ARL Letter to the Editors, New York Review

April 25, 2001

The New York Review
1755 Broadway
5th Floor
New York, NY 10019-3780

To the Editors:

As you may imagine, the publication of Nicholson Baker's book and the press it has received, in particular the lengthy and ultimately favorable review from the distinguished scholar Robert Darnton [NYR April 26], have created much discussion in the library community regarding the framing of an appropriate response. Some librarians are outraged by the purposeful misrepresentations that Baker makes in telling the history of library preservation, focusing primarily on practices that, as Darnton acknowledges, were in place for a short period of time and abandoned many years ago. Some librarians are angry with Baker's ad hominem attacks on colleagues and their institutions, many of whom devoted distinguished careers to exploring options for the effective preservation of our intellectual heritage. And some including most of those already mentioned are glad for the exposure that Baker has given to these issues and look forward to broad public discussion of preservation concerns. Rather than focus on whether Baker was fair or accurate in his "journalistic jeremiad," as Darnton characterizes Double Fold, I am writing on behalf of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) to place Baker's arguments in context and to highlight the important issues at stake.

The preservation of the intellectual and cultural record is one of the most important issues facing our society. As Baker makes clear through examples in his book, however, our society has rarely had enough interest in preserving the historical record to fund an adequate level of effort. Most funding for the preservation of print resources in research libraries has been allocated from research library budgets that must also support the acquisitions, cataloging, servicing, and housing of the collections. Federal funding has been key in sustaining and leveraging local investments and in supporting research into preservation technologies. While the cumulative effects of these multiple investments have been significant, no one in research libraries would ever label them sufficient. Choices have always had to be made.

Despite limited budgets, the uncertainties of new technology, and other compelling institutional priorities, librarians have used the best knowledge and materials available at any given time to develop a broad array of preservation strategies. Darnton acknowledges that "Baker sometimes overstates his case." As a scholar and user of libraries, Darnton knows that "[s]pace is a serious problem for librarians," that "[p]aper can be fragile," and that "[b]ooks can be damaged." Library collections are first and foremost intended for use. In that process, materials on fragile paper can be damaged, sometimes beyond repair. "Microfilming," concedes Darnton, "does preserve at least some of the historical record, even if it cannot be an adequate substitute for the original works." The routine disbinding and discarding of materials as part of the microfilming process, which most disturbed Baker, is no longer done. Microfilming itself is now carried out according to strict national standards established in the 1980s and adherence to these standards are required of all NEH funded projects. New methods of mass deacidification are safe and cost-effective.

Neither has digitization, as Darnton and Baker warn it might, produced "another purge of paper." Experimentation has led to the assessment that digitization is most effective in making unique materials available worldwide to students and researchers who could never travel to see the original artifacts housed in a library's special collections department. More directly to Baker's point, through the process of digitizing, libraries have identified and treated large numbers of materials in need of conservation. Digitization has become an important way of enhancing the value of the print artifact and ensuring its long-term survival.

Research libraries in North America have almost 500 million print volumes in their collections and add another 10 million volumes each year. In a recent year, they spent over $83 million on a wide range of preservation strategies. Almost 3.5 million volumes were bound, 1 million volumes were restored through conservation treatment, 115,000 items were deacidified, and 156,000 items were placed in protective enclosures. In addition, 110,000 volumes were reformatted through microfilming or photocopying. Almost 50% of ARL's 122 member libraries report significant improvements in environmental conditions in their buildings over the past three years - controlled temperature and humidity being one of the most effective ways to prolong the life of library resources. Could libraries do more to preserve original artifacts? Of course, with additional funding, more materials could be preserved. Will this happen? Only with greater public commitment to preservation of the historical record.

Both Baker's book and Darnton's review have served to bring the preservation of print artifacts to the attention of the public. We hope that the interest generated will result in heightened visibility for the many successes that libraries have had in preserving our culture and a better understanding of the complex challenges that libraries face in acquiring, providing access to, and preserving materials in ever more numerous formats, with limited resources. We are glad to see the interest people have in this issue and hope that public discussion will elevate the importance of preservation and reaffirm the positive role research libraries play in this effort.

Sincerely,

Shirley K. Baker, President
Association of Research Libraries
Vice Chancellor for Information Technology and Dean of University Libraries
Washington University in St. Louis