Are we ready for Library Wars?

Anger as a Private Company Takes Over Libraries

By DAVID STREITFELD

NY Times on library privatization

Whoa. Hold on a sec. What?! I guess I should have seen it coming. I mean, obviously the "invisible hand of the market" has done SO well these past few years at ensuring that the public is served and protected, why not put it to work "fixing up" the rest of our civil society? Hmmm... I wonder why I feel such vehement distrust of a company offering to take over public libraries in "ailing communities”? Notice: the article DIDN'T say ailing LIBRARIES, just ailing COMMUNITIES, so who really knows what their criteria were. 

Presumably, the local government was hit hard by the recession, so they're looking to cut costs wherever possible. We're told that Library Systems & Services LLC (LSSI) is under a $4 million contract to take control of three still healthy libraries, but we are NOT told how much money the municipality was already spending on these libraries, so it's impossible to determine if this is truly cost-saving. Of course, the assumption is that governmental organizations are not only completely incapable of overseeing their own operations, but that they have no incentive to run them efficiently (because what other motivation could there possibly BE apart from profit?!). 

There's also the underlying, un-examined assumption that libraries are SIMPLY places to house books and provide internet access, so removing the qualified, and educated professionals that operate them, and who've been trained to provide information services, and replacing them with un-skilled, non-Union, temp-style workers threatened with layoffs if they fail to perform has NO NEGATIVE IMPACT on the quality of service. There's no discussion here (except in the massive and awesome collection of reader comments, which I highly recommend reading) of the incredible value of librarians teaching information literacy, or helping people navigate new technologies, or find the answers to pressing questions.

Image courtesy of J. Emilio Flores for the NY Times

Jane Hanson, the privatization opponent pictured in the NY Times article, is obviously doing an incredibly important thing by speaking out to protect the library, and I wholeheartedly applaud her efforts, so this next comment is in no way a reflection on her personally. But you've gotta love how the anti-privatization figure they pictured was the stereotypical librarian: a sour-faced, pearl-wearing elderly woman. I can only guess that this assists them in making their case that libraries are run by inefficient, elderly, and perhaps unnecessary people who do as little as possible, and are just waiting to collect their "sweet" pensions. Obviously, such people should be gotten out of the way to better serve the citizenry with a more "efficient" and "profitable" style. 

But the question is: how do you measure a library's efficiency and profitability? It seems to me that there are so many important functions and intangible benefits libraries perform and provide that are not really measurable, and these may not necessarily fall under the rubric of "profitability" or "efficiency."  Of course, library scientists have for some time been working to figure out a valuing system for libraries, but a bit more on that later.

One such intangible benefit is the democratizing power of public libraries. Here, people who can’t afford an internet connection of their own, can reap the same benefit from the Information Age as anyone else FOR FREE. During an economic downturn in particular, patrons can and do use the public library to apply for jobs online, take classes to build their resume, or bring their kids to access books and learn how to use information (folks barely making ends meet can't afford to just hop over to Barnes & Noble to drop a chunk of change each time Jr. finishes a paperback). 

Image courtesy of Ecolocalizer

The limited amount of privatization pushes I've studied (which mostly involved municipal water supplies in S. America and India) did everything to line the pockets of whatever company was taking control (along with the politicians who'd paved the way for them), while making the resource more expensive for the average person, as well as cutting skilled local labor--the same sort of "stream-lining" promised by LSSI. When the private companies found they could no longer make a profit, they left for greener (read: cheaper) pastures elsewhere. This often left the community with a still-broken system that was potentially even more expensive to maintain as a result of "innovations" attempted by the corporation which had had no real long-term commitment, or vested interest in serving the community. 

What happens when LSSI decides it has wrung the last ounce of profit out of the library system, can no longer promise rising returns to its shareholders, and so cuts its losses and exits the scene? By then, the municipality will, most likely, have already re-allocated library funds elsewhere, and may find themselves unable to continue library services to its citizens.

