Are Public Libraries Criminalizing Poor People?
January 12, 2008
While performing my weekly duties as a Page (bookshelver and gofer) at a public library, I found myself close to retching. Perfume. Something fruity and stinky. The culprit? Another Page. Yuck.
I guess she didn’t smell quite as bad as some of our patrons. The mix of urine, alcohol, unwashed bodies and who knows what else can take your breath away. Some people complain when confronted by the unwashed, and the library staff struggle (some more than others) over how to respond. Do they plug their noses, open windows, and tolerate the stench? (Have you ever observed anyone being asked to leave a public library for wearing perfume?) Or do they remove the “offender” and ask (or sometimes compel) the “smelly ones” to leave? There are different ways to go about this. Sometimes information is provided about shelters and other places offering shower and laundry facilities. Sometimes the police are called. Either way, bleeding heart liberal that I am, something twists in my gut when I watch this go down …
So I began to wonder. How do public libraries arrive at policies on access and services for the homeless, the mentally ill, the narcoleptics, the ones who can’t or won’t wash themselves …and so on. Who decides who is or isn’t a legitimate public library patron? The police? (Please tell me it’s not the police … ) Do individual libraries draft their own policies, or do they follow templates/guidelines meant to serve the profession as a whole? How much variation do we find from one library to another? Is there a consensus within the library profession about whether or how to respond to so-called “problem patrons”?
I began searching the catalog for anything related to homelessness and public libraries. Within an hour I had a list of at least 50 somewhat relevant articles, soon to be added to my working bibliography. I’ll be writing much more in the coming weeks as I wade through the existing literature. But today, one stood out as a “must read first.”
Here’s what American Library Association (ALA)’s Taskforce on Hunger, Homelessness, and Poverty has to say about “problem patrons,” poverty, homelessness, public space and public libraries:
- Contrary to much of the literature on so-called “problem patrons,” poor hygiene and homelessness are conditions of extreme poverty, not types of behavior
Libraries are contributing to a “deliberate process” referred to as “the annihilation of space by law” by geographer Don Mitchell:
“The anti-homeless laws being passed in city after city in the United States work in a pernicious way: by redefining what is acceptable behavior in public space, by in effect annihilating the spaces in which people must live, these laws seek simply to annihilate homeless people themselves … we are creating a world in which a whole class of people cannot be – simply because they have no place to be” (Mitchell, 2003).
- Odor policies such as those enacted by San Luis Obispo County in California or the “civility campaign” launched by Salt Lake City Public Library in Utah to “teach the homeless, children, and others, how to behave,” are at best misguided and at worst, contribute to the criminalization of poor people (Snyder, 2005).
- Homeless people dwell in public places because we as a society have failed to provide private spaces for these individuals, who are among the most vulnerable members of our communities
Here is what the ALA asks front-line librarians to ask themselves (from the ALA’s Policy61: Library Services for Poor People)
- Do I understand the scope of poverty in my community and its human face?
- Are our programs and services inclusive of all poor people and their needs?
- Do we actively partner with social service providers and anti-poverty groups?
- Do we advocate for public funding of programs that help poor people?
- Do our actions address core problems or simply treat superficial symptoms?
References
- “Are Public Libraries Criminalizing Poor People? A Report from the ALA’s Hunger, Homelessness, and Poverty Task Force.” Public Libraires 44,3 (May/June 2005), 175.
- Brady Snyder, “Salt Lake Library Attracting Homeless,” Deseret Morning News, Mar. 9, 2005. Accessed May 10, 2005, http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/views/1%2C1249%2C60011737302C00.html
- Don Mitchell, The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space (New York: Guilford, 2003).
[...] Impagination – “Are Public Libraries Criminalizing Poor People?” Posted in Homeless | Trackback | del.icio.us | Top Of Page [...]
[...] Are Public Libraries Criminalizing Poor People? « impagination [...]
The problem is that you can’t have a policy for everything, because it turns your library into an inflexible place.
At my library there is a homeless man who comes in almost every day, usually for a couple of hours. He keeps to himself and I’m fine with that. When he’s at the computer nearest my desk, though, his odor is–shall we say–*pungent*.
However, I don’t want to kick him out, so I usually either suffer with the smell or find some work to do away from my desk. If a patron complains–and no one has yet–I can ask him to leave, but since he’s not hurting anyone, I just let him be.
