![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
It is a sign of progress in our times that when a person slinging insults about you and what you do tells you to keep sucking cock, that the first thing that comes to mind after dealing with the necessary parts of getting that person to go away, lest they be told to go away by local law enforcement, and writing up the incident reports, is "there are so many more creative things you could have said than that." Because decriminalized relationships and a flood of mlm content, both in fic and in published work, has basically taken the sting or social consequence out of the idea that a dude-looking person might give another dude-looking person oral sex.
Which is to say, one of those things I apparently should have learned in library school, had anyone been paying attention, are the right and proper ways to respond when someone is shit-talking you. Because that's a fairly common occurrence that library workers have to go through. To the point where there are some people who consider the amount of abuse someone has suffered to be part of the calculation of whether you're a "real" library worker or not.
I can't say that I'm particularly impressed with The Organization's response in this matter, especially since there was a casual threat that, were it not for the consequences of jail, this particular person said they would cross the "please stay far enough apart from us for COVID reasons" barrier and beat me up. The person uttering those words is someone known to us, and someone who was currently serving an exclusion for previous bad behavior. There is an escalation of consequences scale, which this person is already at or near the top of because of previous incidents, and so the decision made was to continue the progression along that scale with this person for their behavior. I choose not to speculate as to why this person routinely gets themselves in trouble, but the consequences that routinely get handed down to them are certainly not just for the repeated utterance of profanity.
I would like for them to be excluded from all locations indefinitely, and recommended such in the report I sent up, on the grounds that we shouldn't have to wait for someone to make good on a threat before taking it seriously and the fact that this person was already serving an exclusion, and has been repeatedly excluded for bad behavior in the past. Even if things never would progress past words with this person, I would rather that we take things seriously and impress upon the person uttering those words and threats that there will be serious consequences that result from choosing that behavior. And also, that we could then set a good precedent so that someone else who chooses to go down the same route at another locale or to a different staff person receives the same consequences.
Instead, there's an extension of the consequences already put in place, of the sort that didn't really deter them before, based on what happened here. And I get, instead, a lot of sympathy from others about the experience I had (because I wasn't going to sanitize the language or the threats in the report) and there is a plan in place for what to do if this person should reappear at the library at any point in time. I'll admit it's better, to some degree, that I take the brunt of it, since I look like a dude, rather than someone else who doesn't, who they might be emboldened to try more aggressive tactics with.
There's always the possibility that someone will bring suit against The Organization for excluding them in such a manner, which might set some precedent about when it is appropriate to level an indefinite exclusion. This is despite the ability of someone to access a significant portion of library resources through electronic means, so unlike in the past, a physical location exclusion would not be a complete cutting-off of library services. And, for all of our exclusions, there is an appeal process that can be invoked. I think for the time-limited ones, the time for appeal is a fairly short window. For something like a permanent exclusion, there would need to be a reinstatement process on file where someone can, if they can demonstrate that they have changed their behaviors and been able to stick to those changes for a significant time, can apply to have their exclusion lifted.
More aggravatingly, I also have to wonder whether there's also a certain amount of "the library has to serve the public, and excluding someone from library services, especially indefinitely, is a serious action reserved only for the most serious of offenses" mentality going through the decision-making process about consequences. Because, yes, the library is supposed to be a welcoming place for members of the community and to provide services to anyone who enters through the doors, but as we have been seeing again and again, the harms perpetuated by unthinking fidelity to values of "freedom," "access," and "neutrality" have had the consequences of low morale among library workers who see their administrations repeatedly choose not to address the problems and instead deploy vocational awe and resilience narratives against staff that bring those problems to their attention. Those same ideals result in the de facto exclusion of certain groups from library services because they cannot see the library as a place where they can be safe and welcomed and the lack of people who represent the community among the library staff.
All while claiming that they are interested in initiatives, programs, and partnerships that will help get marginalized community members to use library services and to recruit and retain a workforce composed of people who reflect the community they are in. If we can't get a permanent exclusion for someone who is repeatedly cursing out and threatening others, whether staff or other patrons, and who has a sufficiently large paper trail at this point to justify it, then I can only wonder about which incidents are or, more worryingly, aren't, getting reported because the people experiencing the abuse have had it proven to them that there won't be real action taken on the matter. The Organization very much encourages us to be leaders in whatever position we are in, but that can be just as much a way of shifting responsibility off of themselves to be the leaders and make the difficult decisions and putting it back onto people who don't have the resources to effect systemic change.
I do not profess to know the full intricate details of what considerations have to be made in these kinds of decisions. I'm sure it is different because of the governmental and tax-supported status of a library versus a private business, but it seems like there should be the ability to tell someone who has earned it to take a hike. Or, perhaps, if it's not possible to issue an indefinite exclusion, to issue a functionally indefinite one, or to jump up several rungs on the consequences ladder when the situation warrants it.
