1 Rough Draft Copy: Masters Thesis: Library and Information Science: A Comparative Analysis of The Digital Divide-US, To The Persistent Issue, of Digital Exclusion, in the UK. By: Miss. Bayo E. Cary,A.A.,B.A.,M.L.I.S:2010

Chapter I : The Digital Divide Defined

Introduction 1.1

          Access to the Internet has been touted as the last great equalizer (Macleod-Ball, Calabrese, Stanley, 2010).   The Internet has the possibility of providing almost endless benefits to members of the society (Hoffman & Novak, 1998).   Individuals who have access to the Internet have been granted a tremendous boon by its presence and its power to alter society for the better (Hoffman & Novak, 1998).  “The Internet is widely regarded as a development of vast significance that will affect nearly every aspect of human culture and commerce in ways still only dimly discernible” (Britannica, Internet, 2009).  Purportedly, the introduction of the Internet has also introduced the possibility of “leveling the playing field” for minorities living in American society (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010).

Thesis Statement 1.2    

            It has been argued by some that the digital divide is merely an extension of the racial divide; the digital divide is extending out along racial lines, “the gap for race is not decreasing” (Hoffman & Novak, 1998).  This thesis reviews the literature about the digital divide with a specific emphasis on what previous research has to say about whether the social wounds imparted by America’s racist legacy may begin to be healed through universal access to the Internet.  Racism and social inequality are huge and pressing issues in America and around the world (Hawke, 2009).  In my opinion, if the Internet has the potential to begin to heal the wounds and damage caused by the historical subjugation of individuals with a darker hue of skin, then inequality in access to the Internet is of great concern?  In order to address the problem we must first evaluate where we are insofar as solving the Internet access problem is concerned (Tady, 2010). 

          The intent of this review is to compare the research literature on the digital divide in the U.S. and Great Britain, our closest English-speaking ally (Harris Interactive, 2005).  The formative questions that guide this review are:  What is the state of access to the Internet in the US and what is the state of internet access in Great Britain?  The political stability of the U.S rests on its ability to compete and keep abreast of current technological trends in order to remain competitive within the global economy (Brown, 2009).  In addition, “reducing conflict and advancing democracy have been closely aligned with improvements in communications technologies; the Internet is the latest tool to augur more harmonious relations among people” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 1).  The review will conclude by making recommendations of various “best practices” that may be utilized to bridge the digital divide in the U.S. including those culled from our British allies (Authority, 2003). 

        To begin on the journey to harmony among all Americans, race relations must be considered (Reed, 2010).  The advancement of American society should encompass the entire population and not simply maintain the status quo (Teasley & Ikard, 2010).  Individuals should not be left behind simply because their skin is of a darker color; race relation issues persist in America (Sack & Elder, 2000).   “Without a more robust, forward-looking national approach to weaving information and communications tools intentionally and democratically into the economic and social agenda, the nation’s future is jeopardized” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 4).  Could the implementation of information technology in the homes of every American citizen make this goal realizable? 

Digital Divide Defined 1.3

        What is the digital divide?  The digital divide is defined by Norris (Lynch, 2002) as consisting of three divides:

Global Divide	Divergence of Internet access between industrialized and developing countries;
Social Divide	Gap between information rich and information poor in each nation; and
Democratic Divide	Difference between those who do and those who do not use the new technologies to further political participation.

 

Table 1: The Digital Divide

While the global divide is beyond the scope of the research presented, the social and democratic divides will be discussed in detail, particularly where the issue of digital citizenship is brought to the forefront:   

The sad fact is that if you are Black, you are more likely to live in an inner city, drop out of school, and earn a low income (Bolt & Crawford, 2000; Harris, 1982). So is the Digital Divide racial or is it education /income based? These items are so closely intertwined for African Americans that you cannot say either way. (Horton, 2004)

  If the Internet can provide a means to overcome the vast chasm which racism has caused in America, then providing universal access to the Internet is a major twenty-first century civil rights issue (Rivas, 2010).  The concern is that Internet non-users will have, among other things, less power as consumers and fewer economic opportunities, less access to high-quality health information, fewer options for dealing with government agencies, no chance to learn about their world from the millions of organizations and learning centers that have posted their material on the web, and less opportunity to interact with other through email and instant messaging. (Lee Rainie, 2003)

         Anthony G. Wilhelm (2004), suggests forming a new type of nation--a digital nation to bridge the digital divide.  “A Digital Nation privileges bold new experimentation to improve citizen access and effective use of new technologies while using innovative approaches to address long-standing social problems” (Wilhelm, 2004, pp. 4-5).    Wilhelm (2004) offers an optimistic perspective on the future of technology in America.  He repeatedly refers to the benefits of including the entire American population in our move towards becoming a digital nation, and makes it clear that no one should be excluded from the benefits that new technologies provide (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 7).  “Groups with serious challenges to their well-being—including single parents, the incarcerated, and immigrants—stand to benefit enormously from strategic investments in technology” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 7).

Background

        The digital divide became a prominent issue in the mid 1990’s when the Internet began to be accessed more widely by the general public (Lee Rainie, 2003).  Interest among politicians and policymakers began to wane by 2004, when Internet penetration into American households reached over 50% (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 10).  Many politicians and policymakers believed that the government had done enough, despite the fact that nearly 50% of American households still did not have Internet access (Wilhelm, 2004, p.10).  Wilhelm (2004) compares this to government support for universal telephone access. 

        When telephones were first introduced into American households, very few could afford the technology, therefore, the government enacted a policy of universal access (Pershing, 2010).  The American government recognized the importance of being connected, and therefore began to subsidize telephone service for poor and rural households (Wilhelm, 2004 p.13).  When telephone penetration rate reached 96%, government subsidies did not stop (Wilhelm, 2004 p.10).  The American government had set a goal of universal access, therefore, the government continued to subsidize telephone service (Wilhelm, 2004 p.10).  “Part of the reason the telephone has become so ubiquitous is subsidies to make the service affordable” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 13).  In today’s society the Internet is as important a means of staying connected as the telephone was when the universal access policy for telephone service was implemented and that is why the FCC has begun the process of extending the concept of universal access to Internet access (Wigfield, 2010).  Accordingly, many policymakers have advocated similar government subsidies for Internet connectivity, arguing that those individuals who do not have access to the Internet are significantly disadvantaged (Rainie, 2003).

          The following chart was obtained from, The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide study (Rainie, 2003).

This chart clearly demonstrates that in 2002 the racial divide was being extended by the digital divide (Rainie, 2003).  Minorities were clearly at a disadvantage; only 8% of African-Americans and 9% of Latinos were Internet users (Rainie, 2003).  Unfortunately, this trend is projected to persist well into the future (Register, 2006).  Minorities in the U.S. continue to be excluded from Internet access at higher rates that Whites, thus perpetuating the racial divide which is being extended by the digital divide (Register, 2006).  It is not necessary to provide further evidence of the persistence of the digital divide beyond 2002 (Register, 2006).  Very little has changed for members of the minority community (Register, 2006).

Information Barriers 1.5

        According to Burnett, Jaeger, and Thompson (2008) there are three types of barriers to the access of information: physical access, intellectual access, and social access.  When initially considering the digital divide, physical access was considered the biggest barrier to information retrieval (Wilhelm, 2004 p.9).  For this reason, the American government and private organizations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation invested millions of dollars in library Internet infrastructure (Gates, 2010; Clinton, 1996).  As 1994 approached the American government had developed a strategy to connect “. . .every classroom, library, health care clinic, and government agency” (Wilhelm, 2004 p.9). 

      Schools were wired across the country, in 1995 on a day that President Bill Clinton declared NetDay, with computers and other equipment to make those facilities Internet ready (Evans, 1996).    The NetDay program continued:

In 1996 and 1997, “NetDay” programs saw volunteers from high-technology companies and politicians, including Vice President Al Gore, wiring public school buildings for internet access.  Approximately 50,000 schools, 10,000 business sponsors, and 100,000 volunteers participated to wire an average of six classrooms per school in four NetDays. (Chandler & Cortada, 2000 p. 267)

The large investment in Internet infrastructure was viewed as short-sighted by some (Wilhelm, 2004 p.9).  There was an uneven distribution of funds (Wilhelm, 2004 p.9).  While millions of dollars were being invested in equipment, only a small fraction of investment went towards preparing teachers and librarians to incorporate the computer and Internet into their teaching and working environments for student and patron usage (Wilhelm, 2004 p.9).  This brings us to the second barrier mentioned by Burnett, et al. (2008): the intellectual barrier.

         The intellectual barrier is also referred to as the second-level digital divide (Hargittai, 2002).  Individuals are able to get to a computer to access information; however they are at a loss when it comes to fully comprehending and evaluating the information that they locate (Hargittai, 2002).  For instance, are there signs of any kind that denote those health websites that provide reliable, accurate, and up-to-date information?   A caveat: individual could type multiple sclerosis into a search engine and literally thousands of search results could be pulled up, without knowing what a quality marker is, the individual could believe information which is not based on empirical evidence (Harland & Bath, 2007).  The intellectual barrier also pertains to what students have been taught in school about such areas as online research (Jane Margolis, 2008, pp. 121-122).  Can individuals judge the differences in the quality of resources that they locate?

       Recent research shows that the type of Internet activities which are conducted at affluent majority white schools varies to a great degree from that conducted at low socioeconomic status (SES) minority schools (Margolis et al., 2008 p. 121-122).  Technology was supposed to be the great equalizer, however, when students are taught how to use technology in different ways the skills they learn will vary to a significant degree (Margolis et al., 2008 p. 121-122).  Students from high SES schools are taught how to research and document data correctly while students at low SES schools use computers primarily for test taking exercises and class presentations (Margolis et al., 2008 p. 121-122).  In my opinion this is unequal, and unfair, and this constitutes an intellectual barrier. 

         The final barrier that Burnett, Jaeger, and Thompson discuss is a social barrier.  This in essence is the social divide that Norris (2009) talks about when she defines the various aspects of the digital divide.  Individual’s relationships to information and to each other are circumscribed by an imperceptible demarcated boundary which divides groups of people into various “small worlds” (Gary Burnett, 2008). “Small worlds are social environments where individuals live and work, bound together by shared interests and expectations, information needs and behaviors, and often economic status and geographic proximity as well” (Gary Burnett, 2008).  The “small worlds” theory was originally introduced by Chatman (Gary Burnett, 2008).  People can operate in one or in many small worlds (Gary Burnett, 2008).  The small worlds often intersect and collide due to competing agendas (Gary Burnett, 2008).

          A small world’s agenda reflects that community of individuals and their values (Gary Burnett, 2008).  In order to have an impact on a small world, one must be recognized as a genuine member of that particular small world (Gary Burnett, 2008).  The comments of outsiders are viewed skeptically (Gary Burnett, 2008).  And members who pull away from the core values of the small world are seen as unreliable sources of information (Gary Burnett, 2008).  The way in which the members of a small world interact and keep each other in line with peer pressure is also reflected in the ways in which information is perceived and shared (Gary Burnett, 2008). “Thus, information access plays a key part in the social structure of each small world” (Gary Burnett, 2008).

       The perceptions that each small world holds about the values and authenticity of the information of other small worlds, determines how much information is shared between various small worlds or is lost in translation (Gary Burnett, 2008).  When small worlds have similar values information is readily shared and exchanged (Gary Burnett, 2008).  When small worlds have competing values information exchanges are rare or impaired (Gary Burnett, 2008).  In my opinion this can be a serious problem when the majority culture subscribes to certain small worlds while members of the minority community subscribe to others, the lack of communication that occurs can be detrimental.

       The Internet is a technology that is highly valued by Americans the majority of Americans would like to have access (Belcher, 2009).  Affluent White Americans have the most access, the most broadband, and many more computers and other devices to access the Internet than does the minority community (Belcher, 2009).   From one small world perspective, the need for Internet access for everyone is obvious;  however, from another small world perspective the Internet is like the Mercedes that only the rich should be able to drive; and from yet another small world perspective, the Internet is over blown and totally unnecessary (Wilhelm, 2004 p.13).  Depending on which beliefs you hold, your small world membership is determined (Burnett et al., 2008).  In my opinion,  when the lines of communication are down between these various small worlds the dire need in some communities for access to the Internet gets overlooked along with other community issues.

Technological Determinism 1.6

 The belief in technology as a key governing force in society dates back to at least the early stages of the Industrial Revolution.  Referred to as “technological determinism” by twentieth-century scholars, this belief affirms that changes in technology exert a greater influence on societies and their processes than any other factor. (Marx, 1996, p. 2)

There is a continuing debate as to whether a change in technology follows a soft or hard course of action (Marx, 1996, p.2).  In the soft view, technology causes social change while at the same time being affected by social pressures (Marx, 1996, p. 2).  In the hard view, technology is said to be such a powerful force, that it is beyond any possible social reigns that would hinder or dictate its course (Marx, 1996, p. 2).

           Does Technology Drive History?, provides a view of the debate regarding technological determinism from a historical perspective.  Technology is discussed a number of times as a cure for all social ills—as a “panacea” (Marx, 1996, p. 23).   If we view technology in this way, then we also see technology as a panacea, when we suggest that universal access to the Internet could finally close the racial divide in the U.S.. “The discovery of what cultural historians would later call the ‘technological sublime’ added yet another dimension to the growing popular belief in technology’s power to shape the course of human history” (Marx, 1996).  Throughout the twentieth-century advertising became more and more imbued with social messages reaching into the depths of individual’s psyches to affect how they felt about new technologies (Marx, 1996 p.13).

           The messages conveyed to the public by advertisers placed technology in the most positive light possible (Marx, 1996 p.15).  The new iron for the home was sold as being the machine that would make a house-wife happier, more gracious, and more satisfied at the end of the day (Marx, 1996, p. 15).  Cars no longer required a chauffeur because there was the introduction of the new automatic shift (Marx, 1996, p. 19).  There were however detractors from the brave new automatic world that was materializing.  “The critics worried that Americans, in their headlong rush to mechanize and rationalize production, were sacrificing moral progress for material power, thus abandoning a concern that was central to thinkers of Jefferson’s generation” (Marx, 1996, p. 26).

