1. I agree that the Bible advocates sharing and doing for one another and, in a sense, it would seem that we are in a business that evangelicals would relate to and want to support. But the problem is that evangelicals apply this message in direct context to how they interpret the messages within the Bible. Therefore, sharing hordes of books and other resources that are at odds with the messages that evangelicals proclaim to be the singular, right messages of God will be at odds with their mission. Their mission is to spread their perceptions to all nob-believers for the purpose of converting them to their faith, and not to perpetuate what they would deem flagrant misperceptions. Libraries, then, are flagrant misperception brokers. We lead people astray.

Now, if we agreed to censor ourselves from ill-informed resources, those that are antithetical to the views held by particular evangelicals, then perhaps we would be able to have a relationship (and likely only with very, highly specific evangelical groups based on what we would agree to allow or disallow in the collection). In the big picture, successfully wooing evangelicals would have to lead to a radical shift in our ideals. It would also lead to libraries with collections reflecting the beliefs of a particular sect, rather than a collection relevant to a society and community based on the concept of pluralism and diversity.

2. Be careful about comparing the libraries Franklin and Jefferson would have rallied for to the model of today’s public library. The libraries that existed in the days of our founding fathers were far from the model of a public library we have today. Our founding fathers used subscription libraries. They paid money to belong to the libraries and those that belonged to subscription libraries were the elite, wealthy, white males of the time. I do not think we would want to go back to the model of the subscription library (although, if budgets continue to be slashed and the middle class continues to shrink, perhaps that is where we are headed).

Or maybe we need to take a lesson from Dr. Pepper. He was a wealthy doctor in Philadelphia that inherited nearly a quarter of a million dollars from his uncle, George Pepper, to fund a public library in Philadelphia. At the time, the other subscription libraries wanted a piece of that pie, but the courts ruled that the money was intended to create a new kind of library: the public library we are so familiar with today: open and free to everyone. And while we are on the topic, ne’er we forget the generosity so lavishly displayed by Andrew Carnegie.

Philanthropy directly led to the public libraries we have today, and perhaps philanthropy is the key to saving our public libraries today. By seeking grants, donations and endowments we can plump-up our scrawny figures. It is a win-win because the wealthy will be giving back to the community and libraries will be able to remain free and open to everyone within the community. Public libraries are socialist institutions that must figure out how to survive in the dog eat dog world of capitalism. That means looking beyond the government and tax payers for funding. It means we must learn how to play with the big dogs. It is the big dogs we can teach many new “tricks.” We can link the big dogs positively to the people and to whole communities.

There is definite power in what we do each day. There is power in how we present ourselves each day. We need to convey this power to the world of big business and philanthropists. We are attractive. We can attract many dance partners if we loosen up and learn to do the dance.

3. Touting libraries and the distance a house is from a public library as a factor in increasing property values is a brilliant idea. Plus, letting people know about the studies that show better education leads to drops in the crime rate and. erego, higher property values would be a great pitch for realtors to throw (for both the benefit of the realtors and libraries). This should be standard procedure across the country. It would increase our power of attraction even more!

Perhaps the better title for this post would be, “Searching for a Better Comeback”.

Sometimes I feel libraryland is the “Starving Marvin” episode form South Park.

I don’t know about turning our backs on the evangelicals; I think that they get a bad reputation since they appear to be the more likely of book challengers for sex, profanity, drug use, witchcraft, homosexuality, and the like. Of course, one could make their argument at the opposite end of the spectrum (whatever the opposite of evangelical is) for objecting to books that are racist, sexist, discriminatory towards anyone (for that matter), insensitivity to others, and other ‘politically correct’ hangups. It might be harder to connect with the evangelicals than with the opposite because librarians hold strong views about not restricting content that is at odds with the Bible.

Even with that said, I don’t think that it is a gap that cannot be bridged. It just takes a bit more finesse on the librarian’s side and perhaps a bit more understanding on the evangelical’s side.

Their point is that they want to pay for what interests them with your money, but not let you pay for what interests you with theirs.

To talk about details with such a person is meaningless, unless you can get through this cognitive impasse on their end. Never deal with the symptoms if you can go straight to the cause.