#Library

The Last Days of the U.S. Department of War The Last Days of the U.S. Department of War

By Harris & Ewing – This image was uploaded from Shorpy.com, a photo-blog site specializing in vintage photography. Source url: 5421Shorpy.com host many images from public domain image repositories, including the Library of Congress. A high resolution version of this photograph may be available elsewhere., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5828727 Introduction

For more than 150 years, the Department of War stood at the center of America’s military organization. Established in 1789 alongside the early departments of State and Treasury, it managed the Army, coordinated defense policy, and shaped much of the nation’s military history. But after World War II, sweeping reforms in defense and foreign policy led to its replacement by a new structure. Here’s the story of the last day the United States officially had a Department of War — and how it became today’s Department of Defense.

The turning point came with the National Security Act of 1947. This landmark legislation reorganized the armed forces, intelligence, and defense establishment to meet Cold War realities. It did three major things:

• Retitled the Department of War as the Department of the Army.
• Created a separate Department of the Air Force.
• Placed the Army, Navy, and Air Force together under a new civilian authority called the National Military Establishment (NME), headed by a Secretary of Defense.

The law’s effective-date clause specified that these changes would take effect the day after the first Secretary of Defense was sworn in. When James V. Forrestal took the oath on September 17, 1947, the War Department ceased to exist. From September 18, 1947 onward, the Department of War was history.

“The provisions of this Act shall take effect … the day after the day upon which the Secretary of Defense first appointed takes office.”
— National Security Act of 1947, Sec. 310

The 1947 Act was only the beginning. Within two years, Congress decided that the National Military Establishment was too weak and fragmented. To strengthen civilian control, it passed the National Security Act Amendments of 1949. On August 10, 1949, President Harry S. Truman signed the bill, which:

• Abolished the “National Military Establishment” name.
• Elevated the Secretary of Defense’s role.
• Renamed the entire structure as the Department of Defense (DoD).

“It converts the National Military Establishment into a new executive Department of Defense…”
— President Harry S. Truman, August 10, 1949

The Department of War’s last day was September 17, 1947, when James Forrestal was sworn in as the first Secretary of Defense. The following day, the department’s name and structure formally changed, marking the end of an era that had lasted since the nation’s founding. Two years later, the Department of Defense name we know today was born, reflecting the new strategic realities of the Cold War.

This transformation symbolized more than just a change in titles — it represented America’s shift from a traditional, wartime footing to a permanent, modernized defense establishment.

• National Security Act of 1947 (Public Law 80-253), compiled text. govinfo.gov PDF
• Office of the Secretary of Defense Historical Office. James V. Forrestal sworn in as first Secretary of Defense, Sept. 17, 1947. history.defense.gov
• Truman Presidential Library. Statement by the President Upon Signing the National Security Act Amendments of 1949. August 10, 1949. trumanlibrary.gov
• U.S. Department of Defense, Historical Timeline. defense.gov

Editor’s Note: Prepared for DrWeb’s Domain by ChatGPT 5, and edited by DrWeb.

#2025 #AI #America #Books #ChatGPT #DonaldTrump #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #MilitaryHistory #NationalSecurityActOf1947 #Opinion #Politics #PresidentTruman #Reading #Resistance #Science #Technology #Trump #TrumpAdministration #USDepartmentOfDefense #USDepartmentOfWar #UnitedStates

Books by Bots | American Libraries Magazine Books by Bots Librarians grapple with AI-generated material in collections

By Reema Saleh | September 2, 2025

Illustration: Tom Deja

Librarian Sondra Eklund spends her time stocking books for the public library system she works for in Virginia. One of her patrons recently asked the library to acquire a children’s book about pets other than cats or dogs, so she went looking.

When she came across a book titled Rabbits: Children’s Animal Fact Book from the publisher Bold Kids, it seemed promising. Eklund hadn’t heard of Bold Kids before, but it offers nearly 500 books on Goodreads and Amazon, and its paperbacks aren’t expensive. Though the catalog showed only the book’s cover—not its interior—she put in the order, thinking, “How bad could it be?”

But when the book arrived, Eklund learned the answer: “Unbelievably bad.”

