My recent "answers" post brought a number of comments, including the following from Molly:
Robert then made this comment:
1. The first, and most important, thing that I can say is that this was and is my opinion only. I'm not trying to make policy statements or imply that my own morality is right for everyone (although I think that's what happens whether one likes it or not when discussing moral issues).
2. The conception on the back steps--why is that so horrible, salacious, whatever? There are several reasons. First, the back steps are indoors, a restricted area. Restricted in the sense of there being nothing back there for patrons to use, so the stairwell itself is blocked off. It took some work for them to gain access to the area, and they did it deviously and clearly with the intent to get away with something that they couldn't do elsewhere.
Second, the public lib. is not an appropriate place for sexual activity. Perhaps this shows my bias and one of my pet peeves, but I feel a great deal of frustration with people who come to the lib. to do non-lib. things, e.g. talk, eat, and engage in sexual activity. I know that it's difficult for teenagers to find a place to be "affectionate". However, I see a corollary societal reason for this--it's not fully, generally appropriate for teenagers to engage in sexual activity. Am I saying that I never did that? That I never sought a place to be alone with someone? No. Anyone who knows me, or has read this blog for any period of time, knows that I'm not sanctimonious enough to imply that. (Far from it, in fact.) But I'm also not going to say that I think it's fine for teenagers to have sex in the lib. just because they can't do it at home, in their car, or someplace private. What is the basis of sexual activity? Intimacy. What is the problem with having sex in public? It's not intimate. The lib. is just not the right place for it. I don't want to hear it, see it, smell it, or have to clean up after it. And I certainly don't want to hear that f***ing freak boasting that her child was conceived there. We have enough of a security problem without the implication that we're also running (or blithely allowing) some sort of by-the-hour hotel for teens. Yuck.
Third, I think that it would be horrible for that child, who started out its life in a difficult situation already, to someday find out that it was conceived in public. That's a hell of a legacy.
Finally, there is the a simple legal issue involved. Even a lawyer who's not very skilled could come up with a reasonable rationale for liability on the part of the lib., to the children who were having sex and/or their parents, who rely upon the lib. being a place to read and learn, and not a semi-private meeting place for sex.
3. Was it really bad because they were minors? Yes. That was what made it worth mentioning, for me. But the basic idea is the same--the lib. is not for that purpose.
4. I can understand what you wrote, Molly, about wanting the children to be warned and released without contact to their parents, but I firmly disagree. Those children were not "acting responsibly" or being careful. Particularly the conception on the steps thing--that was just blatant sexual roulette. They are children, and if they cannot be trusted to consider every aspect of the activity in which they are engaging (i.e., where it is and is not appropriate to engage in it, or how to prevent pregnancy and/or transmission of disease), then someone else must be responsible for them. That's why there is a legal age of consent, and that's why parents substitute their own reasoning ability for their child's until the child has learned enough to make decisions on his own. The lib. staff is not in the position, legally or morally, to make those decisions for a child. The director, by failing to inform the childrens' parents, made the decision for the child that the activity was acceptable. That is a misuse of her power and her responsibility in the community.
What comes next? Do we lace up the boxing gloves when children have a dispute in the lib., or do we prevent them from fighting? When a child sneaks a cigarette on the bench, do we make her smoke the whole pack, to teach her a lesson?
To take it further, do we tell her that the book that she wants to read is too advanced, or too simple, or too racy, for her, and substitute it with our own choice?
Nope. We're not those children's parents, and we have no right to act as if we are. That is why I was really bothered by the situation. We firmly, intentionally resist acting in loco parentis in such areas as materials selection, censorship, and computer filtering. I cannot see why we should do it, then, as relates to a child's sexual activities. It seems catastrophically wrong-headed, to me.
5. Some other parents would disagree with you, about wanting to know of their childrens' activities. How do we decide who to tell, and who not to tell? In terms of an appropriately inclusive policy, I think that 'to tell' is the only option. Let the parent decide, then, whether to take action against the child, and what that action will be.
6. As for the reason for the strong response itself, I think that's buried in the politics and other issues of working in a lib. I'm sure it isn't this way everywhere, but our lib. has traditionally been made out as some sort of "thief." We have a huge budget that, in part, is used to pay exorbitant wages and salaries to people who know nothing and do nothing. We have a huge building that doesn't come close to being filled, because we were greedy and senseless in planning the addition to the original building, and now we want all this space to ourselves so we're unwilling to chop the larger rooms into cubes for local officials, etc. We are staffed by fools who don't know how to use computers or select books for purchase ("Why don't you ever buy anything good?!")
The implication that the lib. does not adequately function for the purposes for which it was intended is bad enough. But to say that in addition to being a behemoth filled with idiots--a "Taj Mahal", actually--it is also the site (de jure or merely de facto) of something as inappropriate as public sexual activity? It's sickening. Disheartening. Embarrassing. And somewhat pathetic. We do good work here. By and large, the staff works really hard, and for very little money. Because we love what we do, or at least we like it well enough most of the time. And we work our asses off to make sure that the place looks good, whether physically (in terms of the space and the materials with which we've filled it) or theoretically, e.g. as regards public opinion.
I'm stepping off of my soapbox now. Remember, this is my opinion only.
No comments:
Post a Comment