The Australian Library Journal

Letters to the editor

Sir,

As chair of the Council of Australian State Libraries (CASL), I would like to respond to a comment by R L Cope on pages 224-5 of his review article in the August 2001 issue of the Australian Library Journal. The comment addressed the decision in March 2001 by CASL to disband the scheme to exchange State parliamentary and legislative material between State Libraries.

R L Cope expressed concern that the rationale for this decision was in part based on the increasing availability of State parliamentary and legislative material in electronic format and that State libraries may base collection development decisions for this material on the trend for electronic publishing of this material.

I would like to state that libraries represented by CASL continue to be concerned to collect and maintain the State parliamentary and legislative material of their State in physical format, preferably paper, to ensure long-term access to this material. The decision by CASL to disband the exchange scheme was based on a requirement to streamline the supply arrangements and to reduce the subscription costs for some of the libraries in acquiring this material.

Fran Awcock, CEO State Library of Victoria

Sir,

Anyone interested in the history or Australian libraries and librarianship - which should be everyone interested in their great future - is indebted to our former West Australian and now Canadian colleague Dr Norman Horrocks for his contribution to the National Library of the large newspaper clippings file of responses to the 1935 Munn-Pitt report. Indirectly, also thanks to Dr Horrocks and directly to his Canadian colleague Professor Larry Amey, a full set of the clippings is also now held by the Australian Clearing House for Library and Information Science (ACHLIS) at the University of SA Library. ACHLIS holds too, a copy of Dr Horrock's outstanding 1971 University of Pittsburgh doctoral thesis The Carnegie Corporation of New York and its impact on library development in Australia, which unfortunately has never been published either as a monograph, or, to the best of my knowledge, in the journal literature. Both that thesis and the Munn-Pitt file are essential reading if one is to gauge just how far and how rapidly Australian libraries and librarianship progressed during the 20th century.

Alan Bundy, Director ACHLIS, University of SA Library

And via the internet

From: Camille Peters
Sent: Wednesday, 13 March 2002
To: Norman Horrocks
Cc: John Levett

Subject: Letter in Australian Library Journal February 2002

Mr Horrocks,

I did a quick search of the NLA catalogue at http://www.nla.gov.au and came across the following record:

Call number: MS 9137
Author: Horrocks, Norman, 1927-
Title: Scrapbook, 1935 [manuscript]
Date range: 1935.
Description: 4 cm. (1 v.)

Subject:
Horrocks, Norman, 1927- --Archives.
Munn, Ralph, 1894- . Australian libraries.
Pitt, Ernest R. (Ernest Roland), 1877-1957.

Librarians --Archives.

Libraries --Australia.

Notes: Manuscript reference no.: NLA MS 9137. Available for reference. Not for loan.

Background: Librarian, educator, writer and publisher. With a career in librarianship spanning nearly half a century and three continents, Horrocks has received many library awards in America and Canada. He divides his time between publishing at Scarecrow Press and teaching at Dalhousie University.

Summary: Newspaper cutting record of the impact of the Munn-Pitt report, 1935, on Australian libraries. The survey on library development was undertaken under the auspices of the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

I presume this is the record you were referring to in your letter?

Camille Peters

From: Norman Horrocks
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002
To: Camille Peters
Cc: John Levett
Subject: Re: Letter in Australian Library Journal February 2002

Many thanks Camille - yes, that's the item Larry Amey was referring to in his February 2002 ALJ article.

IMHO there is one major and one minor error in the NLA record.

Major: It is a collection of newspaper articles clipped from the Australian press of 1935 and dealing with the Munn-Pitt Report on Australian libraries. I was the donor NOT the author.

Minor: 'nearly half a century' is kind but incorrect. At the time I gave this item to NLA it would have been 'over half a century' - i.e. 1943 - date!

But this apart I am glad to see your findings.

Norman Horrocks.

Sir,

Miroslaw Kruk, in his article 'The superstitions in public libraries' would have us believe that libraries should return to the 'Golden Age' of the 19th century when 'They were intended to be instrumental in the moral and intellectual elevation of the masses'. And whilst not explicitly saying that libraries should discard all manner of 'superstitious books' (astrology, witchcraft, Nostradamus, dream interpretation) he states: 'The public library is thus at a crossroads. Either it returns to its noble, civilizing mission or it will become a temple of ignorance.'

In his article Mr Kruk argues the absurdity of such subjects as feng-shui, and ayurveda, and that as a consequence, such books do not deserve to be in public library collections. But really is it the role of the Australian Library Journal, or indeed librarians in general to determine the validity of new age ideas, or whether reductionism is superior to wholism? I think most librarians would agree that it is not. After all there are numerous scientific and philosophical journals that would provide a suitable arena for such a discussion. Then again, perhaps I am wrong on that score, and the Australian Library Journal should be made into an arena for such philosophical discussions

At any rate let us examine Mr Kruk's suggestions critically.

