The recent government shutdown in Washington DC has been an unavoidable news subject of the last few weeks, from dismay with House Republicans holding the government hostage, to the concerns about glitches users experienced trying to access new health care websites. But there have been some surprising reverberations in the seemingly calm world of librarians and researchers as well; the Library of Congress was closed and its website offline for a few days, as were websites for the U.S. Census Bureau, the National Science Foundation, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Institute of Education Sciences, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Other websites like PubMed were operational but went without updates. The National Archives and Records Administration also had to put 1,932 of its employees on unpaid furlough, meaning partial closures of the 13 Presidential libraries across the country which are NARA-administered. These were all major losses for researchers across the country whose work relies on both physical records and electronic databases.
And there were other ways in which the shutdown was felt. Inside Higher Ed’s website noted that the shutdown was causing disruption in disparate conferences, such as a digital humanities conference sponsored by the National Endowment for the Humanities, or the annual conference for the Society for Advancement of Hispanics/Chicanos and Native Americans in Science held in Austin, Texas. New research grants at the NIH, NSF, and other federal agencies were stopped as well, and intramural research at the NIH was also largely on hold while new patients were not being admitted into clinical trials at the agency’s medical center in Bethesda, Maryland.
The shutdown began October 1, when lawmakers failed to pass a budget agreement after heated debate over implementation of Obama’s Affordable Care Act. This in turn led to the furlough of almost a million federal workers, and the closure of federal institutions like museums and national parks. As to be expected, blame for the shutdown-related problems and disruptions was shifted back and forth between parties. House Republicans introduced bills to provide stopgap funding for the NIH through mid-December, as well as bills to cover funding for the District of Columbia’s operating budget, national parks and museums, and veteran’s benefits. But these bills are unlikely to pass the Senate, and the White House as vowed to veto them, decrying the “piecemeal fashion” of these bills, and calling on the House to “reopen all of the Government.” The American Council on Education, took a cautious stance on the Republican proposal, with Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Terry Hartle saying “We would obviously like to see the entire government reopen and some departments in particular, NIH and NSF, would top our list. But this is an intense, totally political controversy. It’s unlikely that we’re going to insert ourselves in it.”
The stance of neutrality for those representing education resources is understandable and predictable in this situation. In the world of research, academics, and libraries, there is always a need to at least maintain the appearance of non-partisanship, and perhaps a sense that it is best not to rock the boat while waiting for everything to return to a state of normalcy. But should there be more of a sense of outrage? Would it be better to approve of Republican measures to provide stopgap funding for essential services to keep them running, or is it more important to fight the political fight with politics? There are certainly those in the field who believe in the ultimate importance of defending health care. And yet, perhaps there should be some resentment on the part of those in these services (again, always with the ideal of neutrality in mind) whose work is caught up in the larger political machinations of Washington.
There have also been some questions regarding the decision to shutdown websites; while closing physical institutions is perhaps understandable, the maintenance of a website shouldn’t be so difficult or costly. But websites require workers as well, and left unattended could be vulnerable.
It is tempting to read the situation as a failure of bureaucracy, where foolish top-down policies are put into play by the controlling men at the highest point in the federal food-chain, and the effects ripple below to the people below, be they library workers, veterans, park workers or visitors. But perhaps it is a more systemic level problem: our federal institution systems are perhaps rigid and lumbering, and all the actors in this drama are probably doing the most towards what they genuinely believe is right.
Several decades ago Michael Lipsky wrote about the problems facing workers he called “street-level bureaucrats”, meaning the lowest level of government workers who actually work face to face with the public. While he outlined how problematic their work could be (mostly referring to policemen, school teachers, and judges), he also spoke to a possibility for these low-level workers to actually implement policy beyond that which was dictated from above. Is there room in this government shutdown situation for lower level players to affect action? It might be hard to see where librarians fit into this picture of “street-level bureaucrats”, but one bright spot of the shutdown was Washington D.C. mayor Vincent Gray deeming librarians and other local government workers “essential.” In the face of this situation, there has been one bright spot. Normally, such a shutdown would see “non-essential” services like parks and libraries closed in Washington D.C. (due to the special status of the city, which needs Congress’s approval for any budget). But Mayor Vincent Gray defied the federal government, and opted to keep D.C.’s public libraries open.
Maybe there is perhaps a tension here- it is true that it can be harder to see the direct relationship between the work of a librarian in a library and the work of a policeman keeping law and order. But librarians and other researchers do perform vital services for the community on both a local and national level, and it is important that as profession librarians see themselves as being as worthy as others. Professional neutrality need not mean professional self-effacement. Beyond the temporary shutdown situation, there is room for the field of librarianship to assert itself, and improve itself. In the meantime, the Library of Congress’s website at least is now up again. Now if some work could be done on some of the more archaic LCC categorizations (yes, I mean “Oriental language and literatures”) before the next shutdown. That will be for another blog.

