Blog #10

I found an article in the New York Times that details the new stresses that have approached libraries since the economic downturn started. I think what confuses me most is how the article made the increase in library patronage to be a negative, or at least not a positive, thing. Having never worked in a public library, I do not want to offend or insult anyone; I acknowledge that I would be unable to truly understand the stresses that are involved when working with such a diverse population--even before the economic downturn. However, I don't think that an increase in the number of people coming to the library should be considered a bad thing. Granted, the violence in and around libraries and the increase of thefts and other illegal activity is not welcomed.

I think librarians have wanted to see an upswing in the number of people who visit the library, and now that it has happened, libraries are unsure of how to deal with their new found popularity. The filled programs is amazing, and bringing in volunteer professionals is a great idea. I also think that bringing in a therapist to help deal with the emotions that come along with the environment is a great idea. I think the main thing that librarians need to do is think ahead and anticipate what will be coming next. I think libraries should be looking at how they can market themselves in the local government so that they do not end up with budget cuts. Libraries should be illustrating how they have been and are helping in the economic crisis. Increased patronage at a library should not be looked at as a bad thing, nor should it be super stressful. One of the goals of a library should be to reach increased numbers. When that comes about, it shouldn't be seen as negative.

Blog #9

Rutgers University's School of Communication, Information and Library Studies (SCILS) will be known as the School of Communication and Information (SCI) as of July 1, 2009. This was reported by libraryjournal.com. My initial response is that I cannot believe that this is the issue taking up the time of the Rutger's faculty and Board of Governors; it seems to be a stupid trivial thing to spend a lot of time debating. However the more I think about it, the less I know how I feel about dropping the term library. I remember hearing from two of my professors in two different classes that Dean Cronin would be in favor of dropping the term library from IU's SLIS title. While this is hearsay, I don't think I'd be in favor of getting rid of the term. Coming from a family of librarians, all who refer to themselves as librarians, that is one of my defining characteristics--whether I end up working in a library or not. I'm fine referring to myself as an information broker, mainly because that does not hold the same stereotypes "librarian" has. But to delete library from a title takes away from the students who, like me, are drawn to the idea of being a librarian.

One thing that really irritated me about the article that is linked above is that a student raised their hand or stood up to respond to the statement that opposition to Rutger's name change was external was not recognized to speak by the chair. To not take into account the people who are currently taking out loans to attend the school is irresponsible and shows a complete lack of support for the position these students hold. Bringing in donations from alumni for the school is one thing, but it is irrelevant if there are no students attending the school.

I suppose one could take the stance that a name is just a name and to quote Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." But could it be that dropping library from a school that graduates MLS or MLIS students would make it smell far less sweet?

Blog Post #8

I would love to be at the Felix G. Woodward Library at Austin Peay State University at 2:00 pm March 31. Bruce Barry will be giving a presentation entitled "Freedom of Speech on a University Campus and in the Workplace" based on his book Speechless: The Erosion of Free Expression in the American Workplace. As a 20-something woman who has never held a "real job," the review I found of Barry's book terrified me. I can accept that I cannot speak as freely as I can when sitting in a restaurant with my friends on a Friday night, but it worries me that I could be fired for the views I express outside of the workplace. If it would have to do with my job or with the organization I work for, then I could potentially understand the conflict; to be fired for expressing a view that does not have anything to do with the job or the company is appalling to me. While I do not utilize bumper stickers to express my opinion, I do not think any one's job should be at risk for something like that. The one that made me the most nervous was the flight attendant whose job was at risk because the airline did not like what she was writing on her personal blog. My blog safety and privacy has been questioned during this class, but I have complete control over who can see my personal blog as it is protected through a username (the person's email that I add as allowed users) and a password that they choose. The thought of my personal thoughts having an effect on my job is incredibly unsettling. My performance at part time job has nothing to do with my political beliefs, or my choices when I am not at work.

Based on the review, I'm wondering how others feel about this and if anyone else is wanting to read Barry's book.

Blog #7

I forgot to post a blog entry before leaving the city for spring break. As I was driving, I heard a story about a court case in California that was recently decided on appeal. I then was able to find a few articles about it on the internet. It had a big effect on the way free speech is looked at in California. The decision states that a California law that bans the sale of violent video games to children is a violation of free speech. Games that were "patently offensive" to children would have required a sticker on the game that said "18" and any sellers who were caught selling these videos to children would have to pay a $1000 fine. What this decision does, at least in the state of California, is draw a line between sexually explicit material and violent material. The decision also draws a line between protecting minors from harm and attempting to control minor's thoughts.

