To Restore Civil Society, Start with the Library
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
If you say...well STEM is important, but let's not forget art, pretty soon you'll say well we also need physical education as a healthy body is good too. Before long, you're back at the standard education system.
Getting back to the main subject at hand, libraries are awesome and will be even more important when Amazon forces the last brick and mortar bookstores out of existence. I've also started to see library outreach programs that teach classes on various subjects. Neil Gaiman has an essay on libraries in his book "a view from the cheap seats" that you can also see here:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/15/neil-gaiman-fu...
As to the comment I'm responding to, you can probably mostly ignore my STEM vs STEAM argument as it is only mildly important as far as how funds are distributed. What really matters is people like you who are working to make a difference in the world and thank you for that. To think that I might get to bring my children to a library in the future that acts as a knowledge hub is pretty amazing. I've also found the librarians at my local library to be very kind & helpful people.
Pretty much every HS kid in America is required to take at least 3 full years of math and science if not 4. How exactly are they not getting the focus over art? Schools are cutting art programs left and right in order to allocate more resources toward things that get covered on standardized tests.
Every single year/quarter of a person's basic education includes math and science (physics and then biology and chemistry, then a bit of cs) where I am from. Thus, worst case scenario a person has spent 9 years on that stuff (among other topics sure).
Sure I can see art does not get a lot of focus from what you are saying and I do not have experience in your system to say what the balance kept. But I can see if a school is running under budget and needs to reduce something that art/music is the first to go. Pity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_United_States
It is a bit unclear to me when someone says high school in the U.S. if they imply junior or senior or none of the above.
It is a pity that we can't all be perfectly rounded for sure.
In the future, it'd be nice if you Kahn Academy everything starting in highschool and choose out of hundreds of courses on interest for the few electives you have.
I went to a really good high school and took all AP courses and was still blown away in college by those who came from schools with strong STEM programs. When I was struggling with robotics, programming, circuits, CAD work (small portion of the freshman engineering curriculum) they had very little trouble. Why? They had 4 years of engineering classes in high school which covered those subjects. They got to substitute many of their other classes out (classes which I would say are valuable, but less valuable). That is the value of STEM. When I was struggling freshman year i would have gladly traded my art, Spanish, physical education...etc classes for classes which would have better prepared me. I ended up graduating on time with a pretty good GPA, but it was more work than it had to be.
FWIW my art classes were basically "get familiar with the viscosity, stickiness, rate of evaporation, and rigidity of a new material every week" class. I'm much better able to reason about interactions between materials because of an hour a day making things with my hands.
I agree that libraries are the bomb.
Libraries are awesome:)
The only caveat being you have to not look or act like a homeless person and you must treat the place and other people with respect. Sadly, a lot of homeless people don't seem able to do this.
Disclosure: been there, done it.
It’s a sad outcome in it means less funds for library services but it’s better than libraries not being used because people feel unsafe.
(That's why we have police.)
Why can't we just admit that they are homeless shelters and turn them into fulltime homeless shelter instead of pretending to be a library( for whatever sentimental reasons). Seems like we got the worst of both worlds in this case.
Not to say that homeless shelters aren't useful to society. Obviously they are. I just doubt that this is what library proponents were thinking about when they talk about libraries.
Bridges and overpasses also shelter the homeless sometimes, but their other benefits remain intact, and not all libraries are "effectively homeless shelters."
The fact that there are homeless people living under bridges, does not take away from the value that the bridge provides.
This is not the case for libraries. For the ones that do act as homeless shelters, you may as well just throw away all the books, and everything, because you aren't going to be getting much work done there.
They sold off/gave away all their books and music that aren't borrowed so much, i.e. most of what was good. They have about 5 books on philosophy, and a whole aisle on christianity...
In UK most public libraries will offer to get a book in on the 'inter-library loan' system - there is usually a charge. University libraries (https://copac.jisc.ac.uk/) are (mostly) accessible through this system.
The other strategy would be to try to increase readership of philosophy books perhaps starting with texts accessible to the teenager age range (Sophie's World?, the various comic book options?)
Wasn't long after that I moved away and haven't had an urge to go back to any library.
Around here the standard seems to be €2.50, and I recently found a library in my neighborhood that only takes €1.50.
I haven't used ILL too much in the past, but I recently decided that lending before buying only those books that are worth it will save me a lot of money.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Ac...
Does having an effective social safety net count as a “trick”?
[1] https://chicagoonthecheap.com/free-museum-admission-chicago-...
[2] https://www.chipublib.org/maker-lab/
[3] https://www.chipublib.org/programs-and-partnerships/youmedia...