Resources
Lipsky, Michael (1969). “Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, NYC

IMLS, NARA, and Library Of Congress Closed During Government Shutdown

Traditionally, libraries have played a role in promoting literacy and knowledge appreciation. More and more, libraries are filling another critical need in our society, by furnishing a sort of refuge for patrons in search of a “communal connection in an ever-more isolated world”. Libraries are widely accepted as community centers and have increasingly conformed to what Ray Oldenburg (urban sociologist) called the Third Place.

A third place can be defined as a community center, separate from the home and workplace, that are “anchors of community life and facilitate broader more creative interaction”. Third places may accommodate the regular, voluntary, &/or informal gatherings of individuals beyond home and work life. Conceptually, these spaces are meant to boost social equality by means of “leveling the status of guests, provide a setting for grassroots politics, create habits of public association, and offer psychological support to individuals and communities”.

As Alison M. Lewis stated in Questioning Library Neutrality, libraries have been one of the places where citizens can be exposed to a variety of viewpoints, including unpopular or minority views, which, in our democratic society, has been held up as a public good. In the article The Professional is Political: Redefining the Social Role of Public Libraries (Questioning Library Neutrality), Durrani and Smallwood stress how important it is for librarians to understand working people’s lives and struggles, be one of them, and then seek ways of creating a relevant library service. Creating a people-oriented library service comes with the challenge to develop a service that is open to all, irrespective of class, race, gender, ability, age, sexual orientation, political beliefs, etc.

The New Republic published an article in March of 2013, titled The Revolution at Your Community Library: New Media, New Community Centers. The article describes several points making contemporary libraries the new community center. It is in these libraries that offer something not found elsewhere in the urban landscape; “heavily used, not-for-profit communal spaces that facilitate many and various kinds of informal social interactions and private uses”. As a third place community center, the library adapts to meet the needs of society and evolves to serve the public:

“The unemployed, under-employed, and self-employed frequent them. Immigrants attend English-as-a-second-language classes there. Homeless people park there. Caretakers and the young charges read, or just escape social isolation without paying for that right at the local mall. Working parents use them as free, safe depositories for untended offspring. Retirees get to the classics they have long deferred, work on their long-dreamed-of-memoirs, dig into their family genealogies. Bootstrap community organizations stage art shows, concerts, performances or lectures.”

To Cossette, the library is a human endeavor. The contemporary library is a center of liberalism, but its function is not to preach it but be liberalism in operation (Humanism in Libraries). In the last pages of Cossette’s dissertation, libraries are defined as being a social institution that exists under the pressures of society as a whole and have the potential to be a “powerful lever for social transformation”. Cossette may have been picturing the ideal library similar to the one imagines in the New Republic article, and certainly within the definition of Oldenburg’s Third Place.

The idealized contemporary library as a community center are abundant on the web, from news sources, blog entries, to scholarly articles. A New York Times article, Libraries Could be Our Shelters From the Storm, imagines urban libraries that can literally serve the public as a community center and provide shelter during potentially threatening disasters. The article points to people’s need for familiarity in times of stress/need, and the public library is exactly that: places that serve us well every day serve us best when disaster strikes. It was during last years Hurricane Sandy, that the potential for libraries as community centers were realized by more than regular patrons. New York Public Libraries became safe haven during the super storm, much more than churches, schools, and malls, thus proving the communities trust in the public library.

Perhaps it is the open-to-all policy, or the institutions neutral characteristics that make the library ideal community centers. Libraries will continue to serve the public, in determining the needs of the community through education, preservation, and information, whether it’s rain or shine. As author Zadie Smith once said, “libraries are the only thing left on the high street that doesn’t want your soul or your wallet”.

 

Text Sources:

Cossette, A. (2009). Humanism and libraries: an essay on the philosophy of librarianship. Duluth, Minn: Library Juice Press.

Lewis, A. M. (2008). Questioning library neutrality essays from Progressive librarian. Duluth, Minn.: Library Juice Press.

Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House.

 

Additional Reading:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112443/revolution-your-community-library

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/arts/design/next-time-libraries-could-be-our-shelters-from-the-storm.html?_r=0

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/10/how-libraries-can-stop-next-hurricane-disaster/70149/

http://lj.libraryjournal.com/blogs/annoyedlibrarian/2013/10/07/libraries-saving-the-day/

 

 

When e-readers first came out, I wanted nothing to do with them. Any book lover can tell you that in addition to the characters and the story and the plot, there is a passion for the feel and smell of the book, for the emotion of curling up somewhere and entering elsewhere.

Personally, I love to not only sit and commit hours to reading but to read throughout with my day, in every moment of downtime; elevator ride, check out line, while walking down the street– you name it! Thus, as most readers can contend, I have forever been faced with the readers’ dilemma of how to have my large bulky book on me at all times. As a woman I often carry a small purse – nothing is fitting in there! And what do you do when you only have 3 chapters left in that encyclopedia-sized book?? What about the fear of finishing a book while waiting at a doctor’s office? You have only been in the waiting room for fifteen minutes and you know you have the better part of an hour left, what do you do with yourself now? Carry two encyclopedias??