The bottom line is that companies serve their bottom line (shareholders), NOT the public. You could argue that since taxpayer money is funding their operation, the public would (at least in part) constitute their shareholders, but such accountability has certainly not been demonstrated anywhere recently by other private contractors paid with taxpayer dollars. I mean, can you name a time when Black Water or Haliburton gave a damn what the American taxpayer thought? They've touted "corporate personhood" as a means of validating their often sociopathic pursuit of profit at the expense of the public interest. So I think it's a perfect time to call their bluff and say that we're therefore unable to entrust them with running vital public institutions like the public library system.

Image courtesy of Water is Life

In my honest opinion (and I know I'm not a lone voice here), there are certain institutions too important to be left to the whims of market forces and profit. It's probably just the "crazy Socialist" in me talking, but some social services are absolutely necessary for the health of the community, and the nature of these vital services are often such that it may not be possible to run them in a "profitable" manner and still serve a democratic populace in a moral way (those "Socialist" fire-fighting, law enforcement, and water/sewer services, for example). I would argue strongly that health care and libraries are to be grouped among those sacred cows, and we've already seen how broken our capital-centric health care system has become.

This is the reason we pay TAXES: to support and subsidize necessary public services that private companies can't be trusted to operate in the best interests of the population. 

Why? Because we're a democracy, and therefore we value the delivering of essential services to all citizens in an equitable manner, regardless of socioeconomic status. We're also NOT using an accounting system that conveniently externalizes the human cost of lost employment and decreased access by, or service to the public in order to show a short-term "profit" on our balance sheet.

I think it's important to ask at this juncture, whether privatization pushes might somehow (at least in part) be a kind of logical conclusion some might reach based on the use of Return On Investment (ROI) analysis of libraries intended to demonstrate their value to the community. I know only a small amount about ROI, and think it's vital to put some sort of legible dollar sign on all that the library accomplishes in a community to underline its importance. I'm all for putting the services libraries and librarians provide into terms politicians and taxpayers can understand, but I think we should consider whether by monetizing invaluable services, we might set ourselves up for economic evaluation, and possibly the determination that we're not "cost-effective." 

Beyond purely economic criticism, the idea of a private company having control over the information available to the public smacks of censorship and bias (and you can’t tell me that it wouldn’t happen when “all operations — including hiring staff and buying books — [will be] ceded to L.S.S.I..”). Who's to say that the company won’t receive money from an outside source (um, say, a big oil company, or a particular political party) which pushes them to surreptitiously remove all negative press regarding said company or party, along with any information contrary to their beliefs, from the library shelves? Or perhaps invest more heavily in purchasing resources that paint their actions and views in a rosier light?

Photo courtesy of Anglo Enterprises & Vineyard Film Limited
1966 production of Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury
Retrieved from Wolf in Sheep's Clothing blog

It's possible that I'm (slightly) overreacting, and if anyone has stories of privatization working in the long-term for the good of a community, this would be a great place to open up discussion. I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. But to me, privatizing public information access, is a slippery slope to censorship and just one more sledgehammer blow driving the existing wedge between upper and lower classes in this country a little deeper.

WAIT! I have an idea: how about we replace all the CEOs of major banks, investment firms, mortgage lenders, etc.,  with much lower-paid, less-experienced temps. They have already proven quite dramatically that they are both HIGHLY inefficient and unprofitable to our economy, as well as being inimical to the health of our nation. Hooray for outsourcing! Sound good to anyone else?

School librarians as MacGyver (or circus leaders/deadly ninja assassins)

I have to admit, I've been a little overwhelmed lately.

