We had an upsetting incident at the library yesterday: there was a loud, lengthy transphobic rant by a patron. After the patron left, my co-workers and I were talking it over. The co-worker at the desk who’d interacted with him, and in my opinion went too far and gave him the impression that she agreed with him, said that we’re not allowed to argue or share our opinions with patrons, and we’re supposed to be neutral; therefore there is nothing we can do when someone is ranting like that. Another co-worker and I were of the mind that being neutral doesn’t mean we have to let someone loudly say terrible things, and doesn’t mean that we have to be so polite that we give the impression that we agree.
I’m going to need pseudonyms: the co-worker who dealt with the transphobic patron is my age and she will be Amy; the co-worker who agreed with me is significantly younger than Amy and me, more like early 20s, and she will be Sophie.
Sophie told us that, the other day, a patron started to try a similar rant with her, and what Sophie said to her was “I don’t agree with you, but there’s no reason we need to have this discussion”; she said it with a friendly tone and face, like “Isn’t it nice it doesn’t matter that we don’t agree on this and can just skip over the unpleasantness?” Sophie said the patron had a pleasant and cooperative reaction to that approach, but Amy thought that would not be allowed by our boss: that it counted as arguing with the patron and giving opinions. My feeling is that I don’t know if I would be able to say it with the right tone and face, but that I think Sophie’s approach was better than Amy’s, which was NOT neutral but instead gave the patron support and encouragement.
I think part of the issue here is that Amy DOES agree in part with the patron (she has in the past put sarcastic air-quotes around “they/them”), though she still found the ranting and the patron unpleasant; Sophie and I were in severe disagreement with the views of the patron, to the extent that both of us had to leave the area to avoid doing something that would get us fired, and afterward it took us a fairly long time to recover and cool down, while Amy was more like “This is just what it’s like working in customer service, you just tune out and let it roll over you.”
And I absolutely understand that Customer Service mindset when, for example, a patron is going on at great length about the ingratitude/troubles of their children/grandchildren, or wants to talk about how prices are out of control and in their day you could get a loaf of bread for 15 cents, or wants to vent about how publishers don’t make enough books in large-print. But DO we allow loud lengthy discriminatory rants in our library, in the name of politeness and neutrality? What if his rant had been racist rather than transphobic, would that have been clearer to Amy that we can’t allow someone to be saying those things in a public community space? My feeling is that if someone were loudly ranting on a racist topic, we would be getting a supervisor to escort them out.
Anyway, I’m going to need to talk about this with my supervisor. She was on the fringes of the interaction, aware of it but not able to hear it, and seemed to be seeing it more as an issue of did Amy need to be rescued (a co-worker can call from another extension, which would make Amy’s phone ring, and then Amy can keep “helping the patron on the phone” until the in-person patron gives up and leaves) or was Amy all set to deal with it. I think it needs to be addressed more as an issue of do we allow people to say these things in a space where other people can hear them.
Before I got to that paragraph, I thought “I bet Amy is transphobic herself” and it sounds like perhaps she is. Or, at the least, not tolerant.
I like Sophie’s approach and I think that it is VERY important because of what you mention about race. If someone started saying terrible racist things, of course we wouldn’t be neutral or give the impression that it’s okay to say those things. I think there is a BIG difference between customer service feelings, and also allowing hateful language. Suppose there was someone nearby who heard that interaction and felt personally attacked. The library is a public space and should be a safe space for everyone, and the library should do everything in its power to make people feel welcomed and included.
I think if Sophie-style reactions do not lead to silencing of the patron’s loud upsetting opinions, then a supervisor should be brought in and that person should be not in the library. This is so upsetting to hear, for me, and I hope that it can be figured out so things like this don’t happen in the future. In the library! A safe space! I am horrified.
While I think Sophie’s approach is the most cordially conversation-ending, I probably would have been unable to keep my mouth shut about how wrong/transphobic the patron was. Amy sounds transphobic as well, and witnessing this interaction would sour my opinion of her until she could educate herself and admit that her views were biased and insensitive.
I would absolutely be speaking to the manager and wearing a pronouns pin from there on out. When allies declare their pronouns, they move the needle toward an inclusive future. If one trans kid sees your pin and knows that they’re safe with you, it’s worth it.