When I was younger I dreamed up a brilliant solution. It was something to do with adjusting the spine of a book so that you could carry just portions of a book with you wherever you went. It was a simple slip down binding mechanism – in my vision – and could be customized as needed to take, say, just the middle third of the book on one errand or just the last chapter rather than the whole section. I am not an engineer. This ingenious idea lived only in my head. I, nonetheless, had no doubt that I would be a bagillionaire in no time. Who couldn’t use this invention!?

Enter the e-reader. This little device essentially cost me my “bagillions” while simultaneously changing the face of the literate universe.

Like many, I was extremely resistant at first. As I mentioned before, there is nothing as comforting as the smell of a books pages as you flip through them. What was this electronic alien invader, trying to sneak in and take the essential “book smell” away from my reading life? I was not having it. Until, that is, my friends ignored my very proud stance, and gave me a kindle for my birthday one year. Traitors. At first I fake-smiled and hid it in my closet. One day I very innocently turned it on. Another day, I looked at just a sample of a book someone recommended. Next thing I know…oops I own an entire virtual library – how’d that happen!?

When you(me) get past your(my) resistant exterior and stop fighting based on principle, anything can happen it seems. In no time my kindle went from being the enemy to an addition of my body. My kindle is my fifth limb. It is as essential as my keys, phone and wallet when I leave the house. I purchase bags based on them having good kindle-storing/protecting pockets. I keep the charger on me. I have the app on my phone and computer. Did I mention that I am an addict?

What affect is this having on libraries today though? Certainly there are less physical books on shelves. Likewise, I proudly borrow from the New York Public Library’s e-book selection at every opportunity. Does this mean that more people are reading more often and more easily? That’s a good thing. But, what if I were to tell you that books might be done away with altogether!? I’m sorry, reader, if you are anything like me then that was a punch in the gut and I gave you no warning. The horror! Am I right!? You need only google “digital-only library” to learn that reports are rampant that the next phase of libraries may be subject to digital-only collections. Reema Khrais (2013) noted one of the earlier attempted launches of a digital-only library at the Santa Rosa Branch Library in Tucson Arizona in 2002, was unsuccessful for a number of reasons, not least of which it was simply said to be “premature.” Try, try again, more are on their way (Beres, 2013).

I have already admitted that I caved and joined the nerdy digital world. Some might say that I have therefore forfeited the right to be devastated. Maybe I just am resistant as I was with my e-reader at first, and need to be persuaded – with time -that this is the best move. Perhaps I am just a sappy nostalgic, one who hates the cold image that the idea of an “all-digital library” conjures. Maybe this is for the best, less killing trees and greater accessibility, not to mention fewer late fees?

In their works on street-level bureaucracy, Lipsky (1969) and Bovens, et al. (2002) discuss the affect and a reform from the influence of street-level, active and in person bureaucrats to a more scene- or system-level bureaucracy. That is, for example, a traffic cop is street-level whereas the automated red-light camera might be scene-level and the system automatically spitting out a picture and a ticket and mailing it to your home is system-level. It is a change from the human element to the machine, and these authors discuss both the good and the bad. A cop has the ability to use his digression when doling out tickets, good or bad, he can decide. The machine, however, is rigid. If we remove the human element is it now more “fair” across the board or does it “undermine the legitimacy of governance” (Bovens, et al., 2002, p.182)?

When thinking about the notion of an all-digital library, I am made aware of the bureaucratic shift that is involved. There will be less interpersonal interaction in a digital library, less searching on shelves and borrowing hard copies. No arguing about late fees or room for opinion. In my experience with the New York Public Library (NYPL), when borrowing an e-book, the system gives you a set number of days in which the book is on your device, after which it is automatically removed. No questions asked, no one there to ask them. The system warns you when your loan time is ending. Is this fair? Is it better, is it worse? What if I told you that a physically borrowed book can be renewed for extended loan, whereas the system currently does not permit renewals on e-books. Does that matter? Is that less fair? Is this just a quirk in the system? “Equality For E-Books” rally, coming to you soon!

Digital libraries will of course carry more than just pleasure-reading collections. Will you be able to borrow periodicals? What happens with print documents that haven’t been reformatted to digital copies? What about articles from magazines or papers, etc., that the library doesn’t subscribe to? Can you pay? Should you have to? Maybe the digital age actually opens us up to more accessibility; an article published in Europe might come up in a simple search conducted by a researcher in Alaska. The questions are endless.

Perhaps all we can do is bear in mind all of these uncertainties, try to recognize any undue influence this media might be having, and considering it when drawing conclusions. Who is to know what the future will hold. Good or bad, the digital age is here and is spreading like wildfire. Nothing, not even the sanctity of our precious “book smell” is exempt it seems.