Its pages contained strangely worded sentences, some of them including made-up facts about rabbits (such as the claim that they make their own clothes). Every page of text featured the same clip art of a bunny eating a carrot. Stock photos of rabbits littered the pages, their eyes and noses disappearing into the book’s bleed.

Rabbits: Children’s Animal Fact Book, published by Bold Kids, is a title suspected to have been written by artificial intelligence. Photo: Sondra Eklund

One page inexplicably appeared twice. Another told readers, “If you’ve ever had the pleasure of feeding a rabbit, you’ve probably wondered how they reproduce. The answer is simple: They live in the wild!”

Eklund now suspects the title and others from Bold Kids, which has no website or authors associated with its books, were created by artificial intelligence (AI). To add insult to injury, the book was print-on-demand, making it nonrefundable. “My cataloger was practically purple in the face,” she says.

The experience left Eklund much more cautious when acquiring books for the library. “We’re learning by experience what to look for,” she says. “We don’t want to put our library’s name on something that’s not good.”

At the same time, her quest for quality content has been made more difficult by the surge of AI-generated books on Hoopla, Ingram, OverDrive, and other vendor platforms. While some of those books are relatively simple to sniff out, others are easier to confuse for the real deal.

Worse, some AI-generated books may contain potentially dangerous misinformation. The New York Mycological Society, for example, has warned against purchasing AI-written guides to foraging wild mushrooms: “Please only buy books of known authors and foragers; it can literally mean life or death.”

“AI has gotten good enough for some things,” Eklund says. “But writing books? Our kids deserve better.”

Eklund is far from the only librarian grappling with AI issues. Last fall, Robin Bradford, a collection development librarian at a public library in Washington, accidentally bought an AI-narrated audiobook on OverDrive. Only after a patron checked it out and complained about a file-corruption issue did Bradford realize the book’s narrator was listed as “Scarlett (synthesized voice).” Looking through her library’s collection, she found more than 100 audiobook titles with the same narrator, all of them thrillers from Lukeman Literary Management.

So the audiobook narrators weren’t human. Were the authors themselves? With monikers such as Blake Pierce, Kate Bold, Molly Black, and Mia Gold, the authors appeared to have many titles to their names, but little to no social-media presence and only bare-bones websites with no substantive author bios—just a list of books written.

In an email to American Libraries, Lukeman Literary Management President Noah Lukeman responds, “Digital narrations have, for quite a while, been ubiquitous and openly accepted and carried by all major libraries and e-tailers, and embraced by major publishers” and adds, “For decades, writers from J. K. Rowling to Stephen King on down have used pseudonyms.”

Bradford also remembers that when she looked up the books’ copyright records, she found that they contained mentions of “text generated by AI.” But she’s not sure exactly what that means. “Was it 10 percent of the book? Was it 70 percent? One hundred percent? I have no idea,” she says.

In the Copyright Public Records System of the US Copyright Office (USCO), a search for “Lukeman Literary Management Ltd.” yields more than 2,000 entries. Many of them contain the notation “Material Excluded: text generated by artificial intelligence.” At least one entry, for Fatal Choice (A Sydney Best Suspense Thriller— Book One), contains a lengthy statement that reads, in part, “Approximately 60% to 80% of the writing is original and human-written. For the portions that are AI-generated, nearly 100% of what was AI-generated has been either revised, rearranged, or rewritten by a human writer.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Books by Bots | American Libraries Magazine

#2025 #AI #AIInBooks #AIInLibraries #America #ArtificalIntelligence #Books #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #Opinion #Reading #Science #Technology #UnitedStates #WrittenByAI

A Really Well Insulated Attic

By Joyce Vance, Sep 04, 2025

“If the entire foundation falls out from under your house, it does no good to have a really well-insulated attic,” the judge said. “It sure would be nice if someone had our backs.” An anonymous federal judge made that comment to NBC News in a remarkable piece that published this morning.

The attic they are referring to is the U.S. Supreme Court. A Court that is increasingly viewed in some corners as having abandoned the role Article III of the Constitution assigns to it, to act as a check and balance on the executive branch. But the concerns the judges expressed were about the process the Supreme Court is using to make decisions. The reporting was not an inquiry into either the substance of the high court’s rulings or the politics behind it all.

