BPL's new ban on floor sitting

"I like social justice" is like the 2012 version of "I have eccentric taste in music" of 2009.

If I read the phrase "social justice" one more time, I'm going to scream.

Social justice....ARRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

when the rationale for your "safety" policies are lost on professional social workers, you might be off track:

I assume the person who made the policy is aware that blind people are always prepared for the possibility of all different types of moving and stationary objects, just like anyone else. -eeka

I was frustrated during an encounter with the human attendant in charge of administrating pc access at the 02132 BPL branch, and the software BPL installed to administrate pc use, including authentication by library card id.

The BPL "no sitting on the floor" rule does not seem unreasonable to me. Anyone making an issue of it is clearly looking for a cause.

It used to be that libraries had some discretion: If you were sitting on the floor reading a book, they could leave you alone; if you were sitting on the floor, making the entire section reek of urine, obviously not using the library's collection, and staring belligerently at passers-by, they could throw you out.

After losing a bunch of legal battles in the 1980s involving the claim that libraries were discriminating against "the homeless". libraries had to replace this discretion with rigid, definable criteria.

The consequence that personally bugs me is the "no sleeping" rule. It's now forbidden to take a semi-interesting book to an overstuffed chair in a sunny spot and fall asleep while perusing it.

Is the world now a better place as a result? On the one hand, the "homeless" have a warm, safe, dry place to hang out. On the other hand, library patrons have to put up with a lot of stench that they didn't need to put up with before.

And, by the way, I put "homeless" in quotes not in derision, but because the library staff, obviously, cannot tell by looking at you whether or not you have a permanent address, so the term "homeless" is being used as a proxy for something else.

eeka although I generally agree with you on a lot of this kind of stuff, I'm left with the sense that you're kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth on one issue:

You frequently point out that acceptance of the mentally ill does not equate to acceptance of undesirable behavior: that one can be accepting and have compassion and, at the same time, set and enforce limits on behavior.

And then you complain that rules which are clearly and specifically aimed at behavior, are done as a proxy for kicking the mentally ill out of the libraries.

Library staff cannot tell whether or not you are mentally ill. They can, on the other hand, observe your behavior, and it seems entirely reasonable to ban behavior that interferes with the library's primary mission, as in, "You cannot sit on our upholstered furniture while wearing urine-soaked clothing."

If you are a heavy and regular user of libraries, consider the Boston Athenaeum. While not so grand as the BPL's McKim building, it's still a gorgeous facility conducive to getting work done; the collection is amazing, and you can even bring your dog!

Contrary to popular perception, it's not some exclusive, hereditary secret Brahmin society; you walk up to the front desk with your credit card and the next day you're a member. It's $200 per year if you're under 35, which is expensive but, if you're using it constantly, it's a bargain, and there are a lot of benefits to membership (free admission to exhibits, good speaker series, etc.)

When you're browsing in a bookstore or library, do you like having to step over or skirt a person who has decided to sit down in the section you're perusing? When you're looking at nutrition labels in the supermarket, do you sit down in the aisle, or do you stand up like a grown-up? It's just common courtesy.