 

Bibliography

Beres, D. (2013, April 1). 50,000 Shades of Grey: The Wonder of Bookless Libraries. RD. Retrieved from http://www.rd.com/recommends/50000-shades-of- grey- the-wonder-of-bookless-libraries/
Bovens, M. & Zouridis, S. (2002). From Street-Level to System-Level Bureaucracies: How Information and Communication Technology Is Transforming Administrative Discretion and Constitutional Control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174-184.
Chappell, B. (2013, September 14) Bookless Public Library Opens In Texas. North Country Public Radio. Retrieved  from http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/222442870/bookless- public-library-opens-in-texas
Khrais, R. (2013, January 15) A New Chapter? A Launch Of The Bookless Library. NPR. Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/2013/01/15/169412670/a-new- chapter-a-launch-of-the-bookless-library
Lipsky, M. (1969). Toward A Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy. Institute for Research on Poverty, 48-69.

In his essay written as part of a Library Science graduate program in the 1970’s, Andre Cossette responds to what he sees as a theoretical weakness in the field, developing a philosophy of librarianship in an effort to separate the nature of librarianship from its technical practices and define an ultimate purpose. Inspired by ideas of another writer in the field at that time, Jesse Shera, Cossette suggests the following definition: “Librarianship is the art and science of the acquisition, preservation, organization, and retrieval of written and audio-visual records with the aim of assuring a maximum of information access for the human community” (1976, p. 33).

Since the publication of Cossette’s essay, advances in information and communication technology have greatly impacted the modern notion of information and its storage and retrieval. While some librarians and library leaders may still cling to this notion of librarian as gatekeeper, in today’s world of open access to information this perception is increasingly challenged. Libraries struggle with how to use and exchange bibliographic data in an increasingly networked, linked data environment. As they become just one of many options for information access, and arguably fall behind in terms of user experience, libraries seem to be at a crossroads and in serious need of a redefinition in terms of aim, objectives and function.

In the Fall of 2010, the editors of Library Journal organized an online summit, eBooks: Libraries at the Tipping Point, where Eli Neiburger, the IT and Production Director at Ann Arbor District Library gave a talk in which he enumerated the ways in which he sees “libraries are screwed”. Stating that the traditional value of libraries has been the local copy, Neiburger goes on to describe how this notion of a copy has lost its embodied value in an information market where there is no longer a difference between transmission and duplication. To transmit a digital object is the same as to duplicate it, and in our constantly connected culture where you can download anything from anywhere, “the idea of having a local copy only makes sense to a hoarder”. He goes on to describe digital materials already being produced that libraries cannot circulate and how little sense it makes asking the modern patron with persistent internet access to wait to receive a digital object. The very idea of owning a copy of media is something that could potentially become an alien concept to future users, and this is all happening at the same time as tax payers are forced to decide what municipal services they can do without.

Out of this belief that the circulating collection itself has become outmoded, Neiburger offers a potential look at the future, by looking to the past. The original use of libraries was not to purchase commercial content for the community but to store the content of the community. He sees the future of libraries as resting on this community data—but not just data about the community; also the creations of the community. Through access to production tools, event venues, and a permanent non-commercial online space for the patron’s creative works the library becomes a platform for the community.

One great example of what Neiburger describes may be the “4^Th Floor” at the Chattanooga Public Library. Their website describes the vision as such:

The 4th floor is a public laboratory and educational facility with a focus on information, design, technology, and the applied arts. The 14,000 sq foot space hosts equipment, expertise, programs, events, and meetings that work within this scope. While traditional library spaces support the consumption of knowledge by offering access to media, the 4th floor is unique because it supports the production, connection, and sharing of knowledge by offering access to tools and instruction.

Providing technology tutorials, demonstration days, field trips, art and design lectures, and access to 3D printers: the 4^th floor combines art, technology, and education in its mission to help the community re-imagine ways to “incubate, educate and create”. Perhaps this type of community space represents one possible future for libraries?

What is clear is that libraries have lost their once monopolistic role as information providers and as we head into a new digitized era, the value of the local collection will continue to be challenged. We need to reposition ourselves in this shifting environment, finding ways to provide unique experiences and content if libraries and librarians hope to remain relevant. The library as a physical community space still seems to hold a great deal of value. This becomes even more crucial in our corporate driven culture in which non-commercialized public spaces are disappearing, and venues for public political interaction are few and far between.

However, libraries need to employ a greater degree of self-awareness in order to provide these open intellectual spaces. In his essay, The Myth of the Neutral Professional, Robert Jensen discusses how the ideology of political neutrality keeps librarians and other professionals from understanding the relationship between power and the professions. Pointing to the fact that the 20^th century has been defined by three developments of great political importance: democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power from democracy, Jensen states that the, “liberal, pluralist, and democratic features of the system are constantly in tension with capitalism and the state” (2008, p. 89). In a democratic society, where the state does not have direct control of the institutions where intellectual work is done, the myth of the neutral professional serves as propaganda, a way to neutralize professionals who have been “given the resources that make it easy to evaluate the consequences of that distribution of power and potentially affect its distribution” (Jensen, 2008, p. 91).