It’s all about the shadow docket, a term you’re familiar with if you read Civil Discourse. It’s a slightly snarky term coined by legal academics to refer to the Court’s emergency docket, which is used for time-sensitive issues, like last-minute requests to stay executions in death penalty cases. The Court also hears appeals involving emergency civil relief on this docket. That means that cases where pro-democracy lawyers seek injunctions to block some of the most egregious steps this administration is taking land, with increasing frequency, on the shadow docket, and that’s where they get decided.

But these cases aren’t like the cases on the Supreme Court’s regular docket, the ones that get fully briefed, orally argued, and then decided on the merits in carefully crafted, lengthy opinions that fully set out the decision and the legal basis for it. This kind of shadow docket ruling happens early in a case, and the decision, as in the birthright citizenship cases where the Court rejected the use of nationwide injunctions to obtain relief but didn’t weigh in on whether Trump could erase birthright citizenship from the Constitution, are on procedural issues, not the substantive merits of a case. The decisions are typically unexplained and unsigned. There’s usually no opinion. Maybe you get a couple of paragraphs. Sometimes a stinging dissent. But there is very little basis for understanding why the court ruled the way it did and applying it in the lower courts.

This is frustrating for us. We’ve had this experience in a number of cases. It happened when the Supreme Court signed off on letting the Trump administration deport noncitizens to third countries (countries other than their country of origin), desperately unsafe places like South Sudan. It happened when the Court okayed DOGE’s foray into Americans’ confidential data held by Social Security. The Court let Trump fire members of independent agencies.

Apparently, it’s frustrating for judges in lower courts as well. After all, they are being called upon to apply the Supreme Court’s decisions. Shadow docket rulings are precedent that lower courts must follow. But how do you apply something when there is no explanation for why it happened? That’s the position the lower courts are in and it’s what led 12 federal judges to take the unprecedented step of speaking anonymously to an NBC reporter about what’s going on at the Supreme Court.

The reporting characterized it like this:

“Lower court judges are handed contentious cases involving the Trump administration. They painstakingly research the law to reach their rulings. When they go against Trump, administration officials and allies criticize the judges in harsh terms. The government appeals to the Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority.

And then the Supreme Court, in emergency rulings, swiftly rejects the judges’ decisions with little to no explanation.”

The judges had a deeper criticism too. One that is unique to the time of the Trump administration, where the president and his cronies have attacked judges who rule against the president’s policies or against him on personal matters, often placing those judges in the crosshairs of his supporters. As one judge put it, “A short rebuttal from the Supreme Court, they argue, makes it seem like they did shoddy work and are biased against Trump.” Trump cronies like Stephen Miller have accused judges who rule against the administration of engaging in a judicial coup and there have been calls for their impeachment. One judge said that the Supreme Court “is effectively endorsing Miller’s claims that the judiciary is trying to subvert the presidency.”

This unique criticism of the Supreme Court from lower court judges comes as the Court has granted 17 of 23 emergency requests made by the administration, asking it to undo lower court decisions on an emergency basis. The NBC report concluded that five of the 17 cases were decided without any substantive reasoning to back them up and seven of the others had less than three pages of explanation. And we’re talking here about highly important decisions about the scope of presidential power. Supreme Court decisions routinely exceed 100 pages.

Continue/Read Original Article: https://joycevance.substack.com/p/a-really-well-insulated-attic

#12Members #2025 #America #AuthoritarianRulings #BadDecisions #BalancedCourt #Books #DonaldTrump #Education #ExpandSCOTUS #History #ImmunityForTRUMP #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Resistance #RightWing #RightWingJustices #Science #SCOTUS #SupremeCourt #Trump #TrumpAdministration #TrumpCourt #UnitedStates

San Diego Public Library cuts slash Monday hours, prompt ‘great reshuffling’ of librarians citywide – San Diego Union-Tribune

News, Politics

Jordan Hante, 30, reads in the Rancho Peñasquitos library on Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2025 in San Diego. City budget cuts are closing many libraries on Monday, and scrambling staffing at others. (Alejandro Tamayo / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

By David Garrick | David.Garrick@sduniontribune.com | The San Diego Union-Tribune

PUBLISHED: September 4, 2025 at 9:02 AM PDT

Budget cuts are about to bring big changes to San Diego’s 37 neighborhood library branches — including shorter hours, shuffled staff and rescheduled activities.

