Public libraries are a socialist threat that should be dismantled

At least, that’s the gist of a comment left by “Mrs. Lemming” on an NPR story about ballot measure L, which will restore public library service in Los Angeles to six days a week. (The name leads me to believe that the comment is a joke, although the rhetoric is unfortunately not too far removed from some of the anti-public-service bile that’s been bubbling up here and there.)  Right now our libraries are closed on Sundays and Mondays, and 28% of the LAPL staff has been let go.  This situation has led the LA Weekly to dub us the City of Airheads.

Look, if you think that libraries are awful because poor people use them, or that you shouldn’t have to contribute to them because you prefer to buy your books and you’re positive you’ll never, ever have occasion to use a public library yourself – fine, whatever.  I’m not going to try to convince you here.

If, however, you believe it’s generally better to have public libraries than to not have them, but you’ve heard that Measure L is going to lead to massive cuts in the Los Angeles police and fire departments, I’d like you to consider that a) the current LA police chief is in favor of the measure, and b) police and fire receive 70% of city funds, as opposed to the library’s 2%.  I don’t want to set this up as library versus police, because the two institutions are supposed to complement each other in maintaining a healthy society, but it’s good to keep the measure in perspective.

I’d also like to call attention to the LA Times’ (immensely unpopular) opposition to Measure L, which echoes much of the same rhetoric that’s widely used to romanticize traditionally female occupations (teaching, motherhood, etc.) while denying them financial support.  “We love libraries,” says the Times, “and consider them a core part of a city’s responsibility… But what if the alternative [to keeping hours reduced] is to hire fewer police officers, or to cut gang-intervention efforts, or to make new businesses wait longer for permits, or to close down graffiti-removal programs?”  There are a few problems with this logic.  First off, it assumes that (traditionally female) librarians do nothing in terms of gang and graffiti prevention – and, indeed, I’ve seen comments claiming that libraries are all about pleasure reading for adults, and nothing more.  If you believe that, then it’s an easy jump to the assumption that it’s okay for (traditionally female) librarians to lose their jobs, when it’s not okay to hire fewer (traditionally male) police officers.*  Secondly, it’s not clear that these scary things are actually going to happen if we raise the library’s budget from 0.0175% of property taxes to 0.03%.  We’re talking about a 0.0125% reallocation, not a massive shift in funding priorities.  Finally, the Times goes on to say that the mayor and city council (almost all of whom support the measure) “should be able to find a way” to come up with the funds to restore service “without being forced to.”  But unless the Times is suggesting that we raise taxes – and we all know how wildly popular that idea usually is – I’m not sure why they think that Measure L will lead to cuts in other areas while some other amorphous solution won’t.  It sounds to me like they want to have it both ways – they don’t want to come across as library-haters, but they do want libraries to remain a low priority.

Luckily, for every Mrs. Lemming (genuine or not), there seem to be twenty residents who are outraged at the thought of voting against funding libraries, which leads me to be cautiously optimistic about Measure L passing.  I submitted an op-ed to the Times which, alas, was rejected, but they did publish one by librarian and author Susan Patron.  Yay!  I’ve included my op-ed below the fold.

Oh, and, uh, in case this isn’t clear yet: if you live in L.A., please vote yes on L!

What’s Good for Libraries is Good for Los Angeles
A Very Smart and Compelling Op-Ed by Julie

When I tell people I’m a student in UCLA’s master’s program in library and information science, the reaction I most often get is, “You mean you need a degree to be a librarian?”

People don’t mean to be rude – most often, the question is asked by someone learning, for the first time, that library schools exist.  We all know teachers need training and certification; we know that if you want to be a business executive, an MBA helps.  Yet we have a perception that few, if any, specialized skills are needed to run a library.

I suspect it’s because much of the most important work in a library goes on behind the scenes.  Library users don’t normally see the acquisitions, cataloging, program development, and collection maintenance that happens in the back offices.  They don’t see us carefully studying search habits so that we can improve our services, or revising our cataloging codes to accommodate digital media.  And that’s just the work of the credentialed librarians.  A library also requires a robust staff of trained assistants, aides, computer technicians, security guards, and others to run smoothly.

Some in Britain, in response to austerity measures, have called for all-volunteer public libraries.  Volunteers are incredibly valuable, but you can’t ask them to take over the work of full-time staffers.  Library users might not know what librarians learn in their masters’ programs, but anyone who spends time in a public library can tell you that it’s so much more than a place to keep books.  It’s where children and teens get help with their homework, where adults look for jobs or learn to read, where citizen researchers pore through scholarly databases or explore the history of their city.  The library is the public’s portal for information access much more sophisticated than a Google search.  And the library has real, documented benefits for society: multiple studies have shown that for every dollar invested in a public library, a city’s economy receives six dollars in return.

