Managing Multiculturalism and Diversity in the Library

Principles and Issues for Administrators

Mark Winston

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781138980327
• eBook ISBN: 9781317948322
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Library & Information Science
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Discover ways to raise staff awareness regarding diversity!Managing Multiculturalism and Diversity In the Library: Principals and Issues for Administrators is an academic guide to diversity issues such as affirmative action, career development of minorities in the library science profession, racism, and scholarship solutions to increase the diversity of people in the library and information science profession. From this manual, you will gain a deeper understanding of diversity and its implementation in your library. Scholarly and poignant, this book is recommended to academics, administrators, library professionals, and students who want to improve the diversity of libraries and the profession of library information science. In Managing Multiculturalism and Diversity In the Library, you will explore the continued need to keep diversity growing in our libraries as a learning tool to boost the creativity and broaden the knowledge base of libraries as a whole. This informative guide provides you with studies on the diversification efforts of Australia, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom, showing you how each nation differently defines diversity, yet values diversity with an agenda that accepts and encourages cultural differences. You will find suggestions on how to bring in the talents of traditionally excluded groups into your library and examine affirmative action and its dismantling from different angles. Managing Multiculturalism and Diversity In the Library illustrates the importance of cultural diversity in contrast to a melting pot that does not allow for distinct flavors. Some pertinent areas of diversity that you will read about are:

• raising staff awareness of diversity through training seminars
• a diversity program focused closely on your library's missions and strategic plans
• integrating diversity into every aspect of the library activities
• looking to colleges and universities as the leaders of cross-cultural understanding
• American Library Association and the diversity agendaManaging Multiculturalism and Diversity In the Library is an enlightening and helpful resource to foster multicultural understanding and to plan a diversity agenda that is right for your library organization. From this book, you will find many interesting and informative methods on creating a culturally pluralistic library.

The 4-1-1 on Section 254: Towards a More Definitive Universal Service Policy

V. Tessa Perry Evans

At the time of the writing of this publication, V. Tessa Perry Evans was Head of Acquisitions at Rutgers University Libraries in New Brunswick, NJ. Presently, she is a Collection Development Specialist with Baker & Taylor, Inc., in Somerville, NJ.

SUMMARY. A discussion of Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is presented as well as a call for a more definitive policy on universal service. The author also parallels the struggle for equal access to information technologies and the struggle for equal educational opportunities. The author further contends that public school desegration policies failed–40 years after Brown, the nation’s schools are unequal and more segregated than they were before Brown–because the federal government delegated its responsibility to the states. The author warns that if regulation and enforcement of a universal service policy are left up to the states, then it is subject to the same fate as public school desegration policies. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678. E-mail address: [email protected]]

KEYWORDS. Communications Act of 1934, e-rate, information equity, Section 254, Telecommunications Act of 1996, universal service, universal telecommunications rate

Those of us who have ready access to electronic information sometimes forget how fortunate we are. Therefore, it is useful to be reminded of the power of information and our responsibility to ensure that others are provided the same opportunities. While preparing for this paper, I experienced a malfunctioning modem on my home computer, which made it difficult to access the Internet. I decided to take a quick trip to the local library to verify a URL address. What an awakening! With a computer at my fingertips both at home and at work, along with numerous resources available to me, both online and in print, I was not prepared for the one-hour wait to use one of the two computers that provide access to the Internet. So, I drove several miles south to the neighboring town library. I was surprised to learn that the library there did not yet have access to the Internet. I then drove east to the neighboring town. They also were not yet wired; however, the director of the library assured me that they would be online soon. I then realized how fortunate I was, as well as the residents of my township, for we are one of the few towns in the area in which public access to the Internet is available through the local library.

There has been a plethora of articles, both pro and con, written about the Telecommunications Act of 1996.¹ My choice from the myriad of important concerns to be addressed here is dictated by my experience above and what I consider to be three important, yet unresolved, issues–the first being, the need for a more refined definition of universal service and a manner in which to translate effectively the concept into public policy. Second, there is a need to question whether the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will really ensure equal access to information technology. And finally, given the structural inequities in our system, we should question whether information equity is an attainable goal. The following is not an attempt to answer these questions, but to encourage and solicit ongoing debate and discussion on the issue of universal service. It is helpful to engage in discourse about issues, because typically, and almost by definition, it encourages modification, individual adaptations, and refinement. I begin the paper with an outline of the pertinent issues in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifically Section 254, which is the part of the Act devoted to universal service. Undoubtedly this Act will be the foundation on which policies for the digital age will emerge. Immediately following is a brief exploration into the origin of the concept of universal service. In looking to the future of universal service, I find it useful to examine and learn from the past. The struggle for equal access to information technologies is compared to the struggle for equal access to educational opportunities. There are some obvious parallels in both struggles. Therefore, a discussion of the ill-fated policies of public school desegregation is presented, for universal service is to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, what public school desegregation was to the 1954 Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision. The goal is not to castigate or malign public school desegregation policies, but to overcome the shortcomings of the past, in order to better plan for the future.