Cuts approved by the mayor and City Council in June will wipe out Monday hours at 20 branches starting Sept. 15., leaving only 17 branches open on Mondays.

And those cuts, which come shortly after Sunday hours were eliminated at 14 branches on July 1, are prompting key staff to jump from branch to branch in what city officials are calling “the Great Reshuffling.”

The shorter hours are also forcing branches to quickly reschedule activities like author talks, photography exhibits and youth storytelling times — and let patrons know about those changes on the fly.

Local library supporters say the changes are disappointing and possibly could have been handled better.

“This was all very sudden for everybody,” said Pat Wilson, president of the Friends of the San Diego Public Library. “A lot of the staff are moving around. It’s kind of disruptive.”

Maureen Meadows, youth services librarian, works at her desk at the Rancho Peñasquitos library on Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2025. (Alejandro Tamayo / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

City officials say the shorter hours are needed to help close a budget deficit of more than $300 million. The shorter hours are expected to save $5.1 million in the ongoing fiscal year, which projects to roughly $7 million in a full fiscal year.

They are part of roughly $100 million in cuts enacted in this year’s budget. Mayor Todd Gloria and the council closed the remainder of the deficit with about $150 million in new revenues from parking and fees, and by canceling $64 million in scheduled reserve contributions.

The reshuffling is the result of complex labor union rules regarding seniority and the desire of many workers to avoid working Saturdays, which are now part of the required five-day work week of Tuesday-through-Saturday at branches that will have no Monday hours.

Many branch managers, youth librarians and other key full-time staff are shifting to branches where Monday hours will continue so they can avoid working Saturdays.

And many of those moves are bumping less-tenured employees to other branches, starting the cycle again and bumping other employees with even less seniority.

Library assistant Alicia Lopez helps a teen in Rancho Penasquitos on Wednesday, Sept. 3, 2025 in San Diego. Library staff are switching to different branches citywide as a result of a staffing scramble touched off by cuts to Monday hours at many locations. (Alejandro Tamayo / The San Diego Union-Tribune)

The process is essentially complete for full-time workers, but it has just begun for part-time workers and is expected to continue for them through Tuesday.

The labor union that represents the affected workers, the Municipal Employees Association, says this is a better outcome than a previous proposal by the mayor to shut all branches every Sunday and Monday.

That proposal would have included nearly three dozen layoffs and would have left a big hole in the mostly lower-income communities where branches will still have Monday service.

“We are focused on promoting fairness in scheduling, but it is just a fact that changing days and hours of operation in the library system is incredibly complicated and disruptive for all,” said Mike Zucchet, MEA general manager. “It is also important to note that this is happening in part because the city restored some Monday hours, maintaining critical services and saving dozens of jobs from layoffs, which are clearly good things.”

A city spokesperson said the complex process is necessary.

“With 573 active employees in the San Diego Public Library system, the city remains committed to providing a fair process and supportive work environment for everyone,” said the spokesperson, Jennifer McBride.

She said the “schedule selection process” was collaboratively developed by the city and MEA with a goal of ensuring that branches remain open and accessible to the communities they serve.

Wilson, the leader of the Friends group, said staff turnover is normal and expected, but this is different because it’s so much turnover happening all at once.

“We’ll muddle through and make the best of it,” she said. “As angry as some people are, I kind of want to put out a ray of sunshine.”

Continue/Read Original Article Here: San Diego Public Library cuts slash Monday hours, prompt ‘great reshuffling’ of librarians citywide – San Diego Union-Tribune

#2025 #America #Books #BranchLibraries #BudgetCuts #CityOfSanDiego #Education #History #Librarians #Libraries #Library #MondayHours #Politics #Reading #SanDiego #SanDiegoPublicLibrary #SanDiegoUnionTribune #ShiftingLibrarians #ShiftingStaff #UnitedStates

How UNC Became a Quiet Architect of a Controversial Accreditor

UNC System’s Dan Harrison, Peter Hans, and Andrew Kelly. (Illustration by Wesley Watson for The Chronicle of Higher Education)

Statewide

Editor’s Note: Original contains audio.