         America was founded on the basis of values that demonstrated strict republican values (Marx, 1996, p. 26).  To simply throw those values to the wind for technology was viewed by some as a turn away from God towards the world of power and materialism (Marx, 1996, p. 26-27).  Many believed that the proponents of technology threw all caution to the wind and that people were sleeping their way through the technological revolution that was dictating their lives (Marx, 1996, p. 31).  It is easy, from this perspective, to argue that technological determinism, had taken hold of America; “. . .technology exert[s] a greater influence on societies and their processes than any other factor” (Marx, 1996, p. 2).

           The hard view of technological determinism supports the perspective that technology had become, in America, an all controlling and dictating force beyond all human reasoning (Marx, 1996, p. 2).  However, in my opinion, many of the twentieth-century’s greatest thinkers never stopped thinking and would not allow themselves to be sucked into the abyss of a mechanized existence.  I believe that technology follows a soft course.  There is no way to divorce the course of technological development from social pressures.  Technology and society will continue to walk hand and in hand into the future.

      As society progresses towards the future, the familiar hope that technology will begin to ameliorate racism and other social ills, is a persistent theme song playing in the background (Wilhelm, 2004, p.5).  It is the hope of many that technology can heal social wounds, and contribute to greater “. . .social and political empowerment . . .” (Wilhelm, 2004, p.1).  In the present moment we are once again hopeful that technology will render us all as equals (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010).   While there has been quite a bit of progress toward racial equality in the last few decades, much remains to be done (Hawke, 2009).  Can the Internet, heal the remaining social wounds of racism?  Is it possible that by closing the digital divide, we can also close the racial divide?

A Brief Overview 1.7

       There are so many historical causes, which began when slaves were first captured and brought to the United States by Dutch traders in 1619 (Becker, 1999), that confluence to contribute to the technological inequality of African –Americans that exists today (Walton, 1999), that a separate chapter has been set aside to deal with those issues.  Chapter two will highlight American history and how the racial divide led to the digital divide in America (Walton, 1999), as well as modern presidential efforts to close the digital divide. 

      Chapter three will take a close look at Great Britain and how “social deprivation” and the digital divide are connected (Singleton, 2009).  London is the focus of the final article dealing with the digital divide, as referred to as digital exclusion, in England (Authority, 2003).  Examples of ways to transverse the digital divide are culled from the London study (Authority, 2003).  It is my hope that some of the recommendations given in this thesis for ameliorating the digital divide will be seriously considered by those individuals who take the time to read this document.  I believe that working together we can make a difference and close the gap here in America which is the digital divide.   

Chapter II: America a Historical Perspective

History of African-Americans in America and Technology

       The history of African-Americans in America and their encounters with technology is a long and discouraging one (Walton, 1999).  The trafficking of Africans as slaves was initiated by the Portuguese invention of the caravel (Walton, 1999): “a light sailing ship of the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries in Europe, much-used by the Spanish and Portuguese for long voyages”(Caravel, 2010).   The caravel was invented by the Portuguese while they were exploring the coast of West Africa (Walton, 1999; Caravel, 2010).  On the continent of Africa slave trade of African by Arabs was propelled forward by the introduction of technology as well: European guns (Walton, 1999).  “Arab and African slave traders exchanged their human chattels for textiles, metals, and firearms, all products of Western technological wizardry, and those same slavers used guns, vastly superior to African weapons of the time, in wars of conquest against those tribes whose members they wished to capture” (Walton, 1999).

         The slaves that were captured by Arabs and African traders were then sold to Europeans, who forcefully packed the African slaves into the technological development of slave ships to endure the middle passage (Middle Passage, 2010); the midatlantic slave trade triangle emerged.  The invention of rum in 1650 on the island of Barbados, after the beginning slave trade, made from the sugar cane grown by African slaves, was the engine that fueled the midatlantic slave trade triangle (Rum, 2010).   In 1793, the next major technological invention to effect African American slaves was created, Eli Whitney’s cotton gin (Walton, 1999; Cotton Gin, 2010).  The importation of slaves to America increased because slaves were needed to grow cotton (Walton, 1999).

       At the beginning of World War II, 1940, technology introduced the cotton harvester (Cotton Harvester, 2010).  The invention of the cotton harvester cost Southern African Americans their jobs, therefore, at the end of  WWII there was a mass migration of African-Americans from Southern to Northern America (Walton, 2010).  The Northern technology of factory machines awaited the crowd of African Americans withdrawing from the South (Walton, 1999).  There was steep competition in the North between immigrants to the US and African Americans who chose to move North animosity grew between the two populations and offensive stereotypes about African Americans developed (Walton, 1999). “Yet another aspect of technology's great cost to blacks should be considered: while the Gilded Age roared through the last part of the nineteenth century and Carnegie, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, and others made the first great American fortunes as they wired, tracked, and fueled the new industrial society, blacks were mired in Reconstruction and its successor, Jim Crow” (Walton, 1999).

     Beginning the 1970’s as the technology of the communications industry began to flourish many African American workers lost their factory jobs when American companies moved overseas where labor was cheaper (Walton, 1999). The African American community in large cities across the country retracted into the recesses of the inner city where there were very few opportunities for employment or a quality education (Walton, 1999).  White flight occurred; White Americans escaped from the urban environments and departed to join majority White communities in the suburbs (Walton, 1999).  In my opinion technology and a legacy of slavery partnered with racist stereotypes have constructed a glass ceiling above which many African Americans have found it difficult to move.  “As the great American technopolis was built, with its avatars from Thomas Edison to Alfred P. Sloan to Bill Gates, blacks were locked out, politically and socially -- and they have found it difficult to work their way in” (Walton ,1999).

          The goals and aspirations of the inner city African American youth, due to a dearth of educational resources and support, tend not to focus on advanced math and science of which technology and invention are born (Walton, 1999).   Due to a lack of educational preparation many African American youth have grown accustomed to focusing their energy on less academically challenging pursuits (Walton, 1999).  Technology is sidelined for African American youth because of dreams, a product of “magical thinking” fed to them through marketing and media, for fame fortune, and financial success through sports and music which are reinforced by societal glamorization (Walton, 1999).  “ Young blacks believe that they have a better chance of becoming Jordan, a combination of genes, will, talent, and family that happens every hundred years, than of becoming Steve Jobs, the builder of two billion-dollar corporations, the first one started with his best friend while tinkering in his garage” (Walton, 1999). 

          In my opinion, if the educational opportunities do not improve for African American youth in this country, the hope by the average African American youth of becoming an engineer or computer scientist will not be a realistic possibility.  “Blacks make up 13 percent of the population in this country, yet in 1995 they earned a shockingly low 1.8 percent of the Ph.D.s conferred in computer science, 2.1 percent of those in engineering, 1.5 percent in the physical sciences, and 0.6 percent in mathematics” (Walton, 1999).  Technology at present is one of the most lucrative industries in the United States (Walton, 1999).

         In my opinion, despite the problematic experience and troubled past that African Americans have had with technology, all that that has transpired since the introduction of the midatlantic slave trade 400 years ago, and being relegated to an inferior education and  an inferior position in society,  the African American community needs to adopt the technology that is happening now.   The digital divide clearly reflects and is a product of the racial divide (Walton, 1999).  The digital divide is a serious and pressing civil rights issue for minorities in America (Rivas, 2010).

The History of the Digital Divide in America 2.1

        The advent of the home computer coupled with access to the Internet opened new realms of possibility for mostly White and Asian American citizens (Chandler & Cortada, 2000 p. 266).  “In 1993 more than 30 percent of whites and 37 percent of Asians lived in a household with a computer, whereas only 13 percent of Hispanics, Blacks, and Native Americans lived in a household with a computer” (Chandler & Cortada, 2000 p.266).  Previous to 1994 the National Information Infrastructure (NII) was based on the penetration of telephone service into the American household (Commerce U. D., 1995).  Prior to 1994 the infiltration of the telephone into the American household was the major determinant as to how America was progressing towards the goal of “universal access” in the Information Age (Commerce U. D., 1995).

            In 1995 Netscape went public and approximately 12 million Americans were online (Chandler & Cortada, 2000 p. 261).   Access to the Internet came to be the new “barometer” by which the Information Age was to be judged (Commerce U. D., 1995).  The Current Population Study (CPS) conducted in November of 1994 by the U.S. Census Bureau, therefore, contained questions regarding the number of computers and modems each American household owned and operated (Commerce U. D., 1995).

Clinton Administration 2.2

         The digital divide was a term coined during the Clinton years 1993-2000 (CNN, 2005) by Allen Hammond and  Larry Irving,  they “used the phrase often in public speeches to describe a binary divide between the computer and internet haves and have nots” (Bulger, 2007).  The first in a series of national reports on the Internet that was issued by the Clinton administration in 1995 and was called, “Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the ‘Have Nots’ in Rural and Urban America” (Lynch, 2002).  The report was based on data collected in the 1994 U.S. Census Bureau (Commerce U. D., 1995).

        The study found that minorities, particularly, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans, were at the greatest disadvantage insofar as connectivity issues were concerned (Commerce U. D., 1995).  Those individuals living in rural communities were also at a great disadvantage (Commerce U. D., 1995).  For the most part, those who were connected to the AII were White, wealthy, educated, and above the age of twenty-five but not elderly (Commerce U.D., 1995).    

         These trends in the distribution of computers and Internet access are important to note because they persist through the three ensuing “Falling Through the Net” reports and other data which was collected regarding Internet connection rates: “. . . numerous surveys  . . . have documented persistent differences in the rates at which members of different groups use the new medium (NTIA 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000)” (Dimaggio & Hargittai, 2001).  The first “Falling Through the Net” report also stated that “community access centers” would be the primary means by which Internet access would be provided to those individuals who were not otherwise connected to the Internet (Lynch, 2002).  Schools and public libraries were included in those places denoted as community access centers (Lynch, 2002).

            The Clinton administration continued to keep watch over the progress of the penetration of the Internet into the American household by continuing to issue “Falling Through the Net” reports (Administration N.T., 1997).  The administration remained optimistic but pragmatic in their speculation as to the speed at which the penetration rate of the Internet could and would advance; "Connectively to all such households will not occur instantaneously . . .” (Lynch, 2002).

        The second “Falling Through the Net” report was issued in 1997 (Lynch, 2002).  The goal stated in this report was to focus on “universal access” (Administration N. T., 1997). 

It showed that telephone penetration remained the same (just under 94 percent) and computer penetration had grown substantially; to 36.6 percent penetration. Personal computer growth by household was up 51.9 percent; modems up 139.1 percent. The report concluded, though, that the digital divide persisted and that a widening gap continued between upper and lower income levels. (Lynch, 2002)

 As in the previous “Falling Through the Net” report, the concept of universal access had been extended beyond basic telephone service to include “access to information services” (Administration N. T., 1997).

          The 1997 findings were similar to those of 1995, African Americans and Latinos had the lowest rates of computer and Internet home penetration rates (Administration N. T., 1997).  Having a low socioeconomic status and living in a rural area also put individuals at an incredible disadvantage insofar as computer acquirement and Internet access were concerned (Administration N. T., 1997).  In my opinion, it can be safely inferred from the appreciable growth in the digital divide and the concomitant concern of the American government, that the digital divide was producing a negative effect upon the communities that it impacted and causing economic, social, and democratic, damage to those communities.  The 1997 report recommended that the United States government remain focused on connecting those individuals who were disconnected from the national information grid (Administration N. T., 1997).  The 1997 report also stressed the importance of community access centers such as schools and public libraries (Administration N. T., 1997).

        In 1997, to provide a greater degree of access to the Internet to America’s disconnected, the American government decided to subsidize the Internet which was being provided by community access centers such as schools and the public library through a program called E-Rate (Pozo-Olano, 2007).   E-Rate is, “a ground-breaking telecommunications program created in 1997 that provides deep discounts on telecommunications” (Pozo-Olano, 2007).  E-Rate is a government program which enhances the public libraries ability to provide free Internet service to its patrons.  The program allows all public libraries to provide free access to the Internet (Pozo-Olano, 2007). In my opinion, many individuals, if they did not have access to the Internet through schools or the public library, would not have access at all.

             In 1999 the Clinton administration issued a third “Falling Through the Net” report (Lynch, 2002), which recognized the role of the Internet in the global economy (Administration N. T., 1999).  The acknowledgement by the Clinton administration of the importance of increasing the penetration of Internet access in American households to make Americans more competitive on a global scale is of particular pertinence to this paper and its comparison of the digital divide in the U.S. and Great Britain (Administration N. T., 1999) .  In the 1999 report the economic and racial impact of the digital divide are also mentioned: “The ‘digital divide’—the divide between those with access to new technologies and those without—is now one of America’s leading economic and civil rights issues” (Administration N. T., 1999).  “The digital divide has turned into a ‘racial ravine’ when one looks at access among households of different races and ethnic origins” (Administration N. T., 1999).

           According the third “Falling Through the Net” report, PC ownership and Internet access continued to grow, however some demographic groups did not see increased penetration and, therefore, did not see equal benefits from the growth.  “. . .Penetration levels [continued to] differ—often substantially-- according to, income, education level, race, household type, and geography, among other demographic characteristics” (Administration N. T., 1999).  However, PC ownership had increased considerably since 1994, “. . . 42.1%, up from 24.1% in 1994 and 36.6% in 1997. . .” (Administration N. T., 1999).  

            The 1999 report looked more closely at who accessed the Internet via the public library than previous reports had done.  According to the figures reported “8.2%” of Americans were relying on the public library for Internet access (Administration N. T., 1999).  This is a significant figure.  The 1999 report also discussed “challenges for the future,” which included “promoting competition and universal access” and “expanding community access centers” (Administration N. T., 1999).  An appendix in “trendline study on electronic access by households: 1984-1998” emphasized the disparity between the information rich and the information poor by highlighting the growing digital divide (Administration N. T., 1999).