I like that you just “let him be,” Robert. If only librarians were all so tolerant. At my library (and many others), odor is one of those not tolerated “trigger” behaviors which not unfrequently gets the homeless kicked out. The clerks and librarians (at my library) I’ve discussed this with argue that they’re not “profiling” homeless people, vagrants, etc., but rather, are working to make the library a pleasant, safe environment for patrons. What shocks me is just how confident the clerks and librarians are that their policies and actions in this regard are just and ethically defensible. I haven’t yet figured out if this comes down to political difference or simply lack of education and training (lots of paraprofessional clerks making these decisions simply haven’t been asked to read about and contemplate viewpoints which question/deconstruct statis quo judgments of this sort, etc. I think you’ll find lot’s of librarians and library clerks who have never read the ALA’s policies about serving the poor …
Several years ago a homeless person sued a library in New Jersey for refusing him service. He won the suit, so kicking Stinky out of the building isn’t a good idea. That said, why should we discriminate against certain senses and not others? If we were aurally assaulted in the library we would take action, so why shouldn’t we take action against certain smells that assault our noses? The same can be said for someone “touching” us. Unwanted touching is called assault, so again, why are our noses considered a lesser sense than any of the others? Normally, I let everyone be as well, however, just like with any other behavior that effects the senses, I think that there is a certain threshold level when something needs to be done.
I suppose, Dear Woeful, that in comparing the relative potential harm to be done from aural versus olfactory inputs, we might also consider the visual. Following your logic we ought to kick out the ugly. Anyway, are we truly “harmed” by the smells of the “smelly ones”? Some perfumes, I think, harm me more than the gross stench of urine/alcohol/sweat etc. (no matter how disgusting i find the latter). Further, whereas really loud noise (ie your amplifier cranked up too loud at bar x) might actually damage my ears, the sounds of other people talking etc. in libraries is not physically harmful. As for touch, I suppose there’s a pretty big cultural component there as well (within limits) around how much touching is or is not acceptable between (hehe) librarians and patrons, or patrons and each others … I suppose here, you could consider how touch may be considered assault, legally, depending on the context … Do you know of any situations where anyone’s smell was legally judged to constitute assault?
I’m not so sure that the nose is as tough a cookie as you suggest. Odors are also the single biggest trigger for repressed memories. I know that if I smell something that is rancid enough it elicits a gag reflex. We had one patron who was eventually institutionalized who smelled so bad that:
1) You could smell as soon as she rolled into the building no matter where you were in the building.
2) While you were subjected to her at a close proximity, your eyes would actually water, and you needed to take shallow breaths or you would feel physically ill.
and,
3) After she left, you could actually “taste” her for the rest of the day. It was a kind of gritty dirt-like coating. I thought that I was the only one effected in this way, until my coworkers told me the same thing.
Anyway, my point being is that, when smell gets to a certain level it’s assault. I would bet money that any judge exposed to the woman I mentioned above for any length of time whatsoever would call it assault. In fact, the cops often wouldn’t arrest her for things they should have (disorderly conduct) because she was so disgusting they didn’t want to be with her in their squad cars.
I’m fairly certain that I have PTSD from being exposed to this lady. Now, whenever I smell potting soil I have flashbacks… I wish I was joking about this.
This was a great post. I’ve covered books for years but haven’t seen the ALA policy on the homeless posted anywhere. It is helpful.
An important related issue is that many people are homeless because they’re unemployed. They need access to computers to search for jobs. But many libraries won’t let them use their computers if they don’t have a permanent address, or will let them use them for only for a brief time, such as minutes. How can anybody do a resume, write letters and do the other things you need to do to search for a job in 15 minutes a day?
It is my understanding that the courts have upheld the right of libraries to bar the homeless from using computers, or put severe restrictions on this. And I see why libraries need to have limits on computer use.
But it seems to me that a lot of homeless are trapped. They’re homeless because they’re jobless, and they’re jobless because they’re homeless (and don’t have the means to do an effective search). Thanks for your post.
Jan Harayda
One-Minute Book Reviews
http://www.oneminutebookreviews.wordpress.com/
The homeless are, for the most part, mental ill. They need medical attention, but the system has pushed them into the street (nice). Many people constituting our prison population have the same needs, but instead we lock them up. They need treatment not incarceration. Sadly, our healthcare system sucks ass. Welcome to Capitalism, pay up or F&@k off. Shame on us!
