May 9, 2001
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
To the Editor:
Nicholson Baker's book Double Fold and the extensive press it has received, especially from The New York Times, have focused public attention on a crucial issue--how to preserve our printed heritage. Most funding for preservation has come from research library budgets--budgets that also support acquisitions, cataloging, servicing, and housing of collections. Federal funding, while a key source of support, has been limited. Choices have always had to be made.
Libraries are not museums or archives, as Baker and the Times editorial (April 22) suggest. Library collections are first and foremost intended for use. In that process, materials on paper made from wood pulp (despite what Baker claims) can be damaged, sometimes beyond repair. While no one would suggest that microfilm is the ideal substitute for the original artifact for every purpose, it has ensured the survival of millions of brittle materials.
Could libraries do more to preserve original artifacts? Absolutely -- with additional funding, federal support, and greater public commitment to preservation. We hope that the public discussion generated by Baker's book will affirm the importance of preservation and generate the support it requires.
Sincerely,
Shirley K. Baker, President
Association of Research Libraries
Vice Chancellor for Information Technology and Dean of University Libraries
Washington University in St. Louis