The House is scheduled to consider amendments to H.R. 1 this week. I am particularly concerned about this amendment. Please do not allow it to move forward:
Offered By: Mr. Garrett
AMENDMENT NO. 35: Page 303, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert “(reduced by $265,869,000)”.
Page 359, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert “(increased by $265,869,000)”.
Of course, page 303, line 13 is where H.R. 1 allocates $265,869,000 to the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS). This amendment would eliminate all IMLS funding, including Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funding.
LSTA funding supports all kinds of libraries: school, academic, and public. Libraries are already struggling in these difficult financial times, but I am particularly concerned about cuts to public library funding.
Public libraries might seem expendable to people who can hop on their always-on home high-speed broadband connections (or shiny mobile devices) to buy new e-books for their fancy e-book readers.
But, as of May 2010, one third of American adults did NOT have a high-speed broadband connection at home (source: http://is.gd/ToaOUV). As you know if you have accessed the Web via a dial-up connection in the last five or six years, accessing the vast majority of current content without high-speed access is very time-consuming and frustrating.
Public libraries are lifelines to opportunity and hope for those struggling the most in our communities as the gap between the mainstreet American and the bailed-out, fat-bonused, tax-loopholed and -havened rich continues to widen.
Today, a successful job search in many fields requires researching careers and potential employers, filling out online job applications (many employers will no longer accept paper applications!), and regularly composing and checking email. At your public library, you can do these things without needing a functioning, up-to-date laptop and the money for a cup of coffee in order to sit for a while and access the “free” wi-fi. (I’m proud that my town of Carrboro provides truly free wi-fi to everyone downtown, but you still need an expensive piece of equipment to make use of it.)
Further, many public libraries offer freely available continuing education to help people gain technical skills they need to get jobs.
Hard working Americans in very difficult times use the services offered by public libraries to pull themselves back up onto their feet. Cutting funding to public libraries yanks another rug from under many who are struggling to hold on to anything; please vote against Garret’s Amnd. 35 to H.R. 1.
Nearly 1,250 Federal depository libraries in the US and its territories provide local, no-fee access to Government information in an impartial environment with professional assistance.
I am a librarian at a depository library. Our Documents collection takes up a large amount of space and a number of full-time staff. The importance and scale of Government information affects more decisions in the library than I ever would have guessed before working in this environment.
Funding cuts anywhere in the library squeeze the rest of the library. Eliminating IMLS funding may or may not directly cut into libraries’ provision of Federal depository services, but the effects will “trickle down” to those services much faster and more effectively than newly-created “wealth” ever did.
So, please eliminate Garret’s Amnd. 35 to H.R. 1.
The indisputable facts of what Government is actually doing day-to-day are increasingly available only online, via the Library of Congress-created Thomas.gov and other .gov sites. Cutting public library funding will also strip away struggling Americans’ ability to remain informed and engaged citizens.
This is not only an end-user Web access problem.
Elimination of all IMLS funding would cripple an agency that has supported many e-government-related projects and much research on how to best provide government information to citizens. (See just a few examples in the postscript)
Garret’s Amnd. 35 to H.R. 1 would weaken libraries and inhibit progress in library and information science. Long term, this would decrease Government’s ability to produce useful and reliable Government information tools, as well as compromise access to whatever tools and information exist.
From the website of the US National Archives and Records Administration: “The printed version [of the Declaration of Independence] is on paper and was read aloud from town squares throughout the colonies, so that those who could not read would receive the news…”
Pertinent aside: Libraries also work to promote literacy. One example: http://libraries4literacy.org/ (supported by the IMLS)
Today, libraries serve as open information commons in their communities. This nation was founded with the expectation of—and its survival still depends upon—an informed citizenry. In light of this, erosion of funding for not only libraries, but also other cultural institutions, public broadcasting, education, and science is a chilling spectre.
A vote for Garret’s Amnd. 35 to H.R. 1 is a vote against an informed, empowered citizenry. If the U.S. Government truly supports the freedom, equality, and democracy it espouses, it must recognize that elimination of library funding is a move against its own interests.
