Media center restrictions are often mandated by Cobb County
Three school issues can almost always be anticipated to inspire and even incite student activism: parking, the cafeteria, and the media center. Over the years here at Lassiter, I’ve listened to the wails of sorrow and frustration over limited student parking and the loss of parking privileges; I’ve listened to students complain about cafeteria food (even while the chicken finger and French fry line continue to grow, providing plenty of demand); and I’ve noted the criticism directed at an always-evolving and ambiguous entity, the media center. Oh, and yes, I can attest that it was once indeed called the Library. The name changed, though, because its function changed, not simply out of political correctness. Information and knowledge can be accessed now through a variety of media, way beyond the typical print materials once associated with “Libraries.” Our titles serve to emphasize that very point. Criticism of our media center more often than not focuses on access to information available in cyber space as opposed to the more traditional and often more dependable print media (as when servers go down).
Some of the criticism, however, deserves response. I believe the associated frustration is relevant. What I question is the focus of implied blame.
Most of the disputed policies in this discussion can be attributed in origin to the “powers that be”: administrative directive, school system policy, school board decisions, and tax payer influence. So, when we speak of the “media center,” we must remember that it is an institutional effect, managed by professional personnel who know their responsibilities and who probably are more frustrated daily by bureaucratic demands than any one student can imagine. In addition, bureaucracy is often slow to catch up to technological advances.
I completely understand the offense students experience when they feel the limitations imposed upon them through censorship, but ultimately, such actions are the result of policies aimed at censoring student use according to parent demands (i.e. limited access to web sites that might be philosophically deemed inappropriate for student use, including but not limited to porn). To ignore those influences is to open the door to potential conflicts involving legal liability. And yes, some students do go to porn sites; some students do go to their personal e-mail sites; some students do play games; some students do use the time on the computer to watch streaming videos; and some even research the availability of hotel rooms in PC during the week of Spring Break. Trust, unfortunately, is not always the most practical approach.
The other liability at stake involves property. Are most students interested in damaging keyboards or stealing mouses (mice?)? I doubt it. But such damage does occur, in the media center, in the Mac Lab, in business classes, etc. The costs add up, and staff members can be held accountable for student misuses. So, when students want to use computers before first period and are denied access despite seemingly available workstations, one must remember that, as has been pointed out, there is no “0” period. There is no classroom teacher (who knows the student) to supervise. The sign may say “This Computer is Reserved,” but the intended message is that this computer is not available. I guess the media center personnel could make two signs and switch ‘em several times a day. Another more effective approach might be for students to approach “the powers that be” and request that a true “0” period be developed similar to the various departmental after school study sessions. Like everything else, though, the funding has to be found.
Another issue involves the encouraged use of access to taxpayer paid databases. Part of the job of media personnel is to encourage students to make use of the databases available to them, information that often goes beyond a typical google search in terms of scope and organization. Not only do these professionals provide relevant knowledge on the use and range of this material, thus limiting the more irrelevant of internet searches, they also serve the greater population of students and staff in trying to maintain and support the performance of the entire computer network, which can be compromised when its use goes beyond its capacity. Naturally, the answer to providing a system that keeps up with its demands requires money… and more money… and more money…
What costs money? Hardware, software, and people. So what do I suggest? Nothing profound really. I believe it’s important to address concerns to those who make policy, not just enforce it. If, for example, you read your minimum day form before you sign it and note the policy on leaving campus, you may want to begin addressing the issue then, not after having policy enforced upon you. In fact, you could choose to take a full class load, thus truly maximizing the return on your parents’ tax contributions. Right. I believe we should not only express our concerns, but should participate actively in promoting practical solutions. I think we can all adapt to the compromises we must make as we do in most things: one should, for example, plan ahead and get a pass from a classroom teacher in advance, which gives media access all five days of the week; one might also consider not procrastinating until the morning of a due date. Imagine that. I also believe in communicating directly, respectfully, and comfortably with our media specialists. And, finally, I believe in the relevance of hard print… so, when the computer is not available, try reading a book. You might be surprised…