What Nicole & Monica said, firstly.
Wearing my social services hat: Sophie has a great approach and I will try to remember it.
Amy was supportive of the awful person, even if she did the “right” thing. That’s so frustrating and sad.
Wearing my I’m Your Friend hat: you could absolutely say/do what Sophie would. You would worry about it later but I’m here to tell you: you totally could and not be offensive/defensive/inappropriate.
The “this is the same as racist remarks” is a great comparison, putting that in my pocket for later.
Maybe talk to the supervisor about the issue and not the person per se. Like, “How do we handle that in the future because That didn’t seem adequate.” As much as I want to get in the car and drive over there to poke Amy in the eye.
I can’t wait until this isn’t a thing anymore. Sigh.
I wonder if there is a way to say “we cannot allow you to voice those views here” versus saying “I don’t agree with you.” I agree the goal is to shut it down (and ideally get this patron to leave) as quickly as possible without a heated confrontation. I just wonder if saying you don’t agree if not said in the most neutral friendly tone like Amy did (and I feel like I would have a lot of trouble maintaining a neutral tone in this context) could provoke further back and forth and escalate.
I agree there should be protocols in place for this and the protocols should definitely should not be anything that suggests encouragement or agreement. In my opinion that would not be creating a safe and respectful public space for all patrons of these hateful views felt encouraged/ supported.
In my former customer facing role, we had been instructed that we did not need to tolerate disrespectful communication (raised voices, cursing, slurs, name-calling). If someone was doing it on the phone, we were encouraged to say, “If you continue being disrespectful, I won’t be able to continue our conversation” and if that didn’t defuse things to say calmly, “This isn’t productive. I’m going to hang up now. ” and do so. In person, I was encouraged to set the same boundary with walking away as an option. I think that’s applicable here as well. Honestly, it’s surprising how quickly deflating it is to simply not engage someone (including not offering them the balm of polite acquiescence). It kind of takes the power out of their words to not allow them to control your engagement or discomfort.
In this particular situation, I probably would start with, I’m not interested in having this conversation with you.” and then if it continues say something like, “You are being is inappropriate and disruptive to the library. Please stop or we will have to ask you to leave.” And then quick follow up to ask them to leave if they are being disruptive.
I think it’s important to have a workplace discussion about how to handle disruptive patrons. Secondly, I wonder if the library has a policy on hate speech (and what qualifies) in the public spaces and that’s definitely a topic to discuss.
You should absolutely raise this issue to a higher level. I like the idea f the workplace going to name tags that have pronouns on them. My friend who works at a children’s hospital has this.
Libraries are great at taking a stance, and this is a great one. I’m certain you have patrons who are somewhere between non-binary and trans. It’s only a matter of time until there is a staff member who is. I’m a fan of getting ahead of things. It’s time for institutions of all sorts to get on board.
This was absolutely Upsetting and you’re right to be concerned. But I just wanted to say that I so appreciate the delicacy and thought with how you are handling this, and the recent non-binary name question over on the baby name blog.
I wanted to let you know of an incident I witnessed at Marshall’s. A elderly man was loading up a suitcase with shoes. The manager and associates stayed away from him and watched but allowed him to walk out with the loot without paying. I asked the associate why they didn’t confront him and she said, “company policy is to not have any contact someone that is out of bounds. They don’t want us getting attacked.” I was shocked but appreciative that the company takes this stance. (they do have surveillance and a loss protection department that does find these people and prosecute but they want their employees to have nothing to do with it) Anyway, with all that’s going on in this dangerous country, I would have a serious talk with your supervisor about steps to take in order to keep all the employees of the library safe.
My daughter and I both work for our local city and she gets yelled at and cussed out pretty frequently (I did my time in the trenches and I’m no longer customer-facing). Our administration does not agree that you have to put up with that nonsense to provide good customer service. Those days are over. You can be FIRM and POLITE at the same time. Sophie’s approach is excellent.
I have two trans kids, one very gender nonconforming kid who is constantly misgendered and one two kids who are non-heterosexual. I encourage all of them to think of the library as a safe space, and I think they all DO. We are constantly at the library for programming.
