Library Donation gone wild
After cleaning out my library and converting numerous of my paper books to ebooks, I was ready to donate several thousand dollars worth of books to my local library. I had called a few days in advance and informed that I would stop by to drop them off.
I loaded all the books into sturdy boxes and put them into the car. I was amazed to see that my local library doesn't offer free parking anymore and the drop-off parking zone was removed. In any case, I paid for parking and walked in. When I asked if someone could help me unload, I was told that by order of the state government, they are not allowed to touch the books till they are in official government bins. Can they touch the boxes at least? Nope. By now I was fed up but carrying all the boxes in was easier than to drive back home. Yep, I also had to unload all the boxes myself and was scolded that some of the text books were too new. Apparently the state government doesn't allow donations of textbooks that are too new. I didn't expect great signs of gratitude, but a thank you would have been nice.
Now after the rant, to my questions: Is it the same in your area? Do you think government funding made libraries less dependent on individual donations to a level where libraries don't care anymore? Do you think government should be able to determine what books one can donate and if the volunteers can help you carry books in?
I loaded all the books into sturdy boxes and put them into the car. I was amazed to see that my local library doesn't offer free parking anymore and the drop-off parking zone was removed. In any case, I paid for parking and walked in. When I asked if someone could help me unload, I was told that by order of the state government, they are not allowed to touch the books till they are in official government bins. Can they touch the boxes at least? Nope. By now I was fed up but carrying all the boxes in was easier than to drive back home. Yep, I also had to unload all the boxes myself and was scolded that some of the text books were too new. Apparently the state government doesn't allow donations of textbooks that are too new. I didn't expect great signs of gratitude, but a thank you would have been nice.
Now after the rant, to my questions: Is it the same in your area? Do you think government funding made libraries less dependent on individual donations to a level where libraries don't care anymore? Do you think government should be able to determine what books one can donate and if the volunteers can help you carry books in?
Comments46
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Too new eh? It's funny how people tend to vastly undervalue something if it's offered for free. You paid for parking on top of it plus did the carrying and provided the boxes, so it's almost like you paid them to take the books.
I grew up in a real shitty neighborhood.
My library was covered in spray paint and closed most of the year for about 15 years.
Where I live now you can drop off anything you want. They recycle the garbage and send stuff they don't need top other branches.
My library was covered in spray paint and closed most of the year for about 15 years.
Where I live now you can drop off anything you want. They recycle the garbage and send stuff they don't need top other branches.
I think that there should be some criteria for accepting books. I don't believe in censorship, however, I doubt that libraries should take books titled Why We Should Kill All Black People. Mein Kampf would be fine, since its historically important (although I've heard that Hitler wasn't a very good writer).
Also, if the library already has several copies of that book, or if the donated books are very poor quality (i.e. falling apart, missing pages, jelly stains, etc.) then that's a valid reason.
I've never actually parked at a library; I don't even have a license (I should get on that, but my hometown is small and I go to college in Boston where I've never needed a car), and its within walking distance anyway. Your library does seem a little extreme, though.
Also, if the library already has several copies of that book, or if the donated books are very poor quality (i.e. falling apart, missing pages, jelly stains, etc.) then that's a valid reason.
I've never actually parked at a library; I don't even have a license (I should get on that, but my hometown is small and I go to college in Boston where I've never needed a car), and its within walking distance anyway. Your library does seem a little extreme, though.
What are these "books" that you speak of? 
. o O ( Hmm, I wonder where the "on" button is. )
. o O ( Hmm, I wonder where the "on" button is. )
And where's the charge adapter?
The library where I grew up never had free parking until after 5pm, but that's the way it was with all the city-owned public parking lots.
Yes, there should be evaluation of the books donated. The two things that I think have to be extremist and poor quality (physically) books shouldn't be allowed.
I think a fair way to class something as being 'extremist' would be something inciting violence. A book literally falling apart is obvious. (it'd be rather unfair for someone to have to pay for a book if it broke, if it was breaking already.)
Furthermore, on a library by library basis, having more strict criteria could make sense, especially if they are tight on space.
For example:
Refusing books that they already have ample copies.
Refusing books that don't suit clientèle. (lets say a library is in a business district, and the majority of people borrowing are adults. they have small children's section, but it's full. They do not have the demand for them.)