In July 2024, the UNC System and the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, convened representatives from Florida, Georgia, Iowa, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia to talk about alternatives to the current model for accreditation, documents show.

The UNC System then recommended in a September 2024 report that North Carolina “establish an accreditation agency formed by state university systems.” The report laid out steps that are now the game plan for the new multi-state accreditor.

This spring, Dan Harrison, the UNC System’s vice president for academic affairs, sent a document to system President Peter Hans describing himself and another UNC official, Andrew Kelly, as crucial to shaping how the accreditor would operate. “Currently, we enjoy some free ridership in that Florida is funding the effort, but the group relies on Kelly and Harrison for subject matter expertise,” the document stated. “There have not been major decision points where North Carolina’s preference has not been followed.”

Editor’s Note: Read the rest of the story, at the below link.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: How UNC Became a Quiet Architect of a Controversial Accreditor

#2025 #AccreditationAgency #Accreditor #America #Architect #Books #Education #GamePlan #History #Libraries #Library #Opinion #Science #UNC #UnitedStates #UniversityOfNorthCarolina

ALA Leads Libraries, Museums, Cultural Institutions, and Nation’s Largest Cultural Worker Union Urging Federal Court to Block Administration’s Efforts to Dismantle the Nation’s Cultural and Educational Infrastructure | ALA

For immediate release | September 3, 2025

ALA Leads Libraries, Museums, Cultural Institutions, and Nation’s Largest Cultural Worker Union Urging Federal Court to Block Administration’s Efforts to Dismantle the Nation’s Cultural and Educational Infrastructure

Supporting Brief Highlights the Devastating Impact of Executive Order Gutting the Institute of Museum and Library Services

Washington — The American Library Association (ALA) led a coalition of leading library, museum, and cultural organizations, and the nation’s largest labor union of cultural workers, represented by Democracy Forward and Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C. filed a friend-of-the-court brief today in Rhode Island v. Trump, urging the First Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold an injunction against the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to dismantle the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) through an Executive Order.

The case is parallel to ALA’s own challenge to the dismantling of IMLS, filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of ALA and AFSCME on April 7, 2025. Groups signing the amicus brief emphasized that the administration’s refusal to spend congressionally appropriated funds undermines vital public services and threatens communities nationwide.

ALA President Sam Helmick said, “IMLS is indispensable for libraries, museums, and cultural workers, as well as the millions of people we serve every day. We hope the court will strike down the attempt to dismantle IMLS, which the law directs to provide crucial funding, research and resources that advance our shared missions: stewarding our history, strengthening access to lifelong learning, seeding opportunity and sparking innovation for all Americans.”

Democracy Forward Senior Staff Attorney Orlando Economos said, “IMLS is the connective tissue of America’s cultural infrastructure. From preserving history and expanding access to education, to ensuring small-town libraries and major museums alike can serve their communities, IMLS plays an irreplaceable role. The administration’s attempt to dismantle this agency is not only unlawful — it would cause immediate and lasting harm to millions of Americans who rely on these institutions.

The groups include the American Library Association, Association of Research Libraries, Association for Rural & Small Libraries, Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries, and Museums, Urban Libraries Council, American Association for State and Local History, American Alliance of Museums, Association of Art Museum Directors, American Public Gardens Association, Association of Children’s Museums, Association of Science and Technology Centers, Association of Zoos & Aquariums, Association of Science Museum Directors, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

“IMLS funding is absolutely critical to our nation’s libraries,” said Andrew K. Pace, Executive Director of the Association of Research Libraries. “This support transforms local initiatives into global innovations—like the freely available oral history software used by hundreds of institutions worldwide, or the collaborative preservation projects that safeguard our regional cultures for future generations. IMLS doesn’t just fund libraries; it amplifies their impact, turning limited resources into expansive community benefits. Eliminating this vital funding would halt the national contribution our libraries have made in serving communities, preserving knowledge, and fostering innovation across the country.”