The trend of seeing the “computer-rich get richer” means that the digital divide among groups is widening over time.  The twenty percentage point difference that existed between highest and lowest income levels in 1984 has now expanded to a 64 percentage point difference.  What was a fifteen percentage gap in 1984 between those with college degrees and those with a elementary education is now nearly a 61 percentage point gap. (Administration N. T., 1999)

The Clinton administration decided to take the proactive steps that needed to be taken to close the digital divide in America:

"Until every home can afford access to information resources, we will need public policies and private initiatives to expand affordable access to those resources. The Clinton Administration is committed to connecting all Americans to the National Information Infrastructure ... Community Access Centers (CACs) - such as schools, libraries, and other public access points - will play an important role" [10]. (Lynch, 2002)

 The U.S. schools and public libraries are two avenues utilized to level the playing field between those individuals who have access to the Internet and those who do not (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010). 

         One final “Falling Through the Net” report was issued during the Clinton administration in October of 2000 (Lynch, 2002).  This report by far the longest and most involved was titled: “Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion” (Commerce U.D., Falling Through the net Towards Digital Inclusion).   Broadband service was measured for the first time (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  This is important to note because during the following administration, the Bush administration, the digital divide was redefined from being about who had Internet service and who did not, to being about who had broadband service and who did not (Administration N. T., 2002).  In addition, the fourth “Falling Through the Net” report had an entire section on the disabled and their lack of access to the Internet (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).

        The connectivity issues which were discussed in the first three reports, including Internet penetration into the American household, persisted and are considered in part I of the fourth report  (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  Gains had taken place, however, “according to the latest survey, 43.6 million households (or 41.5% of all households) had Internet access” (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  Nonetheless, access seriously lagged for certain demographic groups:

Substantial disparities have continued to widen, both when comparing Blacks and Hispanics against the national average and when comparing against Whites.  The divide between Black household Internet access rates and national average rate increased 3.0 percentage points, from 15.0 points in December 1998 to 18.0 percentage points in August 2000.  The divide between Hispanic households and the national average rate increased 4.3 percentage points, from 13.6 points in December 1998 to 17.9 percentage points in August 2000. (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000)

Broadband access was being adopted by the same groups who first gained access to the information grid—affluent, White, well educated, urban households.  However, there was one minority household group that had greater broadband access than Whites and those were Asian and Pacific Island households (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  “Asian American and Pacific Islander households have the highest broadband rate (11.7%), followed by Whites (10.8%)” (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  Other minority groups, Black and Hispanic, had lower broadband access rates at “9.8%” and “8.9%” respectively (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).

         Part II of the report looked more closely at individual Internet use (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  This part of the report is brief and highlights the same issues presented in the part I data, i.e. the growing digital divide (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  Members of the minority community, individuals living in rural areas, and individuals who have a low socioeconomic status, continued to be excluded from access to the Internet (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000). 

        Part III of the report focused on a historically underserved community—the disabled (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  Disability is defined by a any number of symptoms and physical restrictions that prevent a noninstitutionalized individual from functioning normally within American society (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  The disabled community in the U.S. reflects the digital divide to a higher degree than their able bodied counterparts (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).  The fourth “Falling Through the Net” report concluded with a methodology section and an appendix of relevant graphs and tables (Commerce U. D., Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, 2000).

 Use of the Internet in 2000 was dominated by e-mail: 79.9 percent of Internet users reported using e-mail. E-mail use of the Internet has been at about the 75 percent of usage since 1972 when the electronic mail application was first introduced to the Internet. Low-income users, not surprising, were the most likely to report using the Internet to look for jobs. And the August 2000 data show that schools, libraries, and other public access points continued to serve those groups that do not have access at home. (Lynch, 2002)      

Bush Administration 2.3

National monitoring of Internet access did not end with the Clinton administration, the Bush administration (2001-2009) (House, 2009) kept track of the national Internet penetration rate through a report entitled, “A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding Their Use of the Internet” (Lynch, 2002).  There were many positive attributes of Internet connectivity mentioned in the report, however, it also mentioned that certain demographic groups still lacked Internet access (Administration N. T., 2002). Financial, and therefore racial, barriers were still present as a determining factor affecting access (Administration N. T., 2002).  “Individuals living in low-income households or having little education, still trail[ed] the national average” (Administration N. T., 2002).

            “A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding Their Use of the Internet” is split up into chapters (Administration N. T., 2002).  Each chapter focused on a different aspect of Internet connectivity (Administration N. T., 2002).  For the purposes of this paper I will not summarize each chapter but focus on material information pertaining to my thesis.  The report states that Internet access provided via the public library, although intended for the use of everyone, is generally used by members of the lower socioeconomic group (family incomes below 15,000 dollars) (Administration N. T., 2002).  “Just over 20 percent of Internet users with household incomes of less than $15,000 a year use public libraries, and 6.1 percent of Internet users in this income category do not use the Internet at home, work, or school” (Administration N. T., 2002). 

        At the time of the report the library was the sole source of Internet connectivity for so many Americans who were struggling financially (Administration N. T., 2002).  It is clear to me that if the public library did not provide Internet access for the disconnected, there would be a substantial loss felt by America’s poor and struggling underclass of citizens.  “There is a sizable segment of the U.S. population (as of September 2001 46.1 percent of persons and 49.5 percent of households), however, that does not use the Internet” (Administration N. T., 2002).  According to the first Nation Online report (2002) there are a number of individuals living in America who are still disconnected:

·        People in households with low family incomes — 75.0 percent of people who live in households where income is less than $15,000 and 66.6 percent of those in households with incomes between $15,000 and $35,000.

·        Adults with low levels of overall education—60.2 percent of adults (age 25 +) with only a high school degree and 87.2 percent of adults with less than a high school education.^[1][1]

·        Hispanics—68.4 percent of all Hispanics and 85.9 percent of Hispanic households where Spanish is the only language spoken.

·        Blacks—60.2 percent of Blacks.

The second “A Nation Online” report was issued in 2004 it was titled: “A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age” (Commerce U. D., A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age, 2004). The concept of the digital divide transformed from those individuals with no access to the Internet to those individuals who did not have broadband access (Commerce U. D., A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age, 2004).  In my opinion, it can be reasonably argued that this transformation was premature.  Many members of the minority community in America still had no access to the Internet at all, as of October 2003, 54.4 % members of the Black community and 62.8% of the Latino community were not able to connect to the Internet at any location (Commerce U. D., A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age, 2004).

         The last report on Internet access by the Bush Administration “A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age,” while it presented statistics on Internet connectivity rates, it failed to discuss the issue of race within the report (Fairlie, 2005).  It, however, is clear from the data presented in the 2002 report by the Bush administration on Internet connectivity rates, that minorities in America were still being excluded from access to the Internet (Fairlie, 2005).  Fairlie (2005) examined the data produced by the 2003 Current Population Survey to determine the Internet connection rates of members of the minority community (Fairlie, 2005).  Internet connection rates for members of the minority community hovered around 40%, while 66% of the White community were already online (Fairlie, 2005).  According to a study of race and Internet connectivity rates in America Fairlie (2005) found that:

The summary of previous research on the causes of the digital divide indicates that income and education inequalities were found to be leading causes of the digital divide. These two factors, however, only explain part of the digital divide. In fact, large disparities in computer ownership and Internet use were found between blacks and Latinos, and white, non-Latinos in high-income families. (Fairlie, 2005).

The digital divide is, therefore, an extension of the racial divide (Fairlie, 2005) which has a long and tragic history here in America dating back to 1619 and when the first African slave was bought in America (Becker, 1999).  Therefore, it was wrong of the Bush administration to neglect the issue of race in the 2002 study on Internet connectivity rates in America (Commerce U. D., A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age, 2004).  “A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age” also indicated that forty-three percent of the entire U.S. population was still disconnected in 2002 (Commerce U. D., A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age, 2004).  In addition, despite the large numbers of individuals in America who were not yet connected to the Internet,  the Bush administration still thought that it was appropriate to move the issue of Internet connectivity forward to the next level—to broadband connectivity (Commerce U. D., A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age, 2004).

              The digital divide persisted, according to the Russell et. al. study (2009), the table below represents the percentage of the population which had access to a home a computer depended on according to race (Russell et al., 2009).  The data presented in this table is from the Census Bureau in 2005.

	Computer in Household (%)	Household with Internet Access (%)
White	63.9	57.0
Hispanic	44.3	36.0
African American	44.6	36.0
Asian American	72.9	66.7

Obama Administration 2.4

 What is the current state of Internet access in America?  The disparity in access between White and minority households persisted throughout the time the Bush administration was in office: according to the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau report 60% of African Americans were connected to the Internet, only 57.4% of Latinos were connected to the Internet, and 79.2% of White non-Latinos were connected to the Internet (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 

           In my opinion, it was, therefore, inappropriate for the Bush administration to overlook Internet connectivity issues in order to pursue a national broadband agenda.  White households were twenty percent more likely than Latinos and African-Americans to have both a home computer and Internet access from home (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).  Asian American households were an exception, maintaining the highest computer ownership and connectivity rates, 84.4%, of any other ethnic group (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

          In my opinion, it would be up to the next administration to find a balance between providing Internet access to individuals who had no access and to increasing broadband access.  A large segment of society had been left disconnected by the Bush administration (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).  The Obama administration would prove to be sensitive to this situation and attempt to work proactively to increase Internet connectivity rates while at the same time continuing the national broadband agenda  (Project, If Obama builds it will they log on?, 2009).  The Obama administration would attempt to close the digital divide (Male, 2010).

         What is the stand of the Obama administration?  The Obama administration wants to proceed with the goals of the Bush administration and increase broadband access in America (Project, If Obama builds it will they log on?, 2009).  The Obama administration hopes that the influx of new broadband subscribers will contribute to the stimulation of the U.S. economy in addition to providing a faster Internet access route for many Americans (Project, If Obama builds it will they log on?, 2009). It is anticipated by the Obama administration that some of the individuals who choose to connect to the Internet via broadband will also be first time Internet subscribers (Project, If Obama builds it will they log on?, 2009).  In this way the Obama administration plans to close the digital divide.  (Project, If Obama builds it will they log on?, 2009).

             Julius Genachowski was nominated by President Obama to be the FCC chair for the Obama administration (Fitchard, 2009).   While Genachowski will be listening to what policy telecos want him to pass in Washington Genachowski also has a solid relationship with members of the Silicon Valley Business Community (Fitchard, 2009).  His ties to Silicon Valley make Genachowski a relatively balanced representative of the FCC (Fitchard, 2009).

          Genachowski plans a vast expansion of services provided by the FCC (Grotticelli, 2009).  Genachowski wants to follow the wishes of the Obama administration and do for broadband in the twenty-first century what was done for electricity in the United States in the twentieth century (Fitchard, 2009).  The Obama administration included the expansion of broadband in America in the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (Grotticelli, 2009).  “The Recovery Act provides 7.2 billion to expand the nation’s broadband infrastructure to underserved areas and directs the FCC to develop a national broadband plan” (Grotticelli, 2009).

       Genachowski views the digital divide as a serious problem in America:

The problem of the digital divide, once a matter of mere digital ignorance, is fast becoming one of digital access and representation. We have greedy, discriminating telecom interests to thank for this evolution. People know that a digital and connected future exists; they can’t realize it because they are priced or mapped out of the market. (Garlin, 2010)

 Genachowski is asking, can we afford to provide broadband for all?  “FCC officials say universal broadband would boost [the] economy” (Male, 2010).  Another pertinent question is, can we afford not to?    In the past a small percentage of the cost of monthly phone service has gone into a Universal Service Fund which provides phone service for those who otherwise could not afford phone service (Male, 2010).  “Now the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering expanding this Universal Service Fund to give all Americans access to high-speed Internet” (Male, 2010).    In my opinion, this is a very important move for the Federal government to make.  “With full and equal access to this platform, young people of color can participate in the revolutionary acts of self-expression and self-definition without fear that their voices and images will be stamped out by forces seeking to make them invisible” (Garlin, 2010).

       The Obama administration supports the drive to provide broadband access for all Americans (Garlin, 2010).  “President Obama recently announced his plan to contribute $2 billion in stimulus funds to the effort, but creating truly universal broadband access could cost as much as $350 billion” (Male, 2010).  Ways in which to support the universal broadband initiative are still in the early stages of development (Male, 2010).  There have been ideas about adding a tax onto internet service bills and a general tax revenue (Male, 2010).  In February of 2010 “an FCC task force will recommend ways to pay for the expansion” (Male, 2010).

          

Chapter III: The New Digital Citizen

Digital Citizenship Defined 3.1

          The digital divide and digital citizenship, “the ability to participate in society online,” has been a persistent issue since the Internet was first introduced to the American public (Karen Mossberger, 2007, p. 1). A  number of government programs have been tried during the past several presidencies, such as: “The Community Technology centers funding from the Department of Education, the Universal Service Fund (e-rate), the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Technology Challenge grants, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's partnership with Communities in Schools (CIS) and the Cisco Networking Academy Program”, to resolve the issue of the digital divide (Strawn, n.d.).  

              According to a study reported in Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation by Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal, 2007, “even with the expansion of the online population in the United States, those who are low income, less educated, older, African American, and Latino continue to be less likely to have home computers or use the Internet frequently” (p.120).  The digital divide exists as an extension of the racial divide (Walton, 1999).  

            In my opinion, the United States government is not doing enough to connect the disconnected, the job of bridging the digital divide has been left to the public access centers such as public schools and the public library.   Forty percent of African Americans and Latinos do not have Internet access and, therefore, must rely on community access centers to gain free Internet access (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).  “Just over 71 percent of libraries report that they are the only source of free access to computers and the Internet in their communities” (Davis, Bertot, & McClure, 2010).

          Although great strides have been made towards equality through both avenues of access, public schools and the public libraries still struggle to provide adequate access (Davis et al., 2010).  There have been recent cuts to many library budgets across the country; “In a time of widespread economic turmoil, 14.3 percent of public libraries report decreased operating budgets in FY200” (Davis et al., 2010).   Library patrons are increasing their demands for more Internet service at higher speeds; “Nearly 60 percent of libraries report Internet connection speeds are insufficient to meet needs at some point in the day” (Davis et al., 2010).