If public libraries were to remove their 'superstitious' books, such as astrology or palmistry, why stop there? Why not remove our sections on religion, and parts of philosophy and mythology? After all many scientists consider religion the ultimate superstition. Karl Marx called religion 'the opiate of the masses'. Even the psychology section is at risk, with many scientists debating whether or not much of psychology utilises scientific methods. What about much of the public library's recreational reading, its fiction? Perhaps the Mills and Boon, Harlequin, and Silhouette books should be removed. After all, how educational and civilizing can they be? One can go on and on from there. One could truly create a library modeled on the 19th century, but how well used would it be?

Most public librarians will tell you of the effort they go to in order to encourage the general public to use the collections as they are now. Public libraries nowadays are well stocked with music CD collections (classical, jazz and pop all catered for), popular magazines, children's books and materials, and an astonishing array of popular fiction. And yet still, many public libraries are not as well used as they could be. With the competition for funds and space, a library modeled on Mr Kruk's suggestions would not survive in the modern age. If [public] libraries became the 'educating' and 'civilizing' institutions, that Mr Kruk suggests, many local councils would be tempted to close them… After all, they would rationalise, why do we need public libraries to 'educate' when we have school and university libraries that could easily fill that role.

Some other points to consider:

1. Just because public libraries are buying large amounts of 'superstitious' books doesn't mean that the more 'orthodox' or 'traditional' books are being displaced from a collection. In fact as any public librarian will tell you, when it comes to discarding or weeding a collection, the classical literature is usually retained, even if never used. If a classical work of poetry or literature is removed, it's usually because of its condition, in which case the book is replaced with a fresh new copy of the same title.
2. Mr Kruk gave us a number of examples of libraries in Victoria with large holdings in subjects such as astrology. There is no way that this would be so across the board in Australia. Any public librarian will tell you that demography plays a part in collection development. In certain council libraries of NSW, where a significant proportion of the population is of a senior age, western fiction and romance books, may be the most borrowed items, while well-stocked collections of non-fiction books sit idle. In areas of Sydney's North Shore, the Eastern Suburbs or the Inner West, where concentrations of young middle-class professionals (the so-called 'yuppie') are greater, reading patterns will again be quite different.
3. Another issue to consider is what I call 'multi-use' of collections. What I mean by this is that many books in a library collection can be used by different people for totally different reasons. A case in point is an experience I had a number of years ago, where a local Christian group wanted to prepare some information on the dangers of the occult and witchcraft. So naturally, they borrowed a number of our books on that subject. Another example would be an astronomer wanting to prepare a paper outlining the flaws in astrology. He would naturally want a book on Astrology. I could go on and on with such examples. The point is if people like Mr Kruk had their way, they could very well be denying ammunition to the very people they are professing to support.
4. Mr Kruk argues that placing 'superstitious' books in a library collection will qualify them 'as being a legitimate source of information'. There is simply no basis of fact in this statement. It's been my experience in public libraries that many people will, once shown the relevant section of a non-fiction collection, look closely at books pertaining to their enquiry. If they are pre-disposed towards certain ideas (superstitious ones perhaps) then they will use those books; if not they will ignore them. Library users often comment on whether they found a book useful or total bunkum. And this is the crux here. Many library users still exercise discernment when viewing a collection. We aren't dealing with 'ignorant savages'. That would be a very 19th century view, wouldn't it?

It's been my experience in public libraries that we try to have as broad-based a collection as possible, in order to cover the increasingly wide array of enquiries we receive. In essence public libraries should be there to give people the ability to make an informed judgment, not make the judgment for them. Making an informed decision requires having all the information before you, not a selected part of it. That leads to 'blinkered' and narrow-minded thinking. The moment we start to censor material, and try to decide what our patrons 'should' and 'shouldn't' be reading we will be indoctrinating them, and cease to be relevant in our society.

Public libraries are also in a sense custodians of human culture - music, literature, art, science and religion. This means the accumulated wisdom of the ages, but also the contemporary culture of the day. If that contemporary culture is ignorant and stupid, then so be it. It will be up to future generations to make that judgment. But they won't be able to make that judgment if we have selectively removed the information. Many records and libraries were destroyed in the conquest of the Americas because they were considered the work of ignorant 'savages' and the information they held detrimental to humanity. Much of the early history of those races is now lost to us forever. The oral and vocal traditions of many North American Indian tribes were wiped in the relentless war against them by so called 'enlightened' individuals of the 19th Century.

Some of the real issues facing public libraries today include having to deal with the increasing amount of non-book materials in their collections, whilst facing restrictions in terms of space and funding. Should parts of a library's collection be digitised, and if so what and how much? These are the sorts of issues we need to address not pushing the agenda of scientific rationalism or some spurious notions of 19th century idealism.

Anthony Zappia, Defence Library Service