Lenten thoughts...

This past Sunday, the lesson from the Gospel came from Matthew 4:1-11: the story of Jesus being tested in the desert. I think this passage is particularly difficult to understand because, as my pastor pointed out, if Jesus had agreed to put God to the test, think of how many followers would have seen and believed! However, we can also see through this story that not giving in to Satan's tests enabled Jesus to understand what God wanted him to do. Following Christ becomes a focus on His missions, not our own. Yes, these tests may have garnered more followers because of the physcial proof they would have provided; however, God's will is never that simply uncovered. I had also never considered the parallels between Adam and Jesus. They are perfect foils, and of course that occurs for a reason: if man brought sin into the world, a man would have to save us from it. Both die to sin, but of course the second man defeats it. Unlike Adam's fall, however, Jesus passes the test which is a necessity for Christian faith. It really is a stronger story because Jesus withstands the tests: if He had given in, He would have been no different from Adam. Rather than focusing on not proving God's strengths, which again would have gained more for the kingdom of God, Jesus shows us the ability to withstand temptations that, at first sight, appear to be beneficial.

What really stuck out from the sermon, though, is an idea posed by the pastor: we assume we know where we've been--what if we don't? I think that is a fascinating question. Most things that I do today are based on what I do or do not want to repeat again. I know certain routines do or do not work for me in the morning. I know how to effectively assign homework for my students based on what has not worked so well in the past. In terms of personal mistakes, however, I sometimes make the same errors. Does that mean I truly have no sense of direction? Am I going forward or backward? Oftentimes it takes an irreversible occurrence to reveal that I've been going in the wrong direction after all.  Most people might say their faith serves as a compass. However, I've never been that pompous as to assume that I'm always going the right way. Not knowing where I've been is most unhelpful; however, I admit that there is some romantic notion of thinking that I've always been a rambler. I haven't always been wrong, and I haven't always been right. I mean, even Jesus struggled with accepting His fate. Some famous quotes tell us that despite moral (and often horrific) setbacks, history always bends toward the arc of justice. Most of us figure it out on the way there. And sometimes I'd like to go back by the way I came because I have some truly uplifting and redeeming memories of people and events. I'd rather think of time as a circle instead of as a line.

E-readers: potential problems with “free” information

(I wrote the following reaction in my current library and information science graduate course.)

 

Adam Gopnik recently mused in his article “How the Internet gets inside us” about the phenomenon of Hermione Granger “stuck in the nineties” by spending “hours and hours working her way through the [library] stacks, finding out what a basilisk is or how to make a love potion” (124). It is indeed very telling that a series founded upon magic could be outpaced by “the reality of machines” (124). Perhaps Hermione’s love of tangible books adds to the mood and mystery of Hogwarts, however, because it would be much harder to connect with her character if she were always touching away at an iPad—for that means she could be sitting four hundred yards away in an Internet cafe. However, Gopnik’s catchy lead brings up many questions about the future of e-readers and digital information that are also addressed in Evans’s Introduction to Technical Services.

Both Gopnik and Evans point out that technological revolutions which change the way people communicate are no new concept. Gopnik quotes Harvard historian Ann Blair as writing that, even before Gutenburg’s printing press, “’during the later Middle Ages a staggering growth in the production of manuscripts, facilitated by the use of paper, accompanied a great expansion of readers outside the monastic and scholastic contexts’” (128). However, Evans points out that “unlike the printing press in Western Europe, the digital revolution is a worldwide phenomenon” (135). And an instant one, at that. Many people praise digital technologies for this very reason, due to the widespread democratization of information (although we are also contending with nations like China that censor Internet access, which is another problem). Indeed, one only has to pay attention to recent developments in the Middle East to see the role that online information can play in changing history (although the size of that role is up for debate).

Despite all of the positive gains, digital technologies still have some sizable hurdles to overcome. Evans writes that “there are still questions regarding which platforms to support, how much money to commit to the service, whether users should pay some or all of the costs, and perhaps most importantly how to handle the increased workload that e-readers would create for the staff” (136). Furthermore, librarians may have to choose between digitized books and titles that can be downloaded. One related issue that I have seen in the media center at the high school where I teach is that students may not have the required technology with which to use e-books. Therefore, librarians must be sure not to use technology simply for the sake of having it. On the other hand, e-books could be accessed by more than one patron, thus providing greater access, although Evans points out that the staff would be “required to create numerous separate logins, passwords, and alias e-mail accounts” (137).