Please vote AGAINST Garret’s Amnd. 35 to H.R. 1.
Kristina M. Spurgin
- E-Resources cataloger, Davis Library, UNC Chapel Hill
- Doctoral candidate, School of Information and Library Science, UNC Chapel Hill
- Teacher and life-long learner
- Voracious information consumer and creator
- Former child to whom public and school libraries were an intellectual and psychological lifeline in Florida, Louisiana, Washington, Kansas, South Carolina, and Georgia
- North Carolina voter
Here are a few current and past IMLS funded e-government projects:
- Development of a Web-based resource to help libraries and governments provide better e-government–related services such as filing taxes, applying for citizenship, enrolling children in schools, and applying for social services.
- A project to improve access to federal government publications and create a model for improving depository library services and operations.
- Two library schools will create a new librarianship specialization in government information services. This new concentration will address challenges presented by changes in the ways governments produce and make information available to the public.
- Further development of a dual master’s degree program in public administration and library or information science with an emphasis in digital curation to provide a model for other programs and highly trained individuals who will help government archives protect the public’s interest in preserving electronic government records.
- SuDocs classification of the entirety of the federal government’s public Web presence immediately before and after the 2009 change in presidential administrations, demonstrating a process by which government resources can be aligned with an individual library’s collecting priorities and also shared among other institutions utilizing the SuDocs system.
- …the Star-Spangled Center, an innovative learning environment for civic education to show how the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government operate, and how laws are created, interpreted, and enforced.
- Creation of a multistate, multitype library training program to train reference and public service librarians in using electronic federal government information resources in order to increase the confidence of existing government publication librarians, increase the knowledge of more than 500 general librarians, and create an online learning and support environment.
This is the best photo ever.
In a statement published yesterday, Michael J. Klag, the Dean of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health writes that has “directed that the POPLINE administrators restore “abortion” as a search term immediately.” He is also launching an inquiry to determine why the change occurred. And also:
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction.
As reported here, it seems that someone in the USAID’s Office of Population and Reproductive Health made a complaint about two abortion-related articles in the database that they felt were too close to “advocacy.” Those articles were removed from the database, but someone decided to go the extra step and make abortion a stop-word. The logic behind that decision has not, to my knowledge, been explained.
Classifications are political instruments… all classifications make epistemological, ethical, and political statements; there is nothing new to this. The library blogshere seems to argue that POPLINE’s move is unprecedented and unacceptable… get a grip; what is the ethical assumption behind Dewey’s religion section? I don’t see any ethical justification in the introduction to LCSH…
The first statement is absolutely accurate. For more on that, I refer you to Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Hope Olson’s work also springs to mind. The bias present in tools like the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Subject Headings is glaring. We were just discussing this in my cataloging and classification course on Wednesday when we dove into DDC for the first time. If you are not familiar with the Religion schedule in DDC, it goes pretty much as follows:
- 200 Religion (general concepts, applicable to any religion, though the assumption of the classification is made fairly clear in captions such as: 202.11 God, gods, goddesses, divinities and deities)
- 210 Philosophy and theory of religion (the basic numbers in this span are for these topics in Christianity. To indicate other religions, one adds more digits to the end of a number.)
- 220 Bible
- 230 Christianity Christian theology
- 240 Christian moral and devotional theology
- 250 Local Christian church and Christian religious orders
- 260 Christian social and ecclesiastical theology
- 270 Historical, geographic, persons treatment of Christianity Church History
- 280 Denominations and sects of Christian church
- 290 Other religions
Just a little biased. Just a tad. Not ok. They are working on it. The foreword to DDC22 does address what the Editorial Policy Committee is doing about the bias of the classification since they recognize they have responsibilities to diverse users. Due to the basic structure of the classification, however, they can’t alter it much without causing the classification numbers of huge numbers of already classified items to suddenly become out of date and wrong in the current system.