The  Democratic Divide 3.2

          As defined in chapter 1, the democratic divide is the second subset of the digital divide, after the social divide, as defined by Norris (Lynch, 2002).  The democratic divide is associated with the benefits derived from digital citizenship:

According to reports, a digital divide continues unabated.  If current trends continue, a problem will exist at decade’s end with substantial pockets of the U.S. population unplugged from the Digital Nation. (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 34)

In order to fully comprehend the ramifications of the digital divide, the digital divide as defined by Norris (Lynch, 2002) must be considered. Norris ( Lynch, 2002) definition of the digital divide was presented in chapter one of the thesis.  Norris (Lynch, 2002) defined the digital divide as consisting of three subsets, the global divide, the social divide, and the democratic divide.  The global divide goes far beyond the scope of this thesis.  The social divide was presented in relationship to the small worlds theory Burnett et al. (2008).  The democratic divide will now be considered (Lynch, 2002). 

The Beginning of Internet Connectivity 3.3

        According the Benton Foundation, to utilize technology such as the Internet, and comprehend the information it is imparting, an individual must be literate (Carvin, 2000).  One of the most recent national adult literacy surveys, the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, was conducted by the National  Center for Educational Statistic in 2003 (Kolstad & White, n.d.). “The NAAL results demonstrate that an estimated 11 million adults in the U.S. are “nonliterate in English,” while 30 million—14 percent of the total adult population in the U.S.—are at the “below basic” level” (Wedgeworth, 2006).   Literacy begins at school:

“When 88 percent of fourth grade African-American students cannot read at proficiency, often leading to a downward spiral of underachievement, the question of grooming tomorrow’s leaders becomes tied to the resolution of system wide failures, and the destiny of the dominant society becomes tethered to that of the marginalized.” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 12) 

         An astonishingly large number of students are failing to succeed because they are not proficient readers (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 12).  The question then, is how does this lack of achievement affect these students in the future?  In my opinion, if nothing is done to increase the educational opportunities available to African American youth then they will not succeed.  If an individual cannot read, how can he or she participate in the digital nation as a digital citizen?  “A new provision of national education policy in the United States states that every eighth-grader must be technology-literate regardless of socioeconomic status or race” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 33).   

              In my opinion, having Internet access is not just about downloading music and videos from YouTube.  Having Internet access is about being able to reach out to those we care for to support and form lasting relationships, it’s about being part of a larger community of people, the global community (Gates, 2000).   People are holding conversations on the Internet and talking about politics, education, housing, jobs, and so much more (Wellman, Haase, Witte, & Hampton, 2001).    Being excluded from this on-going conversation on the Internet excludes an individual from full participation in the community (Wellman, et al., 2001).  Internet access is a serious issue in America because minorities in the U.S. are being left out of a vital portion of the democratic process (Karen Mossberger et al., 2007, p.47). 

The Current State of Public School as Internet Access Point for the Underserved Community 3.4

           The Leadership Conference was established as a civil and human rights coalition in the United States in 1950 (Henderson, n.d.).  The Leadership Conference has classified the digital divide civil rights issue (Davis, 2010).  African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are being denied basic rights to participate in the democratic process because it has now extended its presence to the Internet and many minorities lack access (Mossberger et al., 2008).  The civil rights movement in America, which extended from “1955-1965,” did a tremendous amount to improve race relations within America (Cozzen, 1998).  “Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, guaranteeing basic civil rights for all Americans, regardless of race, after nearly a decade of nonviolent protests and marches, ranging from the 1955-1956 Montgomery bus boycott to the student-led sit-ins of the 1960s [sic] to the huge March on Washington in 1963” (Cozzen, 1998). 

         The digital divide begins for many minority groups at school with what Margolis et al. (2008) has termed “virtual segregation” (p. 2).   Margolis et al. (2008) defined “virtual segregation” as being a cognitive process whereby the ethos of the educational system causes people to believe that all social opportunities are equally available to everyone regardless of race (p. 2).  “In reality histories have been so different, the playing fields so uneven, the chasm so wide and deep, that people are living in two different worlds, receiving two different and very unequal types of educations, opportunities, and levels of knowledge” (Margolis et al. 2008).  The legacy of Plessy v. Ferguson 1896, which established separate but equal educational institutions for people of color, continues even after Brown vs. The Board of Education 1954, which ended school segregation (Margolis et al., 2008 p.2; Cozzen, 1998). “Despite the fact that Brown v. Board of Education (1954) pronounced de jure segregated schools unconstitutional, and Keyes v. School District #1 (1973) extended that to intentional, de facto segregated school districts, de facto segregation remains extreme” (Fowler Morse, 2006).  

           An attempt was made in the Seattle School District No. 1 to increase diversity through the implementation of policy which supported integration of the public school system, and which  would thereby reduce de facto segregation in the educational system of Seattle District No.1 (DeMartini, 2008).   Race was considered as a factor when assigning students to a high school when the school was oversubscribed (Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1., n. d.).   In June 2000 a case, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, was brought against the school district of Seattle District No.1 (Browse, n.d.).  Parents Involved charged that, “the racial tiebreaker violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Washington state law” (Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1., n. d.). 

            The case was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court where it was heard in June of 2006 (Seattle Public School District No.1 Case Background, n.d.).  The Supreme Court issued their decision on June 28, 2007, "Racial balancing is not transformed from 'patently unconstitutional' to a compelling state interest simply by relabeling it 'racial diversity” (Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1., n. d.).  A reaction to the Supreme Courts plurality decision in the case was written in the Howard Law Review:

This latest decision on the constitutionality of the state's use of race-based classifications sets a poor precedent for efforts to distribute benefits to people disadvantaged by societal discrimination, particularly African Americans. The view that all classifications are dangerous, as noble as it may seem as an effort to effectuate the permanent transcendence of race in American society, defies practical application and goes against the prime objectives of CERD, which explicitly compel parties to the convention to take up efforts such as those challenged in the case. (Scott, 2009)

In addition, the Supreme Court decision in, Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1, “. . . perpetuates the very racial disparities that further racism and provide it sustenance, eviscerating potential remedies for structural racism, its most virulent manifestation” (Scott, 2009). 

          In my opinion, the decision by the Supreme Court reinforced the existence of a segregated school system by confining African America children to neighborhood schools.   Minority neighborhoods came into existence because African Americans were not allowed to live in White neighborhoods (Seitles, 1996).  Minority students tend to attend schools which are located in the neighborhoods where they live.  “Moreover, minority possibilities for advancement consequently decline from the lower quality of education afforded to them in ghetto schools, precluding them from competing for high-income employment” (Seitles, 1996). 

         Although minority schools tend to receive a greater amount of funding than integrated and White schools, the cost difference to educate minority students can often be explained by the higher salaries that are required to hire teachers to teacher a minority schools (Baker & Green, 2009).  Students in Black schools often do not fare well on measures of assessment,  such as the FCAT, when compared to students at integrated or Whites schools and therefore are perceived  as challenging environments in which to teach(Borman, Eitle, T. M., Micheal,  Eitle, D. J., Lee, Johnson, Cobb-Roberts, Dorn, & Shircliffe,  2004).  “Challenged schools” have a difficult time attracting “nurturing” teachers (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 64).  “By any standard, many schools in some of our largest urban centers are irreparably broken and need radical surgery, not Band-Aids, to ensure that students can achieve” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 61).

         It was believed that the introduction of the Internet to minority children would better prepare them for the workplace and in this way eventually equalize socioeconomic differences between races in America (Macleod-Ball et al., 2010).   Through national funding initiatives, computers have been delivered to almost all public schools nationwide from inner cities to rural areas (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 64).  Many computers remain unpacked or software uninstalled because so many teachers do not know how to incorporate computers and the Internet into traditional classroom settings (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 65).  More emphasis has been placed on hardware and software than on teacher training (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 64).  “Every child, regardless of his or her income or race, requires greater educational opportunities to be equipped for equal citizenship and economic self-reliance in the twenty-first century” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 62).

         In a study conducted by Magolis,  Estrella, Goode, Holme, and Nao  (2008) and reported in their book, Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing, three examples are provided of  public high schools in California where there were computers and software  available and yet minority students were  still being excluded from the educational pipeline (Margolis et al., 2008 p.5).  Margolis et al. (2008) discusses the need to provide education in the area of technology and computer science to minority students (Margolis et al., 2008 p.5).  The title, Stuck in the Shallow End, was conceived of   when, caught off guard by an article encouraging minority members of the New York community to get into the pool, the authors learned that swimming has had a long and sad history of segregation (Margolis et al., 2008 p.1-2). 

       The segregation of the swimming pools led to the deaths of many unprepared African American children who found themselves stuck in water, which they were unable to navigate (Margolis et al., 2008 p.1-2).  Instead of integrating pools or building pools for African American communities, many African American children, during segregation, were forced to go without or were subject to immersion in overcrowded kiddy-depth pools (Margolis et al., 2008 p.20).  These shallow pools were separated from White pools and were inadequate at best (Margolis et al., 2008 p.20).                

            In addition to being stuck in the shallow end, there were racist beliefs about an African American child’s ability to float (Margolis et al. 2008, p.22-23).  Bone density tests were supposedly conducted and African Americans were purportedly found to have less buoyancy (Margolis et al., 2008 p. 22-23).  These racist beliefs restricted African Americans from the water that their White peers were encouraged to enjoy (Margolis et al., 2008 p.21).  The writers of Stuck in the Shallow End draw an analogy between the exclusion of children of color from access to technology courses and their exclusion from the swimming pool (Margolis et al., 2008 p.23-25). 

       Since the beginning, I.Q. tests have been “culturally biased” and unfairly geared toward the White upper and middle class populations (Williams Jr., 2009).  In my opinion, the assumption that minorities are intellectually inferior to Whites is not unlike the racist assumption that African Americans are unable to swim; it is a false belief.  An I.Q. test relies on knowledge about information which may be unfamiliar to individuals from various cultural backgrounds, according to Ashley Montagu, a Boasian anthropologist, the I.Q test is “ethnocentrically structured” (Willams Jr., 2009).  “ Professor Rosemary Henze (2007) has recently summed up the orientation of cultural anthropologists and IQ tests when she wrote, “to argue that there is an inherited, biological thing called intelligence that is devoid of cultural influence and that correlates with ‘racial’ traits flies in the face of all scientific research in the latter part of the 20th century” (p.204)” ( Willams Jr, 2009). 

      Opportunities are not provided to African American students because of false beliefs and stereotypes about their ability to comprehend and effectively comprehend academic information (Margolis, 2008 p.24).  Just as African Americans were stuck in the shallow end of a swimming pool in the past they are currently stuck in a very shallow and demeaning educational system that fails to recognize their brilliance and potential by neglecting to teach them what they need to know to lead successful productive lives (Margolis, 2008 p. 24).   In my opinion, the digital divide is perpetuated by the public school system.  The digital divide used to be between those who had access to a computer and the Internet and those who did not (Bulger, 2007).  Then the digital divide was about who could navigate the web efficiently and effectively and who could not (Hargittai, 2002). 

          Now, more than ever, the digital divide that is being traversed in high schools today, is about the study of computer science and “’engaging in sustained reasoning, managing complexity, [and] testing a solution”(Margolis et al., 2008 p.9).  According to Margolis, et al., the problem solving and basic logic that are taught through computer programming has a positive impact on almost any field a student could choose to study (Margolis et al. 2008, p.7).  However, students of color are not choosing to take computer programming classes (Margolis et al. 2008 p.85-86).  In my opinion, if high school students do not learn the basics of digital navigation and comprehension in high school, they will fall behind their peers.  People of color will become “’the designated serfs of the information age’” (Jane Margolis, 2008, p. 5).

        There were several reasons why students of color are not enrolling the computing classes:  at two of the high schools investigated by Margolis et al. (2008) there was a dearth of computer science classes (Margolis et al., 2008 p. 27; Margolis et al., 2008 p.54-57).  Both of the schools had been outfitted with the equipment necessary for the computer science classes but neither school had the resources available to hire a qualified teacher, and claimed that there was a lack of interest (Margolis et al., 2008 p.30-33; Margolis et al., 2008 p. 54-57).  At the third school investigated, there were computers, qualified staff, and a classroom in which to teach the computer science courses, so why there were so few students of color enrolled (Margolis et al., 2008 p.85-87)?

        First of all, students relied on their counselors to place them in appropriate classes.  Counselors had a staggering case load and rarely got to speak to the students they placed (Margolis et al., 2008 p. 88-90).  Secondly, teachers’ expectations for students of color were lower than their expectations for White students, so students of color were shuttled into basic electives instead of more advance electives or honors and AP classes (Margolis et al., 2008 p.86).  Computer science classes were considered advanced electives (Margolis et al., 2008 p.77).  The California Board of Education did not consider computer science necessary for college preparation (Margolis et al., 2008 p.77).   Thirdly, the students of color who did get the chance to take computer science courses often felt left out and isolated by the fact that their numbers in the computer science classes were so small (Margolis et al., 2008 p.90-91).  Everything from the very basic classes to the more advanced AP classes was being dominated by White male “techies” (Margolis et al. 82-84).          

        While it is important that African-American and Latino/a students have access to computers and the Internet, it is also important that African-American and Latino/a students partake in the activity of learning the art of computer science (Margolis et al., 2008 p.5).  An education in computer science is important for African-American and Latino/a students so that students of color can reap the benefits associated with in depth knowledge about computers which is evidenced by the 2008 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics age estimates:

Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations top
			Wage Estimates
Occupation Code	Occupation Title (click on the occupation title to view an occupational profile)	Employment (1)	Median Hourly	Mean Hourly	Mean Annual (2)	Mean RSE (3)
15-0000	Computer and Mathematical Science Occupations	3,308,260	$34.26	$35.82	$74,500	0.3 %
15-1011	Computer and Information Scientists, Research	26,610	$47.10	$48.51	$100,900	1.1 %
15-1021	Computer Programmers	394,230	$33.47	$35.32	$73,470	0.6 %
15-1031	Computer Software Engineers, Applications	494,160	$41.07	$42.26	$87,900	0.4 %
15-1032	Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software	381,830	$44.44	$45.44	$94,520	0.5 %
15-1041	Computer Support Specialists	545,520	$20.89	$22.29	$46,370	0.3 %
15-1051	Computer Systems Analysts	489,890	$36.30	$37.90	$78,830	0.4 %
15-1061	Database Administrators	115,770	$33.53	$35.05	$72,900	0.8 %
15-1071	Network and Computer Systems Administrators	327,850	$31.88	$33.45	$69,570	0.3 %
15-1081	Network Systems and Data Communications Analysts	230,410	$34.18	$35.50	$73,830	0.4 %
15-1099	Computer Specialists, All Other	191,780	$36.13	$36.54	$76,000	0.5 %

In my opinion, it is also important that minorities become proficient in technology to act as role models and mentors for younger generations.  In addition, I believe that America must improve science, technology, engineering, and math skills for all students in order to continue to compete on a global scale. “Unfortunately, Stuck in the Shallow End, reveals how undemocratic our educational system still is in the technology age” (Margolis et al. 2008, p.9).