It would absolutely shatter their comfort in a space they’ve grown up thinking of as a refuge and an extension of home if they overheard a rant like this responded to as Amy did.
Sophie’s response or something even more firm is necessary to let gender, sexual and romantic minorities in the room, many of whom are not out, feel comfortable. That’s crucial in a space that is in my family experience one of the most welcoming places for vulnerable youth. Queer youth often use libraries to get support they may not have at home: they need libraries and they need librarians.
Not all heroes wear capes: thanks for being part of the solution on this!
Oh Swistle that sounds really upsetting. The rant itself AND Amy’s response. Yikes. Your point that a transphobic rant is akin to a racist rant is so apt. I hope that your talk with your supervisor goes well and that you all come out of it with clearer rules about dealing with bigotry vs. dealing with something that really should require a neutral response.
I think you and your coworkers should be empowered, as well, to shut down any rant on any topic if it has the potential to disrupt other patrons’ comfort in the space. As you point out, “being neutral doesn’t mean we have to let someone loudly say terrible things, and doesn’t mean that we have to be so polite that we give the impression that we agree.” Like Nicole said, the library is a public space and should be safe for people to enjoy free of attack.
Also, I admire Sophie’s response and approach. I also doubt I could come up with the appropriate tone/wording in a similar case, but I would WANT to.
Neutrality always benefits the oppressor. Sophie’s response is the way to go. Does your library have a welcoming statement? If so, you could cite the welcoming statement and say that the transphobic patron’s behavior was not in-line with the library policy.
Librarian here, your library (or library system) should have a policy about what to do when a patron is being disruptive (ie, loud). Usually they can be asked to leave, sometimes they can lose their privileges. Your supervisor will know all this. Unsatisfyingly, the CONTENT of speech is not going to be part of the policy, because Amy is right about the neutrality of the institution you represent. Of course you as an individual have a stance- that’s the whole problem here- but you can get him on the VOLUME.
Our library has a clear policy, posted everywhere, that
“To use the library, you must be:
awake
sober
not disturbing others.”
I love this because it covers everything. It’s so well phrased.
Not surprised that I agree with almost all comments here (I’m not entirely sure about having to be “awake, sober and not disturbing others – I kind of feel like ‘not disturbing others’ gets it done without overtly targeting the unhoused). I am terrible at confrontation, and when I was younger would have had trouble being firm enough when someone said something that made me uncomfortable and could have given the impression that I agreed. I have progressed to the point that, if this happens in conversation with someone in a service interaction, I simply go stone-faced and quiet while finishing the interaction (this is me receiving service, not giving) – this seems to have conveyed the proper message a few times.
I would like to say that I would have no qualms about shutting a transphobic or racist (no difference, IMO) patron down with no fear about losing my job, but that’s a pretty privileged position. I really hope your supervisor gives you a satisfactory response. I would have a lot of trouble being friendly with Amy going forward. I also love the idea of pronoun pins, although inevitably they are going to draw more ire and confrontatation.
I’m with you about having qualms with the “awake and sober” part. As a patron I don’t really care if other people are quietly napping in a comfy library chair, or are unobtrusively under the influence. Mind you, you and I live in a city where there’s a real danger of freezing to death if you fall asleep outside during the long winter months, so our perspectives might be influenced by that – there’s a greater need for free warm places to go than there might be in a warmer climate.
I work in a library and we require “awake and aware” for safety reasons for the patron. It can be very dangerous if you can’t tell if someone is napping or has overdosed. If they are not aware of their surroundings, their backpacks or other items can be stolen. We’ve had two situations this year where a patron who appeared to be sleeping was experiencing an overdose. Fortunately, our librarians (who circulate the area) discovered them in time and were able to call 911 – saving their lives. Library work is really really hard right now for so many reasons.
I’m of the opinion that silence is a tacit endorsement, and Amy allowing this guy to go on is an endorsement.
She could have said “we want everyone to feel welcome at the library and so this kind of conversation is not acceptable here” or “this isn’t a conversation I think is appropriate” both shut it down without an opinion. But me, I’d probably says something even stronger “we don’t allow hate speech here,”.
Thank you for giving a script to say!
Sadly I’ll need to use this with my FATHER and I’m not exactly sure how to transpose this to family dynamics!
