all, the people of the 21^st century are “the inheritors of industrialism, the progenitors of the information age.”  Senger also affirms that machines are part of our daily lives as we interface with it and imbibe its logic. However, Senger believes cultural informatics can develop a “poetic technology”  that strives for human enrichment over the cold quantifiable efficiency. She hopes “that rather than forcing humans to interface with machines, those machine may learn to interface with us, to present themselves in such a way that they do not drain us of our humanity, but instead themselves become humanized.”  It is a kumbaya notion that nicely balances Carr’s doomsday opinion.

cultural informatics can develop a “poetic technology” that strives for human enrichment over the cold quantifiable efficiency.  Hoping “that rather than forcing humans to interface with machines, those machine may learn to interface with us, to present themselves in such a way that they do not drain us of our humanity, but instead themselves become humanized.

Sengers essay also mentions the Winograd & Flores approach to A.I., which is through an existential Heideggerian lens, that is, people maneuver through the world with an inexplicable complex subjectivity, therefore, since A.I.’s cannot possess this human background of complexity, they will always be limited to formal problems of logic. This may be a comforting position as it renders A.I. research as unrealizable, however, it also alludes to the dangers of a machine without a human backbone.

Despite being nominated for the Pulitzer, Nicholas Carr lacks a certain amount of clout to sway our technophilic ways, and we can easily dismiss him as another ‘calamity prophet,’ but the NYRB article also mentions Stephen Hawking speaking in the same vein; forewarning us that if machines evolve faster than people, they will certainly overtake us. Hawking signed an open letter titled “Future of Life,” which is signed by plenty of clout touting characters (such as Tesla’s Elon Musk and various Silicon Valley gurus), and it essentially calls for a responsible artificial intelligence development that maximizes societal benefits while minimizing drawbacks: the resounding credo is “ A.I. systems must do what we want them to do,” and this “research is by necessity interdisciplinary because it involves both society and A.I.” (cultural informatics). The signatory list is long and the letter is short, plainly saying that A.I. is here and we must insure our safety, nay, our survival, against their emergence. Quite alarming, especially when you assume that some of these signatories know something that the rest of us don’t, and their knowledge spurred a letter for the future of life.

The NYRB article critiques the letter for prioritizing money over people, and questioning whose values will these machines inherit, as values “are not universal but, rather, culturally and socially constructed, subjective, and inherently biased.” The article ends on a bleak apocalyptic note: “We, the people, are on our own here–though if the AI developers have their way, not for long.”

My concern regards the library’s foundational essence eroding within this burgeoning world of quantity and algorithms; its quiet esoteric qualities discarded for our Vaudevillian moneymaking culture. Even the very word “library/librarian” is fading and morphing into “information science/scientist.” Moving into an era where libraries are merely store houses of data, and librarians become mere data crunchers supervising their machines. The palace of wisdom, memory, and imagination is mutating into a granary of simple facts efficiently managed and distributed for quantifiable purposes. Under the crushing weight of ever increasing data, the notion of what a library is, and always has been, is endangered.

And yet, despite all this gloom & doom stoking my inner misanthrope and pessimist, I can’t help in having hope… wait, better still: I can’t help in simply knowing there will be some folks who will keep the torch burning for humanity; random agents of chaos always crop-up regardless of the circumstance, and especially when they are needed most; and people are simply too weird and tenacious for automation to conquer the human spirit (see Modern Times). Therefore, technocratic uniformity can only go so far, “deskilling” has limits and unintended consequences that will spark reskilling, and if A.I. is realized, hopefully it will be made in our image, hence, just as weird and random as us, except they will have an off button.