         The U.S. is no longer the world leader in science and technology (Koizumi, 2010).  America is competing with the growing markets of China, India, and Asia (Woodruff, 2009).

When asked about America’s ability to continue to compete in the global market, Lawrence H. Summers, head of the NEC and Obama’s economic advisor stated (Summers, 2009):

 .  .  . I am not unmindful, especially after the events of the last year, of the challenges that our country faces, but I also think that if you look at the way people work in this country, you look at the quality of our universities, you look at the role of some of our great companies around the world, and I’ve got a lot of confidence in our future.  And I think our future will keep being greater than our past as long as we stay nervous about our future and on edge. (Woodruff, 2009)

 Summers also listed areas where America needed improvement in order to continue to compete on a global scale, increased support for science, technology, engineering and math research and innovation were at the top (Summers, 2009).  The White House holds the same beliefs as Summers regarding America’s need to increase its competitive edge in the areas of science, technology, engineering and math (White House: Educate to Innovate, n.d.).   Evidence of America’s fall from global leadership in the fields of engineering and science have led the Obama administration to establish a private/public backed program, “Educate to Innovate,” to build the science, technology, engineering, and math skills (STEM) of American students (Koizumi, 2010; White House: Educate to Innovate, n.d.). 

Librarians Role in Bridging the Digital Divide

    A paper by Aqili and Moghaddam (2008) focuses on the role that librarians play in bridging the digital divide.  “The authors posit that librarians and information professionals can play a vital role in making information accessible, bridging the digital divide or at least, diminishing it via their information services” (Seyed Vahid Aqili, 2008).

The Current State of the Public Library as a Community Access Center 3.5

           The library systems in the U.S., “more than 16, 600 locations” (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010), are organized to provide free Internet access to all American citizens as a means by which to bridge the digital divide (Russell & Huang, 2009).  The free Internet access provided by libraries, 71% of the time, is the only free Internet that can be accessed in a community, 78% of the time in rural areas (Davis et al., 2010).   Therefore, for low-income members of communities across America, the library is their primary means of accessing the Internet (Russell & Huang, 2009).   “In January 2009, over 25 million Americans reported using their Public library more than 20 times in the last year, up from 20.3 million Americans in 2006” (ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing, 2010).  The following is a 2009 report on library computer use in the ALA web publication,  A Perfect Storm Brewing:  Budget Cuts Threaten Library Services at Time of Increased Demand:

Figure A1: Use of Public Internet Workstations, by Metropolitan Status
Metropolitan Status
Use of Workstations	Urban	Suburban	Rural	Overall
Use of workstations increased since last fiscal year	79.0% (n=2,114)	77.6% (n=4,203)	73.2% (n=5,527)	75.7% (n=11,844)
Use of workstations decreased since last fiscal year	2.8% (n=75)	3.5% (n=191)	2.9% (n=216)	3.1% (n=482)
Use of workstations have stayed the same since last fiscal year	16.8% (n=450)	18.1% (n=980)	23.1% (n=1,744)	20.3% (n=3,174)
Weighted missing values, n=336

         Rural areas, in particular, benefit from the vast amounts of information available on the web, their communities tend to have higher illiteracy rates, and fewer information resources (Russell & Huang, 2009).  Native American communities also benefit from the Internet access provided by the libraries in their communities, for many tribes the library has developed into the hub of their communities (Russell &Huang, 2009).

          In addition to libraries providing Internet access for their patrons, 76%  provide wireless, and 70% of libraries offer higher speeds of Internet access, 1.5Mbps (T1), than are available elsewhere in the community (Davis et al., 2010).  Some of the sources of information available via the library Internet are: 

Ninety percent of libraries offer licensed databases, which provide access to articles from thousands of newspapers and periodicals; practice tests for the GED, SAT, civil service exams and more; genealogy resources; and business and medical information. Online homework resources and audio content also are offered by more than 70 percent of public libraries (Davis et al., 2010). 

However, it has been reported that by 14.3 % of libraries that they experienced budget cuts in FY2009 (Davis et al., 2010).  “More than half (53 percent) of the state library agencies that provide state funding to public libraries report declining state funding in FY2009, according to questionnaires to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies (COSLA)” (Davis et al., 2010).  Barriers that challenge public libraries goal to provide free Internet access to the masses include: staffing requirements, patron competency, and financial issues.

Staffing Requirements 3.51

         New personnel must be hired to construct and update the libraries websites and online catalogs.  Computers themselves have maintenance issues and software maintenance must be performed on a regular basis.  In addition to hiring staff to support the Internet and computer operations, there are patron related competency issues, which must also be addressed by the libraries that provide Internet access.  Many individuals who access the Internet from the public library are first time users or relatively unfamiliar with how to navigate the web.  Not being able to access the Internet, as previously mentioned, is the definition of the digital divide.  Being able to access the web but having limited proficiency is a situation that has been termed the second-level digital divide (Hargittai, 2002).  Many individuals who access the Internet through public libraries either have no access elsewhere or limited computer competency.

Patron Competency 3.52

             The second-level digital divide is of as much concern as the first.  Individuals coming into the public library to access the Internet must be provided with some assistance to do so both effectively and efficiently.  If Internet access is provided, yet individuals do not know how to utilize a computer to access the web or do not know how to navigate the web, then having the Internet and computers available is of no real benefit.  Therefore, classes must be held at the public library, and the responsibility for providing classes falls to the library staff.  And answering questions about how to navigate the web is also a responsibility that falls on the shoulders of staff.  Additional staff may therefore be required to support Internet access.

Public Libraries as Community Access Centers 3.53

      There are additional issues pertaining to the increased and diversified staff in a community access library as compared to a library which does not provide Internet access to their patrons.  By diversified staff I am referring to library staff that specializes in computer technologies.   The increase in staff at the library to maintain and operate the computers affects the hierarchy of the library.  This can lead to disagreements and disgruntled employees especially when the Internet support staff is earning more and has more say than that of a general librarian.  A librarian should not be on the bottom rung of the totem pole.  In order to be a librarian an individual must have acquired both a Bachelors degree and a Masters degree, this should confer a certain degree of status in the library setting.

       Finally, there is the issue of cost. Even with the assistance of E-Rate, implementation of Internet in a library setting is extremely costly.  Staff must be hired and trained.  Computers and software must be purchased and maintained.  It is simply not feasible for most libraries to implement an extensive Internet access program even with government assistance. 

The Benefits of Internet Access 3.6

           Why is Internet access such a pertinent issue in America?  How is the Internet utilized by American citizens? How could connection to the Internet change someone’s life?  America is a country that supports the concept of equal opportunity.  “In today’s labor market, possessing technical skills is crucial for the job hunter to enhance the odds of finding gainful employment” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 3).  Individuals who do not have access to the Internet are excluded from the financial benefits associated with the Internet and with the acquisition of basic computer skills.  In the U.S. minorities are being excluded from Internet access at a much higher rate than Whites.  The minority community already suffers from poverty due to racial discrimination and the lingering effects of segregation.  Lack of access to the Internet compounds the problems associated with racial inequality. 

            The American job market demands skilled workers.  “Since most jobs require some postsecondary experience and the intense use of information technology products and services, new approaches are clearly needed to ratchet up skills substantially to meet workforce demands” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 19). The market demands workers who are familiar with computers and how to navigate the web.  The socioeconomic gap between rich and poor expands along with the digital divide.  “Civil rights groups fret that the skills gap will expand, relegating millions of workers to the netherworld of underemployment and poverty” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 18).  When individuals lack these skills they are unlikely to find employment and employers are left with a dearth of employees:

Having jobs go unfilled costs industry billions of dollars annually, and raising the skills and education levels of the millions of young adults who are out of school and uncredentialed would generate billion [sic] of dollars in earnings over the course of their productive lifetimes.  One economic justification is that the telecommunications and media sector is one-sixth of the nation’s economy and will drive future growth. (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 11)

 Individuals who do not have access to the Internet suffer financially.

Financial Benefits of Internet and Computer Competency 3.7

            Mossberger et al., conducted a study to determine what, if any, benefits were gained by individuals who had developed computer skills to navigate the web.  The study found that minorities, African-Americans and Latinos, benefited the most from having computer skills.  Table 2 depicts the percentage difference in pay by workers who know how to utilize the Internet (Karen Mossberger, 2007, p. 41).  The data for table 2 were provided by Mossberger et al.  from page 41 of Digital Citizenship:

African American Men African American Women Latinos Latinas White Men White Women

Wage Premium/ Internet Use at Work 18.36% 17.31% 16.99% 16.11% 14.77% 13.56%

Table 2

How could restricted access to the Internet be a serious detriment to those affected?  According to the findings presented by Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal, individuals who do not have access to the Internet suffer financially.  In addition to utilizing the Internet for work related activities, the Internet is a valuable tool for civic engagement.

Civic Engagement as a Result of Internet Access 3.8

      By looking closely at the issue of civic engagement this paper attempts to bring to the forefront, once again, in addition to the digital and social divides, the democratic divide.  When referring to the concept of civic engagement, the scope of the discussion is not limited to rhetoric about political participation, but also includes e-government.  It is necessary to explore both of the above mentioned contexts in order to determine the benefits that can be attributed to Internet access and the chasm of deprivation that exists if Internet access is not available.  The Internet figured prominently in the past several elections: 2000, 2004, and 2008, which makes a lack of access to the Internet an extension of the democratic divide.  Many conversations about who should be the next president of the United States were held in chat rooms, and were featured in blog posts, or emails.  Missing out on these conversations meant missing out on a portion of the democratic process.  This is unfair.  This is not what democracy and America are all about.  Equal rights and equal access to the democratic process are the cornerstones of the American belief system.  Democracy and equal access are what defines America as America.  Without access to the Internet and, therefore, to vital part of the democratic process, many members of the minority community in the U.S. are suffering in the reality of the democratic divide.

          Several characteristics of the Internet, such as lack of personal face to face contact and   linguistic cues such as body language and emotional expression have led scholars and pundits to assume that the Internet is not a format which would encourage civic engagement (Karen Mossberger, 2007, p. 50).  However, according to Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal (2007), access to the Internet does in fact encourage civic engagement.

        Mossberger et al. compared data from the Presidential election held in 2000 and the Presidential election held in 2004 and found a positive correlation between access to news in general, political knowledge, and political discussion.  In addition, the study found a positive correlation between news accessed online and political knowledge and political interest.  The study found that the connection between political knowledge and political interest contributes to an increase in civic engagement.

            Mossberger, Tolbert, and McNeal (2007) also monitored email and chat room activity in order to determine whether political participation was affected and found that “all online activities are linked to increased voting, but during election years only” (Karen Mossberger, 2007, p. 81).  It is clear, therefore, that access to the Internet increases political participation.  It is also clear, therefore, that to be excluded from the online political conversation is an example of the democratic divide.  Democracy is such an important issue in America; it is surprising that more has not been said by the media about the democratic divide.  Members of the minority community in America already struggle to an excessive degree with finances, education, housing, and jobs, etc..  Excluding minorities from the political process, and leaving the minority community with less say in the political process, compounds the problems which exist in the minority community.        

                There is a positive correlation between email, online chats, and voting (Karen Mossberger, 2007, p. 82).  This positive correlation leads one to wonder how the lack of Internet access would then affect those individuals, usually African-American and Latino, who do not have access to the Internet at home because, for them, it is not affordable?  If Internet access were not provided by schools and the public library, where would these individuals go for Internet access?  Now many government services are available online.  They are commonly referred to as e-government.  What if African American and Latino citizens were unable to access government resources and services?

       African Americans and Latino/as are being excluded from digital citizenship at a much higher rate than are Whites.  African Americans and Latino/as have fewer opportunities to access the Internet than Whites, and are therefore being excluded from political and social participation in the democratic process.  The fact that the American government has moved the majority of services it provides online only makes the problem worse and the situation more serious.

E-Government Defined 3.92

          E-government is, “the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions” to a limited degree through the Internet (Webster, 2009).  E-government cannot be viewed in a context separate from the digital divide (Natalie Helbig, 2009).  “Digital divides remain as obstacles to universal adoption of e-government as large populations continue to lack the basic tools and capabilities to be full participants in the online world” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 24).  Individuals need access to the Internet in order to participate in e-government.  E-government has the possibility of completely altering the way in which an individual interacts with their government at a local and national level.  Placing government services online can improve the quality of service that individuals receive and shorten the time spent waiting to receive services.  Student loan information, social security, and government subsidized programs such as foods stamps are presently available online.  Community access centers such as public libraries serve the public through providing access to these important forms of public assistance.

       If it were not for public libraries large portions of the minority community would lack access to the Internet.  Public libraries are building bridges across the great expanse of the digital divide.  Yet public libraries in America remain underfunded; stretched to their limits financially.  Are public access centers such as public schools and public libraries doing enough, or is it time for the government to take brave new steps to erase the disparity that exists between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not?  In addition to e-government, there is now a large and thriving healthcare industry referred to as e-health which is additional impetus for increasing Internet access in America.