Refusing factual books that are too old (lets say a 1920's book on science.)
However, I think those rules should only be made because of issues with space etc.
I think a fair way to class something as being 'extremist' would be something inciting violence. A book literally falling apart is obvious. (it'd be rather unfair for someone to have to pay for a book if it broke, if it was breaking already.)
Furthermore, on a library by library basis, having more strict criteria could make sense, especially if they are tight on space.
For example:
Refusing books that they already have ample copies.
Refusing books that don't suit clientèle. (lets say a library is in a business district, and the majority of people borrowing are adults. they have small children's section, but it's full. They do not have the demand for them.)
Refusing factual books that are too old (lets say a 1920's book on science.)
However, I think those rules should only be made because of issues with space etc.
I don't know of any library that won't accept "extremist" books - whatever those may be.
In fact, censorship is a huge deal at public libraries and I know that the ones around where I live always come down on the side of openness and allowing patrons as much choice as possible.
In fact, censorship is a huge deal at public libraries and I know that the ones around where I live always come down on the side of openness and allowing patrons as much choice as possible.
~TortelliniPen Captured what I mean. 'I doubt that libraries should take books titled Why We Should Kill All Black People. Mein Kampf would be fine. '
You might be surprised what books some libraries are willing to take - and what books some libraries aren't willing to take. I know of some libraries in the US south that won't stock books about abortion or homosexuality. Yet they'll stock books which promote going back to an age of slavery and books which advocate suppressing the rights of women.
The way I see it, libraries should accept ALL books and let their readers/users decide which ones they want to read. Of course, some libraries do have limited space and there's nothing wrong with selling off books that haven't been checked out in years or maybe even decades or for which a newer version now exists in the collection. Those should be the criteria by which books are sold and it should not be based solely on content or because some library board doesn't "approve" of it.
The way I see it, libraries should accept ALL books and let their readers/users decide which ones they want to read. Of course, some libraries do have limited space and there's nothing wrong with selling off books that haven't been checked out in years or maybe even decades or for which a newer version now exists in the collection. Those should be the criteria by which books are sold and it should not be based solely on content or because some library board doesn't "approve" of it.
You might be surprised what books some libraries are willing to take - and what books some libraries aren't willing to take. I know of some libraries in the US south that won't stock books about abortion or homosexuality. Yet they'll stock books which promote going back to an age of slavery and books which advocate suppressing the rights of women.
And that's not what I'm promoting. At all.
Of course, some libraries do have limited space and there's nothing wrong with selling off books that haven't been checked out in years or maybe even decades or for which a newer version now exists in the collection. Those should be the criteria by which books are sold and it should not be based solely on content or because some library board doesn't "approve" of it.
Literature is not all equal. A copy of 'The Divine Comedy' or 'War and Peace' Should not be thrown out to make way for '50 shades of grey' or 'How to: kill dem niggers and get away with it'
And that's not what I'm promoting. At all.
Of course, some libraries do have limited space and there's nothing wrong with selling off books that haven't been checked out in years or maybe even decades or for which a newer version now exists in the collection. Those should be the criteria by which books are sold and it should not be based solely on content or because some library board doesn't "approve" of it.
Literature is not all equal. A copy of 'The Divine Comedy' or 'War and Peace' Should not be thrown out to make way for '50 shades of grey' or 'How to: kill dem niggers and get away with it'
And that's not what I'm promoting. At all.
Then apparently I misunderstood.
Sorry about that.
Literature is not all equal. A copy of 'The Divine Comedy' or 'War and Peace' Should not be thrown out to make way for '50 shades of grey' or 'How to: kill dem niggers and get away with it'
I personally agree with you. However, other folks probably won't. Hence why libraries need to carry as wide a selection of books as they physically can and be very careful in deciding what gets sold.
Then apparently I misunderstood.
Sorry about that.Literature is not all equal. A copy of 'The Divine Comedy' or 'War and Peace' Should not be thrown out to make way for '50 shades of grey' or 'How to: kill dem niggers and get away with it'
I personally agree with you. However, other folks probably won't. Hence why libraries need to carry as wide a selection of books as they physically can and be very careful in deciding what gets sold.