 

 

1) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2015/apr/02/how-robots-algorithms-are-taking-over/

2) Sengers, “Practices for a machine culture: a case study of integrating cultural theory and artificial intelligence“

3) http://futureoflife.org/AI/open letter

……………………………………………………………………

 

 

 

 

What does it mean to be free? The definition changes as society changes. Generally, “freedom” is a buzzword touted by political candidates, right-wingers, the figures of wartime. It is a term that is only used when the situation calls for its defense— when certain “freedoms” might be attacked. There is a “freedom” in carrying a weapon wherever you feel like it; there is a “freedom” in being able to marry the person you love. However, there are also the less-obvious freedoms that are willingly sacrificed every day, increasingly so as every person creates content and supplies data via tiny computers that are perpetually tracking their everyday whereabouts. Are we free if we are being mined for data without compensation or, necessarily, awareness? Our search engines, our social media, our texts, phone calls, emails, bank statements, all are being monitored (as blatantly evidenced in targeted advertising: “hmmm, we see that you’ve been browsing your Facebook friend’s wedding photos… want to browse some wedding dresses?”).

Tom McClean reveals just how deeply entwined economy and information truly are in the United States, in his article “Who Pays the Piper? The political economy of freedom of information.”[1] It is in the interest of corporations that we have freedom of information, for several reasons, not the least of which being that they can become more effective by knowing government policy and intended changes in policy in order to protect themselves when it comes to utilizing information. We are all closely observed, in various carefully-executed, and legal, circumstances.

There is the inevitable omission of privacy in our contemporary technological society; thus, our conceptions of freedom must absorb the notion that we can no longer be truly alone in the world (save for drastic, perhaps eremitical measures). We no longer have a means of escape from government surveillance, or from accidental interconnectivity with our fellow citizens via things like location-based apps or targeted advertising influenced by our perceived relationships with others on the Internet. As long as a person is using the Internet there is, generally, a trail of observation close behind them.

While it doesn’t sound particularly Utopian to accept that we will be forever (and closely) monitored, this reality usually does not affect the life of the individual. Most people are walking around uninhibited by the knowledge that their faces are being scanned by security cameras, their spending habits are being tracked by credit card companies, or that their phone calls might be routinely scanned for various buzzwords. Again, the question of freedom usually only enters the conversation once something goes noticeably wrong.

________________

There are innumerable horrors to be inflicted on the Internet; Internet bullying has become a real issue in school-age children across the world, identity theft is on the rise, and swatting is a thing. These are the ugly parts of a democratic landscape, where the middleman screen sits between the tormentor and the victim.

However, you can’t have one without the other— the argument is that the freedom of speech does not apply only to kindly worded or informative content. Ann Coulter has the right to bring words like “retarded” and “faggot” into political discussion just as much as the New York Times has the right to publish articles on whatever content they choose, without fear that their voices will be suppressed. This is the freedom of expression, which exists because of the first amendment of the United States constitution, and a pretty well-acknowledged truth that in this country you can say what you like (this is obviously not the case in other Internet cultures).

However, can we really say what we like on the Internet? Can we conduct research safely, securely, without being persecuted? Well, no. Not really.

There are a few ways that this unfortunate fact manifests itself— for example, and most recognizably, on Facebook. In Facebook’s data policy, they write: “We may access, preserve and share [the user’s] information in response to a legal request (like a search warrant, court order or subpoena) if we have a good faith belief that the law requires us to do so.” [2]

This is a tricky situation. Most people treat Facebook as an extension of their reality, which means that the rights and freedoms exercised outside the computer (read: the general ability to do/say most of the things you’d like without persecution, as long as you are not physically harming or harassing someone near you) are believed to exist within the context of this social media platform where our communication is intended for our friends, family, and colleagues.

However: what about stupid remarks made on Facebook regarding guns, death threats, etc., often in the context of a joke? In an instance like this, is freedom of speech being compromised? It’s true that it is also unlawful to threaten death, to cause harm or to harass those around us. But is the freedom of expression and the law that says you can’t threaten to kill the President (even as a joke) mutually exclusive? While it’s not exactly the most inviting example, it does get to the heart of what we can and cannot express on the Internet. It is, after all, common knowledge that the police regularly use Facebook to implicate citizens.