I find any kind of acceptance of that behavior to be awful. Not neutral. Anyone spewing any kind of hate needs to be shut down. I had to ask myself, if I went in yelling about how awful Trump is, should I be shut down when I’m right? yes. any kind of hate, so matter the subject matter.
I agree with you in concept (any time of hate, and/or any time of loud disruption) but I also think there is a pretty fundamental difference between speaking hatefully about an individual (especially any politician) due to their policies and speaking hatefully about a group of people due to their identity.
I love Sophie’s response although I’m 100% certain I could not deliver it with the proper tone and expression as I have RBF in the best of circumstances.
Librarian here! I agree with Anna: your library or library system will likely have a policy about what qualifies as inappropriate behavior but I disagree that the content of the speech can’t be considered when deciding how to respond or that being loud is the only thing that qualifies as being disruptive. If a patron makes a calm, quiet, and smiling argument to a library employee that all women are manipulative sirens who shouldn’t be employed outside of the home etc etc etc, I think that it’s perfectly appropriate for an employee to recognize that the comment itself is disruptive, not just the tone. The response may need to be neutral: “comments meant to harm or debase a particular group aren’t welcome in this library” as opposed to “women are no such thing and I like being employed thankyouverymuch”, but you don’t have to remain complicit which can be interpreted as agreement. Disruption can come in the form of topic instead of tone and in this case, the patron was over the line on both counts. Of course, there may be debate about what topics are disruptive (the real meat of the issue here) but that’s why libraries also have anti-discrimination policies to protect marginalized patrons and employees.
Some librarians use the idea of “library neutrality” to hide their own biases and discriminatory behavior. While a public library may have a very broad collection of materials in favor of intellectual freedom, libraries don’t exist in a vacuum and they have codes of conduct that specifically protect patrons and employees from discrimination which would include discriminatory remarks, regardless of the volume of the delivery. Your library probably has a copy of Huckleberry Finn but if a patron smilingly used the N word, whether directed at a POC or not, they would, at the very least, be told that “comments like that aren’t welcome in this library” because that is discriminatory behavior, regardless of the person’s volume.
This is always a hot topic among librarians so I’d love to hear how different libraries manage the nuance in situations like this. Regardless, I’m sorry that this happened and I’m sorry that “Amy” is using library neutrality as a shield to guard their own biases.
Neutrality always benefits the oppressor and never the oppressed. Libraries should be safe spaces. Honestly, screw amy for helping make what should be a safe a place of terror for trans people. I hope your supervisor is on your side.
Oh, man. I am very uncomfortable with the idea of a librarian (also public servant) trying to limit speech based on the viewpoint/content. If the speech was loud, then address/restrict the manner of speech.
Even the ACLU advocates for free speech to include those that rant & hate. The arguments for why…Sunshine is the best disinfectant. / Slippery slope. / Knowledge is power.
Perhaps the best thing here is that you learned more about Amy.
Even the ACLU doesn’t say that free speech has to be allowed to happen absolutely anywhere the speaker wants it to happen. And even the ACLU doesn’t say that other people should be required to stand still and listen to it unresistingly—which is what is happening in this customer-service situation, where employees are not allowed their OWN right of free speech.
I think your points would be applicable if we were talking about whether librarians should restrict access to certain materials, or whether librarians should acquire only materials from viewpoints they considered Correct. But what we’re actually talking about here is whether a library clerk is required to stand passively as someone directs hate-speech at them.
“Public servant” in the context of a library means we help the public use library services, but it doesn’t mean we have to serve the public by doing whatever the public wants to do to/with us. There was no sunlight-disinfectant or knowledge-is-power happening when that patron was ranting to us. I felt poisoned, full of soot.
I work in healthcare and so a little different set-up but if people start getting loud/defiant in an exam room, I say “ I have to step out right now because you are not being appropriate and this could disturb other patients but I will check back in 5 minutes to see if you still want your blood pressure checked. “ Taking away the audience tends to reset the situation
If it happens in our waiting room, we politely request they stop and if they refuse, we request they leave and if they refuse to leave, we call the police.