“IMLS plays a crucial role in supporting America’s 21,000 history organizations, which serve and enrich communities nationwide, from small towns to major urban centers. Gutting IMLS severely limits the ability of the history field to help the public learn from our past and envision our future. This is especially important on the eve of the country’s 250th anniversary. Now is the time to build up—not break down—our historical infrastructure as part of our collective journey towards a more perfect Union,” said John Dichtl, president & CEO of the American Association for State and Local History.

“IMLS is a cornerstone of our nation’s cultural and educational life,” said Marilyn Jackson, American Alliance of Museums President and CEO. “As the only federal agency solely dedicated to supporting museums, it ensures that communities across the country have access to history, science, art, and culture. Dismantling IMLS would jeopardize decades of progress and threaten the countless American communities that benefit from its work. Museums contribute $50 billion to the U.S. economy each year, support 726,000 American jobs, and serve as trusted spaces for learning and connection. IMLS is essential to sustaining that impact.”

“Today, we urge the court to continue to protect federal support for museums and libraries from anti-worker billionaires who are trying to rob our communities of the services we depend on,” said Lee Saunders, president of AFSCME, the largest cultural worker union. “Because of this support, AFSCME members at cultural institutions nationwide educate the next generation, help workers access job training, and provide a safe space where anyone can learn. We will continue to defend our communities from these attempts to deprive us of our history, our resources, and our freedom to learn.”

IMLS is the federal agency that provides essential coordination, research, and funding for the nation’s libraries, museums, public gardens, aquariums, zoos, and other cultural institutions. The brief details how the Executive Order has already curtailed critical grantmaking, halted data collection, and left libraries and museums without the technical expertise needed to serve the public.

The brief highlights that IMLS grants and expertise enable libraries and museums to modernize, expand access, and preserve critical collections; and that cuts to IMLS staff and programs will have an out-sized impact on rural, low-income, and Tribal communities that rely on federal support. Dismantling IMLS would severely diminish access to information, education, and cultural resources. The brief urges the court to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction, which keeps the agency operational while litigation continues.

The case is Rhode Island v. Trump, and the legal team at Democracy Forward in this case includes Orlando Economos, Pooja Boisture, and Kayla Kaufman. Read the brief here.

Parallel to its efforts to preserve IMLS through litigation, ALA is leading an advocacy campaign to secure congressional funding for the agency in fiscal year (FY) 2026. For more information about the Show Up For Our Libraries campaign, visit ala.org./showup.

The American Library Association is the largest non-partisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to America’s libraries. The ALA mission is to empower and advocate for all libraries and library workers to ensure equitable access to information for all. For nearly 150 years, ALA has provided resources for information professionals to transform their communities through essential programs and services. For more information, visit www.ala.org.

Contact:

Shawnda Hines

Deputy Director, Communications

Public Policy and Advocacy

shines@ala.org

Continue/Read Original Article Here: ALA Leads Libraries, Museums, Cultural Institutions, and Nation’s Largest Cultural Worker Union Urging Federal Court to Block Administration’s Efforts to Dismantle the Nation’s Cultural and Educational Infrastructure | ALA

#2025 #America #Books #DonaldTrump #Education #Health #History #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #Politics #Reading #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Duke cut librarians. It never told the faculty they worked with – The Duke Chronicle

Features

Features

Duke cut librarians. It never told the faculty they worked with

By Lucas Lin, Sept. 2, 2025, 8:23 p.m.

When faculty returned to campus this fall, some found their subject librarians were no longer with them.

The personnel cuts had not been communicated to or discussed with faculty in advance. Members of the Library Council, which serves as a liaison between Duke University Libraries (DUL) and faculty, said they were also left out of the loop. 

Thirty-three of the more than 200 full time library staff members accepted offers from Duke’s voluntary separation incentive program (VSIP), prompting their departure from the University over the summer. Their absences leave the future of a key aspect of academic support and research at the University uncertain. 

It all began at DUL’s monthly open forum in April, where Duke’s leadership announced it would slash more than $3 million in funding for libraries through staff cuts and reductions in the collections budget, according to a July 4 email from Joseph Salem, vice provost for library affairs, to DUL staff. The move was part of the institution’s larger strategic realignment and cost-cutting process.

