Blatant Berry: More Missions Are Better
Our slogan: “the public library, something for everyone”
John N. Berry III, Editor-at-Large -- Library Journal, 07/15/2006
There is widespread agreement that the public library mission must include several roles and kinds of service. This convergence reflects the profession’s reluctant recognition that a public library must offer “something for everyone” or at least something for every taxpayer. A library cannot “concentrate and strengthen,” as the great Lowell Martin advised years ago, setting in motion the Public Library Planning Process with its attempt to focus public library service by setting specific roles. Many great administrators have urged libraries to focus on one or two roles and one broad mission. They warned that a library simply cannot be “all things to all people” and must narrow its focus and vision because of limits forced upon it by a scarcity of resources.
Engaging in that debate and misleading myself, I argued that public libraries must concentrate on providing materials and services that are part of the original mission set by the trustees of the Boston Public Library (BPL) in 1852 to justify its founding. In their ornate, 19th-century language, they said the mission of the new BPL would be to inform democracy. They set out to provide the information to ensure that citizens of our democracy could make well-informed decisions on issues on the public agenda. I still believe that mission is central to the justification for public support of public libraries and must be a part of every library’s purposes.
In earlier discussions I would pit that ancient mission against the newer public library roles. Calling it the “give ’em what they want” or “build a better Borders” fad in public library development, I would ridicule one of the most popular models. The “give ’em what they want” view is usually attributed to my old adversary in these matters, Charles Robinson, who directed the great Baltimore County Public Library system. Many current leaders of the public library field are disciples of Robinson. They espouse that role for the public library, and they have had great success with it. It has made libraries popular, increased circulation of library materials, and generally delivered measurable results to show governing and budgeting authorities and citizens that libraries are valuable. While I’m not a convert to the Robinson philosophy, I have to concede that allocation of resources to best-selling books and other sought-after media is crucial to library success.
What I regret and worry about is that public libraries have rarely delivered on that honorable mission set out in 1852. Public libraries have never really provided enough of the information on current issues to inform citizens fully, nor have they, alas, ever aggressively pushed that information to those citizens, or told them they need to attend to it. Public libraries have never “induced” people to learn in-depth about the questions on our public agenda, in the word the Boston trustees used. In contrast to its great success at “building a better Borders,” the public library, in its greatest failure, has neglected to inform democracy, to convince citizens to use its resources to become more knowledgeable in order to decide public issues. It is the problem that keeps me awake at night.
The “build a better Borders” role gives us usage statistics and evidence of public library popularity, while the “inform democracy” role will give us a mission worthy of public support and taxation, especially in this era of spin and misinformation.
There are many other roles that can and should be added to the public library mission. We cannot simply focus on one or two and capture wide public support. That’s why I am cheered by the growing evidence of a convergence of roles and missions in so many of our best public libraries today. I think our slogan should be “the public library, something for everyone.”