 E-Health and Internet Access 3.94

       “The term e-health is used as a catchall for a variety of health sector applications—everything from telemedicine, the use of telecommunications to provide medical information and services, to medical informatics, the collection and distribution of data such as computer-based medical records” (Wilhelm, 2004, p. 49).  With the aging population in the U.S. e-health is of growing benefit for those individuals who have chronic illnesses which must be monitored on a regular basis such as diabetes and high blood pressure.  Individuals can send data from the home environment or from a public access center, such as the public library, to their physician via the Internet.  This is particularly important for individuals living in rural areas.  This will obviate nursing home care, for many individuals, until a later date if at all. 

       If Internet access were not available through public libraries, many Americans would be excluded from a necessary avenue through which to monitor their health.  Avoiding hospitalizations by monitoring health and their concerns through the Internet, before they become serious, can potentially save the American government millions. Minorities in America could benefit in unforeseen ways.  Like other institutions in the U.S., the healthcare industry is no stranger to racial inequities.  Minorities are less likely to have healthcare, and are therefore more likely not to be seen by a doctor in a timely manner when a condition arises.  In addition, minorities are more likely to show up at a state run emergency room, which is both more costly and more time-consuming.  E-health can be utilized to improve the health statistics of all Americans.

Library Success Stories 3.95

Libraries, especially public libraries can play a vital role in bridging the digital divide by providing access to computer and the internet to those who do not have such facilities.  The perception that libraries are for the elite in universities should be eradicated.  Libraries are for everyone, educated and uneducated, rich and poor.  They are equalizers and democratic force in access to computers, the internet, information, learning and training. (Seyed Vahid Aqili, 2008)

           According to Russell (2009) libraries all over the United States are helping to bridge the digital divide.  Public libraries in the U.S. provide free Internet access, computer classes and access to software and databases to patrons who do not have access elsewhere.  Low income families and the unemployed, who do not have access to the Internet at home, especially benefit. Patrons living in small towns and rural towns benefit as well.  “In some Native American reservation areas, tribal libraries are increasingly becoming the principal information center for tribes, making them the logical site for providing public access to computers and the internet” (Susan E. Russell, 2009).

        Where are libraries succeeding in providing Internet access and what are some of the most successful programs implemented by public libraries?  How are individuals benefiting from access to the Internet through their public libraries?   The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation are helping to level the playing field for those individuals who do not have access to the Internet at home by supporting the implementation of both hardware and software for Internet access in public libraries all over America (Bill Gates, 2004). 

            A report released by Bill Gates Senior on February 25, 2004 reflects on the past state of Internet access through public libraries (Bill Gates, 2004).  “In 1996, only 28 percent of public library systems offered public Internet access” (Bill Gates, 2004).  This is an astonishingly low percentage.  “Today, more than 95 percent of library buildings offer public access computing, and 14 million Americans regularly use these computers (Bill Gates, 2004).

        The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation credit the public library for providing Internet access to individuals who are members of socioeconomic groups which are less likely to have access to a computer and the Internet at home (Bill Gates, 2004).  The report notes that African-Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans are less likely to have access to the Internet from home (Bill Gates, 2004).  The report also mentions the fact that African-American, Latinos, and Native Americans are also more likely to have a yearly income of less than 15,000.00 dollars (Bill Gates, 2004). “‘Today, if you can reach a public library, you can reach the Internet,’ said Bill Gates, Sr., co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and a featured speaker at the Public Library Association conference” (Bill Gates, 2004).

          The public libraries in Colorado are also successfully bridging the digital divide by offering computer and Internet services to members of their state.  Moe (2002) investigated the Colorado State Library system to see how the library system was meeting the needs of their patrons.  The U.S. Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA) funded research to survey 2,000 individuals who utilized the library system to see how the library was bridging the digital divide.  The patrons of the library were a diverse group of users from all walks of life, however only adults and older teens were surveyed.  According to the survey, 82% of individuals who came to the Colorado State Library did so to utilize Internet services.   Over half (67%) this number had no other access to the Internet.  In addition, the poorest patrons (19%) relied on the library to learn how to navigate the web.  This information provides a great deal of insight into who was accessing the Internet from the Colorado State Library and how those patrons were being served.  There was very little difference by gender; however, there were significant differences by age, income level, educational level, and race.

        Approximately half of the Internet users were thirty plus years old (Moe, 2002).    Almost one-third who accessed the Internet via the Colorado State Library more than once a  week were considered poor because they were living below the poverty line.  In addition, a little more than one-third of those individuals surveyed who had obtained a bachelor’s degree accessed the Internet via the Colorado State library more than one time a week  as well (Moe, 2002).  African Americans and Latino/as who accessed the Internet via the Colorado State library often were relatively new to computer and Internet use, less than a year and less than two years respectively, for this reason they often used the computer and Internet access to build skills such as word processing, email, and search strategies (Moe, 2002).

       Overall, the study found the library to be an integral part of the Colorado community.  Access to computers and the Internet were being provided for individuals who did not have access elsewhere.  Instructional classes were being provided to familiarize members of the Colorado community with computer and Internet use.  And a surprising number of individuals with bachelor’s degrees were accessing the Internet via the Colorado State library system.   Although the poor gained some much needed attention and access to computers and the Internet, the entire community was being served.  The digital divide was being successfully bridged.

           The Colorado State Library can be utilized as an example for other libraries.  “Colorado public libraries provide 2,297 computers for public use, of which 1,492 provide Internet access, costing $2,576,885 annually” (Moe, 2002).  The state libraries of Colorado are investing a considerable amount of time, energy, and finances into providing Internet access to those individuals who would otherwise not have access.  This provision of Internet access assists patrons in communication, job seeking, egovernment access, and basic research needs.  Other libraries across the country can learn how to provide access to the disconnected by the example set by the Colorado State Libraries.  It is definitely working for them.

         In addition to the Colorado State Library there are several other more recent programs that are bringing the public library and the community together to bridge the digital divide (Susan E. Russell, 2009).  These programs take a close look at the various demographic groups, which lack access to computers, software, and the Internet.  The majority of individuals who lack Internet access are members of the minority community.  African Americans and Latino/as, in particular, rely on the public library for access to the Internet.  The library works with the community to design programs, which are specifically tailored to the community’s needs, thereby bridging the digital divide (Susan E. Russell, 2009). “For example, Norman Public Library in Oklahoma offers computer classes to help its users learn how to use various software programs and conduct online information searches” (Susan E. Russell, 2009). 

        The more relevant the computer training sessions are to the community members, the more beneficial the computer and Internet services are for patrons.  Many members of the minority community in the U.S. are late adopters.  It is very important that libraries work with communities to develop computer and Internet education programs that are responsive to the information and communication needs of the minority community.  The more relevant computers and the Internet are to this community, the more they will utilize and contribute to the Internet.  These contributions have the potential to increase the relevance of the Internet to other minority community members.  There should be equal opportunity for digital citizenship.  Public libraries in America are making this aspiration a reality.

      

Chapter IV: Great Britain

Great Britain

       The challenges which have created the digital divide in America have been discussed,  however, to make a comparison the second half of the thesis will deal with America’s greatest ally—Great Britain.  What is the state of the digital divide in Great Britain?  What is the history of Internet legislation in Great Britain?  How is the British government currently meeting the needs of their citizens insofar as Internet connection is concerned?  How is access provided by the British government benefiting citizens?  What are some of the “best practices” utilized by the British?  Could the same “best practices” utilized by the British be implemented in America?  If so, which ones and how?

John Major 1990

       John Major was Prime Minister of the UK from 1990 to 1997 (Britannica, John Major, 2010) .  There is a dearth of information available on John Major and the digital divide.  I searched on both Google and through FSU libraries Factsearch.  I have concluded that archived information regarding John Major and the digital divide is not available on the web. 

        I, however, thought that it was important to include the years that John Major was Prime Minister of the UK because they encompass the years that Bill Clinton was president of the United States, from 1993-2001 (Britannica, Bill Clinton, 2010).  I was attempting to compare the policies which were active in the UK between the years of 1993 and 2001 to those policies which were active in the United States during those same years regarding the digital divide.

1988-1998

      There is a particular study which bears mentioning when reviewing the past history of the digital divide in both the U.S. and in Great Britain.  This particular study is entitled, “Give PC’s a Chance: Personal Computer Ownership and the Digital Divide in the United States and Great Britain” (John Schmitt, 2002).  It was conducted by John Schmitt and Jonathan Wadsworth (2002).  Although the study covers the years of 1988-1998, it was not published until 2002 (John Schmitt, 2002).  The study compares PC acquisition and ownership in the U.S. to that in Great Britain.

         For the years of 1988-1994 individuals in Great Britain had greater PC ownership than their U.S. counter parts (John Schmitt, 2002).  However, incomes in Great Britain were comparatively lower than incomes in America.  In 1994 Americans increased the rate at which they were purchasing computer equipment (John Schmitt, 2002).  By the year 1995 Americans owned a greater number of PCs than their English counter parts.  By 1998 the English were 1.7 years behind the Americans in their PC ownership (John Schmitt, 2002).  There were more differences within the two countries than between the two countries (John Schmitt, 2002).

           There were some interesting findings in this study.  “PC ownership varies across households in patterns that closely reflect the distribution of income in the ‘old economy’: PC ownership is heavily concentrated in households with the highest incomes and best formal educations, especially those with married, ‘prime aged,’ household heads” (John Schmitt, 2002).  In America this division of PC ownership fell along the same lines as the racial divide (John Schmitt, 2002).  White Americans were more likely to own a PC.  “In Great Britain, which has a much smaller non-white population, however, PC ownership rates were higher for non-whites” (John Schmitt, 2002).

Prime Minister Tony Blair 1997

       Tony Blair served as the British Labour Party leader and prime minister of the United Kingdom from 1997 until 2007 (Britannica, Tony Blair, 2010). “He was the youngest prime minister since 1812 and the longest-serving Labour prime minister, and his 10-year tenure as prime minister was the second longest continuous period (after Margaret Thatcher’s) in more than 150 years” (Britannica, Tony Blair, 2010).  In April of 2005 Tony Blair launched a three year plan to bridge the digital divide in the UK (McCue, 2005).  The plan called for the provision of universal broadband access (McCue, 2005).  “One of the pledges is for a “digital challenge” prize of up to $18.8 million (10 million pounds) for the first local authority and its partners able to demonstrate universal online access to local public services” (McCue, 2005).  Tony Blair also announced a plan to provide a “low-cost national laptop- and PC-leasing scheme” (McCue, 2005).  These were initiatives in the right direction.

Digital Divide 2006 

    “Research firm Point Topic has warned that the take-up of high-speed Internet access is still skewed in favour of prosperous urban areas, and the problem may be getting worse” (Wearden, 2006).  Areas in and around London were the most likely places for people to be connected by broadband even though it was estimated that 99% of the population could have broadband access (Wearden, 2006).  The analyst group, Point Topic, conducted interviews to determine who was still not connected to the information infrastructure they found that poor families, for the most part, still lacked digital connectivity (Wearden, 2006).  Point Topic also reported that there needed to be a pressing need to be connected to the Internet, a relevance, to encourage new families to get connected (Wearden, 2006).

 Prime Minister Gordon Brown 2007

        Prime Minister Gordon Brown was born in Scotland (Britannica, Gordon Brown, 2010).   He was a “British Labour Party politician who served as chancellor of the Exchequer (1997–2007)” (Britannica, Gordon Brown, 2010).  Gordon Brown was voted into the office of prime minister of the United Kingdom in 2007 (Britannica, Gordon Brown, 2010).  Prime Minister Gordon Brown is still serving out his term (Britannica, Gordon Brown, 2010). “At the time of his elevation to prime minister, he [Gordon Brown] had been the longest continuously serving chancellor of the Exchequer since the 1820s” (Britannica, Gordon Brown, 2010).  Prime Minister Gordon Brown chose to continue the work begun by Tony Blair to close the digital divide in the UK.

       Prime Minister Gordon Brown initiated a plan to distribute subsidized laptops to children in low-income families (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).  The plan is to invest 300million pounds into hardware, software, broadband, and technical support for low-income families (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).  A subsidy of 700 pounds per low-income family is being offered to school children so that their parents can purchase laptops (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).  “Political advisors said that Brown believes it is clearly unfair for children to be disadvantaged by lack of a home computer, and was influenced by the fact that 90 percent of jobcenter advertisements now require some computer experience” (Parlimentary reporter, 2008).

Digital Divide Continued 2008

      “While broadband continues its march into ever more homes in the UK, new figures from the Office of National Statistics (ONS) also reveal that more than a third of households are still going without a web connection” (Lomas, 2008).  Internet connection figures for the UK improved. “. . . 65% of homes –some 16.46 million households. . .” were connected via the Internet (Lomas, 2008).    The numbers of individuals connected to the Internet had shown a steady increase.  There had been an increase of “1.23 million households since 2007” (Lomas, 2008).  The new figures posted by ONS showed that “56%” of homes that were connected to the Internet in the UK were connected via broadband.

          It was noted in the ONS statistics that while Britons overall were becoming more savvy about Internet technology there was a growing apathetic segment in society that did not see the need to be connected to the Internet (Lomas, 2008).  This section of society believed that they could do fine without.  The link between those who were connected and those who were not connected could be drawn back to educational level and age (Lomas, 2008).  Individuals with a qualification or a university degree and who were under the age of 70 were most likely to be online (Lomas, 2008).  The ONS report showed that the majority of people who accessed the Internet did so from home and there was a growing digital divide between the North and the South (Lomas, 2008).  The Southeast was the most connected area while the northeast showed a much smaller connectivity rate. (Lomas, 2008).

The Digital Divide at Present 2010  

     The digital divide is still an issue in the U.K..  There are approximately “10 million” adults in the U.K. who have never been online before and “4 million” these individuals are amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged members of the U.K. community (Anderson, 2010).  Martha Lane Fox is in charge of RaceOnline2012, a national program which is charged with the job of getting the 4 million members of the UK community, who are disconnected, online by the next Olympics which will be held in London (Anderson, 2010).   “Supplementary goals include giving all unemployed adults an email account and Internet access, and ensuring that 60 per cent of over-65’s get online” (Anderson, 2010).