How do we try to navigate this landscape of policed “free” expression? The user is responsible for himself, but institutions might be able to assist the individual. For example, the public library in Lebanon, New Hampshire is making an attempt as one of the last bastions of the right to privacy. It was the first public library in the country to install Tor exit relays on its public terminals, thus protecting the identity of users in terms of finding out just who searched for what, or what activities were performed by which user. Homeland Security, of course, quickly objected, and shut the operation down.[3]

Perhaps the answer to freedom lies then in complete transparency, on both sides? Perhaps the governing institution should make it clear to the user just what and when information is being collected. A great example of this is UC Berkeley, which is the first university in the United States to publish transparency reports to the public, detailing government requests for information.[4]

If we cannot be allowed our curtain of privacy, why not enforce the laws that require the government to pull back theirs? As McClean writes, “access to official files arguably contributes to the “predictability” of government.”[5] If we know what they’re looking for, we know how to protect ourselves— this has become the conversation of present-day freedoms.

 

 

1. Mclean, Tom. “Who pays the piper? The political economy of freedom of information,” 2010. Department of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science, UK.
2. Facebook’s Data Policy. Accessed 30 September 2015.<https://www.facebook.com/about/privacy/>
3. Koehler, Jason. “A Dozen Libraries Want to Host Tor Nodes to Protest Government Fearmongering.” VICE: Motherboard. 17 September 2015. Web. Accessed 27 September 2015. <http://motherboard.vice.com/read/a-dozen-libraries-want-to-host-tor-nodes-to-protest-government-fearmongering>
4. Glaser, April. “Every College Should Issue a Transparency Report About Government Requests for Student Data.” Slate. 18 September 2015. Web. Accessed 20 September 2015. <http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/09/18/uc_berkeley_issues_the_first_ever_university_transparency_report_others.html>
5. Mclean, Tom. “Who pays the piper?…”

Blog Entry #1

I have become preoccupied with the idea of keeping tabs on changes throughout the classification and cataloging systems both within the field of Library and Information Science (LIS) and some outlying fields as well. Let’s focus on LIS for the time being. With the progression of thought and terms and what should be considered “politically correct” at any point in time, the LIS field faces the task of determining how things should be classified and cataloged. The goal is to make things more accessible while making it continually more accurate. However, within this voyage for accuracy, there are loads of biases one has to account for within these classifications. For example, cross classification of terms that could mean one thing to a middle class white American and something else entirely to a person in Eastern Europe or Africa or Asia. This could go both ways though, right? Who is to say that our classification systems are the best and most current or even the most correct? Should there be an international system? Who decides that? This could go on forever. At this moment in time, there is no one way of classifying or cataloging and that is okay, because within those differences is the opportunity to learn and grow from others. My primary concern is the lack of communication and interconnectedness between world classification systems and how that affects the rapidly changing information.

I personally think that the changing of language and overall perception is seen most clearly within the Mental Health field. The language used there comes from the American Psychiatric Association and is conveyed through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) which outlines diagnoses. Changing language, that is, the way something is explained or categorized in this sense, is a revision process that can take a prolonged period of time. So what happens when mental health professionals are trying to change the perception of how the general public views something as well-known as suicide? When did it go from “committing suicide” to “completing suicide”? Who considered changing the wording based on the idea that “committing” makes it sound like the person has gotten away with a criminal act (omitting the Church’s viewpoints for simplicity’s sake…let’s pretend we live in an atheistic society for now)? How is that translated to the non-mental health professionals of the world?