Overall, it will take more time to see how quickly this process becomes more mainstream. Just as libraries experienced growing pains with new technologies emerging during the 1970s and 1980s, so this too shall pass. What is important to remember is that technology should not be used just for the sake of having it. Keeping our patrons’ needs and resources as the first priority is key since we are ultimately here to serve them. And we also remember that we are held to the standard of providing everyone with equal access to information, and if that requires libraries to keep up the pace with emerging technologies, then we should do what it takes to ensure that we are preserving and encouraging the democratic process.

References

Gopnik, Adam. (2011, Feb 14 and 21). How the Internet gets inside us. The New Yorker, 124-130.

The Art of Defense

(I turned in the following reaction in my current library and information science course)

At first glance, some might wonder what connection might exist between the American Library Association (ALA) and the USA PATRIOT Act. Defending our country against evil terrorists who aim to murder innocent civilians and disrupt our democracy: who wouldn’t want to stop that? And what does that have to do with libraries? Of course, upon closer inspection, efforts to deter terrorists are hardly always as transparent as stopping a clearly evil force. FBI agents or other federal officials may be interested in obtaining patron records in order to monitor an individual’s reading or research habits. According to Jones’s article, the USA PATRIOT Act did not require that search warrants be obtained by first showing probable cause “that ‘library information was ‘relevant’ to the crime committed that was related to a terrorism investigation” (221). The FBI might even have been allowed to take Internet records without a warrant, and, perhaps most chillingly, “the PATRIOT Act prohibits the library from notifying the press, the patron under suspicion, or most other people that an investigation is under way” (although now some provisions have changed allowing librarians to notify supervisors and legal counsels if a letter has been served) (221). As currently as February 2011, three major provisions of the PATRIOT Act will be voted upon for reauthorization.

How do officials decide whose records necessitate an investigation? What if you merely have an Arabic name? Does that warrant suspicion? Or is there a direct causal link between terrorists and the material they view on the Internet that necessitates an immediate investigation? Obviously, this practice potentially infringes on patron privacy, which is a branch of free speech rights. Are these two practices mutually exclusive, or can a happy medium be found?

According to the ALA’s web site, the USA PATRIOT Act matters to libraries because “reading has always been one of our greatest freedoms. The written word is the natural medium for the new idea and the untried voice from which come the original contributions to social growth.” Many factors are at stake here. How does the government define offensive material? What types of patron records could arouse suspicions? Such seminal works of literature like 1984 warn us of the potential harm that government control can impose on free societies. While the idea of the PATRIOT Act is noble, the potential harm is frightening. What if the government decides that any resources related to communism should be closely monitored, much like this country witnessed during McCarthyism? Or more broadly, if, as Orwell and others have imagined, the government decides to invisibly monitor everyone? According to Eric Lichtblau’s article published in The New York Times in 2005, “Law enforcement officials have made at least 200 formal and informal inquiries to libraries for information on reading material and other internal matters since October 2001 [and] in some cases, agents used subpoenas or other formal demands to obtain information like lists of users checking out a book on Osama bin Laden.” While I doubt that these law enforcement officials investigated, say, elementary children writing a report, the possible danger of this practice is clear. These investigations foster a false sense of fear in the public, leading to untrue and potentially harmful stereotypes. And one has to wonder, how does knowing what suspects are reading lead us to a safer country? If checking out a book on Osama bin Laden makes one suspect, then we have already begun to lose our sense of freedom due to insensible paranoia.

We can argue instead that making materials available to all without fear of monitoring or punishment does make us safer. Fostering intellectual curiosity, exposing oneself to different ideas, and trying out new ideas: all of these are fundamental to the growth of democracy. Jones provides seven key ideas to help librarians retain ethics, even in the face of strict national security efforts. Perhaps the most effective is number five: “Librarians need to examine their hearts and consciences and demand of themselves that they separate their personal emotional responses from their professional responsibilities” (223). I think it would do all Americans good to remember this advice, as there can sometimes be a thin line between maintaining the security of our freedoms versus the seeming paradox of giving up freedoms in order to maintain the illusion of defending them.

Jones, B. (2009). “Librarians shushed no more:” the USA Patriot Act, the “Connecticut Four,” and professional ethics. Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 58(6), 195, 221-3. Retrieved from Library Lit & Inf Full Text database

Lichtblau, Eric. (2005, June 20). Libraries Say Yes, Officials Do Quiz Them About Users. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com