I was recently looking for a place to work on a dev project over the course of a few weeks. I looked into various co-working facilities and all of them were hundreds of dollars a month and tried to emulate trendy startup culture, down to the noisy open-office layouts, on-tap kombucha and mixer events. It was a nightmare. On a lark, I went to the local library. It was free, quiet and had rock-solid wifi. It was perfect.
And isn't this precisely why normal people don't use libraries anymore? Because they've become de facto homeless shelters with unsavory guests who frequently smell awful or use computers for watching porn. I recently visited the famous Seattle public library and was shocked by the nature of the guests.
I’m in Wake County, NC. I’m sorry your library is unusable to you. That’s a great loss.
I live in Chicago and our libraries are pretty consistently packed with people of all ages, incomes, living situations, etc.
Why don’t you think it’s ok for homeless people to use the same library as kids?
It's not okay to use the library as a homeless shelter, which is what OP implies.
That’s obviously not the case, homeless people are over 50% of the library’s population at any time of day since they stay all day while everyone else spends 15 minutes.
Does it matter? Not one bit. Once those places are allowed to become disgusting, people with a choice in the matter stop going to them.
"You'd be surprised by how many San Franciscans think that the problem with human feces or used syringes on sidewalks is the 'lack of empathy' of those who notice them. That or their 'sense of entitlement.'"
Perhaps you should reflect upon the nature of your city and the massive changes it is undergoing, with a particular focus upon on the distribution of resources like shelter, before taking your animus out on the public library system. That the libraries have taken on this role serves as an example of the failures elsewhere in your civic society.
If who you consider "normal" people don't use libraries, consider what that means about what has been normalized.
Your local public library can help you find resources to get you started.
The porn use is a bit disgusting, and segues into some freedom of use topics - FWIW in Austin they sorta solve this by having separate 'unfiltered' computers with recessed screens. In seattle they seem to solve things by having separate computer areas between adults and kid areas.
As for library bathroom issues, Seattle libraries have been doing things to make them less inviting to wrong folks by making the sinks shallow, removing paper hand towel racks, etc. It's arguably a hard balance.
Anyway, if you get past these issues the Seattle libraries are pretty impressive compared to many other towns. The Seattle downtown library top floors are great for getting work done, and many other branches have quiet areas. The online access of e-books/audiobooks is also fairly vast.
Wish libraries would be quicker about growing their online presence. I still don't know why they have stacks and stacks of books on shelves. And why do they have so many cds and dvds? Why not move it all online?
1) it's paid for mostly by your local government, not the federal government, so there's some self-determination.
2) You can get your books there, but you don't have to get your books there, and you can still have your own collection.
Meanwhile, many US citizens, even conservative ones, enjoy and endorse some ideals that are communitarian or were popularized under communist societies (state-endorsed curricula, vaccination/healthcare/drug treatment, and more).
A lot of people like to decry that as hypocrisy, but I see it simply as a difference in perception/definitions of communism instead.
I find both viewpoints in myself. I think it's important to be able to pick and choose tactics and governance techniques without committing a state to a heavily ideological philosophy of order. Not that I think the US is currently doing too great a job at either of those.
This is in Illinois; the public library district is primarily funded by local taxes within its service area, and referenda on such were passed on multiple occasions. Some state and federal grants have also funded tech improvements. Its current land was purchased from the local school district in the 1970s.
Overall, regardless of today's bullshit political climate on the national level, there's a great deal of local civic pride here. The local government (which is separate from the library district) runs a balanced budget, the municipally-owned water system charges significantly lower rates than a neighboring town's privately-owned water system even though both of them get their water from Chicago, and the village has (when it made sense to do so) entered into electrical power purchase agreements that have resulted in lower electrical rates for residents. There's also a long tradition of reusing civic buildings; the village hall is a former school building, and the original fire station became the police station when the fire district expanded to three stations to deal with the town's growth.
>the municipally-owned water system charges significantly lower rates than a neighboring town's privately-owned water system //
Which, as far as stereotypes goes at least, is "un-American, are you some sort of commie?" because it's a cooperative governmental system in which state ownership reduces costs and prevents a private enterprise from profiting from it.
Some interesting answers, including yours, thanks.
The definition of socialism is shared ownership of the means of production. A public park isn't socialism. A nationalized industry is.
The definition of communism is socialism + post-scarcity, ostensibly making economic classes redundant.
To some extent, I guess, a library (or rather the knowledge contained in it) could also be claimed to be the means of production. But I don't think that's the consensus among the adherents.
.... a theory or system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.
