Playing the Devil's Advocate or Sincerely Passionate?

During the late 1930s and early 1940s, UK-based news magazine The Economist was covering Adolf Hitler's accession to power and economic policies. At the time, the National Socialist Party - the Nazi party - was implementing policies that transferred the ownership of institutions from the government into private hands. It was through The Economist's coverage of Nazi Germany's economic structures that the term 'privatization' was coined.

Apparently some libraries have stocked a couple extra copies of Mein Kampf in their collection...

Just this year, multiple libraries in San Diego, Santa Clarita and Vallejo have been outsourced and/or privatized due to the budgetary problems within California's government. California isn't the only state moving this public good towards private ownership; Oregon, Texas and Tennessee have all given up on having some of their libraries thrive off of the government's backing.

Privatization seems like an easy solution, assist the economy by putting the product into the hands of a business and simultaneously take pressure off of the taxpayers. Supporters say that the private sector can even do it more efficiently and will have more accountability to the marketplace. However, placing libraries functions into the hands of private businesses may have unforeseen consequences.

According to the American Library Association, the outsourcing and privatization of libraries can have a far-reaching, resoundingly harmful impact on the services and management of a library. Most of the businesses that take over public libraries will just completely clean house, and replace the staff with inexperienced people who will work for less money. This procedure leads to essential library tasks such as cataloging going by the wayside under the unseasoned management.

If a private company took over a library and desired solely to take advantage of the public by charging ridiculous prices for rentals, what could stop them? How would people know if they are being cheated anyways? Unlike a publicly-owned institution, information within a private organization can be kept confidential. How could the public control what books that a private library keeps in stock, why wouldn't they reserve space for only the most popular books on the shelves?

The transition from the public to the private sector is something that is presently occurring, so there are a great deal of questions that remain unanswered. Many library associations, like the ALA, are worried that all publicly funded libraries could eventually become privately owned. My biggest question: How can we prevent these corporate takeovers from happening altogether?

Unfortunately, there is no quick solution that is readily available. Government is struggling financially to support these institutions, and is more than happy to give them away. The only way to solve the problem is by asking people to re-evaluate whether this is the best course of action for the future of libraries. If enough people were to consider this to be a negative route, then hopefully our government would recognize the concern and work to keep libraries in the public sector.

Libraries have always served as a public good and are necessary for a democratic society. When a library's primary concern shifts from how it can best serve the public to how it can be most profitable, there is something seriously wrong with our priorities. Having a library that answers to share-holders is like the Peace Corps taking orders from U.S. Marines, it just defeats the purpose.

The right to learn and the right to be informed are principle human rights satisfied simply by the existence of libraries. For-profit businesses have no interest in protecting these rights, and will certainly restrict access to this public service if it means making a quick buck. This isn't Blockbuster, it's a damn library. So please, be quiet and courteous to your fellow library-goers, and leave them where they belong: The public sector.