The idea of mental health professionals changing how something is portrayed is to tackle it at the ground floor in order to change the public’s sense of a specific thing. With this in mind, and knowing that changing terms in the DSM is time consuming, what really matters when keeping track of these types of changes when looking at an academic library setting? One international system for the electronic exchange of clinical health information is SNOMED-CT (Systemized Nomenclature of Medicine-Clinical Terms) (nlm.nih.gov). SNOMED provides structured medical language that is consistent across the board to draw on the same vernacular and as a way to categorize terms within the medical fields. SNOMED keeps track and maintains this medical database and language, allowing the option for libraries to draw from that resource. Another database is the ICD-10 (International Classification Database) which incorporates the DSM language making it more accessible for academic libraries, universities, academia-related searched, and new keywords out to medical professionals (www.who.int). This database creates a sort of crosswalk between the ICD codes and the DSM codes to increase specificity and classify clinical health issues. The ICD is also largely used for billing purposes, as people and services need to know what they are being billed for, which increases the need for precision of the database.

So how are these resources helpful in the classification, cataloging and changing of terms? Let’s go back to suicide. Instead of the term “suicide” let’s pretend that the APA decided to change it to “picking flowers” because that sounds nicer. If someone were to do a search for the new term “picking flowers,” a week after the new term was decided upon, the chances of there being anything written on picking flowers in slim. However, within search engines, there is an electronic crosswalk between suicide and picking flowers which links the old term with the new. The extent of the crosswalk depends on who is maintaining those search engines and from where they are receiving their information. Would Google have a relationship with the APA to keep track of changing terms?   Perhaps.

Now if it’s once again “committing” vs. “completing” the database would implement fuzzy logic which doesn’t require it to be one or the other, only that they can be close enough within the same meaning in order for the software to alert the database of the parameters (like a thesaurus). This comes in handy, especially as medical terms are being updated constantly. Libraries can have access to those types of systems and software as they are all Internet-based though they can be costly, especially if only being used for research. However, libraries form a powerful lobbying force and can often negotiate a more cost-effective contract.

The possibility of accessing these databases on an academic level and the interconnectedness of those databases with the APA relieves some of my fears about the loss of changing information within the mental health field. However it gets me thinking about other fields of study that may or may not have those options for sharing information. If so, do they also share their information and open it up to libraries? Would there be a need for a more vastly overlapping, more inclusive cataloging system in the world we live in today? We would probably need to take that on a case-by-case basis but the general idea is the same. Regardless of topic, there is always some benefit with information sharing that includes library systems which can help to maintain and catalog the influx of information as it comes in this now digital world.

 

 

 

 

https://www.nlm.nih.gov/research/umls/Snomed/snomed_main.html

plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-fuzzy

www.who.int.classifications/icd/en/

It seems odd to say that neutrality is something that can incite passionate debate in the world of libraries, but it’s true. The aim for neutrality -or even the question of its existence in the field- has been outlined in scholarly articles, discussed in the open forum of Twitter, and has even inspired national campaigns for improved materials. If neutrality is defined as being impartial and unbiased, how come so many library professionals feel so strongly about the concept?

“Neutrality is just being what the system asks us to be,” write Myles Horton and Paulo Friere in a piece about education and social change. Following this logic, all libraries are inviting spaces where all users can find what they seek and have no complaints about the collection, the environment, or their general experience. Of course if you’ve ever been to a library before you’d know this idyll is impossible to manage; sometimes the library you’re in doesn’t have the book you’re looking for, or maybe it does and you can’t seem to find it. Libraries struggle from the expectation of being warm yet authoritarian spaces, and the endless quest to balance those two elements comes at a cost.

Finding the right book at the library might not be as simple as whether it’s on the shelf, though- your library might not even think your interests are worthy enough for their collection. If neutrality is “a code word for the existing system,” as Horton and Friere suggest, then what word really represents is the default western white male viewpoint of what “should” be inside a library. Hope Olson writes about the rigidity of cataloging and how there is a detectable, specific point of view despite the attempt to be easily digestible by all; “One notes far more references to narrower terms under ‘Women’ than under ‘Men,'” she says. “Many of these terms draw attention to women as exceptions to a male norm.”

Similarly, Emily Drabinski writes about how controlled vocabulary “fail[s] to accurately and respectfully organize library materials about social groups and identities that lack social and political power.” Once again, the rigidity of classic cataloging practices is a disservice to queer theory and proves to be exclusionary, showing preference for a “norm” by means of aggressive classification. So which is worse, going to the library and finding something horribly mislabeled, or finding nothing at all?