.... synonyms: collectivism, state ownership, socialism, radical socialism;
(Oxford Pocket English Dictionary, via Google)
The notion that communism equals state ownership is particularly funny, given that Marx (and all his followers) defined communism as a stateless society.
The libraries make no attempt to abolish the bourgeoisie, which I think was more to the point of communists than providing free literature.
I own most of those books I borrowed from the library now and they still sit on my bookshelf next to me.
And I'm pretty darned good at all that.
This is a description of the proper role of the church in civil society and a public library is a poor substitute.
The church ushered in life with baptism, it educated the youth, it facilitated the building of families in marriage, and comforted the grieving in death. It extolled the virtues of the fruits of the spirit in relationships: "love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control". It sought unity in diversity ("There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."), and undermined social hierarchy ("You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great")
The church had problems, but it was an important component of civil society. Now having abandoned it, we have nothing to replace it with, and we're paying the price.
I understand that there are a lot of objections to religion here, and I fully expect this comment to be downvoted to oblivion, but purely from a sociological perspective, there was a lot lost in the relentless pursuit of secularism.
Personally, I wish I could believe in religion. I want to live in a world with a heaven and a hell and a god looking out for us, where things are logical and just and evil-doers - eventually - always suffer. I think I'd probably be a lot happier believing in that pleasant lie than I am living with the truth. But such a thing just isn't in my wiring, and I imagine many modern people share that sentiment. Hence, I suspect, all the new age woo that's basically just re-packaging Jesus in a more digestible form.
It may well be a description of a role that a church should play for those who believe in its religion. But who plays that role for everyone else?
One thing New York City has going for it despite its awful governance is strong civic institutions, like the museums and the library systems (there are three), all of which have performed the functions listed in the article for well over a century at this point.
The core function of a library, storing physical books, makes little sense anymore. Digital books are far superior in cost and functionality. But those emotionally attached will claim “they’re not the same”.
Our province in Canada has a population of 500,000 and has over 100 libraries. Each of those libraries needs to carry multiple copies of important literature. Many of these libraries go unused. It’s a big waste of money yet people can’t move on because of emotional attachment and emotional reasoning.
I do believe in the reinvisioning of libraries as a more digital space, a place to work, and a place for the public to learn.
But let’s stop the emotional reasoning and use pure logic. “Civil society” is more alive than ever, on the internet.
My own library also has copies of e.g. sheet music... I agree that those could be digital but it's more practical to stick a giant piece of paper on my keyboard vs a tablet (would be afraid the tablet could fall, also don't own a tablet). And the library is often one of few places these days that young children see physical books in large numbers... won't it be bad for their eyes to do all that reading digitally?
There's also longevity, which ties in with search-ability. Modern paper even under the best of conditions only has a century of shelf-life, where as digital data should persist for forever. Also as it's digital we get the benefits of flowing text, searching/indexing and easily converting to new formats and even languages - and the ability to easily update these conversions as technology progresses.
Theoretically (on paper?) digital books have all the benefits in the world. As a book lover I still can't quite get on with them in all but the trashiest of uses.
Beyond that, I love walking through the stacks and looking to see what catches my eye. This is literally my favorite thing about working at a university. Paging through Amazons recommendations (new editions of a text book you bought in 2008, books 2 and 4 of some series, and a few best-sellers) is not even close.
1) online there's just too much stuff. Libraries culling a ton of inventory serves the purpose of the really bad books being off the (real) shelf in relatively short order. Dig through Amazon's Kindle ebooks store to have an idea how much all-digital suffers from lack of this. As well as
2) I have developed, from years of reading, the ability to look at a shelf with the full aperture of my vision, and in that single glance, pick patterns of letters on the book spines such that I can identify interesting titles at a rate of maybe 200 books per minute. I understand non-readers and people who buy books off of somebody else's review list don't have that ability, but I don't see why I should be deprived of something that literally saves me 30 minutes a week to cater to, well, people who don't actually like books.
3) Some of the best books I have read at used bookstores and librairies simply don't have a digital form. They're locally published books from decades past that probably sold in the 1000 to 10000 copies range. Newer books in that space always have a digital edition, but there is a ton to learn from the past, and I often read because I am tired of existing within my own time/space bound, hearing about the same concerns. If I want to know what my contemporaries think, I can have a conversation. To learn how people I will never have the chance to meet think, I read books. (To learn how people I will never have the chance to meet really think, I read novels.)
Now 1) could be solved by an algorithm, but I write algorithms for a living and I don't trust them. 2) is trickier. 3) is definitely solvable but the economic incentives don't align, and I trust the markets even less than the algorithms.
