Out of the dungeons

I am utterly convinced, and have been for some time, that the public library brings more happiness, growth and general fulfillment to the Princeton community than Firestone does. Every time that I go to the former, I am filled with a sense of the intellectual potential of those around me. The latter fills me with a sense of hanging dread. I ask myself: Why does a research library, one of the largest and wealthiest in the world, strike me with this sense of mental torpor? I come to the conclusion that the model of research library that Princeton and fellow schools, such as Harvard and Yale, employ is outdated and should be done away with. Research facilities should be more about helping people — undergraduates, graduates and faculty — engage in a meaningful way with their academics. Firestone should be less about providing acres upon acres of books that no one will ever read.

To achieve this goal, Firestone and all of the academic libraries on campus should digitize portions of their inventory. In 2005, the Stanford University Engineering Library began moving all of their periodicals and technical manuals online. This step enabled students in need of information (formulas, processes and diagrams) to easily search for them on their own computers rather than waste time wandering the stacks, looking for a single book in the sea of publications. I understand that students in the humanities and some social sciences may enjoy stumbling upon books related to their research, but for people in science majors looking for specific information, a digitized system would make this information more easily accessible. A digitized system could also link people to related books, recreating the experience of stumbling upon books in the stacks.

This proposal of mine comes at a critical juncture for the University’s library system. As has been discussed in previous ‘Prince’ articles, Firestone is planning a renovation, potentially taking over a decade. Rather than downsizing and minimizing, Firestone will be expanding, continuing to use the same outdated model. Instead of digitally archiving books and periodicals, Firestone will be “reorganizing them” and spending what will probably amount to millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours.

With all of the space, time and energy — not to mention environmental benefits of paperless archiving — that could be saved by digitally archiving hard copies of our academic works, we could do all kinds of things. We could make open, beautiful study spaces and comfortable lounges to relax and unwind in. We could even make a full-sized basketball court with all the space we’d be freeing up!

For those skeptics reading my article, it is important to note that I am not arguing for a Fahrenheit 451-esque world in which we’ve destroyed all of our books and are left with nothing save our computers. I do not think that digitizing the Princeton Public Library is in order. There is something to be said about being surrounded by shelves of books that one loves and the sense of vigor and excitement that this sense bestows.

But in a research library such as Firestone, this is not the case. The millions, yes, millions of volumes which stand untouched in the stacks of Firestone are not there to be held, loved and cherished for the joy of reading. They are there to provide academics with the information that they need to do good work.

Libraries, no matter what type, should serve a single purpose: bringing human beings joy, fulfillment and academic resources. In a public library, this comes in the form of creative exploration and unbound reading opportunities. In a research library, it comes from the satisfaction gleaned from academic productivity. Our public library is succeeding in its goal, while Firestone is falling short. Digitization and reallocation of space may not be the perfect solution to Firestone’s dilemma, but it would surely be a giant step in the right direction.

Nathan Mathabane is a sophomore from Portland, Ore. He can be reached at nmathaba@princeton.edu.