That’s why it’s so crucial that residents of Los Angeles vote yes on Measure L.  The Los Angeles Public Library is the third largest public library system in the US, but currently, only 0.0175% of our property taxes fund it.  This is why service has been cut to five days a week and almost a third of its staff has been let go.  Measure L would increase that allocation, over a period of four years, to 0.03%.  That’s still a miniscule amount, but with it, LAPL could bring its vital services back up to six days a week and hire back many of the librarians and other staff members it’s lost.  This issue is so important that Chief of Police Charlie Beck and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa have both endorsed the measure.

If Measure L fails, though, the situation may grow even more dire: some librarians predict that library hours could drop to four days a week.  Four days.  That means more kids on the streets rather than reading, more adults without resources for job hunts.  It means fewer books for you and your children.  When the library is attacked, everyone loses.

Measure L requires no new taxes and won’t siphon any meaningful amount of money from other city services.  Instead, it will help preserve one of human civilization’s most wonderful institutions: a place where any person can access a wealth of knowledge and a staff of trained professionals eager to serve.  And for free!  It takes a lot of work to run a good library – but anyone who’s used a library to find a job or pass a class will tell you that it’s worth it.

Who wouldn’t want to keep such an amazing resource healthy?

_________

* This would be a great place to analyze the widespread, vehement belief that it’s preferable to wait for people to commit crimes and then arrest them, rather than prevent crime through public services and education – which itself is usually founded on the belief that there’s just a certain type of person who’s going to commit crimes no matter what, so what’s the use of even trying to intervene?  Furthermore, what does “crime” even mean?  Did you know Angela Davis wrote this great book on prison abolition?  But it’s so very late and I’m so very tired, and all I want is for my branch library to be open on Sundays and Mondays.

This entry posted in Elections and politics. Bookmark the permalink. 

20 Responses to Public libraries are a socialist threat that should be dismantled

  1. 1
    Lydia says:

    “They don’t see us carefully studying search habits so that we can improve our services…”

    This is sort of off-topic, but I had no idea that librarians paid attention to searches. That is really cool. :) Do you also keep track of which sorts of books are checked out and how often they’re in circulation?

    I hope Measure L passes!

  2. 2
    gin-and-whiskey says:

    I went and read the editorial. Your summary is so so incredibly inaccurate that it’s almost deliberately deceptive.

    The proposed charter acts, as far as I can understand, from a position superior to the budget. If there’s a charter requirement, it means that the library must get those funds.

    In other words, it appears to replace the normal budgetary process with a one-time decision to fund the library at a particular level.

    The point the article makes has nothing to do with mothers. It has everything to do with the idea that it is possible to provide for all the money for libraries through the normal budget, just like it’s possible to provide for almost everything else.

    So when you say

    But unless the Times is suggesting that we raise taxes – and we all know how wildly popular that idea usually is – I’m not sure why they think that Measure L will lead to cuts in other areas while some other amorphous solution won’t. It sounds to me like they want to have it both ways – they don’t want to come across as library-haters, but they do want libraries to remain a low priority.

    Remember that article you linked to? There’s a part you seem to have neglected to read. It states:

    The voters elect a mayor and City Council to make those kinds of choices through a comprehensive annual budget process, adapting their allocations to the city’s ever-changing needs and circumstances. Mandatory funding proposals such as Measure L ask voters to make choices about particular programs without knowing how those choices will affect the rest of the budget. That is why The Times opposes them (emp added.)
    Given how small the library’s budget is in comparison to the $4.3-billion general fund, the mayor and 13 council members who endorsed Measure L should be able to find a way to meet the library system’s needs without being forced to do so by a charter amendment. That’s exactly what we hope will happen after voters reject Measure L.

    Seriously. How on earth can you misread that? The Times opposes the means (charter amendment) and supports the goal (increased funding.)

  3. 3
    Jake Squid says:

    It’s unimaginably terrible that Socialists time traveled back centuries – Centuries! I tell you – to create the horror that is a Public Library.

    At least now I know where Obama got the technology to time travel back to the mid 90’s so he could push the changes to Fannie Mae that caused the economy to collapse.

    There’s a certain comfort in knowing the backstory to time-traveling Obama. I hadn’t realized that it was the socialist connection.

  4. 4
    Mandolin says:

    ” Do you also keep track of which sorts of books are checked out and how often they’re in circulation?”

    My mother is a high school librarian. She does track that, and it affects future purchases as well as what stays on the shelves.

  5. 5
    Robert says:

    SOCIALIST LIBRARIANS ARE TRACKING WHAT WE READ!!!