Luckily, many library professionals are already aware of the imbalance in their collections, as a recent #critlib discussion on Twitter illustrates. The topic on the table was ‘critical approaches to library data and systems,’ with the first question asking whether libraries and systems can ever be neutral. Participants did not hold back, immediately criticizing the narrowness of library practices; “neutrality is the side of those in power!” wrote one user. Another chimed in and said the word neutral “sounds too close to passive,” while someone else went straight to the core of the problem with library systems. “[Can libraries be] neutral? No. Our cat[alog] languages, systems & vocabs are biased toward Western culture. True universality is a lofty goal.” Frustrations continued with other participants noting how difficult it is to build impartial collections when vendors already have limited offerings. With publishers catering overwhelmingly to Western audiences, once again a statement is made about what (and who) is thought to be the default.

Efforts have unfolded to address weak spots in library collections, like the We Need Diverse Books (WNDB) campaign, which works to bring more diverse literature to shelves in childrens’ libraries. In their mission statement, the group states, “We recognize all diverse experiences, including (but not limited to) LGBTQIA, people of color, gender diversity, people with disabilities, and ethnic, cultural, and religious minorities.” Members of the WNDB team have also acknowledged the bias in the world of publishing, and aim to work from the ground up to ensure that the future of childrens’ literature is more inclusive.

Of course, goals like diversifying childrens’ literature or queering the catalog both have clear, specific objectives and cannot be considered impartial actions on their own. The key though, is that they both push back against the existing biased framework of library systems. “The system hides exclusions under the guise of neutrality,” writes Olson. “Not surprisingly, this fundamental presumption on which our practice rests disproportionately affects access to information outside of the cultural mainstream and about groups marginalized in our society.” How can libraries ever be neutral if this glaring problem continues to exist? The only way towards neutrality is to correct the imbalance already in place.

Going forward, librarians must make every effort to collect materials that reflect a wide range of worldview, with particular sensitivity to local audiences. It would be disheartening if a patron went to their library and saw nothing of themselves in any part of the collection, but it would also be a disservice to omit any other worldview for the sake of streamlining.  Libraries should not be conservative in the name of pleasing all, but liberal with their materials

to the point of perhaps even ruffling some patrons’ feathers.  In order to create a true balance, the bias of the current “neutral” system must continue to be acknowledged and combated.

 

 

References

Horton, Myles, and Brenda Bell. We Make the Road by Walking: Conversations on Education and Social Change. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990.

Olson, H. A. (2001). The Power to Name: Representation in Library Catalogs. Signs, 26, 3, 639-668.

Drabinksi, E. (2013), “Queering the catalog: queer theory and the politics of correction” The Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy 83(2): 94–111.

http://weneeddiversebooks.org/faq/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FH5AmZws4QZa7iJFB24E1j2OW2lcZUiSqcSXts9esZw/edit#

#mashcat #critlib neutrality is the side of those in power!

— Jessica L. Colbert (@JessicaLColbert) September 17, 2015

@ekelistic @gmcharlt Not sure what ‘neutral’ means in this context. Sounds too close to ‘passive’ @mashcat @CritLib

— Metadata_Maven (@Metadata_Maven) September 17, 2015

A1: Neutral? No. Our cat languages, systems & vocabs are biased toward Western culture. True universality is a lofty goal. #critlib #mashcat

— Sara A Sterkenburg (@trisaratop) September 17, 2015

@heidylibrarian @ekelistic Rethinking of collection development. How could we ever be "neutral" when dealing with vendors? #mashcat

— Violet Fox ? (@violetbfox) September 17, 2015

A1 Another example: "relevance ranking" in search results is highly problematic. Relevant to whom? When? Based on what criteria? #mashcat

— Galen Charlton (@gmcharlt) September 17, 2015

 

