happening) but whether electronic documents will enhance—rnor be used as an excuse to destroy—the print-based library.rnWhen it comes to the “Is the Book Dead?” debate, one canrnfind in the writings and speeches of even sensible pundits,rnpoliticians, and academics the kind of semantic confusion andrnelision that bespeaks the half-digested idea, the failure to thinkrnthrough what one is saying. This intellectual skating on thin icernbegan, I believe, with the peculiar usage in recent years of thernword “information”—a word that has become so distortedrnand elastic as to be meaningless, hence entirely suitable to vapidrnphrases like the “Information Age” and “information science.”rnGiven that one could use “information” to mean anythingrnfrom a small set of numbers to a tour de force of analysisrnto a masterpiece of world literature, one was free to assume thatrnthere was no qualitative difference between different kinds ofrn”information.” Further, given that assumption, it is easy, if intellectuallyrnshoddy, to assume that all kinds of “information”rncan and should be digitized; that the imminent InformationrnAge would not need books and other nondigitized carriers ofrn”information” and that libraries and librarians would soonrntake their place on the ash-heap of history. Regrettably, thisrnspecious line of reasoning has been swallowed by many, includingrnmany librarians. The professional literature is swampedrnwith drivel about “virtual libraries” and “libraries withoutrnwalls,” yet the central practical problems behind thosernphrases are largely ignored. We forget at our peril that there arernhigher “goods of the mind” (a phrase coined by MortimerrnAdler) than information (they are—in ascending order—rnknowledge, understanding, and wisdom). Unfortunately forrnthe seers of the Information Age, those goods are not amenablernto electronic transmission. Leaving aside the very real issues ofrncopyright and authority of texts, the fact remains that thernbook—print on paper—is unrivaled for the sustained readingrnof texts that alone leads to knowledge and understanding.rnThe enemies of the academic library fall into three classes:rnbureaucrats, technocrats, and technovandals. The bureaucratsrnare, in academe, the exact analogy of the nonmedical hospitalrnadministrator. They know little or nothing of educationrnor libraries. They know only that libraries cost a lot of money,rnmoney that could be saved if libraries were to be dismantled behindrna smoke screen of technology. The technocrats believernthat technology can be used to provide an equal to, or somethingrnbetter than, what they always call “traditional” library services.rnThe technovandals want to use technology to break uprnthe culture of learning and, in a weird mixture of 90’s cybervisionrnand 60’s radicalism, to replace that world with a howlingrnwilderness of unstructured, unrelated gobbets of “information”rnand random images in which the hapless student orrnteacher wanders without direction or sense of value. Toornstrong? Consider these words from an October 1993 draft ofrn”Leveraging the Future: The Telecommunications Plan” ofrnCalifornia State University’s Academic Communications NetworkrnCommittee of the Academic Information ResourcesrnCouncil:rn. . . learners increasingly can be free to determine theirrnown learning paths divorced from the sequential, linear,rndirected flow of printed text, or the weight of authority.rnResponsibility for collecting, organizing, and analyzingrninformation can be shifted from the provider to the endrnuser. In the learning environment which [sic] is studentrncentered and student controlled, learning becomes lessrnstructured and more associative, intuitive, dynamic, andrnpotentially more creative.rnI read these words on the 37th anniversary of the day that Irnfirst worked in a library. They did more to illuminate thernthinking and motives of those who are dedicated to destroyingrnacademic libraries than anything I have ever heard or read. Students,rnteachers, and all those interested in education and learningrnwould do well to heed their warning and understand theirrnimplications for education and society. These are people tornwhom the sustained reading of linear texts—the culture of thernbook—is anathema. Whenever they hear the word “culture,”rnthey reach for their computer.rnThe argument that rages (mostly, but not always, covertly)rnover the position and future of libraries in universitiesrnand colleges is ultimately about money and power. There is alwaysrnan administrative faction that knows the price of librariesrnbut not their value. Most, if not all, librarians, faculty, and studentsrnknow the value of libraries but do not control the fundsrnnecessary to preserve that value. Some of those who wish tornchoke off libraries are simply interested in gaining the powerrnthat would come from appropriating library funds and usingrnthem for computing and other technologies. If the reportrnfrom which the above quotations derives is to be taken seriously,rnas it should be, it shows that the dispute is about learning,rnculture, and freedom as well as money and power.rnThe recipe for wresting money from academic libraries andrngaining the power that goes with it is simple. First, denigraternlibraries as “museums of compressed wood pulp”—the leadenrnphrase of “futurist” Raymond Kurzweil, whom, astoundingly,rnLibrary journal (the library periodical with the largest circulationrnin the world) regularly lets air his antilibrary, antibook vaporingsrn—then treat any reaction to this caricature as emanatingrnfrom fearful Luddites. Stir in a hefty dash of sexism (mostrnlibrarians are female and, therefore, cannot possibly be expectedrnto understand the brave, thrusting male world of computing)rnand lashings of info-babble about superhighways, wallet-rnsized libraries, libraries without walls, paradigm shifts, etc.,rnand in no time you will have an army of simpletons, coconspirators,rnand the honestly puzzled nodding in unison at yourrninsight and progressive thinking.rnThe antilibrary, antibook forces cover their greed and destructivenessrnwith a veneer of respectability bestowed on themrnby scholars who, seduced by unexamined claims about technology,rnbecome their unwitting dupes. Librarians and friendsrnof libraries should do two things. First, allow no promise orrnblandishment of those who would destroy libraries to go unquestioned.rnSecond, devise a constructive program that usesrntechnology to enhance library services, to preserve the best ofrnwhat we have, and to rise to new levels of library service. Wernshould not permit positive acceptance of technology to bernused against libraries. It often seems, to put it bluntly, thatrnscholars and librarians can never do enough to satisfy thernantibook, antilibrary forces. Nothing short of permanentlyrnbarred library doors and bonfires of books will placate thatrncrowd. If anyone doubts this, he or she should read any of thernnumerous pronouncements of the futurists. How about “a newrnsecular ethic rooted in a nanosecond culture, virtual communities,rnand virtual reality experiences” or “the day of fully viablernvirtual books [sic] is not far off.” Raymond Kurzweil, again inrnLibrary Journal.rnSEPTEMBER 1994/21rnrnrn