As places for people to engage in politics as participants and not simply spectators disappear, the library represents one of the last remaining public spaces for people to come together and engage ideas. Jensen points to the importance of programming within this context, explaining that while programs should not advocate a single viewpoint, the choices involved will inevitably be informed by individual politics. “In all of these situations, the question isn’t whether one is neutral, but whether one is truly independent from control and allowed to pursue free and open inquiry” (Jensen, 2008, p. 95).

In seeking out this independence, the ideas of social theorist, Herbert Marcuse seem relevant. Included in the collection of essays, Critical Theory for Library and Information Sciences, Ajit Pyati of the University of Western Ontario explores how Marcuse’s theories might apply to LIS, specifically the influence of “technological rationality”. Writing during the height of the advanced industrial society, Marcuse’s idea of a form of technological dominance serving to institute new, more effective, and more pleasant forms of social control is relevant to a discussion of how discourses of information technology are being used to perpetuate capitalist logics of consumption today. Pointing to the commodification of information and the decline of the democratic public sphere, Pyati finds Marcuse’s theoretical concerns about technology relevant in terms of bringing social justice concerns to the forefront, counteracting repression, domination, and injustice as well as also pointing out the potential liberating possibilities of the technological society.

For freedom indeed depends on technological progress, on the advancement of science. But this fact easily obscures the essential precondition: in order to become vehicles of freedom, science and technology would have to change their present direction and goals; they would have to be reconstructed in accord with a new sensibility—the demands of life instincts. Then one could speak of a technology of liberation, product of a scientific imagination free to project and design the forms of a human universe without exploitation and toil. (Pyati, 2010, p. 240)

Marcuse’s words bring to mind Chattanooga and the 4^th floor, as well as Neiburger’s assertion that libraries must find ways to offer unique experiences and content. Pyati states, “As a field that bridges both the academic and professional worlds, LIS is in a unique position to train public intellectuals who can speak for issues in the public interest and advocate for socially just outcomes in the information society” (2010, p. 246). Perhaps the future will see what Shiraz Durrani and Elizabeth Smallwood describe as a “people-oriented library service” in their essay The Professional is Political: Redefining the Social Role of Public Libraries. For this type of library to exist, there must be a clear understanding of the social forces within which the library services operate in order to develop a service that is open to all and reaches out to those that have been excluded in the past. Libraries must stop operating in isolation from outside progressive forces and join with organizations such as youth groups, unions, and political organizations. “But before libraries reach that stage, they need to liberate their minds from the social, cultural and political norms of class-divided society…we will need to see the whole picture and not just the aspects we are shown” (2008, p. 125).

More than thirty years later, Cossette’s simplistic definition of librarianship no longer seems to rings true. Although the technical aspects of library work may still mirror what he described, the absolute necessity for librarians to reinvent themselves in a new cultural, technological and political landscape will force members of the profession to confront these issues whether they are ready to do so or not.

 

References

Cossette, Andre (1976). Humanism and libraries: An essay on the philosophy of librarianship. Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press.

Durrani, Shiraz, & Smallwood, Elizabeth. (2008). The professional is political: redefining the social role of public libraries. In Alison Lewis (Ed.), Questioning library neutrality: Essays from progressive librarian (119-140). Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press.

Eli Neiburger (2010, September 29). Libraries at the tipping point: how ebooks impact libraries. Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd0lIKVstJg

Jensen, Robert. (2008). The myth of the neutral professional. In Alison Lewis (Ed.), Questioning library neutrality: Essays from progressive librarian (89-96). Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press.

Pyati, Ajit. (2010). Herbert Marcuse: liberation, utopia, and revolution. In Gloria J. Leckie & Lisa M. Given & John E. Buschman (Eds.), Critical Theory for Library and Information Science (236-247). Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

 

Imagine that you are the principal of your old high school.  It is a tough economic time, and you’re preparing for major budget cuts and less funding.  Your school is allowed two of the following positions: Music Teacher, Art Teacher, Librarian, Nurse, and Physical Education Teacher.

 

Who would you choose?

 

Why?

 

Principals are faced with such decisions every year.  While some still recognize the value of skilled and experienced librarians, many have few doubts about getting rid of them.  Parents rally to raise money for such extracurricular activities as marching bands or sports teams, but are rarely willing to do the same for libraries.  The result: school libraries are closing and librarians are being laid off.  At James Logan High School in California, “the 4000 students…are starting the school year without access to the aisles of books and computers sitting in a darkened room, unused.”[i]

However, principals and parents aren’t solely to blame.  This issue extends beyond the realm of school librarians.  Regardless of the type of library, hours are being cut or librarians are being let go altogether.  Law firms and corporations view librarians as expendable in times of economic crisis.  Can you blame them either?  In a capitalist society, how can a profession that doesn’t provide direct financial benefits be seen as an asset?

It depends how one defines “librarian.”

According to Merriam-Webster, a librarian is “a specialist in the care or management of a library: a place in which literary, musical, artistic, or reference materials are kept for use but not for sale.”  Whether or not one acknowledges that the term has evolved over time, it’s difficult to comprehend what a librarian does from this definition.  It’s static and outdated, and if this is the public’s perception of what librarians are, the field will begin to disappear.

