Photo by Stefan Baudy on Flickr, CC BY 2.0
You know my last blog post? The one about library ethics and service? Would you believe that it got me invited to speak at UIUC next week? Yeah, me neither, but I’m going anyway.
One thing I find especially interesting about this invitation is that, to date, I haven’t written very much about library ethics. This, despite the fact that I used to teach professional ethics, I took every ethics seminar available in grad school, and I even wrote my Master’s thesis in meta-ethics. What the heck! Why haven’t I blogged about library ethics?
Here’s the plan: rather than write long essays about ethical theories or issues, I’m going to start posting short ethical and practical dilemmas for you to discuss. No pipe-bombs and porn here; I intend to keep it to realistic problems that the average librarian might reasonably be expected to encounter. My intent is not to lecture about how we should or should not make ethical decisions, rather, I just want to discuss our moral intuitions as librarians and professionals. In technical terms, this is an exercise in descriptive rather than prescriptive ethics. If I can get a discussion going, I’ll post a follow-up next week as well as a new dilemma.
In what follows, I’m going to provide an actual library service scenario. This actually happened (more or less). First, I’ll provide some background information, though it’s up to you to determine what is relevant. After providing the scenario, I’ll give three variations. Add to the story if you’d like, change the scenario how you please, or make any adjustments that you feel are necessary; the scenario is a discussion prompt, not a story problem. Using either the comments or the embedded form let me know what you would do in each case and whether there are any ethical or practical issues that are worth considering.
Photo by yuan2003 on Flickr, CC-BY-NC 2.0
A library service scenario: The library fines
Just before close on a Friday afternoon at your small, neighborhood branch of a large urban public library, a woman comes to the circulation desk to return six items that are each five days late. At $0.50 per day for each late item, her fine is $15. Combined with the $15 worth of fines already on her account, she is now on the hook for $30. Library software (the ILS) allows library staff to waive fines, but it will not allow patron check-outs if total fines exceed $20 due to library policy. Given that library privileges are suspended once fines top $20, this woman will be unable to check out new items until she pays at least $10. The current head of the circulation department takes library policy very seriously, but she has already gone home for the day.
These are the material facts. How would you react given the following variations:
Case 1: Harry Potter The woman is a longtime library patron and you know that she has recently fallen in love with the Harry Potter series. The six late items are the first six books in the series. She assures you that the late books were an honest mistake. She really wants to finish the series over the weekend, she doesn’t have $10, there’s no time to get to an ATM before close, and just wants to check out the seventh and final Harry Potter book.
Case 2: The G.E.D. The woman is a longtime library patron and you know that she is currently unemployed due to downsizing at a local manufacturing plant. The items she turned in late are mostly study guides and other test preparation materials for the G.E.D., which she intends to take the following week. She assures you that the late books were an honest mistake. She has $10 in her purse, but she had hoped to use it to buy fuel for her car so she can get to the G.E.D. testing facility. The book she would like to check out is the final G.E.D. study guide she needs to finish her test preparation.
Case 3: The stranger You do not recognize this patron, this is only her third visit to the library in as many years and therefore you know nothing about her. She explains that she has fallen on some hard luck and she is currently unemployed due to downsizing at a local manufacturing plant. The items she turned in late are mostly study guides and other test preparation materials for the G.E.D., which she intends to take the following week. She assures you that the late books were an honest mistake. She has $10 in her purse, but she had hoped to use it to buy fuel for her car so she can get to the G.E.D. testing facility. The book she would like to check out is the final G.E.D. study guide she needs to finish her test preparation.
Using either the blog comments or the anonymous Google Form, feel free to discuss each case in the scenario. I’m really curious to see what you think and I hope I can get at least a small discussion going about ethical and practical dilemmas in librarianship.
By SomeDriftwood on Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0
Thanks for commenting!
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
(no further comments)
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
“I do not like to turn loyal patrons away from the library. They are our greatest supporters and if we have to eat $10 to keep it that way, so be it. I also am not going to be the one to stop someone from completing something that is as important as a GED for $10. That is bad customer service. I do not care if you have not seen the person at all.”
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
“I feel libraries are here to lend books and fines a somewhat ineffectual deterrent to getting those books back on time. Rigidly sticking to the rules does not promote the library. I have often found that those I’ve waived fines for tend to come back and make a donation to the library when they are able.”
Case 1: “keep the fine, check the book out”
Case 2: “keep the fine, check the book out”
Case 3: no comment
(no further comment)
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
(no further comments)
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
“One might say that the longtime users should know policy well enough to have avoided the situation.