There are parts of my future as a school librarian about which I am totally stoked. I think the fun of working with students and doing something about which I'm passionate will definitely make up for the utter exhaustion that seems to come with the job. My underlying concern is that I'm not going to be able to manage the library + promote literacy + build relationships with students + collaborate with teachers + fix school tech issues + promote the heck out of the library with faculty/administrators/parents, etc. all while keeping my sanity. It's a bit exhausting just writing that out! I think "circus leaders" and "deadly ninja assassins" were the terms Dr. Lankes used to describe the sort of people needed as school librarians today, and (for those of us in IST 511) we were lucky enough to meet two such individuals this week in class... but more on that in a sec.

Which red wire?!

I took this photo during a recent hike with my dog on South Campus. It reminded me of  that incredibly trope-y TV plot device where the main character's desperately trying to defuse a bomb by cutting a particular wire, or several wires in a particular sequence, but isn't sure WHICH, and the bomb is (presumably) set to detonate should s/he be foolish enough to cut the wrong one. Of course, not only is time running short, our hero(ine) is getting conflicting messages about what to do (i.e. s/he's told to cut the red wire, but there are two of them; or to cut the green wire, and NOT the red wire but s/he is colorblind, etc.).

I think this is the sort of scenario I was subconsciously visualizing when I got anxious about being a school media specialist. Will I mis-prioritize and screw everything up? Will I give a teacher or student the wrong information and lose credibility? How will I know exactly what to do? HOW WILL I NOT LOSE MY MIND TRYING TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS?! Of course, the underlying assumption here is that the bomb really WILL detonate if things aren't done in precisely the right way (that's what builds the dramatic tension), or that there's only one correct way to do things, and anything less than perfect will get you and probably some other people blown to smithereens. But is this a valid metaphor to use in relation to the trials of school librarianship, or did I just watch too much TV growing up (a huge possibility)?

When I was a kid, MacGyver was my hero. I wanted to be his kid sister, his daughter, his girlfriend (30-year age difference be damned!), WHATEVER just so I could tag along on his expeditions on behalf of the Phoenix Foundation, and (by proxy) the U.S. We'd sneak into sketchy situations, get the good guys OUT, mess some bad guys UP, and get the job DONE. Of course, MacGyver was a lone operator, and never really took on an apprentice of any kind (despite the imploring letter I sent Richard Dean Anderson at the age of nine putting forth my qualifications in great detail), so I was out of luck.

Who doesn't want to hang out with this guy? Mmmm...so dreamy...

Before the mullet got out of control

This shot is from the pilot, in which MacGyver is called to a top secret science lab where a major explosion has trapped researchers underground. He actually DOES diffuse a bomb using a paperclip in the first episode. No joke. He also uses a handful of Hershey's chocolate bars to stop a sulfuric acid leak threatening him and a helpless blonde female scientist in impractical stilettos, who has the sheer audacity to question whether MacGyver's trick will work. She becomes the first of a long line of throw-away damsel-in-distress characters unrequitedly smitten with MacGyver (who doesn't do personal relationships very well). 

The thing is: the guy can do anything.  He can climb his way into a Soviet secret mountaintop hideout in Central Asia to rescue a downed Air Force pilot, and assemble an ultralight aircraft out of PVC pipe, some tarp, and a lawnmower to fly them both out of there. All in about 47 minutes, no less.

Armed with his paperclip multi-tool, the ever present duct tape (did he have a hidden holster for that, or something?), and his trusty Swiss Army knife, Mac could turn the contents of your average junk drawer:

Photo courtesy of yours truly

Into something like this:

Photo courtesy of Neatorama

Of course, being anti-gun and a general nice guy, Mac most likely wouldn't turn said junk into a cruise missile, but you get the idea. He would use his mental prowess to rig explosions or diversions to blast his way out of something, and not to kill somebody.