The only people who can adequately provide a definition are librarians themselves.  To be considered an indispensable part of society, librarians have to establish that they have a skill set that cannot be duplicated, substituted, or outsourced.  Using this skill set as the basis, librarians will be able to defend their contribution to the workplace, even if it is not an obvious financial one.  Until they do so, librarians will continue to be perceived as replaceable and will have no way to articulate an argument against this view.

The fact is librarians do possess a skill set: “the organization, representation and retrieval of knowledge and information.”[ii]  However, establishing this is only the first step. As Jack Anderson claims, it doesn’t matter “whether a librarian has mastered particular techniques or principles, because the latter do not demonstrate that they themselves can make a difference in society.”[iii]  Librarians now need to explain why this skill should matter to the public in a way the public can understand and digest.  Over the past few years, librarians have begun to do this and, in turn, successfully defend their worth.

Ironically, their arguments all start with the very skill librarians possess: research and retrieval of information.  Within school systems, librarians are conducting studies on their impact and articulating their findings to the public. Much of the focus is on the relation of school librarians to student achievement.  “In a 2010 study conducted in Colorado, more children scored ‘proficient’ or ‘advanced’ in reading in schools with a full-time, credentialed librarian than those without.”[iv]

This link between library programs and student achievement is well-documented, but there is also an effort to change the outdated stereotypes of librarians.  Flexibility is a term often used to explain librarians’ work in recent articles.  “Today’s librarian is less a stern guardian of the collection and more like a curator, eager to share resources she has found and the skills it takes to distinguish good information from bad.” [v] This new portrayal of librarians involves them in more than merely helping students check out books.  It instead emphasizes their working directly with students in both libraries and classrooms.  In addition, library programs are shown to help expose students below the poverty line to new technology they would otherwise not have access to.

These arguments and statistics, if explained to a principal in these terms, will help change his/her perception of the value of a librarian and may lead to second thoughts during budget cuts.

The logic is the same regardless of the type of librarian.  There are many arguments against having a law librarian, especially in the Internet age when information is so readily available.  John Lamb articulates this in his article, “Does It Pay to Hire a Law Firm Librarian?” He expresses the need for librarians to change in light of these technological advancements, or risk becoming irrelevant.

However, more interesting than his article was the response of law librarians, detailing their value.  The arguments are well articulated and include a theme of uniqueness to the abilities of librarians.  They are shown to possess the skills which help create relationships with clients, write research memos, and not only conduct research, but do it efficiently.  “In fact, our recommendation is that an attorney contact us if they spend more than 15 minutes researching without finding their answer.  Implementing this rule reduces the amount of potential write-offs to a mere 0.2 hours.”[vi]  These points all direct attention to the bottom line: the net value of a librarian position. They find that an attorney performing the duties of a librarian would result in $12,000 of billable time lost per week, which equals $624,000 lost annually.  This, as opposed to $65,000 for a librarian’s annual salary.

Librarians may be seen as liabilities in times of financial crisis, but the onus is on them to advocate for the profession and “earn the status of being indispensable.” [vii] They have the skills; they just need to translate them into an argument.

The No Child Left Behind Act was introduced by the Bush Administration back in 2001 and went into effect in 2002. The stated intention was to hold schools and teachers accountable by developing a standardized test for each state to ensure that students were learning what was necessary before graduation from high school. Schools whose students did not meet the approved standards with their test scores would be subject to “federally mandated interventions”¹, which usually take the form of budget cuts. Many teachers said, prior to the law passing, that this would cause a lot of formulaic teaching in the classroom and an extreme emphasis on math and reading. Unfortunately, in the years since 2002, they were proved to be correct.

In Steven Bell’s Library Journal article entitled No Child Left Behind Comes to Campus he highlights that the students entering universities now are largely the result of the formulaic teaching that resulted from No Child Left Behind.² The freshman that entered college this year would have been in 2nd or 3rd grade when the law went into effect, meaning that if they were within the public school system, the vast majority of their education has been dictated by the questions in their state’s standardized test. This is all besides the larger issue that the tests, and therefore student results, are different across each state. How is an admissions officer in any state supposed to compare a Michigan student’s scores against a California student’s?

The test has had an affect on public school libraries as well. Not only do the budget cuts for low-performance schools automatically mean cuts in the library’s spending budget, it also means that librarians could be sacrificed in order to keep a classroom teacher that can teach to the test. And though the test emphasizes reading, it doesn’t encourage library use or information literacy. University librarians are actually being forewarned that the students they will be receiving soon will have very little knowledge of how to write a proper research paper, let alone how to find their way around the stacks and resources the library has.²

Though there are no blatant indications of censorship or threats to access to information, it’s surprising that librarians, even non-academic, have not had a larger reaction to this law from the start. As André Cossette highlights in his essay Humanism and Libraries: an Essay on the Philosophy of Librarianship, one of the major roles of librarians is as an educator.³ The No Child Left Behind Act is both inhibiting students from learning analytical thinking, but also discouraging the discovery of new and varying information. Information that could be found in their library. Steven Joyce would agree that librarians should be a loud voice in this conversation because they not only have opinions on information access, intellectual freedom and literacy, but also exist in the social and political realm and cannot be separated from it.⁴