In “A Political Economy of Librarianship?”, William F. Birdsall says that libraries are neither neutral nor airtight to the political climate of the outside world – that, in fact, a library environment is informed by the political and economic values of its surroundings (Birdsall 2). I often consider the many ways in which public libraries reflect the public policy initiatives of the nations, states, and cities in which they are located, especially in areas where elected officials invoke more ‘progressive’ ideologies that value public goods over privatization. In New York, where I live, City Hall’s policies have recently been driven by the populist left, which has paid special attention to the NYC’s breadth of public services, cultural institutions, and libraries. Unlike the fiscally conservative Michael Bloomberg, whose mayoral policies resulted in decreased operational subsidies for libraries, current Mayor Bill De Blasio is implementing programs and funding initiatives that will both improve the functionality and increase use of public libraries by all New Yorkers (Giles 36).

In addition to pumping $39 million into the city’s library budget, in January 2015 the mayor also rolled out the IDNYC, a municipal identification card issued by the city of New York which is also accepted as a library card at New York City’s three library systems. The IDNYC is the largest municipal ID program in history, made unique by offering up multi-uses and incentives crafted to benefit residents of New York City. According to the official website, one is able to apply for a card if they can provide proof of address and identity, although alternative options such as “care-of” forms are available for “…the most vulnerable communities—the homeless, youth, the elderly, undocumented immigrants, the formerly incarcerated and others who may have difficulty obtaining other government-issued ID” (IDNYC).

To summarize, IDNYC makes it possible for socially-excluded and otherwise undocumented residents to obtain valid forms of identification. Furthermore, its dual use as both an accepted ID and a library card is meant to incentivize New Yorkers to visit libraries and seek out the city’s many public services. The municipal ID card is truly a ‘one stop shop’ for access to many buildings in the city of New York. The IDNYC program’s popularity, with over 400,000 applicants and a 98% success rate as of August 2015, is a testament to power of libraries working with local governments to align goals and create programs that encourage more diverse patronage of public libraries.

I’m most interested in the idea of IDNYC as a tool of social inclusion; imperfect, of course, but also a real life example of John Gehner’s idea that libraries should work toward removing “barriers” that may further “…alienate socially excluded groups” from accessing public goods (Gehner 41). These barriers are rarely self-imposed and run the risk of flying under the radar, much to the detriment of the social-excluded peoples who likely need access public services the most. For example, Annette DeFaveri’s “Breaking Barriers” expresses dissatisfaction with library circulation policies that prohibit homeless individuals and those without proof of address and identification from procuring library cards (DeFaveri 5-6). While I understand promoting information access for socially-excluded groups is a pervasive, complex issue that requires reform at every level of the library’s functionality, I believe socially-excluded peoples must first be physically welcome through the library’s doors in order to access its resources and use its space. How would it be possible for the library’s internal mechanisms to reform and improve if socially excluded groups are barred from participating?

Annette DeFavari’s “Breaking Barriers” expresses a similar idea, saying that one way to create an inclusive place is to “emphasize the importance of the library’s initial contact with new patrons” (DeFaveri 2). This got me thinking about how important it is for library policy-makers to consider whether the library’s bureaucratic process of procuring a library card summons feelings of ‘otherness’ for certain groups. Some ideas to consider are whether the library card application is translated into multiple languages, whether patrons confined to online registration, whether circulation desk attendants are available to help, and if the application requires proof of US citizenship or proof of residence. These attributes of the application process, which may echo other ‘standard’ procedures such as filing taxes or employment applications, are placing an invisible blockade between the patron and the front doors of the library.

The IDNYC program, which folds in library card services, sends a concerted effort from City Hall to construct an accessible municipal ID procurement process by printing applications in 25 languages, offering registration in each borough and in public libraries, and creating positions for staff members to assist ID applicants. Proof of residence can be substantiated with a letter from “a City agency, nonprofit organization, religious institution, hospital, or health clinic in New York City” (IDNYC).