But anyway… comparing this to the POPLINE issue is apples and oranges. In DDC, “other religions” are still there. They still have numbers, even if those numbers are all crammed into the 290s. It is not as though someone decided to remove 297 Islam, Babism, Bahai Faith from the schedule altogether, as though it does not exist. From reading the subject heading change list every week, it seems any concept with literary warrant, no matter how bizarre, will be added to LCSH. We may not like the preferred term chosen, or the references made, but the concept will be represented there somehow.
But the outrage wasn’t about the formal terminological structure behind POPLINE. They did not alter their indexing controlled-vocabulary to reflect a change in politics or society, etc. If they had changed the preferred term in their thesaurus from abortion to murder of the unborn (or whatever they call it) with a see reference from abortion, many people would be offended but it would not be censorship.
They made the term abortion a stopword in the indexing, effectively removing the term from the index altogether, including the indexing language, as though the it carried the same semantic weight as the or and. A plain keyword search for abortion returned nothing, despite the presence of thousands of titles and abstracts in the database containing the term.
This was not a matter of bias or politically incorrect/offensive terminology in a knowledge representation. Instead they were just waving their hands saying that topic doesn’t exist in this database at all, nothing to see here. It mainly looks like someone freaked out that the database’s USAID funding might get yanked because people could find any information about abortion in the database, so they decided not to let anyone find any information on “that word.”
Sadly this is very precedented, but absolutely not acceptable. If we catch any reputable information providers doing this sort of thing, it is well worth an outrage.
POPLINE is “the world’s largest database on reproductive health, containing citations with abstracts to scientific articles, reports, books, and unpublished reports in the field of population, family planning, and related health issues.”
If you do a subject keyword search in POPLINE for abortion, the result is:
No records found by latest query.
If you do a subject keyword search in POPLINE for unwanted pregnancy, the result is:
Your search found 2590 record(s).
The first three titles in the list as of right now are:
Bankole A; Sedgh G; Oye-Adeniran BA; Adewole IF; Hussain R. Abortion-seeking behaviour among Nigerian women. Journal of Biosocial Science. 2008 Mar; 40 (2) :247-268.
Jones RK; Zolna MR; Henshaw SK; Finer LB. Abortion in the United States: Incidence and access to services, 2005. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. 2008 Mar; 40 (1) :6-16.
Majlessi F; Forooshani AR; Shariat M. Prevalence of induced abortion and associated complications in women attending hospitals in Isfahan. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 2008 Jan-Feb; 14 (1) :103-109.
And there are of course many more titles containing the term abortion scattered throughout.
Women’s Health News, a blog authored by medical librarian Rachel Walden, reports:
The librarian who noted the problem inquired about it, and was informed that it wasn’t a simple technical glitch; the response she received was, “We recently made all abortion terms stop words. As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now.”
I’m so appalled that I was just sputtering for about 5 minutes after reading this. When did abortion become illegal in the U.S.? Wait, when did it become “best” to obfuscate (and, for unskilled searchers, effectively remove) access to topics that actually are illegal?
Oh wait… while POPLINE is hosted and maintained by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health/Center for Communication Programs, it is funded by United States Agency for International Development (USAID). You know, the agency with this policy, where mentioning = promoting:
Under the Helms Amendment, U.S. foreign assistance is prohibited from being used to perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. “Menstrual regulation” and medical abortion [i.e. RU-486] are considered abortion and are thus activities that are prohibited from receiving USAID funding.
It seems to me that one’s opinion on the morality/ethics of induced abortion is irrelevant here. Providing access to scientific articles on a subject is not “promoting” that subject. How did we get here? I rather frown upon crack-smoking, but I don’t think we should remove access to all research on the effects of smoking crack, the incidence of crack smoking, etc. from databases. Where does that get us, exactly? Pretty much everyone agrees murder is terrible. Let’s make that a stopword in legal databases while we are at it.
ResourceShelf reports that so far POPLINE has made no official statement about this, but have said they will do so. I wait with bated breath to see how this will be explained. Anyone want to bet on whether the phrase “current political climate” will be used?
See also: LibrarianActivist