Case Study: A postgraduate student is banned from a research library, which he had been using to access rare manuscripts, after making repeated suggestive comments to female library staff.  After a six month suspension, the reader is readmitted, in line with the academic library’s Policies and Procedures.  On the day after the temporary ban has expired, the user comes to the library.  A new graduate library trainee is working on the issue desk, dealing with a complex enquiry from a student with communication difficulties.  The postgraduate student makes several suggestive and unpleasant comments, directed towards the trainee librarian.  Disturbed by this, the graduate trainee complains to the Head of Reader service and all female library staff demand that this user is banned permanently.

The editors comment...

At first glance this may seem to have been a relatively simple case to resolve.  Unfortunately, the library’s managers and staff in this case discovered that this is a relatively complex situation which required careful and considered resolution.

The salient issue seems to be that some of the library’s staff have been upset by a user.  We do not know the extent of this, but in any event it is unacceptable for an employee to be exposed to such disturbing incidents.  The library’s managers clearly are responsible for preventing such incidents, and perhaps this was their intention when first banning the student for a six-month period.  However, that ban was only temporary and the student has now returned, targeting a new graduate trainee librarian who, presumably, has not been exposed to this student’s behaviour before.  The shock is apparent as she does not hesitate to complain.  However, the library’s managers knew that the student might continue to pose a risk to staff, yet they allowed him to confront a new trainee.  The trainee librarian’s rights in this case have been compromised, and we may assume that other library employees would continue to be at risk from this student’s lewd behaviour.

The library’s professional librarians, including graduate trainees, need to ensure that all users of the library are dealt with equitably.  But providing equitable treatment in line with CILIP’s Ethical Principle 6 should not be seen as an isolated issue.  The mere provision of equitable treatment implies the consideration of others’ rights, including other users – actual and potential – and other stakeholders such as library staff.  In this case we know that the student whose lewd behaviour was unacceptable to library staff and users had a legitimate need to use this particular library (apparently it was the only UK library holding the particular manuscripts which he needed for his doctoral research).

In banning the student the library managers therefore had to consider the detrimental effect this would have on the completion of his research.  They may have considered that his unacceptable behaviour was self-determined and that he deserved to be banned from the library permanently.  Certainly it appears to be remiss that they did not consider that he would continue his lewd behaviour on returning to the library after six months.  At any rate, exposing the new trainee to this student without apparent support seems to be shortsighted.  As a trainee librarian she would need the full support of her line manager and from the library as employer, but her experience is hardly the event to attract or keep new entrants to our profession. 

Created: v0.1 01-Oct-07 : SS

Revised: v0.2 23-Oct-07 : JG-T   v1.0 26-Oct-07 : JG-T