Access to Information
Last night, while I was sitting at this very desk in the midst of reading a book about the failings of the press, I was approached by one of our regular indigent patrons with a request pertaining directly to the other regular indigent patron. Seemingly, this request was rather benign in nature, but, in retrospect, seemed to be rather self-serving in nature and without regard to the requester's own similar behavior. Regardless, being the "gatekeeper" of knowledge here at the library requires a certain persona that's open to various forms of communication and, albeit, a certain patience with clipped, partial phrases and interrupted thoughts. So, I listened with the patience of a saint to this vagabond much in the same manner in which I would listen to any other patron with the necessary means to conform one's self to the most agreed upon aspects of civil and educated society. As the conversation progressed, however, I became aware of the fact that it was with this conversation that I was being poked and prodded conversationally in an effort to glean information regarding the daily occurrences of this very building. This, no doubt, was in an effort to procure more useful information pertaining to the shortcomings of this institution that this particular patron feels it necessary to remedy at all costs even if the costs include his ultimate exile from these premises. What I saw was important. What I told him would only add fuel to the fire, so I approached cautiously.

To expound a little about this patron, he's a man who, to all observers is homeless in every sense of the word. His unkempt style, which could be attributed to eccentricity if not for the utter lack of hygienic care and stylistic wherewithal is a dead giveaway to the fact that this man is not in possession of many things valuable, especially a home. Due to his continuous years of frequenting this establishment, he's become somewhat of a fixture here, an unsightly, unkempt fixture but a fixture nonetheless. Day in and day out this man comes here to work diligently on some form of legalesque project. He gathers textbooks around "his" computer, something we'll return to momentarily, and works for hours on end compiling information for some sort of clandestine, heavily shrouded project that reminds one of the secrecy regarding such groups as the Freemasons or the projects at Area 51. In this regard, he is "working" with legal materials and doing legal research, which is a requirement for accessing and using the computers here in this library. However, over the months and, I'm assuming years, this man along with his comrade have been in direct violation of the rules. It should be noted that this other vagrant does nothing regarding legal research. His time is spent, hours upon end, surfing the internet, looking at websites, and sprawling his enormous girth across two workstations. The only reason that this individual comes to this library is due to the fact that no other library on campus allows users to access the internet without a user name and password, which neither of these two individuals possess due to the fact that neither one of them are associated with the university in any sense of the word. Also, over at the Carnegie, they've instituted a time limit on the computers, a good idea to say the least, and this has been deemed as a hellish violation of the rights of individuals by both men. So it goes, day in and day out, these two derelicts engage in a test of wills, it seems, to establish who can stay on the computers the longest. The winner, inevitably, is always the mainstay, who has asserted on numerous occasions that he "contributes" to the library. One can almost hear the pleas of a victimless crime, a hypocritical victim no less, claiming that his rights should be upheld at the expense of the other.

This brings us back to the conversation last night. It started out innocently, one of the many inane requests by this man to intervene in some form or another with regards to minor violations. This spiraled into what one can only construed as an effort to mine information for the purposes of bringing some form of legal action against either this library, the university, or both in an effort to redress some heinous actions that have been witnessed by this patron over the years. The word "evil" was used repeatedly to describe some of the employees across the board. After this revelation, what occurred can only be described as a debate. I was debating a homeless man on the issues regarding access to this library with the direct reference regarding this man and his counterpart, who plugged away oblivious to the world around him. In all this, one point emerged, and that being the effort it would take to educate this other patron in order to convince him to actually utilize the resources available here for legal purposes, which would lead to, in this man's words, "landmark" decisions. This, obviously, is an arguable point. Other points that are raised, though, are the issues of freedom of access to information and the nature of the profession. Is intervention an actual requirement or even a necessity with regards to a specialized library? Access is one issue easily solved. You're either allowed in here, or you aren't. It's as simple as that. Arguably, one can point out this is, by law, a depository that is, again by law, open to the public. What isn't arguable is how one should have to adhere to the rules and regulations once one enters the confines of this establishment.

Addressing the second issue of intervention, I, personally, didn't enter this profession to become a counselor, someone who addresses the problems and issues of patrons who, regardless of background and status, aren't in possession of their faculties. This may sound heartless and coming from someone without compassion, but there's a line that needs to be drawn with regards to the types of activities and services one can expect from institutions. In this case, I don't think there's any argument regarding what's right and what's wrong. However, I do think that issues that are in direct violation of the codes of conduct for this library in particular and the university in general should be addressed, as long as they aren't the conspiratorial nonsense of a derelict. I don't think that this man realizes that bringing any sort of action against this place would, in effect, be biting the hand that feeds him. Also, when one is continuously involved in researching against the grievous offenses perpetrated by the very institution one frequents and that has extended beyond a reasonable amount of courtesy towards, that these types of "landmark" cases being referred to that could be brought about by the other patron would most likely fall under the category of fruitless and wasteful. People have rights, even the homeless to some extent, but this seems like an effort to redress wrongs that only occur within the confines of a delusional mind.