Though many librarians outside of the school system, may think that the No Child Left Behind Act doesn’t affect them, or that it isn’t their place to stick their noses—whether out of a belief of the necessity of remaining a neutral librarian or general apathy—they might soon be seeing the effects in their own libraries. If younger generations aren’t being taught the importance of libraries and the information they can provide, they are very unlikely to use them as they get older. As Wedgeworth put it, “If librarians decide that the issues vital to society are irrelevant to librarians as librarians, then society may find that librarians are irrelevant to it.”⁵ Luckily, university-level librarians may be able to undo some of the damage that has been done in middle and high school, since they don’t have to answer to a standardized test (yet), but not only does this put a lot of pressure on those librarians to educate a massive group of students, but it also misses those students that don’t continue on to higher education.

The No Child Left Behind Act now appears to be failing all over the country. Texas, the state that the principles of the Act were based on, has just been granted a waiver allowing more wiggle room on how to measure the student’s achievements “in exchange for a state plan to prepare students for college and career, focus aid on the neediest students, and support effective teaching and leadership.”¹ But, wait, wasn’t that supposed to be what the No Child Left Behind Act encouraged? Texas isn’t the only state that has requested a waiver, forty-one states and Washington DC  have as well.¹ So, it appears that the Act isn’t working. As the standards have increased over the years, more and more schools have failed to reach the standards and have had their funding cut as a result. At this point, not only are the students failing, the schools are as well.

The law has been up for renewal since 2007, but congress hasn’t addressed it at all, which is why the Obama Administration is issuing so many waivers.¹ It seems that now would be a good time for librarians to  to take a stand against this, because, as Robert Jensen would say, not speaking up is the same as supporting the oppressor.⁶

^{1. Associated Press. (2013, September 30). Feds Grant Texas No Child Left Behind Waiver. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2013/09/30/us/politics/ap-us-education-waiver-texas.html?ref=nochildleftbehindact&_r=0 ↩}

^{2. Bell, S. (2013, March 20). No Child Left Behind Comes to Campus. The Library Journal. Retrieved from http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/03/opinion/steven-bell/no-child-left-behind-comes-to-campus-from-the-bell-tower/ ↩}

^{3. Cossette, A. (2009). Humanism and Libraries: An Essay on the Philosophy of Librarianship. (Litwin, R., Trans.). Deluth, MN: Library Juice Press. (Original work published 1976)↩}

^{4. Joyce, S. (1998). A Few Gates Redux: An Examination of the Social Responsibilities Debate in the Early 1970s and 1990s. In Lewis, Alison (Ed.), Questioning Library Neutrality (pp. 33-65). Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press, 35. ↩}

^{5. Ibid., 43↩}

^{6. Jensen, R. (2004). The Myth of the Neutral Professional. In Lewis, Alison (Ed.), Questioning Library Neutrality (pp. 89-96). Duluth, MN: Library Juice Press, 91.↩}

 

“At some point, I suppose, all of us in our lives confront some unavoidable, outsized horror. Maybe it’s a tumor, or a little brother playing with a gun, or a psychopath in a day care center, but inevitably, a moment comes for all of us when we realize that we cannot beat the devil on this one.”

           The line, taken from Susan Jane Gilman’s essay Picnic in Treblinka, is one of those pristine nuggets of indelible truth; a passage so perfectly put that it just seems to scream out to be underlined and read again and again.

            In Picnic Gilman recounts her time as a fresh-faced, piss and vinegar-fueled reporter for The Jewish Week. She’s not very good (she orders lobster bisque during lunch with a prominent rabbi), mostly due to the fact that as a twenty-something who’s been largely sheltered all her life, Gilman is filled with hubris. The Jewish Week is just a bump in the road, the cross she has to bear before The New York Times and Vanity Fair discover her natural talents and snatch her away to print media Camelot.

            Eventually Gilman’s job leads her to a gig chaperoning teenagers on a trip to, of all places, Auschwitz, and that’s when the aforementioned epiphany comes; this idea that eventually the world is going to rear its ugly head and give you a toothy, terrifying smile, as if to say, yes, this really is a horrible place.

            We library science students seem by default to possess a naïve (albeit well-intentioned and possibly altruistic) idea of what our future roles as librarians will be. To put it more simply, we want to make a difference. Cossette might not enjoy seeing librarians as educators, but to some extent that’s exactly what we are: We promote literacy and facilitate the acquirement of knowledge. It is the hope of every librarian that a patron exits his or her library at least a little more well-informed.

            The desire to make a difference is not a bad thing. In fact it’s tremendous. Where, really, would the world be without its do-gooders or the selfless progressives who decided to stick their necks out? But do we as students, like Gilman, suffer from a sense of hubris if only because we believe we can affect lives for the better?  

