|
FEATURE
Computers in Libraries 2025 Special Report: Notes From the Huddle
by Daniel W. Rasmus
| The process was mostly informal. A sign encouraged participation while four sticky notes spread across the top of the boards suggested the themes: hopes, dreams, fears, and uncertainties. |
Libraries face converging technological, political, and social headwinds. At Computers in Libraries 2025, we created an experiment in reflection—an open space called the Huddle—designed to surface collective hopes, fears, dreams, and uncertainties. In spaces such as the exhibitor hall and the exhibition wrap-up just before the closing keynote, large ebony boards acted as repositories for attendee perspectives. Tables underneath the boards held square sticky notes and black markers to capture participant insights. This Cyber Corner—which more than one attendee quipped should have been called the Analog Corner, as it was completely devoid of technology—was the brainchild of conference organizer Jane Dysart.
Dysart was inspired by the Brad Pitt patriotic pre-Super Bowl LIX video that focused on the idea of the huddle. Pitt reflected, “[Football] teaches us what we can achieve when we gather together in that most American of formations, the one most fundamental to every play call in every game: the huddle.” We set out to implement Dysart’s idea for a huddle at Computers in Libraries 2025 as a physical location where people could gather, post ideas, engage in dialogue and reflection, and consider paths through the uncertain landscape facing public, academic, corporate, and not-for-profit libraries.
The process was mostly informal. A sign encouraged participation, while four sticky notes spread across the top of the boards suggested the themes: hopes, dreams, fears, and uncertainties. Although Dysart encouraged people to share their thoughts—and I regularly rallied people near the boards to add their ideas—for the most part, the activity was self-organized and emergent. The ideas were mostly brief phrases captured on a square piece of paper. Some expressed support for other ideas. A few staked out territory beyond the foundational themes. Others attempted to deliver humor or sarcasm. One attendee’s child contributed a pre-K vision of herself in a library. Two people contributed portraits of cats.
The March 2025 conference date coincided with the current administration’s policy changes and speculation about the ramifications of those changes for libraries. I’ll let the notes speak for themselves regarding political perspectives. But I’ll mention that all of the attendees I spoke with agreed that this was a good moment for reflection.
At the end of the conference, a few slides captured the essence, if not the details, of the boards. This article will share additional insights about how people were feeling, what they continue to hope for, and the fears evoked by the rapid pace of change in a discipline usually rocked more by technological change than political fervor. However, as I shared at my workshop on scenario planning and strategy, the signs of change were written boldly for all who endeavored to read them.
Hopes
The Hopes section of the board offered a wide range of ideas from a collective consciousness, including AI, leveraging AI to solve big problems, and more practical uses of AI (such as taking away the tedious administrative work that consumes time better spent with patrons). Other technology hopes included good Wi-Fi on bookmobiles and the adoption of the Internet of Things. Chief among additional sentiments was a better understanding of the other, a moving away from negative labeling, and a role in strengthening communities and growing relationships.
The frenzy of misinformation drove hopes for renewed trust in institutions and the desire to see facts prevail. Some core capabilities remain hopes, such as being a welcoming space that is a “beacon of access and a support to all community needs.” In this time of rapid change, perhaps the most significant hope was resilience, including seeing this as a time to experiment. This was accompanied by a hope that we will emerge from the chaos wiser and kinder. People better understand why they need to learn what they don’t know even if it isn’t something they want to be true.
Dreams
Dreams vacillated among the grand, the political, and the personal. Perhaps the most ambitious dream was for the long-term preservation of all significant human knowledge, which seems to go hand in hand with a dream for the end of tribalism and the adoption of listening and empathy. Other big dreams looked toward positive environmental changes; equality, accessibility, and inclusion for all; and everyone knowing that libraries are the source of good information.
In a political comment, a bold yellow note called for diversity no matter what the current president says. A nearby orange note shouted declaratively that “Tech bros don’t run everything!” and included a dream to see the end of mis/disinformation. On a personal note, one attendee wanted to feel valued. Others asked for staff and budget for their departments and for libraries in general. On a technological level, one note asked for “integrated products that actually work together,” another potential promise for AI, but one that it is currently exacerbating. Dreams also aimed at bringing back civility to civil discourse, with reminders that in America, woke, DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion), and socialism are personal choices—not threats to the state. The right to believe or act in a way that does not harm others is protected by the First Amendment and other liberties. There was a desire for an equitable society that is not driven by fear.