While the goal is inclusivity, I will note that there are still many facets of the program that may deter certain groups of New Yorkers from applying for municipal IDs. For example, a resident’s ability to access online letterheads could be limited, or maybe the resident simply feels uncomfortable approaching institutions for proof of residence letters. It is also possible that interacting with city officials may, as DeFaveri says, “…engender suspicion of authority, isolation, and non-participation” (DaFaveri 2). To quell these disinclinations, the installation of registration centers at community gathering spots such as parks, YMCAs and non-profits was introduced to make registration friendlier and more community-oriented. An inviting process of procuring library cards is one step toward opening the library to all, and thus, a step toward improving literacy within communities.

Critics of IDNYC have detailed concerns about the program’s policies surrounding security and privacy, and have expressed apprehension about ID holders being stigmatized when seeking out public services. I thought one of the most interesting aspects of this campaign was the care taken to camouflage ID holders without citizenship or permanent residencies, making their IDs indistinguishable from card holders who do have citizenship and residences. The ID holder’s personal information from their application is stored in a database which is only accessible to the HRA and is not connected to any other government authorities or law enforcement (IDNYC). To further protect the privacy of ID holder, addresses on not stored in the database at all, further diminishing an unlikely scenario in which an ID holder’s card information would be used national security tracking (IDNYC).

Beyond the actual privacy measures meant to protect IDNYC carriers, City Hall made inroads with NYC’s cultural institutions, health care providers, libraries, and public agencies, creating incentives attractive to all New Yorkers, as opposed to just socially-excluded groups. The idea that all types of New York residents find use and purpose in the municipal ID is settling – in a way, it further camouflages the ID holder and prevents conflation between IDNYC cards and criminality, underprivileged backgrounds, immigrant status, and disability. The IDNYC does not simply address the issue of socially-excluded peoples being refused library cards, but instead quells to the age-old myth that a municipality’s public services are most sought after by socially-excluded peoples.

I want to reiterate that the IDNYC is still imperfect: it does not address the issue of library fines prohibiting participation in the public library systems, it does not address internal library policies, and it certainly does not set any guidelines about accessible organizational methods within libraries, or staff behavior toward patrons. This article is also not an endorsement of government structures as they exist today – only an endorsement one government program’s potential. While New York City’s political climate has certainly assumed more of a leftist stance under De Blasio, broken windows still exists, real estate zoning laws are still influenced by corruption, and many socially-excluded groups feel insecure navigating the city-sponsored services. I only highlighted aspects of the IDNYC program that remove some of the barriers that prevent patrons from viewing libraries as a local resource – aspects that attempt to undo some of the damage created by a hegemonic system. When local governments and public libraries find common ground, and create programs to reflect their respective goals, I believe immense improvements can be made in the areas of access and literacy. This is why, Birdsall says, “…librarians need to devote more effort researching the political and economic dynamic that define the past and current environment of libraries” (Birdsall, p. 3). Thus, librarians must be tuned in to the political climate of their city, and engage themselves in local politics to enact necessary changes to public library systems.

References:

Birdsall, William F. (2001). “A political economy of librarianship?” Progressive Librarian 18: 1-8.

DeFaveri, Annette. (2005). “Breaking Barriers: Libraries and Socially Excluded Communities.”

Information for Social Change. 21: Summer. http://libr.org/isc/articles/21/9.pdf (Accessed September 28, 2015)

Gehner (2010). “Libraries, low-income people, and social exclusion.” Public Libraries Quarterly 29: 39–47.

Giles, David, Jeanette Estima, and Noelle Francois. Re-envisioning New York’s Branch Libraries. Rep. New York, NY: Center for An Urban Future, 2014. https://nycfuture.org/pdf/Re-Envisioning-New-Yorks-Branch-Libraries.pdf (Accessed September 28, 2015)

IDNYC. (2015). “IDNYC”. http://www1.nyc.gov/site/idnyc/index.page. (Accessed September 28, 2015).