In early May, 35 librarians were offered VSIPs and given 45 days to decide whether to accept. Those who did received financial compensation and health care coverage in exchange for a three-year separation from the University.

DUL faced other major changes including reductions in training and instruction sessions, increased turnaround time for reference and digitization requests and limited capacity of meeting and events spaces in the libraries. 

“While these changes are unavoidable and necessary, they will inevitably reduce the level of some library services for Duke students and faculty. Activities and initiatives that were possible in the past may not be feasible now,” the Provost’s Office wrote in an Aug. 15 email to Duke faculty. 

Kata Gellen, director of the Center for Jewish Studies, heard rumors that DUL was subject to serious staff cuts but did not know that Rachel Ariel, the former Jewish studies librarian and liaison to the center, received a VSIP until Ariel personally reached out over the summer. 

Per Gellen, Duke never informed her about her close collaborator’s VSIP.

Ariel had been instrumental in collecting and archiving materials in Hebrew and other languages to build the Jewish Study Collections. Now that Ariel and other subject specialist librarians have left, Gellen noted that their departure may leave significant “linguistic holes” as scholars, students and faculty may find it difficult to conduct research and maintain the University’s rich collections. 

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Duke cut librarians. It never told the faculty they worked with – The Duke Chronicle

#2025 #America #Books #CutLibrarians #DonaldTrump #DukeLibraries #DukeUniversity #Education #Health #History #LibrariansDismissed #Libraries #Library #LibraryOfCongress #NorthCarolina #Politics #ProfessorsNotNotified #Resistance #Science #Trump #TrumpAdministration #UnitedStates

Colleges should go ‘medieval’ on students to beat AI cheating, NYU official says | Fortune

AI·Colleges and Universities

Colleges should go ‘medieval’ on students to beat AI cheating, NYU official says

By Jason Ma, Weekend Editor, August 31, 2025 at 6:24 PM EDT

In medieval times, students often listened to teachers read from books, and some schools even discouraged students from writing down what they heard, Shirky said. Getty Images

• Amid the raging debate over the proper role of generative AI in schools, a vice provost at New York University suggested colleges revive some educational practices that date back to medieval times, namely focusing on oral instruction and examination in the classroom. That comes as students have increasingly relied on chatbots to complete assignments.

Educators have been struggling over how students should or should not use artificial intelligence, but one New York University official suggests going old school—really, really old school.

In a New York Times op-ed on Tuesday, NYU’s vice provost for AI and technology in education, Clay Shirky, said he previously had counseled more “engaged uses” of AI where students use the technology to explore ideas and seek feedback, rather than “lazy AI use.”

But that didn’t work, as students continued using AI to write papers and skip the reading. Meanwhile, tools meant to detect AI cheating produce too many false positives to be reliable, he added.

“Now that most mental effort tied to writing is optional, we need new ways to require the work necessary for learning,” Shirky explained. “That means moving away from take-home assignments and essays and toward in-class blue book essays, oral examinations, required office hours and other assessments that call on students to demonstrate knowledge in real time.”

Such a shift would mark a return to much older practices that date back to Europe’s medieval era, when books were scarce and a university education focused on oral instruction instead of written assignments.

In medieval times, students often listened to teachers read from books, and some schools even discouraged students from writing down what they heard, Shirky said. The emphasis on writing came hundreds of years later in Europe and reached U.S. schools in the late 19th century.

“Which assignments are written and which are oral has shifted over the years,” he added. “It is shifting again, this time away from original student writing done outside class and toward something more interactive between student and professor or at least student and teaching assistant.”

That may entail device-free classrooms as some students have used AI chatbots to answer questions when called on during class.

He acknowledged logistical challenges given that some classes have hundreds of students. In addition, an emphasis on in-class performance favors some students more than others.

Continue/Read Original Article Here: Colleges should go ‘medieval’ on students to beat AI cheating, NYU official says | Fortune

#2025 #AI #America #artificialIntelligence #Books #Colleges #Education #Health #History #Learning #Libraries #Library #Medieval #NewYorkUniversity #NYU #Reading #Science #Students #Technology #UnitedStates #Writing