Books promoting misogyny, white supremacy, religious bigotry would be allowed, under what I'm saying. Books that wouldn't be allowed would be books such as 'To Train Up a Child' Which has been linked to at least 10 deaths.
View all replies
I don't think it's an issue of censorship. Not a single library in the world has a complete collection of books in the world. If a book not being in the library is a issue of censorship, than all libraries are forcing censorship upon people.
You're misusing the word 'censorship'. Censorship is not 'not allowing someone to access something for free.' it is 'not allow someone to access something'.
There are many books I can not access at my local library For example, I can not get a copy of '120 days of Sodom' nor anything by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. (They do have some of his books, but they are in 'learning collections', which are packs made for educators.) I can not get a copy of 'A girl of limberlost'. I also can not get a copy of 'The importance of being earnest'.
120 days of sodom is very pornographic, however, the rest I listed are just older works, ranging from obscure to famous.
Does this mean the library is censoring me? God no. I've read them all. In fact, barring 120 days of Sodom, I can still access them for free, because as long as you have access to a computer, you can legally download them from Amazon, for free.
If those books were being censored, I wouldn't be able to get them legally.
You're misusing the word 'censorship'. Censorship is not 'not allowing someone to access something for free.' it is 'not allow someone to access something'.
There are many books I can not access at my local library For example, I can not get a copy of '120 days of Sodom' nor anything by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. (They do have some of his books, but they are in 'learning collections', which are packs made for educators.) I can not get a copy of 'A girl of limberlost'. I also can not get a copy of 'The importance of being earnest'.
120 days of sodom is very pornographic, however, the rest I listed are just older works, ranging from obscure to famous.
Does this mean the library is censoring me? God no. I've read them all. In fact, barring 120 days of Sodom, I can still access them for free, because as long as you have access to a computer, you can legally download them from Amazon, for free.
If those books were being censored, I wouldn't be able to get them legally.
If a library won't accept a book which is being donated for public use, then that is censorship as the library is choosing not to let the public have access to that information. Now of course, if it's a matter of copyright or national security or something then that's different. But to simply not take a book because of its content, when it's content is perfectly legal, then that is censorship.
Also, there are different levels of censorship. Just because something is available online doesn't mean that the library isn't censoring it. It certainly is, just for its own patrons.
Also, let me just say that in my opinion, any library which is willing to stock Fifty Shades of Grey is in no position to censor 120 days of sodom.
Also, there are different levels of censorship. Just because something is available online doesn't mean that the library isn't censoring it. It certainly is, just for its own patrons.
Also, let me just say that in my opinion, any library which is willing to stock Fifty Shades of Grey is in no position to censor 120 days of sodom.
If a library won't accept a book which is being donated for public use, then that is censorship as the library is choosing not to let the public have access to that information.
By that, then a library has to take destroyed,dirty books that have book mites or bedbugs.
Also, there are different levels of censorship. Just because something is available online doesn't mean that the library isn't censoring it. It certainly is, just for its own patrons.
No, it's not. The library is not stopping the patrons from getting that book. The library is just stopping the patrons from getting that book for free.
By that, then a library has to take destroyed,dirty books that have book mites or bedbugs.
Also, there are different levels of censorship. Just because something is available online doesn't mean that the library isn't censoring it. It certainly is, just for its own patrons.
No, it's not. The library is not stopping the patrons from getting that book. The library is just stopping the patrons from getting that book for free.
By that, then a library has to take destroyed,dirty books that have book mites or bedbugs.
Obviously if the book is in physically poor condition then that should be remedied if possible. That's just common sense.
The library is not stopping the patrons from getting that book. The library is just stopping the patrons from getting that book for free.
You're wrong, they ARE stopping their patrons from getting that book AT their library. Free or not is irrelevant (some libraries charge their patrons) - the library is standing between the patron and the book and making a choice NOT to allow the patron to have access. That IS censorship. And this is especially problematic if it's a public library which accepts public funds and has an elected library board - which many of them do.
Obviously if the book is in physically poor condition then that should be remedied if possible. That's just common sense.
The library is not stopping the patrons from getting that book. The library is just stopping the patrons from getting that book for free.