Sounds like an unintended but desirable effect. Why not make it intended, and design for it directly? Libraries could have a curated collection that they promote, and archives of all the other stuff.
> I have developed, from years of reading, the ability to look at a shelf with the full aperture of my vision, and in that single glance, pick patterns of letters on the book spines such that I can identify interesting titles at a rate of maybe 200 books per minute. I understand non-readers and people who buy books off of somebody else's review list don't have that ability, but I don't see why I should be deprived of something that literally saves me 30 minutes a week to cater to, well, people who don't actually like books.
For starters, that's a very offensive assumption you're making here - that people who don't have that skill "don't actually like books". Have you considered that they might be reading several books every month, just not paper books like you?
But also, that skill you describe is equally applicable to all kinds of lists. If you can do that with books on the shelf, you can learn to do that with a screen. I mean, do we really need to subsidize shelves full of paper books solely to avoid making a few people's skills obsolete and require them to relearn if they want to remain as efficient as they were before?
Of course, digital makes things fundamentally different, anyway. Why browse long shelves, when you can do fuzzy contextual search?
Seems like one that needs a largely random algorithm with some additional weight for recent and popular works. Amazon has a separate goal to a library, using their stores isn't a fair comparison.
2 requires pictures or facsimiles of book spines, not particularly tricky. This entire process is ridiculous though. The only way you can spot anywhere near 200 interesting books in a minute is if every book is interesting, what you're actually judging is likely a marketing decision, and you have no reason to expect your picks were particularly good.
3 is a copyright issue. Google books already has a surprising number of those books archived, and your chance of reading them would be far greater if they just required one random person to find the book and upload it. Even still, in 20 years the digital libraries will be overflowing with people you can't meet talking about experiences you can't encounter.
I meant I can classify 200 books as interesting or not in a minute, obviously not find 200 interesting ones. It takes me 15 minutes to find 4 or 5 books I actually want to read.
One unfortunate side effects of books moving to digital (although, to be clear, books moving to digital is not remotely a bad thing in itself) is that they are getting longer. There is fewer and fewer pressure on authors to limit the length of newer books that are unproven, with the result that people who don't know how to speed read are seeing reading novels as more and more of a daunting thing, which I think is sad.
The post office also transports books library-to-llibrary at a very favorable rate if need be.
It's a great way to measure demand for books, and buy what's needed where needed. It also allows library patrons access to a much larger collection than an individual town library could.
And the obvious solution to reconcile these two arguments is to still have libraries but get rid of the books! Sacrilege, I know.
I was so happy when I got a job and could just go to Borders to buy the books I wanted.
And now I have a Kindle and can get books at a moments notice.
But without disposable income, the library is the only real option. But I guess these days I would have probably been more interested in my phone than books, so maybe the times really have moved on.
Paper books can't be deleted, don't need power, and have no DRM. Once you get beyond just text and start including diagrams, illustrations, or photos, e-ink doesn't hold up.
You can get digital books without DRM. And if we don't pass laws like DMCA that conscript the entire power of the state to enforce that DRM, it wouldn't be viable anyway. Indeed, anyone who has seen #bookz knows that technical viability is lacking already, and it's only the legal regime that keeps things the way they are
e-ink is just one technology among many available options for reading digital books. The beauty of a digital book is that it's not tied to any particular device, so you can pick whatever tool is most comfortable for you to read that particular book in the appropriate context.
And we have so many other things that need power already (including, say, lighting, so that you could read those paper books whenever you want) that it's kinda strange for that to be more than a very minor point.
Also, if you are going to downvote, you might as well spend some time explaining why.
The biggest professional organization for them in the USA (the ALA) is not officially politically aligned, but some of their core positions, notably privacy, intellectual freedom and anti-censorship have of late have come to be seen as politically left and in the States especially more aligned with the Democratic party.
Demographically librarians in the United States do lean liberal but I don't know that they do at any higher rates than other educated people.
Finally, this is not just an American thing. The IFLA has very similar positions on privacy, intellectual freedom and censorship and monitors those positions around their world.
There was a case a while back where a woman poisoned her husband. The police found her thumbprint on a book on poisons in the library. I don't think they used library records, they just checked the book itself.
I also recall that there was considerable pushback from the librarians when the government demanded they hand over all borrower records.
Next time I go to the library I'll ask what the current state of this is. I hope their practice is to purge records when you return a book.
I'd appreciate it if you could name the online system your county uses. (Or if you can provide a link.)
I'm not sure what backend they use for data storage, etc.
The legal status of attorney-client privilege and medical privacy are both thoroughly enshrined, but there's no corresponding protection for borrowing records. Librarians are often in the news for protecting them.