Bottom line is: MacGyver didn't save the world with every fishing line + chewing gum + drain cleaner gadget he created. But his ability to take stock of a bad situation, assess the tools available to him, and construct something that would help get him out of there, saved the individual people he'd come to help and made him a go-to guy for all the problems the ______ (insert "Ruskies" or any late '80s American TV villain here) could throw at us (obviously, he was all that stood between the US and a complete Red Dawn-esque Soviet takeover). Granted, a MacGyverism was never meant to be a long-term fix, so that's probably where the metaphor I'm trying to draw between His Royal Fix-itness and school media specialists breaks down. (I also wouldn't want to imply that school administrators, teachers, or students are on par with a drug cartel, international organized crime, or the KGB). But in terms of having the know-how to enter diverse situations and fix problems with the tools he had on hand, all without resorting to violence: MacGyver sounds like an undercover school librarian. And I'd definitely consider him "deadly ninja assassin" material.

Here's a telling snippet of dialog from Season 3 episode "Kill Zone": 

Military official: “...I wonder if he REALLY knew what he was getting into.”

Pete: “He knew the same things all of us knew. I didn’t hold anything back from him.”

Military official: “Why him, Pete? Why MacGyver?”

Pete: “Because he has the scientific knowledge and knows how to move fast through rough country. Aside from that, he’s the best person I know to deal with... whatever it is he’s gonna deal with out there. (Pause) And he volunteered... wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Not only does MacGyver's broad knowledge base enable him to work quickly in any situation in which he finds himself; he wants to do what he's doing, and he's not afraid to get his hands dirty in the process, or try something unconventional that could possibly fail. I think the wanting-to-do-it is the part that keeps great school librarians from burning out with all of the "fix-me-now!!!" problems that inundate them on a daily basis. They are flexible enough to tackle new challenges each day using the tools at hand (which may sometimes be less than ideal, and even perhaps on the junky side), even though the solution may be slightly unorthodox. AND they're willing to try and possibly fail, but still keep trying.

Pic courtesy of ROFLrazzi.com

After listening to school librarians Sue Kowalski and Buffy Hamilton speak at our last class about what they do, I couldn't help but walk away excited about the future. Sue has such a fantastic passion for the kids in her school, and an I'll-try-anything attitude that I'd really like to emulate. I would love to one day be a middle school librarian of the caliber she represents. Buffy promoted embracing "muddiness" and the use of failure and change to create improvement and growth into new ways of doing things. For both women, inspiring students to take initiative and ownership over the library is a key to success, rather than a threat to their control. The idea that coming to solutions that work is a process, and that there will be failures along the way, but that you can use them to become even better, was reassuring to someone like me with little to no experience of how things are "supposed to be done."

Some of those fears about lacking library experience coming into this profession were assuaged by Dr. Lankes' come-to-Jesus speech at the end of class this week. Here's my attempt at a paraphrase for those of you not lucky enough to have been there: If you just do whatever has always been done, you're a cog in the wheel of the larger system, and cogs can be replaced. Innovation involves exploding the existing structures that don't work anymore to build new ones that do. And sometimes, a person who's NOT stuck in the rut of how things have "always been done," is best suited for instituting small, task-level innovations, that can snowball into larger-scale changes (i.e. not saving the WORLD with each idea or effort, per se, but perhaps empowering someone else who will, or setting events in motion that will result in major procedural or structural changes down the road).

So, to all my fellow MacGyver wannabes, there's a shining role for you in school librarianship. You can be the go-to gal or guy, who can make things work, and perhaps save the day. Maybe you'll be somewhat behind the scenes, and just one person in whole, big system, but you'll be what Buffy Hamilton called the "lynch pin" holding everything together, and doing vital work, that probably no one else can do.

Just don't resort to violence. Maybe strive to be a "deadly ninja MacGyver" instead of a "deadly ninja assassin." We'll leave the assassination to the FBI-embedded librarians, and instead create a slew of future "MacGyver" students who are info. literate enough to approach all situations with a can-do attitude, and the nerve to jump in and find solutions where the tools on hand might not seem too promising to anyone else.

Just THINK about that before you laugh at my tube socks and duct tape holster.