At least for now, cross another square off the bingo card of "things a person who deals with the public should never experience, but almost assuredly will experience repeatedly." And "underwhelming administrative response to serious issue," but we'd already done that one earlier this year, honestly.
Which is to say, one of those things I apparently should have learned in library school, had anyone been paying attention, are the right and proper ways to respond when someone is shit-talking you. Because that's a fairly common occurrence that library workers have to go through. To the point where there are some people who consider the amount of abuse someone has suffered to be part of the calculation of whether you're a "real" library worker or not.
I can't say that I'm particularly impressed with The Organization's response in this matter, especially since there was a casual threat that, were it not for the consequences of jail, this particular person said they would cross the "please stay far enough apart from us for COVID reasons" barrier and beat me up. The person uttering those words is someone known to us, and someone who was currently serving an exclusion for previous bad behavior. There is an escalation of consequences scale, which this person is already at or near the top of because of previous incidents, and so the decision made was to continue the progression along that scale with this person for their behavior. I choose not to speculate as to why this person routinely gets themselves in trouble, but the consequences that routinely get handed down to them are certainly not just for the repeated utterance of profanity.
I would like for them to be excluded from all locations indefinitely, and recommended such in the report I sent up, on the grounds that we shouldn't have to wait for someone to make good on a threat before taking it seriously and the fact that this person was already serving an exclusion, and has been repeatedly excluded for bad behavior in the past. Even if things never would progress past words with this person, I would rather that we take things seriously and impress upon the person uttering those words and threats that there will be serious consequences that result from choosing that behavior. And also, that we could then set a good precedent so that someone else who chooses to go down the same route at another locale or to a different staff person receives the same consequences.
Instead, there's an extension of the consequences already put in place, of the sort that didn't really deter them before, based on what happened here. And I get, instead, a lot of sympathy from others about the experience I had (because I wasn't going to sanitize the language or the threats in the report) and there is a plan in place for what to do if this person should reappear at the library at any point in time. I'll admit it's better, to some degree, that I take the brunt of it, since I look like a dude, rather than someone else who doesn't, who they might be emboldened to try more aggressive tactics with.
There's always the possibility that someone will bring suit against The Organization for excluding them in such a manner, which might set some precedent about when it is appropriate to level an indefinite exclusion. This is despite the ability of someone to access a significant portion of library resources through electronic means, so unlike in the past, a physical location exclusion would not be a complete cutting-off of library services. And, for all of our exclusions, there is an appeal process that can be invoked. I think for the time-limited ones, the time for appeal is a fairly short window. For something like a permanent exclusion, there would need to be a reinstatement process on file where someone can, if they can demonstrate that they have changed their behaviors and been able to stick to those changes for a significant time, can apply to have their exclusion lifted.
More aggravatingly, I also have to wonder whether there's also a certain amount of "the library has to serve the public, and excluding someone from library services, especially indefinitely, is a serious action reserved only for the most serious of offenses" mentality going through the decision-making process about consequences. Because, yes, the library is supposed to be a welcoming place for members of the community and to provide services to anyone who enters through the doors, but as we have been seeing again and again, the harms perpetuated by unthinking fidelity to values of "freedom," "access," and "neutrality" have had the consequences of low morale among library workers who see their administrations repeatedly choose not to address the problems and instead deploy vocational awe and resilience narratives against staff that bring those problems to their attention. Those same ideals result in the de facto exclusion of certain groups from library services because they cannot see the library as a place where they can be safe and welcomed and the lack of people who represent the community among the library staff.
All while claiming that they are interested in initiatives, programs, and partnerships that will help get marginalized community members to use library services and to recruit and retain a workforce composed of people who reflect the community they are in. If we can't get a permanent exclusion for someone who is repeatedly cursing out and threatening others, whether staff or other patrons, and who has a sufficiently large paper trail at this point to justify it, then I can only wonder about which incidents are or, more worryingly, aren't, getting reported because the people experiencing the abuse have had it proven to them that there won't be real action taken on the matter. The Organization very much encourages us to be leaders in whatever position we are in, but that can be just as much a way of shifting responsibility off of themselves to be the leaders and make the difficult decisions and putting it back onto people who don't have the resources to effect systemic change.
I do not profess to know the full intricate details of what considerations have to be made in these kinds of decisions. I'm sure it is different because of the governmental and tax-supported status of a library versus a private business, but it seems like there should be the ability to tell someone who has earned it to take a hike. Or, perhaps, if it's not possible to issue an indefinite exclusion, to issue a functionally indefinite one, or to jump up several rungs on the consequences ladder when the situation warrants it.
At least for now, cross another square off the bingo card of "things a person who deals with the public should never experience, but almost assuredly will experience repeatedly." And "underwhelming administrative response to serious issue," but we'd already done that one earlier this year, honestly.