So in the UK, that kind of behaviour would – I think – fall into the category of hate speech. Which means you don’t have to tolerate it and you don’t have to remain neutral, you can tell the person involved that speech, and ask them to either stop or leave. And then, if necessary, call the police.
To be fair, I think as a woman, in a female-dominated world like a library, that can feel like a risky thing to do! I can appreciate that staff would be scared to incite an aggressive response. But implying you agree? I wouldn’t be able to stomach that. I think you’re absolutely right and you need to get clarification from your manager.
So I think/hope that our local public services (things like schools and libraries) have a policy that basically, one cannot speak in a way intended (using @JC’s words from above) to harm or debase a particular group, while present in that location? Basically, that we all need to treat all users (or potential users) respectfully, at least at the level of not, you know, shouting negative comments about the group as a group.
Also, I’m sorry you experienced this, and hope your supervisor will be able to help prevent something similar from happening again.
I only have read the first comments and there are already a lot of sensible approaches there. It’s good to see people agreeing that yes, the problem is Amy and her attempt to hijack a “we shouldn’t discuss” approach to allow hateful speech she is in whatever tacit agreement with.
While my first wish would be to emphasise that part of it, I’m also aware that is not a sensible way to approach it in the work space (hrmph). So I’d probably present it in a way that basically says “we need a clearer rule about how to balance avoiding discussion with allowing hateful speech that can affect other library patrons, because in this instance, Amy’s choice led to the patron continuing to loudly exclaim intolerant and hateful speech, which directly leads to the library not being a safe space.”
I wouldn’t be surprised if that led to Amy (or someone else) trying to say it is intolerant to not let people say their opinions. To that, you could say that no one is disallowing them to *have* their opinions, and that they are free to be in the library while just having them, but that this freedom to have them should not extend to expressing them by being loudly critical of what other people *are*: about their race, gender, sexual identity, disabilities, marital status (like no rants about single moms, parents with many kids), financial situation, age, education level, heritage, country of origin, vaccination status and other aspects of being that I can’t think of right now.
Basically, that the freedom to exist in the library unbothered by other people’s personal opinions should be imperative and be a protected status, while “being loud about personal intolerance” does not deserve the same consideration.
Then I’d also talk about the statistics about suicide rates of LGBTQ teens and murder rates of trans kids, about how important it is to show that the library is a safe space where they can exist without being tense, that allowing loud intolerance makes a space not-safe, and that wearing pins with pronouns would be a very easy way to show that the library is a free-to-exist-at and safe place that is aware of and respectful of variations of gender identity and ways of addressing individuals in their preferred manner. That it is important this information is accessible (visible) without any teen (or adult) needing to disclose *first* that they fall into a non-binary category and seeking a conversation about it.
Amy won’t like it, but she can suck it, and if she protests this will only make clearer why exactly she tries to frame support for hate speech as just neutral, non-upsetting behaviour towards an intolerant loudmouth library patron.
I have thoughts about library “neutrality”! But JC, who works in a library, said them better than me already in the earlier comments (I work in an adjacent field, but not in a library). I also couldn’t find the article I was thinking of that lays out the neutrality debate but there is this Publishers Weekly article: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/libraries/article/89576-once-more-for-those-in-the-back-libraries-are-not-neutral.html
I apologize that I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments so I may be repeating a suggestion.
I also work in a library, and we are also told to remain neutral and non confrontational/argumentative, and while I understand that is probably for our protection, it can be frustrating. However, I have read a great comment that I try to keep in my back pocket in case I need it. It would be most handy when you see a conversation taking a turn, I think, and would be an effort to stop comments before they get loud and offensive. But basically when a patron starts down a road of giving you their views on whatever – politics, religion, LGBTQ+ issues, etc, you can say, “is there anything library related I can help you with now?” or even more specific like “let me go ahead and place that hold for the book we talked about earlier/renew your books/whatever so I can let you get on your way.” Now if this patron was ranting about trans things related to a library book, program, display, etc., that makes the attempt to refocus them back to “library-related” conversation more difficult. But if their unhappiness is because of something library related, that’s when I would probably ring for a supervisor.
Please give us a follow up on this topic. I am very interested in how this comes out with your supervisor. I can only imagine how my 10-year-old trans grandson would feel overhearing that interaction.