      There are plans in the UK to close down the central check clearing central system by 2018 (Anderson, 2010).  At present it costs approximately one pound to write a check (Anderson, 2010).  Banking online is infinitely cheaper.  With no more central check clearing system all banking will have to move online.  Those individuals who are disconnected will not only have trouble finding jobs and keeping in touch with the rest of the world, they will have money management problems.

    The goal in the U.K. is universal access to broadband by 2017 (90% of the population) (Anderson, 2010).  “A 50p per month tax will be applied, if the Government has its way, to every copper telephone landline in the UK to pay for next-generation broadband across the country” (Anderson, 2010).  The government is following through with the 270,000 laptop program that will provide hardware to children in low-income families (Anderson, 2010). 

          Paul A. Longley and Alexander D. Singleton in their article, “Linking Social Deprivation and Digital Exclusion in England,” take a close look at the state of the digital divide in England.  In the article they report the results of their study investigating whether there is a link between social deprivation and digital exclusion in England.  The paper by Longley and Singleton highlights the changing face of the digital divide in England.  The digital divide, according to Longley and Singleton, is no longer simply about the “’haves’” and the “’have-nots’” (Singleton, 2009).  The digital world is now ubiquitous.  The concern now is who out of the population is still on the periphery of digital inclusion?  The concern is who has the most limited access to the digital world?

         In order to link digital exclusion and social deprivation Longley and Singleton choose to utilize the 2004 Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD).  “This widely used summary measure is an aggregation of seven constituent domains—income, employment, health deprivation and disability, education skills and training, barriers to housing and services, crime, and the living environment” (Singleton, 2009).  This was done so that the research team could locate individuals and neighborhoods which qualify as materially deprived.

         This study was conducted “. . . under the UK Economic and Social Research Councils (ESRC) ‘E-society’ program. . .” (Singleton, 2009).  Longley and Singleton applied a geodemographic technique to the study by classifying individuals who live throughout England into twenty-one different categories based on their postal codes (Singleton, 2009).  An individual’s data was then collected and reviewed in light of where that individual lived.  In this way the study tied location to social deprivation.  The authors of this study did not want to utilize the term “’digital exclusion’” because they felt that the term was far too pejorative, the authors, Longley and Singleton, prefer the term “’digital unengagement’” (Singleton, 2009).

        “Using the 2001 population counts disseminated by the Office for National Statistics . . ., the implication is that in 2001 approximately 5.61 million people in England were living within areas which were characterized as both materially deprived and unengaged with respect to ICT usage” (Singleton, 2009).  The results of the study found that while materially deprivation and digital unengagement coincide in many cases, there were instances where the unengaged were not materially deprived.  The article provides a map of the areas which are materially deprived and digitally unengaged.  The majority of the individual’s who are materially deprived and e-unengaged, live in rural areas.  The map also shows a division between North and South England.  More individuals who are materially deprived and digitally unengaged live in North England.  “There is increasing awareness that the failure of individuals, households and communities to engage with new information and communications technologies has negative consequences in both the private (for example, purchasing behaviour) and public (for example, accessing services) domains” (Singleton, 2009). 

      In November of 2003 a study was published on the “impact on and use of the internet by socially excluded groups in London” (Authority, 2003).  Research was conducted in focus groups of approximately six people in size (Authority, 2003).  Total, 130 people participated in the study (Authority, 2003).  There were 20 focus groups (Authority, 2003). 

        The focus groups all included members of the London community who were considered to be socially excluded. “Social exclusion is a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown” (Authority, 2003).  The focus groups were also composed of individuals who were “managing public access and ICT training initiatives” (Authority, 2003).

        The reason the study was conducted was to take a closer look at the digital divide in London, England.  The digital divide, for the purposes of this study, is considered to be the distance between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not.  The focus groups were mixed with individuals who had not used the Internet and those individuals who had used it for four years or less.  None of the individuals who were utilized as focus group members could have been considered experts insofar as the Internet is concerned.

        Throughout the study the data was compared to the national (UK) data which had been obtained on a previous study.  For the purposes of this paper the UK data will be disregarded.  In many instances the data which was collected throughout the UK did not reflect the data which was collected in London.  The study’s initial finding for the lack of Internet access among socially excluded groups was that individuals were not interested in becoming connected.  A close second to not being interested was the perception that computer equipment and the cost of connecting to the Internet were not affordable.

     In order to scale the first barrier to Internet access some interest in being connected to the Internet had to be generated.  For most people that interest came with the use of email.  The members of socially excluded groups come from diverse minority backgrounds and often had ties overseas.  The study found that the exorbitant cost of international phone calls prevented them from staying in touch with family and friends, which was a strong motivator for Internet participation.  This study was able to examine the motivations of a large number of minority community members.  It should be mentioned that in the U.K. a larger number of members of the minority community are connected to the Internet than members of the White community.  This differs drastically to the situation which persists in the U.S.  In the U.S. members of the minority community are the ones at a disadvantage.  Minority community members in the U.S. have a lower connection rate to the Internet than members of the White community.

       The reduced cost of email via the Internet drew many interested members of the socially excluded groups into libraries and community access centers.  The community access centers were preferred because they provided assistance and time did not need to be scheduled like in the library.  Email was also a benefit for those members of the socially excluded groups who were suffering from isolation.  The elderly and disabled benefited tremendously from email and the use of the Internet through the sense of community that was developed while online.

      The second cause of not being connected to the internet, due to a lack of equipment and service, was reinforced by the perception that equipment and Internet service were more expensive than they actually were.  During the focus groups this myth was dispelled.  In fact it was calculated that the cost of being connected to the Internet pays for itself when time searching for information and the cost of money saved by purchases made online were subtracted from the equation.

      The individuals involved in the focus groups were not necessarily representative of all socially excluded groups in London.  The focus group participants were much more interested in finding out more about the Internet and how to get connected than the average socially excluded individual.  Curiosity was an impetus for participating in the focus groups.  In addition, a sample of only 130 individuals can in no way represent the entire socially excluded community of London.  However, the findings in this study were utilized to make recommendations to the London community regarding providing Internet access for socially excluded community members.

Conclusion

      In the conclusion of this paper I will reiterate the recommendations made for the London community in regards to bridging the digital divide.  England is America’s closest ally and as such we should be abreast of the latest developments in London in order to compete in the global economy.  The recommendations made by the authors of this study would provide benefits to almost any community in which they were applied. 

        The first recommendation by the authors of this study is to “promote curiosity” (Authority, 2003).  The internet offers a wealth of information and resources.  After having completed participation in the focus groups participants knew well how much the Internet has to offer.  However, prior to embarking upon this journey with the study on socially excluded groups many members of the focus groups had no idea what the Internet had to offer them.

           According to the authors of this study promoting curiosity encompasses more than merely enticing one or two individuals into trying the Internet.  The study recommends a publicity campaign of “try it” in order to encourage as many individuals as possible to access the Internet through community access points (Authority, 2003).  Once skills and confidence have been developed by individuals their interest in the Internet can be pursued to greater depths.

         The second recommendation from the study is, “an extended role for online center” (Authority, 2003).  The authors of the study believed that community access centers could utilize their position as Internet provider in the community to debunk the myth that computer equipment and Internet access were unaffordable.  Studies have shown that individuals who access the Internet from home utilize the net differently and more often than individuals who access the Internet through community access centers, therefore purchasing a computer and connecting at home should be recommended.  The benefits of being included in the greater community should be stressed.

       The third recommendation of the study is to “widen access at work” (Authority, 2003).  Many members of the socially excluded group did not receive training at work to utilize a computer or were excluded from an Internet connection at work altogether.  There are economic reasons why work places should train their employees to be competent users of the computer and the Internet.  Profitability can increase when a business goes online.  In addition, banking and business transactions can also be conducted more efficiently online.

       The fourth recommendation of this study is create “a public access resource center” (Authority, 2003).  This public access resource center would be utilized to support community access centers.  The public access resource center could pull together a curriculum for computer and Internet access courses which could then be offered to the community.  The public access resource center could also provide support for staff at the various community access centers and the public access resource center could provide the coordination and facilitation of meetings between various members, their staff, and the community at large to reinforce computing and Internet access goals.

         The fifth recommendation of this study is to begin a “network for good practice” (Authority, 2003).  An annual meeting should be convened in the community to discuss ways in which to traverse the digital divide and to increase the participation of the socially excluded.  Results from studies regarding the digital divide should be shared at this meeting and ways in which to ameliorate the digital divide should be brought to the table.  It should be made clear that no one should be excluded from the digital community.  This event could become a regular annual event with smaller networking and problem solving community focused meeting being held more frequently.

         The sixth recommendation of this study is, “ICT help and training information” (Authority, 2003).   ICT help and training information would encompass a telephone center located in close proximity to the community access points that would provide computer and Internet assistance via the phone and via the web as well as schedules for community access and public library free computer and Internet classes.  The seventh recommendation from this study is, “neighborhood ICT support” (Authority, 2003).  Neighborhoods should be encouraged to organize computer and Internet support groups where individuals can meet informally to discuss computer and Internet issues.

     The seventh recommendation from this study is to “enhance stimulus for learning” (Authority, 2003).  It is easy for someone to admit that they are not proficient in compterese however it is more difficult for an individual to come to grips with illiteracy or other basic educational deficiencies (Authority, 2003).  Introduction to computers and the Internet should be seen as a jumping off point.  Other educational needs can be combined with computer and Internet learning.  Community access centers should, therefore, work cooperatively with learning centers to help individual’s master basic literacy and other educational skills such as computation and GED certification.

       Based on the information about how the digital divide is being traversed in the UK, there is one more recommendation: to make computers available to school children here in America for Internet access from home.  This recommendation is based the UK laptop program for financially challenged school children.  As previously stated, people who access the Internet from home engage in a variety of activities on the Internet that they would not participate in from community access centers.  Children need to have the flexibility, when doing their homework, which only comes from having Internet access at home.  Children may have homework which requires excessive periods of time on the Internet.  Their work may need to be done early in the morning or very late in the evening when community access centers are not available.  Children all over the U.S. need to be able to access the Internet from home.  “Solving the digital divide, according to the Digital Divide Organization (2006) is considered as a precondition for reducing poverty, resolving terrorism and achieving sustainable world markets” (Seyed Vahid Aqili, 2008).

Works Cited

Administration, N. T. (2002). A Nation Online: How Americans are Expanding their use of the Internet. Washington: National Telecommunications and Information Administration and Economics and Statistics Administration.

Administration, N. T. (1999). Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide. Washington: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Administration, N. T. (1997). Falling Through the Net: New Data on the Digital Divide. Washington: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.

Anderson, B. (2010, February 3). Decoding Britain's digital Divide. London, England, UK.

Authority, G. L. (2003). Connecting People: tackling exclusion? An examination of the impact on and use of the Internet by socially excluded groups in London. London: Greater London Authority.

Bill Gates, S. (2004). New Report on Libraries and the Digital Divide . Seattle: Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life. Retrieved From http://www.pewinternet.org/Press-Releases/2004/New-Report-on-Libraries-and-the-Digital-Divide.aspx

Britannica, E. (2010, March 8). Bill Clinton. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/121813/Bill-Clinton

Britannica, E. (2010, February 8). Gordon Brown. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/81521/Gordon-Brown

Britannica, E. (2009, September 23). Internet. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291494/Internet

Britannica, E. (2010, March 8). John Major. Retrieved March 8, 2010, from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/358992/John-Major

Britannica, E. (2010, February 8). Tony Blair. Retrieved February 8, 2010, from Encyclopedia Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/68756/Tony-Blair

CNN. (2005). Special Report: The Clinton Years. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from CNN.com Specials: http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/clinton/

Commerce, U. D. (2004). A Nation Online: Entering the Boradband Age. Washington: U.S. department of Commerce.

Commerce, U. D. (1995). Falling Through The Net: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America. Washington: US Department of Commerce.

Commerce, U. D. (2000). Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion. Washington: U.S. Department of Commerce.

Gary Burnett, P. T. (2008, February 13). Normative Behavior and Information: The Social Aspects of Information Access. Tallahassee, Florida, USA. Retrieved from Science Direct.

Hargittai, E. (2002, April). Second -Level Digital Divide: Differences in People's Online Skills. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/

House, T. W. (2009, September 23). About the White House Presidents. Retrieved September 23, 2009, from The White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/GeorgeWBush/

Jane Margolis, R. E. (2008). Stuck in the Shallow End: Education, Race, and Computing. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

John Schmitt, J. W. (2002, April). Give PC's a Chance: Personal Computer Ownership and the Digital Divide in the United States and Great Britain. London, England, Great Britain.

Karen Mossberger, C. J. (2007). Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. London: The MIT Press.

Lee Rainie, M. M. (2003, April 16). The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide. Retrieved March 11, 2010, from Pew Internet and American Life Project: http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2003/The-EverShifting-Internet-Population-A-new-look-at-Internet-access-and-the-digital-divide.aspx

Lomas, N. (2008, August 28). Third of UK homes still lack internet access. London, England, UK.

Lynch, B. P. (2002, October 7). The Digital Divide or the Digital Connection: A U.S. Perspective. Retrieved July 15, 2009, from First Monday: http://firstmonday.org/

Male, J. S. (2010, January 17). Can We Afford Web Access for All? Parade . Gainesville, Florida, USA: Parade.com.

Marx, M. R. (1996). Does Technology Drive History? Cambridge: The MIT Press.

McCue, A. (2005, April 1). Tony Blair launches digital divide 'challenge'. London, England, UK.

Moe, T. (2002, July/August). Bridging the "Digital Divide" in Colorado Libraries: Survey Results from the Colorado Public Libraries and the "Digital Divide" 2002 Study. Colorado, USA.

Natalie Helbig, J. R.-G. (2009, January). OmniFile Full Text Mega. Retrieved September 18, 2009, from Wilson Web: http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/hww/advancedsearch/advanced_search.jhtml;hwwilsonid=KNH0JT2GQ550PQA3DIMCFGGADUNGIIV0?prod=OMNIFT

Parlimentary reporter, C. (2008). Brown announces 300m plan to bridge the digital divide. London: Incisive Media Investments Ltd.