  6. 6
    Julie says:

    Eep! I should clarify here that studying search habits doesn’t take the form of 1984-style surveillance or anything like that. :) Keep in mind that I’m a first-year library school student, but the form of search habit study that I’m most familiar with so far falls under the broader rubric of information literacy: we use social science research methods (interviews, observation, etc.) to see how people go about obtaining information, and then try to design our systems, reference services, and curricula (for teaching librarians) accordingly. One example is keyword searches versus controlled vocabularies like subject headings – a lot of users don’t really know what purpose subject headings serve and just rely on keywords, so understanding that provides a basis for teaching them how to use the catalog more effectively.

  7. 7
    Robert says:

    I should clarify here that studying search habits doesn’t take the form of 1984-style surveillance or anything like that.

    You’d like me to believe that, wouldn’t you, COMRADE.

  8. 8
    Ampersand says:

    Julie, I hope you know not to take Robert seriously when he’s commenting in this vein. :-p

  9. 9
    Robert says:

    Don’t listen to him, he’s a millionaire big-shot cartoonist and cannot be trusted.

  10. 10
    Julie says:

    Wait, Robert, are you talking to me in that last comment? Because Amp and I are in cahoots.

  11. 11
    RonF says:

    It seems to me that I have seen criticism on here multiple times about the use of mandatory funding measures in California. Sounds like a case of whose ox gets gored.

    OTOH, if this was a measure to get more funds to the libraries using the standard budgeting process I’d be all in favor of it. I spent a LOT of time in my town’s extensive public library when I was a kid. I had a card that gave me access to the adult stacks when I was 6 or 8 and among other things I pretty much read every science fiction book they had, starting with H.G. Wells and translations of Jules Verne and going through the Skylark series and everything they had written by the Good Doctor, Heinlein, etc., etc. I’d go there after school every day I could. When I was a Boy Scout the first merit badge I got was the Reading merit badge – learn the Dewey Decimal System, write 12 book reports and do a service project for the library. I knew everyone who worked there and I had the run of the place. As far as I’m concerned the Public Library is part and parcel of public education, which should not end when you graduate from high school, and it deserves taxpayer support.

  12. 12
    Doug S. says:

    What always amazes me is that the intellectual property enforcers haven’t yet managed to come up with a way to shut down public libraries…

  13. 13
    Robert says:

    I don’t know what the legalities are, but economics-wise, for the most part publishers and writers have enlightened self-interest and see libraries as customers who also evangelize for their product. The type of person who uses the library for ALL their reading and never buys a book is quite rare, and also usually pretty damn poor, so it’s not like they were going to make a sale there anyway. It’s much more common for people to read one at the library and decide to add it to their personal collection – and the library system collectively represents enough guaranteed sales for a mainstream title that the secure purchase is well worth whatever sales do get lost. Plus, culture of reading = culture of book-buying.

  14. 14
    Kevin Moore says:

    I can’t believe that I, an honest-to-goodness socialist librarian (no capitals, please), missed out on this thread.

    Having said that, I agree with Robert. Er, on his most recent comment, that is.

    That makes you a commie pinko scum, Robert. Welcome to the revolution. Please accept a complimentary shovel.

  15. 15
    Julie says:

    Doug, I think the difference between physical and electronic materials has a lot to do with it, too. It’s enough of a hassle to make a copy of a book that publishers don’t really worry about it – but people can easily make ten of copies of an electronic article just by sending ten emails, so that’s what gets publishers up in arms. Wherever you have an electronic database, you have a lot of very wary publishers.

  16. 16
    Doug S. says:

    In the U.S., public libraries and video rental stores are protected by the first sale doctrine.

    And not all intellectual property owners are as tolerant as book publishers. When video rental stores first started appearing, copyright owners actually did try to shut them down and/or force them to pay a fee every time a tape was rented. Needless to say, they didn’t succeed, because they hadn’t yet hit on the trick of calling a sale a “license”…

  17. 17
    ian says:

    It is an absurdity to expect people to not get paid for something simply because they like doing it. How is a society supposed to function, how is an economy supposed to function if that is your rationale?
    It is also an absurdity to imagine that public libraries are not as important, if not moreso than police officers in lowing crime statistics. Public libraries are social hubs, part of the infrastructure which makes a city liveable.
    Alas, the minds of those who cannot see these things to be self evident are dark and nasty places that also promote greed, fear, and hate as public virtues, and whose first action in the morning is to get their righteous indignation on and keep it flowing the whole day long.

  18. 18
    RonF says:

    So whatever did happen to this, anyway?

  19. 20
    RonF says:

    Public libraries are a special concern of mine. The one I spent hours upon hours in when I was a child and an adolescent is still extant and is considered the oldest public lending library in the United States. The original collection – much of which still survives – was donated by Benjamin Franklin and opened to the public in 1790.