Hypothetical situation:
Several female shelvers have complained about a patron who follows them around in the stacks. At first it seemed harmless but now the man specifically crouches down or tiptoes to try and catch a glimpse or outright ogle certain portions of their anatomy. He tries to catch them alone in the elevators and the other day a shlever found herself cornered by the man in a dead end shelving unit.
The man’s behavior is escalating and even the police officers have asked that the man be banned. He has a prior record of assault and rape. Library officials have decided that the man hasn’t done anything legally wrong sine he hasn’t physically touched someone. Yet. So they refuse to ban him stating that his First Amendment Rights would be violated if he was banned on hearsay and denied access to information.
Since we aren’t asking that he be arrested he shouldn’t have to physically touch someone to be removed. Isn’t the fact that he is harassing these women enough?
My question to you all is whether you agree with that. Do First Amendment Rights really overshadow the protection of someone else? Do we really have to wait until someone is hurt or worse before we interfere? If yes, with no other considerations I may be in the wrong profession.
Along those lines shouldn’t we, as employees expect that our rights will be protected as well?
It seems to me that if the police are concerned, the women could look into and possibly obtain a restraining order, in which case he would not be able to be in the library while those women are working. I don't know right offhand under what circumstances you can apply for a restraining order, however; maybe the man would have to actual assault one of them before it would be feasible. (But by then it's too late...kind of not the point, is it?)
ReplyDeleteThis sort of ties in with a post from another blog I read last week about the security cameras and the person who was robbed outside the library, and the library refused to cooperate with police by handing over security tapes of the area. There comes a time when concern for safety should override privacy and First Amendment rights--isn't that why you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, because you're endangering lives by creating a panic? However, the problem becomes where to draw the line, and in this case, it may be difficult to determine.
However, in your hypothetical situation, the man's behavior isn't the only issue. I would argue that the library officials are also in the wrong by ignoring staff concerns and are coming across as not taking their safety seriously. This is not a good situation for either side, and I would hope that they could investigate ways to address staff safety, such as rearranging shelving so there are no dead ends, and maybe having fewer places where staff are out of earshot of someone else--better staff coverage of all areas could discourage inappropriate behavior and ease staff fears. Perhaps he shouldn't lose his access to the library just yet, but not taking any action at all seems inadvisable, too.
Going along with Cassaundra's suggestions another option would be to work in pairs in the stacks if the man is the in library. That way the work gets done faster and they most likely won't be approached by him if the they aren't alone. If the administrators won't take their safety into consideration then I they will have to figure out other options on their own.
ReplyDeleteIf only there were enough staff to work in pairs! I think most libraries these days would be down to the bare bones.
ReplyDeleteI agree that in this scenario the administration seems to show a lack of regard for their staff's safety or at least a lack of trust in those they've hired if they are implying they don't believe them.
As I have been trying to express since class started and I will ask it here again since I haven't had anyone rise the the debate yet, "Why do we feel that it is appropriate to protect one person's rights when in doing so we violate the rights of another?" Is that just?
Dawns on me that maybe no one has discussed this with me because it might be a non-issue for others. Am I nuts or does no one else see how this might be true?
I had a "problem patron" who was borderline stalky with me for a few months. Historically, the library security staff informed me that this same patron had been subtly stalkish with other library employees from time to time, even approaching at least one employee in the dark parking lot after work. I was also told by the library security that he was on the registered sex offender list, so I looked him up. I had posted my concern on the INTERNAL INTRANET (only accessible by library employees) and included a link to the sex offender database. I was told by administration that due to privacy concerns my post was inappropriate (a term they liked to use with me a lot) and that they were removing it from the INTRANET.
ReplyDeleteMy husband-at-the-time was furious that I was in possible danger, and he bought me some pepper spray that will take down a bear, and asked me to be extra careful in the parking lot. Security was always more than willing to accompany us to our cars.
I felt kind of abandoned on this. However, it was very common for patrons to step over the line sometimes. Some were lonely men who you might be nice to one time, and then who try to see how far they can push things.
Lola, your question about the reality of sometimes violating one person's rights in favor of another person is one that I've thought about quite a bit. It bothers me, as well. Especially in the workplace, it seems that the customer's rights are held above the employee's rights depending on the organization's culture.
I don't know if this has something to do with claiming "professional" status--that is, there are personal sacrifices one must make in the name of the professional's ethical responsibilities?
Agreed that we make a lot of personal sacrifices to be employed. Being told what is appropriate to wear or to cover your body art falls into a different category than endangerment. Your husband was right to be furious. It should take a robbery or an assault to be taken seriously.
ReplyDeleteOn a personal note, I liked the seemingly “calm” voice in your response. I always feel like I’m YELLING when I reread mine.
I meant to say "it shouldn't."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that a classmate told me about a real situation like this at the Allen County Library in Fort Wayne. If that classmate reads this, maybe 'she' could tell us about it. I think an employee's rights should be taken very seriously and I wonder what their employee handbook has to say about such a situation.
ReplyDeleteWe had a man who was apparently watching/stalking one of our employees and finally wrote her a letter that he left at the library for her explaining how much he loved her! Her husband, a former police officer, was also furious. He was called in by our library direction and told that his actions were inappropriate and that, according to our policy, we had the right to ban him from the library, which we did. I'm not sure of the amount of time, but I do know that we were backed by our policy and legal counsel. As I said in my blog (which, actually is the same one Cassaundra is referring to but I must've missed that someone posted it last week. :( Bummer!) I think patrons AND employees for that matter both have a right to safety. And those girls should get a restraining order!
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely absurd, no amount of right to privacy or intellectual freedom overrules your right to not be harmed. Now, as someone with libertarian views, I have some issues with sexual harassment laws, namely the fact that some women will blow it entirely out of proportion, for example at a previous time in my life, at ball state, while an undergrad, I stumbled into the Taco Bell I worked at drunk, ordered a taco, absentmindedly called my co-worker "baby", then went home. The next day, I was "talked to" about potential sexual harassment problems. That I think was a gross abuse of laws against sexual harassment.
ReplyDeleteNow a man who repeatedly puts women in situations where they feel threatened, such as looking up someones skirt repeatedly in a closed library stack, or especially cornering someone in a dark parking lot, is inexcusable and should lead to police action.