Pozo-Olano, J. (2007). New Report Shows How E-Rate is Connecting Communities and Schools to 21st Century Academic and Employment Oppotunities. Washington: Education and Library Networks Coalition and National Coalition for Technology in Education and Training.

Project, P. I. (2009). If Obama builds it will they log on? Washington: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

Seyed Vahid Aqili, A. I. (2008). Bridging the Digital Divide: The Role of Librarians and Information Professionals in the Third Millennium. Tehran, Iran, Iran.

Singleton, P. A. (2009, June). Linking Social Deprivation and Digital Exclusion in England. London, England, UK.

Susan E. Russell, J. H. (2009). Libraries' role in equalizing access to information. Norman, Oklahoma, USA.

Wearden, G. (2006, January 19). Broadband divide getting wider. London, England, UK.

Webster, M. (2009, October 3). Government. Retrieved October 3, 2009, from Merriam Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/government

Wilhelm, A. G. (2004). Digital Nation: Toward an Inclusive Information Society. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Macleod-Ball, M., Calabrese, C., Stanley, J. (01-14-2010). COMMENTS

OF THE AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION (“ACLU”) AND

THE TECHNOLOGY AND LIBERY PROJECT OF THE ACLU.

Retrieved from http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/ACLU_Comments_on_FCC_Net_Neutrality.pdf

Hoffman, D. L., & Novak, T. P. (4-17-1998). Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet. SCIENCE, 280. Retrieved from http://www.cybercultura.it/pdf/1998_Bridging_Digita_Divide.pdf

Garlin, G.II (2010, March 18). Protecting Internet Freedom will Close the Digital Divide. Period. End of Story. [Save the Internet]. Retrieved from http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/10/03/18/protecting-internet-freedom-will-close-digital-divide-period-end-story

Hawke, M. (2009, March 16). Combating Racism in America. Berklee News. Retrieved from http://www.berklee.edu/news/558/combating-racism-in-america

Tady, M. (2010, May 1). Wired Less: Disconnected in Urban America. Retrieved from http://www.internetforeveryone.org/americaoffline/urban/intro

Harris Interactive (2005, September 14). Americans Consider Great Britain Americas Closest Ally, Polls Show. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112662319724339292.html

Reed, P. D. (2010, January). Barack Obama’s Improbable Election and the Question of Race and Racism in Contemporary America. Journal of Black Studies, 40. Retrieved from http://jbs.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/reprint/40/3/373

Brown, G. (2009, June). Digital Britain Report: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publications/digitalbritain-finalreport-jun09.pdf

Teasley, M., & Ikard, D. (2010, January). Barack Obama and the Politics of Race. Journal of Black Studies, 40. Retrieved from http://jbs.sagepub.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/reprint/40/3/411

Sack, K. & Elder, J. (2000, July 11). Poll Finds Optimistic Outlook but Enduring Racial Division. The New York Times. http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28ti%2CNone%2C17%29Race+in+America.+%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28sn%2CNone%2C9%290362-4331%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T004&prodId=AONE&searchId=R2&currentPosition=7&userGroupName=tall85761&docId=A63288123&docType=IAC

Horton, J. (2004). Is The Serpent Eating its Tail? The Digital Divide and African Americans. The Journal of Technology Studies, 30. Retrieved from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/WebZ/FSPage?pagetype=return_frameset:linktype=servicelink:sessionid=fsapp7-47969-g8oy498p-d4nc89:entitypagenum=33:0?entityframedscrolling=yes:entityframedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lib.fsu.edu:entityframedtitle=:entityframedtimeout=30

Rivas, J. (2010, February 15). The New Civil Rights Fight: Internet Access. [Racewire the colorlines blog]. Retrieved from http://www.racewire.org/archives/2010/02/the_new_civil_rights_fight_internet_access_petition.html

Pershing, G. (2010, March 26). Universal Service. Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/bar?q=history+Telephone+subsidies&page=3&qsrc=121&dm=all&ab=5&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cybertelecom.org%2Fusf%2F&sg=nxjN28Mc9JVLnZ03iq5dyS6UIQgr6aPkvruWdVwYycg%3D&tsp=1272762964772

Wigfield, M. (2010, April 21). FCC Kicks Off Universal Service Reform. Retrieved from http://www.fcc.gov/

Register, E. (2006, September 6). Data Reveal Internet Racial Gap. Gaurd. Retrieved from http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=20060906&id=voIVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dfADAAAAIBAJ&pg=6695,1294398

Gates, B. (2000, December). Shaping the Internet Age. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/billg/writing/shapingtheinternet.mspx

Gates, B. (2010) Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation: All Lives Have Equal Value. Retrieved from http://www.ask.com/bar?q=How+did+the+government+fund+library+computers%3F&page=1&qsrc=121&dm=all&ab=6&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gatesfoundation.org%2Flibraries%2FPages%2Funited-states-libraries.aspx&sg=qLRhrr%2FEzbjE0natSz%2B9BGteQ02ccy%2BGcBCaBVkJDPI%3D&tsp=1272797634934

Clinton, W. J. (1996, April 17) Executive Order #12999. Retrieved from http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep/contentView.do?contentType=GSA_BASIC&contentId=10722

Evans, J. (1996) How-to Guide Overview of NetDay 1996.  Retrieved from http://www.netday.org/howto_overview.htm

Harland, J. & Bath, P. (2007, September).  Assessing the quality of websites providing information on multiple sclerosis: evaluating tools and comparing sites. Health Informatics Journal, 15. Retrieved from http://find.galegroup.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/gtx/retrieve.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&qrySerId=Locale%28en%2CUS%2C%29%3AFQE%3D%28sn%2CNone%2C9%291460-4582%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28ti%2CNone%2C24%29Assessing+the+quality+of%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28vo%2CNone%2C2%2913%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28sp%2CNone%2C3%29207%3AAnd%3AFQE%3D%28iu%2CNone%2C1%293%24&sgHitCountType=None&inPS=true&sort=DateDescend&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&tabID=T002&prodId=AONE&searchId=R3&currentPosition=1&userGroupName=tall85761&docId=A168316553&docType=IAC

Belcher, C. (2009, December 10). Less than Half of African Americans and Hispanics Regularly Use Internet- Yet Overwhelmingly Majority Agrees that Internet Access is Critical to Success in Education, Business, Community and Family Life. Business Wire. Retrieved from http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20091210005194&newsLang=en

Becker, E. (1999). Chronology on the History of Slavery:1619-1789. Chronology on the History of Slavery (1). Retrieved from http://innercity.org/holt/slavechron.html

Walton, A. (1999). Technology Versus African-Americans. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99jan/aftech.htm

Caravel. (2010) In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/94617/caravel

Middle Passage. (2010) In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381398/Middle-Passage

Rum. (2010) In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/512641/rum

Cotton Gin. (2010) In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/139916/cotton-gin

Cotton Harvester. (2010) In Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/139926/cotton-harvester

Chandler, A. D. Jr., & Cortada, J. W. (2000). A Nation Transformed by Information. New York, NY: Oxford University Press

Dimaggio, P., & Hargittai, E. (2001). From the ‘Digital Divide’ to `Digital Inequality’: Studying Internet Use As Penetration Increases*.  Retrieved from http://www.webuse.umd.edu/webshop/resources/Dimaggio_Digital_Divide.pdf

Fairlie, R. W. (2005, September 20). Report for the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund. Retrieved from http://www.freepress.net/files/lccrdigitaldivide.pdf

United States Census Bureau. Reported Internet Usage for Individuals 3 Years and Older, by Selected Characteristics: 2009 [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/computer/2009.html

Fitchard, K. (2009, January 26). Broadband Obama. Connected Planet Online. Retrieved from http://connectedplanetonline.com/residential_services/commentary/telecom_broadband_priority_090201/index.html

Grotticelli, M.  (2009, September 14). FCC gears up for massive broadband initiative. BroadcastEngineering. Retrieved from http://broadcastengineering.com/news/fcc-gears-up-massive-broadband-initiative-091409/

Strawn, G. O., Ph.D. (n.d.). Resolving the Digital Divide: Information, Access, and Opportunity. Retrieved from http://www.nitrd.gov/Pubs/pitac/digital_divide/pres-2feb00-ddlrecs.html

Davis, D. M., Bertot, J. C., & McClure, C. R.(2010, April 14). Public Library Funding & Technology Access Study. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/research/initiatives/plftas/2008_2009/librariesconnectcommunities3.pdf

Wedgeworth, R.(2006). The State of Adult Literacy 2006. Retrieved from http://www.proliteracy.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=14

Kolstad, A. J., & White, S. E. (n.d.). National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/naal/index.asp

Carvin, A. (2000, January/February). Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millennium. Retrieved from http://infotoday.com/mmschools/jan00/carvin.htm

Wellman, B., Haase, A. Q., Witte, J., & Hampton, K. (2001, November). Does the Internet Increase, Decrease, or Supplement Social Capital?: Social Networks, Participation, and Community Commitment. American Behavioral Scientist, 45. doi: 10.1177/00027640121957286

Henderson, W. (n.d.). About The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights & The Leadership Conference Education Fund. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/about/

Davis, A. (2010, April 19). National Broadband Plan Vital to Closing Digital Divide, FCC Tells Senate Committee. Retrieved from http://www.civilrights.org/

Cozzen, L. (1998). The Civil Rights Movement 1955-1965: Introduction. Retrieved from http://www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/contents.html

Fowler Morse, J. (2006). Education as a Civil Right: The Ongoing Struggle in New York. Educational Studies: Journal of the American Educational Studies Association, 40. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=9&sid=818211f2-de43-415d-b54e-f072ddff8c78%40sessionmgr12

Goldman, J. (n.d.). Keys vs School District No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_507

Scott, D. G. (2009). 53 How. L.J. 177. Howard Law Journal. Retrieved from http://newfirstsearch.oclc.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/WebZ/FSPage?pagetype=return_frameset:linktype=servicelink:sessionid=fsapp8-34050-g8u3vph6-f4169h:entitypagenum=2:0?entityframedscrolling=yes:entityframedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lib.fsu.edu:entityframedtitle=:entityframedtimeout=30

Browse, K. (n.d.). Parents Involved in Community Schools (PICS). Retrieved from http://www.piics.org

Seattle Public School District No.1 Case Background  (n. d.). Background on the PICS v. Seattle School District Case and Overview of the Evolution of Student Assignment in Seattle Public Schools. Retrieved from http://www.seattleschools.org/area/media/SupremeCourt/backgroundonpics.pdf

Oyez U.S. Supreme Court Media: Parents Involved v. Seattle School District No. 1 (n. d.). Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2006/2006_05_908/

DeMartini, K. (2008, March 3). Supreme Court Case Brief Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District.  Retrieved from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~keithd/documents/knowledge%20school%20integration%20court%20case%20brief.pdf

Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. III (2009). Equal Educational Opportunity and the Distribution of State Aid to Schools: Can or Should School Racial Composition Be a Factor?. Journal of Education Finance, 34.  Retrieved from http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/hww/results/results_single_fulltext.jhtml;hwwilsonid=PIA0WTEVJ4FYBQA3DIMSFF4ADUNGIIV0

Borman, K. M., Eitle, T. M., Micheal, D., Eitle, D. J., Lee, R., Johnson, L., Cobb-Roberts, D., Dorn, S., & Shircliffe, B. (2004, Fall). Accountability in a Postdesegregation Era: The Continuing Significance of Racial Segregation in Florida. American Educational Research Journal, 41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/stable/3699440?seq=23&Search=yes&term=funding&term=Continuing&term=Significance&term=Segregation&term=Era&term=Racial&term=Accountability&term=Florida&term=Postdesegregation&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fq0%3DAccountability%2Bin%2Ba%2BPostdesegregation%2BEra%253A%2BThe%2BContinuing%2BSignificance%2Bof%2BRacial%2BSegregation%2Bin%2BFlorida%26f0%3Dall%26c0%3DAND%26q1%3Dfunding%26f1%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26q2%3D%26f2%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26q3%3D%26f3%3Dall%26wc%3Don%26Search%3DSearch%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26la%3D%26jo%3D&item=1&ttl=4&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doAdvancedResultsFromArticle

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2008 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_nat.htm#b15-0000

Williams Jr., V. J. (2009, March 1). Title: Fatalism: Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology and the IQ Controversy. , 13. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&hid=15&sid=a4b1f3b5-e2dd-4a3d-8a9c-490e140c9444%40sessionmgr10

Bulger, K. (2007, April 12). A Brief History of the Digital Divide. Retrieved from http://digitalartscorps.org/node/717

Koizumi, K. (2010, January 18). Science and Engineering Indicators 2010: A Report Card for U.S. Science, Engineering, and Technology. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/01/18/science-and-engineering-indicators-2010-a-report-card-us-science-engineering-and-tec

White House: Educate to Innovate (n.d.). Educate to Innovate. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/educate-innovate

Woodruff,  J. (Interviewer) & Summers, L. H.(Interviewee). (2009). The Innovation of Economy [Interview transcript]. The White House: National Economic Council: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/nec/speeches/innovation-economy

Who Runs Gov: Lawrence H. Summers (2009). Lawrence  H. Summers. Retrieved from http://www.whorunsgov.com/Profiles/Lawrence_H._Summers

Seitles, M. (1996). THE PERPETUATION OF RESIDENTIAL RACIAL SEGREGATION IN AMERICA: HISTORICAL DISCRIMINATION, MODERN FORMS OF EXCLUSION, AND INCLUSIONARY REMEDIES. Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law. Retrieved from http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/Vol141/seit.htm

Russell, S. E., &  Huang, J. (2009). Libraries’ Role in Equalizing Access to Information. Library Management, 30. Retrieved from http://www.emeraldinsight.com.proxy.lib.fsu.edu/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filename=Published/EmeraldFullTextArticle/Articles/0150300106.html

 ALA: A Perfect Storm Brewing: Budget Cuts Threaten Library Services at Time of Increased Demand (2010, March 4).  A Perfect Storm Brewing: Budget Cuts Threaten Library Services at Time of Increased Demand. Retrieved from http://www.ala.org/ala/research/initiatives/plftas/issuesbriefs/issuebrief_perfectstorm.pdf

---