page break

Brain Fritters

The depth of feeling in the student body with regard to their library runs deep as can be seen in the results of the "Library Survey", where 90% of those that gave an opinion disagreed with the library cutbacks in hours.

I believe that for students to get the University to change its policy with regard to this cutback in hours, they must get the University to reconsider it's position on the role of the Library within this University. Then from this larger consideration they can get them to adjust their perspective and priorities accordingly.

There is a conflict within the University on what is considered of primary importance in the Library. Academic staff and Post-Graduate students consider an up to date, developing, and wide ranging stock of periodicals and books as primary; whereas the bulk of the student body would consider that access to basic texts, reference material, and services are of primary importance. In my mind, both are of equal importance.

This issue of cutbacks in opening hours is in fact much wider than simply cutting hours especially in this case where buying and opening hours have been linked with the policy of redirecting money saved in staffing to the book and periodical buying fund.

The question which ought to be asked when the formulation of any Library policy is being considered is: What is the role of the Library in the University? It is, in fact, the heart or brain of the University. This is not some cliche or an idea for academic's to ponder, but something which ought to be considered seriously and acted upon positively. Without a Library, the University, and any role it considered itself as having, would cease to function or exist in any positive way.

The University does, or at least did, consider the Library as occupying a special position within it. Otherwise it would not have set up the Library Committee to consider it's policies, affairs, and development. If it was considered to be equivalent of an ordinary University department it would be run as such, with the Librarian as it's Professor.

One must accept this implication which indicates that the Library is regarded as special in good time, then it must also be treated as special in hard times of economic stress. This is an erroneous presumption, in that a department's budgetary plans are on a much more annual basis than that of the Library's which must consider its annual budget with the long term view in mind.

This can be illustrated well if one considers a Library's stock, which must always be kept up to date so that there is both an historical as well as modern coverage of areas of debate, and information related to the Universities studies. Not only must it be up to date, but must also be enlarging to fill in gaps. So a Library cannot even for one year, cutback drastically on the buying of stock. If it did, the result would be a compound one as it would have to regain its stock levels at some time in the future. To consider cutbacks for one year would be foolish and as a contuing process, ridiculous as one would be left with a useless Library.

I consider that a University is judged by the quality of the graduates, and the quality of research (and its contribution to knowledge and society) that it produces. Good graduates are not born, and nor is inspiring research. They both arise out of good teaching and learning resources, of which the Library is the basic unit. It is from that staff and students find the necessary elements of knowledge and inspiration to pursue their accademic and proffessional careers. If basic taxts, or any other stock are out of date, redundant or incomplete, then the University institution as a whole, its reputation, its teachers, and, most important, its students and graduates suffer. I cannot imagine how the Arts, language. Literature, and Law faculties would function properly and expand without a good Library. With the Sciences it is not so obvious, but not all can be learned in a Laboratory. Basic texts and the latest information are also an integral part of their education.

The Library is like that brain in a University. It's importance transcends that of any individual part, all rely upon it and it must always be kept up to standard and developing. Similarly all parts must have full access to the brain to be able to use it to full potential, thus the services offered by the Library can be seen also in this light.'

I consider that the Library must be open for use as often and as long as possible and practicable, otherwise there is a basic contradiction in what it ought to be (and aspiring to be) and what it actually is. The fact that the Library is not being used to some arbitary potential at certain times is irrelevant.

It cannot be denied that the main factor in University is its student factor. They are similarly a major part of the user factor of the Library. The Library is a public service institution and as such it's users, their wished, needs, and demands are of Prime Importance in the formation of policy.

The results of the Library Surveys, comments published in Salient, and the motions etc. coming out of SRC'S are a positive articulation of student feeling towards the Library cuts. By their very nature that the demands come from the users merits consideration by the University, (that is if one accepts the presumption that the University is a democratic body working in the best interests of all involved with it).

The student body regards it as essential that the Library be reopened during the evenings of the holidays, particularly pert-timers many of whom cannot use the Library during the day). Also its hours be flexible so as to include Friday nights before major exams, and some alternative to the Friday night closing, such as extended opening on Sundays.

University Councils suggestion that any savings in staffing and servicing would be redirected into the book and periodical buying fund ought never have been mooted let alone accepted. Although it may have been considered by the Library Committee and Prof. Board that they were acting in the best interests of the Library in accepting it, it was only their view of what they saw as the Libraries best interests. Not enough weight was given to the major user factor of the Library, the students. Such a drastic cut in Library hours, indicates to me a blatant disregard for the student interests.

It is fair in times of economic stress to rationalize expenditure and services of a Library. That I accept (in moderation). But any drastic cutbacks such as those at present, conflicts with the position that a Library must hold in a University. These cuts in hours are drastic and negative, and are a blatant imbalance of the economic pressure insensitively placed on that aspect of the Library which is most important to the student users (access to the Library) in favour of those factors regarded as primary by accademics.

Because of the importance of the Library in the University, its transcendence of any departmental considerations, its vital role for the proper functioning and development of all departments and the students within them, it should not ever be considered as an element able to be cut in an overall, generalized policy of economic tightening and budgetary cuts. It ought to be regarded as one of the primary elements in the Universities budgeting, with a minimum of econimic stress.

— La. H.