In all cases, it would be worthwhile discussing which values are in conflict for the staffer. ALA code of ethics states: Ethical dilemmas occur when values are in conflict.
“To me whatever ‘value’ is attributed to the library fines is trumped by the primary value of getting the items to the patrons. In some cases, I have paid fines out of my own pocket for patrons (esp. if very serious policy makers may be hovering).”
Case 1: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
(no further comment)
Case 1: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check the item out.
Case 2: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check the item out.
Case 3: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check the item out.
“This is…beside the point of the activity, I suppose, but it’s highly unlikely that ILS software would have a waiving function, but no override function. If that were a given in the task, for me, waiving/not waiving would amount to the difference between mercy and grace: I would override an account block in order to allow her to check out an item THIS ONCE (mercy), but I would not waive any fines (grace), no matter the circumstance. (You can take the preacher’s kid out of the church, but you can’t take the church out of the preacher’s kid…) Who then merits waived fines? It’s murky waters, and so it’s generally the better choice to adhere to policy.
Also…do librarians do circulation activities? As support staff, I’ve never known any of them to lift a finger in any sort of operational scenario.”
You’re absolutely correct about the ILS software; I’m cheating a little bit
And, as to the issue of librarians on the circ desk, I have two responses: First, in our library, MLS-holding librarians do sometimes take shifts on the circ desk. Even the dean spends an hour a week at circulation. And not because we’re understaffed, but because it’s important to understand all sides of the house, so to speak. Second, I know I’m in the minority here, but I don’t like the staff/librarian distinction. When I speak of “librarians” I mean “people who work in a library.”
Case 1: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check the item out.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check the item out.
(no further comment)
Case 1: Scrap the fine system.
Case 2: Scrap the fine system.
Case 3: Scrap the fine system.
“The real question here is: why do we use fines? If it is to encourage people to return items, and we know that it doesn’t work, then we should scrap this as a disincentive. If it simply alienates people and prevents them from accessing the resources they need when they need them, then it isn’t working. On the other hand, if there is real value in the fine system then it should be honored for the purpose it serves.”
Case 1: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 1: “Argument for leniency too weak and to deny would not create an ethical dilemma.”
Case 2: “A frequent user often develops a personal connection, however limited, with library staff and, based on the weight of the familiar patrons argument, grace should be granted.”
Case 3: “This is certainly a judgement call that may not be based on any prior information, but I would be inclined to give this patron a break, as well.”
Case 1: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
“This probably isn’t a popular choice, but it’s the library user’s responsibility to know the library’s policies. The fine system is in place for a reason.”
Case 1: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Do not waive the fine, do not allow the woman to check out the new item.
“I believe that rules -like fines- need to be applied fairly. I wouldn’t feel comfortable asking someone to bend/break rules for me, so yes, I am projecting my own feelings onto this situation, so I would not bend the rules for others.
Fines are charged to help maintain fairness in distribution of materials. They also act as a way of placing a tangible value on the library materials (more than “my tax dollars”) so that by their existence as an added value and a consequence they encourage timely and equitable use of library materials.
There are consequences to life, and sometimes life sucks. Not everything goes your way, and sometimes you need to pay the $10.”
[...] is a great discussion going on over at the Sense and Reference blog concerning three case studies dealing with library fines. If you haven’t seen it, click on [...]
Case 1: Waive the fine if it hasn’t been done before
Case 2: Waive the fine if it hasn’t been done before
Case 3: Waive the fine if it hasn’t been done before
“In most (if not all) library systems, there is an option to place notes on patron records. If you waive the fine, or override the block to allow the individual to check out material, place a note on the record. Let the patron know that it is a 1 time only deal. If they’ve done it before, then the answer is no.”
Case 1: Let the patron check out the book, but leave the fine.
Case 2: Let the patron check out the book, but leave the fine.
Case 3: Let the patron check out the book, but leave the fine.
“Your imaginary ILS must have an override somewhere, even if a manager has to do it, or the circ specialist, or the systems lady, or you have to write down the barcodes on a 3×5 piece of paper and file it in a drawer. Technology should not impose on ethics.
Your goal is to help people use the library. None of these people are abusing the system.”
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
(no further comments)
Case 1: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 2: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
Case 3: Waive the fine, allow the woman to check out the new item.
(no further comments)
[...] Comments « The late fines (Library Dilemma #1) [...]