And for those Dr. Who fans out there, I found this awesome, awesome mashup of a Dr. Who meets MacGyver intro: 

I also highly recommend thisYouTube Star Wars/MacGyver mashup:

"I just wanted to shout it from on top of a mountain."

OK, quick mini-post:

I just...
I got excited.

I just wanted to shout it
from on top of a mountain.

But I didn't have a mountain.
I had a newsroom and a camera Mac and a Blogger account.

-Ron Burgandy

Image courtesy of Virgin Media

I have a new favorite website, courtesy of Dr. Renee Hill's IST 661 class (well, school media-related website, that is): Resources for School Librarians , which has a Reading Room page with links to tons of different genre websites, book reviews, and a fantastic section on reader's advisory (not just for children's and YA books, either). My new favorite site! 


And great for all my fellow School Media people, as well as any other (future or current) librarians who want help finding books for patrons in genres with which they're unfamiliar. Thanks, Linda Bertland, school librarian in Philadelphia, PA for your hard work in creating such a great resource!! Awesome school librarians like you make it even easier to spread great library & information services to kids around the world!
In the words of the great Dr. Steve Brule: "Check it out!"

Image courtesy of A.V. Club

In defense of non-defensiveness

OK, so...the title of this blog... I hope no one's hackles went up immediately upon reading it, because I'm really not looking to pick a fight here.

The whole e-reader/iPad/Kindle/Nook thing, I totally get and I'm not one of those people freaked out by the phenomenon like the world and/or my purpose as a future librarian is going to end if we stop pulping trees to print words on them. (Granted, I realize that in calling it a "phenomenon" I sound like a crank predicting the downfall of that "fad" Rock 'n Roll, but no such condescension or short-sightedness is intended.  I love my Mac, am lost without my iPhone, and, believe me, if I weren't a poor grad student, you can bet I'd be out buying whatever else Steve Jobs was rolling off the assembly line).

I could (as many before me have done) wax eloquent about the smell of books, or how I love seeing them on my shelves and holding them in my hands, blah, blah, blah; or even about how something I value is lost when I can just download a copy whenever and wherever I want, rather than happily rooting around in dusty used book stores for that certain edition and finding all sorts of treasures in the process. But I'm not going to. Not only has it all been said ad nauseam (here for example, or here, or two dozen other places), it's unimportant.  In my humble opinion, we've drawn lines and slathered on warpaint in a completely unnecessary civil war amongst fellow readers and lovers of information who just prefer different means of accessing the same stuff, when our time would be much better spent banding together to make information even more accessible to everyone.

That's why librarianship is awesome. It seems to me that the most important aspect of this career is facilitating access to the absolute universes' worth of information out there, the lives to be lived through literature, and the democratizing effect of all that available knowledge. It is in helping people (especially kids) learn how to find and evaluate and use that information for themselves. However that is accomplished (so long as individual readers are happy and have access), I'm all for it. Books just happen to be the medium of which I am most fond (and which is currently the most democratic, being cheaper than your average e-reader), but that certainly doesn't mean I'm anti-technology or anti-progress. My preferences are just that: preferences, and are subject to change over time.

Defusing defensiveness aside, I am EXTREMELY excited about becoming a school librarian. There is so much to learn and to share with kids and teachers that will help make learning more exciting and attainable. I remember the librarians at my rural, small-town high school who introduced me to Google back in the glory days of Encarta (dating myself, I know). I had no idea how much that bizarre word would change the way I (and everyone else on the planet) conducted research, or found romance, or bought shoes, or connected with fellow fans of peanut butter and the movies of Will Farrell. I can't even imagine the skills I'll be teaching middle school kids ten years from now (by which time I'll definitely be commuting to school via hover board), but I'm hoping that my time at SU will help me ensure that I continue to be relevant, helpful, and equipped far into the future.

So, fellow students, professor, lovers of the printed or pixelated word: here's to this coming semester, and the future of librarianship!