            So what, as librarians, is our unavoidable, outsized horror?  What is that reality that’s so big and so overwhelming that it shakes us?

              The homeless.

            Now let’s put some quantifiers on this. We’re not talking about the squatter punks, or the Woody Guthrie wannabes riding the rails. We’re not talking about the recession-hit, as-seen-on-Frontline families down on their luck. We’re not even talking about shelter kids. These are acceptable, perhaps even gentrified forms of homelessness. A sort of homelessness that, if you don’t outwardly feel for its victims then you’re at least willing to engage with it. They are the not-quite-disenfranchised.

            No, what we are talking about are the chronically homeless: The drug addicts and alcoholics and above all else mentally ill. The ones who hear voices and talk to themselves. The ones who reek of bodily fluids. The ones who ooze and bleed and pus.

            When the tragedy of the world grins down at you it’ll come in the form of a guy screaming when you tell him to get off the public computer, a woman who insists she talks to angels, or the gentleman relieving himself in nonfiction. 

             The magnitude of this horror and the feeling of helplessness that comes along with it reverberate throughout Chip Ward’s America Gone Wrong: A Slashed Safety Net Turns Libraries into Homeless Shelters. Ward’s anger is palpable. He spends at least half of the article describing in detail the regulars of his establishment. Here Ward’s prose isn’t just flippant, but at points strikes an outrageously condescending tone, as if he were gesturing towards one of his miserable patrons and saying, “Hey, would you get a load of this guy? Whackjob!” Here, for example, is Ward’s description of a patron named John:

            John is trying hard not to be noticed. He has been in trouble lately for the scabs and raw, wet spots that are spreading across his hands and face. Staff members have wondered aloud if he is contagious and asked him to get himself checked-out, but he refuses treatment. He knows he is still being tracked, thanks to the implants the nurse slipped under his skin the last time he surrendered to the clinic and its prescriptions. There are frequencies we don’t hear — but he does. Thin whistles and a subtle beeping indicate he is being followed, his eye movements tracked and recorded. He claims he falls asleep in his chair by the stairway because “the little ones” poke him in the legs with sharp objects that inject sleep-inducing potions.

           Ward, the (recently retired) assistant director of Salt Lake City Public Library, could probably serve as a living, breathing case study in the negative effects of street level bureaucracy. He dehumanizes his involuntary clientele, while casting himself in the hero’s role, seething the entire time at the pure injustice of it all.  He is, as Michael Lipsky would put it, attempting “to alter expectations about job performance.”  

            And yet if you can get past Ward and his heavy-handed language you have to grudgingly admit that he has a point. He’s not just angry at his patrons, he’s angry at the system–or lack thereof–that created them. Ward is in fact suffering—yes, suffering—from a quintessential street level quandary: How to serve a community in need with little to no resources and even less support? And this is not just any community, but a community the rest of us goes out of our way to ignore.

            Ward documents his attempts to try and solve the problem, attending conference after conference about the homeless. When the gathered social workers, counselors and therapists find out his vocation, they inevitably ask him the same question: What are you doing here? To which Ward (I like to imagine at this point he throws a chair) replies, “Where do you think they go during the day?”

            When I originally conceived of this post I’d planned to do a number of things. I was going to talk about a rash of libraries passing policies set out to essentially ban the homeless; policies that forbid such things as bathing, shaving and washing hair in public bathrooms; policies that prohibit sleeping bags or deny entry to anyone with “offensive body odor.” I was going to talk about how the problem with such policies is not just that they’re discriminatory, but go against all the ethereal ideals of what we do, what we want to do, and how we are as librarians, namely the ideal that libraries are there to serve the people i.e. everyone. And then I was going to offer up solutions, like hiring social workers and peer counselors in addition to regular staff. I was going to suggest that libraries form partnerships with various non-profits to conduct surveys and put on workshops; that they take the ALA-recommended avenue and promote and purchase materials that respectfully and honestly address homelessness issues.

            I actually did write all that, and then I sent it off to a fellow librarian for feedback. Her response was to ask whether or not I was being sarcastic. As my friend saw it, the policies profiling the homeless that I’d found so horrific weren’t just justified but necessary.

            “Are libraries supposed to be shelters to the homeless that extend its facilities to bathing and changing of clothes? And frankly, have you ever been close to a person who has not bathed in months? Anna, that odor cleared entire subway cars,” she wrote. “Where does serving the homeless end and driving out the other patrons begin?  When I worked in Brooklyn, some homeless guy [expletive] all over the bathroom floor!  No one could use it after that.”

            Spoken like a true burned-out, alienated street-level bureaucrat.

            One of my original problems with Lipsky’s 1969 Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy had been that it’s an analysis. His objective is to create a theory about street-level bureaucracy, not offer up solutions to its ill effects. After page after page of telling us everything that’s wrong he doesn’t give us anything with which to cure it, but perhaps that’s the point and the first admission we have to make before we can call ourselves librarians: There is no cure-all.     

            Perhaps once we get past the idea of saving the world, we can just do our best to try and change it.