SECTION 254 OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996

President Clinton has said repeatedly that every school, every library, would have fair and equal access to the Information Superhighway by the year 2000.² With the President’s pledge as their battle cry, equal access advocates waged a relentless campaign to ensure equitable access to information technology. Their campaign was based on the concept of “universal service”–that of ensuring free and open access to information technology for all, regardless of the ability to pay.³ After much lobbying and debate, their efforts culminated in the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Title I: Part II, Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 outlines the parameters for universal service. While pre-1996 universal service policies provided support to certain targeted groups–rural communities as far back as the mid-1930s, low-income households in the mid-1980s, and consumers with disabilities–through relay service–the 1996 Act not only expands services to these groups, but adds schools, libraries and hospitals to the targeted groups category.⁴ The 1996 Act also directs the FCC (Federal Communication Commission) to establish a Federal-State Joint Board to review and study the regulations and to make recommendations and policies for the implementation and advancement of universal service, including the “definition of Federal universal service support mechanisms.”⁵ It states further that the FCC and the Board are to base these policies on the following:

• quality services at just, reasonable, and affordable rates;

• access to advanced telecommunications and information services to all regions of the nation;

• access and costs in rural and high cost areas that are reasonably comparable to the services provided in urban areas;

• equitable and nondiscriminatory contribution by all providers of telecommunications services to the preservation and advancement of universal service;

• specific, predictable and sufficient support Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service;

• access to advanced telecommunications services for schools, health care, and libraries; and, such other principles as the Board and FCC determine as necessary for the protection of the public interest.⁶

After a few short months, the Board came up with recommendations that met FCC approval. The recommendations are as follows:

• discounts to schools and libraries of between 20% and 90%, depending on the economic status of the institution;

• the discounts (e-rates) are to apply to all telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal communications, both ongoing and future purchases;

• libraries and schools would participate in a nationwide competitive bidding process facilitated by the FCC to assure maximum competition;

• an annual $2.25 billion cap on spending in the program; and,

• maximum flexibility for libraries and schools to purchase the package of services that best meets their individual needs.⁷

In September of 1997, the FCC announced that the Universal Service Administration Company and the Schools and Libraries Corporation (SLC) would be responsible for managing the e-rate discount program. The program has already been beset with a number of very serious and complicated issues. The most challenging include: a lawsuit from several telecommunication companies challenging the discount program; the requirement that a library have an “approved” technology plan in place before it can apply for the discount program; and limiting the applications to academic libraries whose budgets are “completely separate” from a higher education institution. Further complicating matters, just recently, the FCC reduced the amount that long distance companies will pay towards universal service discounts during the initial six months of the program.⁸

The legal wrangling and challenges noted above pale in comparison to the most obvious concern which is the fact that the program is moving forward without a formal definition of universal service. While the 1996 Act provides for “nationwide access” and “equitable access by secondary schools, libraries and rural health care providers” through guaranteed discount rates, it lacks a clear definition of universal service. The 1996 Act defines universal service as an “evolving level of telecommunications services that the FCC shall establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.”⁹ The Act also fails to include pricing for low-income consumers and to specify discounts for consumers with disabilities. Compounding this, the Act passes the responsibility of ensuring equitable access on to the states and the FCC.

It is difficult to understand how equitable access is to be achieved or how technology plans are to be developed without a determination of what will be the basic tenets of universal service.¹⁰ Karen Coyle summarizes the situation succinctly when she states in a recent article in American Libraries that “… we have no definition of universal service.”¹¹ If the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is to be successful in its implementation, universal service must be discussed aggressively, debated and defined more clearly. If not, this Act could serve to undermine the very goals universal service advocates hope to accomplish.

How such a loosely formulated concept became the basis for the policy that will govern the digital age is perplexing to say the least. Now that the concept has been formalized into public policy, it is useful to consider its historical origin.

Universal Service

Traditionally, universal service meant providing person-to-person voice communication to all Americans at a reasonable price. This was accomplished by telephone service through a system of cross-subsidies. More specifically, those living in lower-cost urban areas subsidized their rural neighbors in high delivery areas; residential service users paid less than business customers; and long-distance callers paid more than local callers.¹²

In 1907, Theodore Vail, chief architect of the Bell system and then President of AT&T, is credited with originating the term “universal service.” His slogan, “one system, one policy, universal service,” was used to describe a monolithic system that would allow one subscriber to talk (communicate) with another.¹³ Vail used the slogan to garner political support in an effort to eliminate competition and to establish a monopoly market for AT&T. Eventually, he got his support. In 1921, after the passage of the Willis-Graham Act, competing telephone exchanges were merged into territorial monopolies and linked to a regulated nationwide system–“unified service.”¹⁴ Vail’s business philosophy also proved successful, for when he first spoke those words in 1907, only 10 percent of all U.S. households had telephone service. Nearly 25 years later, after the passage of the Communications Act of 1934, telephone service in the country had risen to almost 40 percent and AT&T’s market share had risen from 50 percent to 80 percent.¹⁵

While Vail gave credence to the term, documentation as to how the concept of universal service worked its way into public policy is sketchy and controversial. Some historians state that a policy of universal service really began to take root in the ten years preceding the AT&T divesture (1973–1983).¹⁶ They charge that AT&T used the term as...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Introduction
• The Definition of Diversity: Two Views. A More Inclusive Definition
• The Definition of Diversity: Two Views. A More Specific Definition
• Managing Diversity: Library Management in Light of the Dismantling of Affirmative Action
• Affirmative Action or Increased Competition: A Look at Women and Minority Library Deans
• The 4-1-1 on Section 254: Towards a More Definitive Universal Service Policy
• The Role of Civility in Diverse Relations
• Diversity Dialogue Groups: A Model for Enhancing Work Place Diversity
• Diversity Initiatives and Programs: The National Approach
• Diversity in the Library: What Could Happen at the Institutional Level
• Multicultural Curriculum in Higher Education
• International Perspective-View of the Concept of Diversity in Other Countries
• Diversity: Political and Societal Barriers
• Index