You're wrong, they ARE stopping their patrons from getting that book AT their library. Free or not is irrelevant (some libraries charge their patrons) - the library is standing between the patron and the book and making a choice NOT to allow the patron to have access. That IS censorship. And this is especially problematic if it's a public library which accepts public funds and has an elected library board - which many of them do.
"You're wrong, they ARE stopping their patrons from getting that book AT their library. Free or not is irrelevant"
Then by that logic all bookstores are using censorship as well, unless they sell EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN EXISTENCE.
Seriously, you have this weird definition of censorship. Censorship would be preventing ANYONE from reading the contents of said book, ie either promoting a national ban of the material or editing it to take out the offending features. A library showing discretion on what they put on their shelves is not the same thing since they're only choosing not to display the books on their shelves but are doing nothing to prevent it from being on the shelves of any other store.
I mean, what good would a book on the anatomy of chameleons or fifty shades of gray be in a library for primary school students?
Then by that logic all bookstores are using censorship as well, unless they sell EVERY SINGLE BOOK IN EXISTENCE.
Seriously, you have this weird definition of censorship. Censorship would be preventing ANYONE from reading the contents of said book, ie either promoting a national ban of the material or editing it to take out the offending features. A library showing discretion on what they put on their shelves is not the same thing since they're only choosing not to display the books on their shelves but are doing nothing to prevent it from being on the shelves of any other store.
I mean, what good would a book on the anatomy of chameleons or fifty shades of gray be in a library for primary school students?
View all replies
Obviously if the book is in physically poor condition then that should be remedied if possible. That's just common sense.
But they are not allowing them to have the book, thus, OMG, CENSORSHIP.
You're wrong, they ARE stopping their patrons from getting that book AT their library.
Once again, it is literally impossible to have every single book in the world. OMG CENSORSHIP.
. Free or not is irrelevant (some libraries charge their patrons) - the library is standing between the patron and the book and making a choice NOT to allow the patron to have access
So, the library is physically stopping them from SHOCK, HORROR, going somewhere else?
And this is especially problematic if it's a public library which accepts public funds and has an elected library board - which many of them do.
Public libraries are a privilege, not a right. Especially now, in the modern world, as basically every book is now just a click away, online.
But they are not allowing them to have the book, thus, OMG, CENSORSHIP.
You're wrong, they ARE stopping their patrons from getting that book AT their library.
Once again, it is literally impossible to have every single book in the world. OMG CENSORSHIP.
. Free or not is irrelevant (some libraries charge their patrons) - the library is standing between the patron and the book and making a choice NOT to allow the patron to have access
So, the library is physically stopping them from SHOCK, HORROR, going somewhere else?
And this is especially problematic if it's a public library which accepts public funds and has an elected library board - which many of them do.
Public libraries are a privilege, not a right. Especially now, in the modern world, as basically every book is now just a click away, online.
View all replies
In my experience, if you donate media to the library (books, movies, music, graphic novels) even if they're missing a book opr it's the next book in a series, they'll just sell it at their next book sale.
Public libraries have always been government-funded. That's what makes them public.
When I donated books, I donated them to a branch library that only had a single attendant, so asking her for help was out of the question. However, I also didn't donate several thousand dollars of books, maybe a couple hundred when they were new. I think it was something like 20-30 books? IDK. Just kid stuff and a few older books I no longer needed. Anyway, it wasn't hard, I just dropped them off, she said thanks, and started scanning them in.
i'm sure not being allowed to help you carry has something to do with a regulation that came about from people getting injured carrying boxes or something ridiculous like that. it is awfully strict for a library of all places...
as for the rest of your inquiry, i have no idea. haven't set foot in a library in decades.
should the government have a say as to what books are donated? to a reasonable degree, yes. obviously they shouldn't be taking porn, e.g. but textbooks being "too new" is pretty silly.
as for the rest of your inquiry, i have no idea. haven't set foot in a library in decades.
should the government have a say as to what books are donated? to a reasonable degree, yes. obviously they shouldn't be taking porn, e.g. but textbooks being "too new" is pretty silly.
There's probably a reason for it. Bedbugs might be a big one (it's quite possible the government bins are designed to kill them, all it takes is around a 105 degree temperature), as it seems like they've become a big library problem.