The lady I mentioned is an exceptional case. By that, I mean she smelled like something from another world. I have never experience anything like her and I hope I never do again. I didn’t think it was possible for anyone to smell that bad. I don’t think an “odor” should be grounds for banishment, but after experiencing her, I can honestly say, that there needs to be some kind of limit. I think the Court doesn’t know how to set this limit and that’s why they took the stance they did, it has to be quantifiable and there aren’t any Smell-O-Meters available tat I know of like there are sound level meters.
Page made an argument based on the harm that can be done to other sensory organs but not to the nose. This isn’t logically congruent. We don’t necessarily want people to keep the noise level down so that others aren’t harmed, we do it so that people aren’t “disturbed.” And I submit that smells can be just as disturbing as any other sensation and, therefore, need to be considered when considering other patrons library experience.
That said, legal precedent is already here it ain’t good. Throw someone out for smelling bad, and risk getting sued up the wazoo! How is this not sensory discrimination based on what I outlined above? Any sensory input can be disturbing, so how can we pick and choose excluding one sense over the others? Ugly people can’t help being ugly (whatever that means) and we can always look the other way… But some smells and sounds you can’t escape.
This is a good post… I don’t usually give anything online this much though or effort when I’m not working. Well Done!
Palm Beach County Florida’s public library system and the City of Boca Raton public library in the same county had an ongoing problem with one particular patron. Here are citations to some of the newspaper coverage from 1999. When I worked at the county main library in 2001, 02, and 03 she was still coming around and was as offensive as ever. The head of reference suggested we (public services staff) put some Vicks Vapo-rub under our noses to block out her smell.
BOCA PROPOSAL A STEP IN OFFENSIVE DIRECTION
Sun-Sentinel – January 17, 1999
Author: JOHN GROGAN Commentary
THE SCENT OF FEAR SILENCES STINK BAN – PROTESTS SQUASH SMELLY -PATRON ORDINANCE
Sun-Sentinel – January 14, 1999
Author: JILL ROSEN Staff Writer
TWO WORLDS COLLIDE – BEHIND THE LIBRARY BANS IS THE STORY OF TWO PEOPLE. A WOMAN ON A MISSION TO RETRIEVE WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS HER LOST LOVE AND MONEY. AND, A MAN ON A QUEST TO ESCAPE WHAT HE TERMS HER HARASSMENT.
Sun-Sentinel – May 7, 1999
Author: DIEGO BUNUEL Staff Writer
BOCA TABLES PROPOSAL GOVERNING APPEARANCE, BODY ODOR AT LIBRARY
The Palm Beach Post – January 13, 1999
Author: Seth Mnookin ; Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
CITY CONSIDERS HYGIENE STANDARDS FOR LIBRARY SOME RESIDENTS OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL THAT TARGETS A HOMELESS WOMAN.
Tallahassee Democrat (FL)Tallahassee Democrat (FL) – January 12, 1999
Author: THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
CITY RAISES STINK OVER ODOROUS LIBRARY PATRONS
Vero Beach Press Journal (FL) – January 12, 1999
Author: The Associated Press
WILL BOCA BAN BO? COUNCIL TO CONSIDER LIBRARY HYGIENE RULE
The Palm Beach Post – January 11, 1999
Author: Seth Mnookin ; Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
May I assume that the ALA is also asking library administrators (who usually aren’t exposed to the public on a regular basis) to ask themselves those same questions given above?
I agree with the statement that we marginalize an already marginal population by targeting behaviors or attributes that are part and parcel of the homeless or poor’s life situation. I’ve dealt with these issues for 8+ years at my public library and there are no easy answers.
However, I think partnerships with local agencies in the form of information and mutual assistance can help mitigate the circumstances.
Part of what public (and to a lesser extent, academic) librarians have to deal with are these situations. I am 110% for keeping a public library public. I am very aware of the “smells, sounds and behaviors” that potentially attend working here, but we HAVE to remain friendly to the public-whoever they are. After all, they are our bread and butter. There are fewer places for the maginalized to feel welcome and I hope we always remain one of them.
BTW, at the risk of being callous or trite, no one is making a library employee work there and if you know part of what you will experience includes some potentially offensive behaviors because it is a PUBLIC library, one ought to be capable of making a sound decision on whether or not you can handle it.
It aint for everone…