Fears
Notes for fears outnumbered those of the other categories, but they also echoed the other categories with more specificity. For instance, mis/disinformation was rendered as a distrust in science and the disappearance of history from government websites. Some saw the “Future of the Tech Bro Oligarchy” as the source of these and other fears.
Some feared the collapse of imagination in light of AI or political censorship, along with manipulation from social media algorithms. Purposefully biased AI could be another form of manipulation. Technology was also the source of fear about less of a desire to learn because so much information will become so readily available.
Another fear focused on subscription-based content models, which might drive people toward other sources and remove them as accessible resources within libraries. This fear combines with the concern about the exponential growth of technology, which threatens to disrupt assumptions and operating models at their deepest levels. The online world was also a source of fear about the government tracking people through their data.
Others feared that libraries were seen as the enemy and that politicians no longer trust them. These are realities that may push people to turn to other sources with less transparent charters, such as Google and chatbots.
Many people were also worried about attacks on intellectualism, science, and post-secondary education and their impact on funding and respect for libraries and their purpose. As a reflection on my scenario planning workshop earlier in the week, I was particularly struck by the note that read, “Libraries think for now, not just the future.” This meant, I believe, that tactics will outweigh strategy. I cannot disagree with that fear, as my main takeaway from the workshop is that if a library loses its narrative, it cannot survive into any vision it has for the future. Strategy must be real every day. The library can’t just be a place to go—it must be a way of becoming. One of the immediate areas that needs to be addressed is how library science will continue in a world of funding cuts, shuttered agencies, attacks on higher education, and the devaluing of critical thinking and appreciation for curation.
|
Institutional Shockwaves: IMLS and SLA
It became clear during the conference that IMLS was under siege. On March 31, just days after the close of the conference, the relatively small federal agency saw its entire staff of around 70 placed on paid administrative leave for up to 90 days. The agency had been consolidated by an earlier executive order and placed under Keith E. Sonderling, the Deputy Secretary of Labor.
Worries about the future of IMLS appeared in several places, including hope for its recovery and the uncertainties emanating from its potential dissolution. On the last day of the conference, documents appeared on the board, including a letter from Senators Jack Reed, Kirsten Gillibrand, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski to Sonderling advocating for IMLS (collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/letter_to_acting _director_sonderling_re_imls_03262025.pdf).
Another document posted was SLA’s dissolution announcement. While the timing coincided with the reorganization of U.S. agencies, it was unrelated. Financial and information mismanagement was the source of SLA’s issues, and its dissolution allows it to handle its closure before the impending need to declare bankruptcy. This demise of a 116-year-old library institution, however, acted as another source of uncertainty and fear among attendees (sla.org/page/httpsslaorgpageSLADissolutionInformation).
The challenges facing IMLS and the dissolution of SLA surfaced fresh uncertainties during the conference. Organizations will need to reassess their relationships with these institutions. With SLA gone and IMLS sidelined, libraries must weigh strategic alternatives. The loss of structure and guidance from these bodies may push the profession to invest in new or expanded nongovernmental entities to fill emerging gaps in coordination, insight, and support.
Some Final Sticky Notes
I could not include all of the notes in this article; however, I have uploaded the Post-it app file so that you can import it and explore the boards yourself (seriousinsights.net/cil2025-huddle). Many people expressed the desire to bring this activity back to their local libraries. This digital archive may serve as a starting point for similar reflective exercises elsewhere.
Just as a huddle brings players together to reflect, recalibrate, and execute, the Cyber Corner became a strategic pause—one that offered librarians a chance to regroup and rethink their next play. I hope you use this report and the accompanying source material as a way to dissuade the sense of aloneness in your fears, spark your dreams, reinforce your hopes, and articulate your uncertainties so that you can more effectively manage through them.
Comic Relief
Emergent communities create process and expectations. Thankfully, our Computers in Libraries community was not overly staid. Notes on the board included comments such as “AI hallucinated this Post-It” and a hope for a “chainsaw arm.” One attendee seemingly dreamed of nothing more than a good cheeseburger.
|