I can agree with the court when they say the government should not be controlling anyone's thoughts. What I do not understand is the distinction between sexually explicit material and violent material. I know that this is an area where I would be much more conservative than others, and I know that if I ever have children I would not allow them to play violent games. I'm a fairly queasy person, especially when it comes to violence and blood/gore, and I tend to ask my mom or sister to "Tell me when I can look" when watching shows like ER or CSI:(insert city). I would not need the government to tell me or any future children I had to avoid violent games because I would not allow them to begin with. This being said, I don't have a problem with another parent making the decision to allow their children to play violent games--it is not my decision to make. However, I still think that minors should have to get parental permission to purchase "patently offensive" video games, similar to movie R ratings require.

I also think minors who spend all their time playing video games need to be required to spend time with people in reality to avoid events like this, although this again comes in with parental supervision and not so much government intervention.

Indiana Senate Bill 348 Passes

The Indiana State Senate passed SB 348 February 24, 2009. Referred to as the "Library Bill" in an article in the Indy Star, the bill would require all counties except for Marion to form a committee to look at the library services in each county and decide if it should expand, consolidate, or do nothing. The goal appears to be to improve library services to all residents of Indiana. The article states that approximately a half million residents of Indiana do not have library services where they live despite the state housing 239 library districts in 92 counties. I think this is a great goal to have, as public libraries should be accessible to all.

The problem I have with this bill is that by excluding one county, it may not really be serving the needs of Indiana residents. The purpose of the committees in each county are to look at the services of each library to its residents and look at options. One of the options is to leave the library system in the county as it is. I cannot believe that the representatives of Speedway or even the Speedway library itself does not want to look into how well it serves the residents in its districts. Speedway has voiced its concerns of being consolidated into the IMCPL, but by keeping Marion country from forming a committee to assess the services supplied to residents, Speedway is possibly keeping services from residents for the fear of something that is not guaranteed to happen in the first place. If Marion County were to perform the study through a committee and find that the county has done a good job of meeting its residents needs, that would help Speedway in their desire to remain independent. If Marion County would find that it is not doing the best job it could, wouldn't the Speedway library want to do its part to help its residents?

In a related article, it is reported that Beech Grove, an independent public library in the same situation as Speedway, understands Speedways concerns but would not have opposed Marion County being in the bill.

Studying? Not at the library!

What are some reasons people might come to the library? To read books owned by the library? To peruse research materials supplied by the library? To study materials I bring in myself? Apparently, the last reason is not an acceptable reason to go to a public library in Singapore. As reported at aisaone, a 16 year old student was told to leave the library because he was studying and not utilizing materials supplied by the library.

I was floored when I saw this article. Before I got internet access in my apartment, I relied on walking the few blocks from my apartment to the nearest public library to use my laptop to check my email, correspond with my friends and family, and keep up on my other online activities.

The article states that the National Library Board says all libraries are to allow self-study at their tables, but that patrons are to acquiesce requests to give up tables to patrons who are utilizing library materials.

This got me thinking back to when I was in undergrad. My sophomore year was when the new library opened on campus and it instantly became THE place to study. (My sorority kind of took over the 2nd floor at any point in time during the day.) Having the background that I do, I probably utilized books or computers provided by the library every day or every other day. However, I know plenty of people who only utilized the library as an area to self-study. Particularly around mid-terms and finals, the library was packed. If people would have been kicked out for not using library materials, there may have only been about 10 people in the library at that time. Comparing an academic library and a public library is probably not fair, however, I find it hard to believe that every person who walks into a public library is coming in to peruse the library's materials.

What is Singapore's public libraries trying to teach young adults when they kick them out for quietly studying and minding their own business?

Facebook Privacy

As I am leading a discussion on privacy next week in class, I'm going to address Facebook now to avoid getting into the social networks discussion then. Facebook released new terms of service on February 4. (The Consumerist Blog that broke the story.) The change was not immediately noticed, but now an uproar from the facebook community has caused the terms to be recovered to the pre-February 4 status. Based on the news stories and the group Facebook Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, I've thought a lot about how this affects privacy on the internet and the intellectual freedom that should (?) be afforded to social networks.

I think there are a lot of things that need to be learned by young and old about online privacy and the fact that it doesn't really exist. There are companies out there that are more intelligent about what can go on in their industries centered around the internet and let's face it, they are calling the shots. But people can still do things to protect themselves. It starts by teaching people (not just teens or children) that privacy on the internet is an ideal, but not a reality. Common sense and the fact that it is a smaller and unsafe world is crucial to individual safety.

I've also been thinking about the intellectual freedom rights that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg could argue he has. He created a site where people agreed to his terms and his ability to change them at will. Shouldn't he have a right to the information for which he has created a medium and given a way to upload information to his site? While the pictures and posts may theoretically belong to the person who posted them, doesn't the entire site belong to Facebook, Inc.? These, of course, are just questions that I'm still mulling over; I don't know if I'll ever really reach a conclusion. But I cannot argue for my rights while expecting someone else to potentially give up their rights. Whatever those rights may be.