My Unacknowledged Letter to the Atlantic

 Back in December of 2020, the Atlantic ran an article called, “Why Some Libraries are Ending Fines.”

I happened to run across it while looking into going fine free at the library where I work and I found its large number of inaccuracies so off-putting, I decided to write a letter clearing them up. That was earlier this year and, so far, I have received no response. I don't expect, either. The lack of accountability in today's press is practically insurmountable.

However, never to let a worthwhile piece vanish into the ether, I have decided to reproduce it below:

I feel the need as a library employee to point out the inaccuracies in your December 4, 2020 Atlantic Article, “Why Some Libraries are Ending Fines.”

As Head of Circulation at a library, I am currently in the process of evaluating whether or not going fine free is a worthy choice for us and the community we serve. Having worked for a library that did indeed go fine free, I have mixed feelings about the practice and not-so-mixed feelings about the flawed rationale behind implementing it.

In the process of conducting research on the pro and con sides of the debate, I ran across your article. While it definitely contains some useful data, it also presents several inaccurate claims and relies much too heavily on skewed demographic data to be of much use. I have listed the issues below:

 

1.       Your article relies almost exclusively on major metropolitan area libraries and asserts that all libraries should follow suit without allowing for differences in demographics, income and political climate.

2.       You mention how “collecting fines and blocking accounts can be time-consuming, stressful, and unpleasant for librarians” when in reality librarians rarely if ever deal with any of those things except peripherally. The Circulation department deals with those things and we are often disregarded by the press and the public who assume everyone in a library is a librarian. Does your doctor draw your blood? Does the law clerk represent you in court? Yet for some reason, only librarians work in libraries.

3.       When you do actually mention a town other than a major East or West Coast city, you mercifully omit its name and location but you once again attribute an experience that most likely involved someone working in Circulation. Also, the assertion made during this anecdote that incidents such as these shake the foundations of the public trust is absurd.

4.       Piggybacking off that previous sentence, your paragraph claiming fines can “cause general discomfort and even ill will in a community” can be countered by the uncountable number of patrons who have expressed to me their disgust at the library going fine free. Yet I see no attempt to speak with those individuals. In fact, there’s no attempt made to present the con side of the debate beyond a few brief mentions of lost revenue. You clearly advocate a side, and that’s fine, but the inaccuracies diminish the argument.

5.       Finally, you espouse the “barrier to service” argument made by so many Children’s librarians around the country. This argument holds that fines are somehow a “barrier to service,” as if patrons are somehow barred from entering the building and taking advantage of the services and materials while they are there. While the concept of the lending library is an ingrained part of our society, so too is the concept of personal and civic responsibility. Borrowing items makes one part of a social contract that involves returning items so other patrons may also borrow them. Fine free removes a consequence from not honoring that obligation…until they suddenly receive a replacement fee, of course.

 

 This letter is in no way meant as a slam or series of insults, so my apologies if it comes off that way. Having worked for several libraries and never as a librarian, I have become sensitive to the fact that non-librarians are often disregarded and discounted when the press writes about libraries. 

Thank you for your time.