Skip to content


Being Truly Teen Patron Friendly

When I was a kid there was a bicycle rack outside the library. The library quietly made me feel welcome by providing a place to put my bike. As a young boy this was my ONLY mode of transportation. If I lost it or couldn’t lock it up safely, I risked having my entire life become smaller and my world become less fun, less exciting and just, well, smaller. The library and that bike rack were icons of my growing independence. I had my own bike. I had my own library card. It was somethng that I was proud of in that I was trusted at the library as an individual.
Recently I have been hearing too many stories about libraries thinking about (or actualy doing this) restricting skateboards. I hear from a few kids that some people who are working in libraries have been trying to create a flashpoint around libraries and skateboards. They’re either trying to ban their presence, or police kids in a very negative way or just create negative interactions with boys and girls wh skateboard. What’s the point of this?
What do libraries want? We want positive interactions with youth so that they do well in school, respect libraries and make them part of their lives, so that they eventually choose to vote for and support libraries as valid and valuable parts of the community. They’re the folks we need to engage long term.
So, what’s the point of having library staff encouraging negative teen patron interactions? Why don’t we have a skatebard rack inside the library? Why would we have our patrons risk their independence if their skateboard is lost or stolen? How wold they get to the library? We should support them. A skateboard box, Rubbermaid storage container or simply a towel bar by the service desk is a simple solution that provides a service instead of a negative interaction. It’s welcoming. Buy or get a second hand old skateboard and a few sticky letters that say WELCOME. Why wouldn’t we do this? It’s a cheap visible proof of welcoming attitudes.
We need to ask ourselves which of our policies really are not working for us and which one’s need to be made positive and friendly. Let’s make sure we don’t extend our authority control issues with information to authoritarian control foci with users. Not good.
Then let’s run our policies through a discussion with our teen advisors. Adventurous and visionary libraries know the value of this through experience.
I can see the change. In these Olympic weeks Skiiers have been joined by Snow Boarders. At home, Bicyclists have been joined by Skateboarders. Time to adapt to a new reality.
Stephen

0 Shares

Posted on: February 16, 2006, 3:55 pm Category: Uncategorized

7 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. You bring up an excellent question. We are in the final two months of preparing our next branch to open. While I was working in the building last Sunday I noticed about ten young teens using our parking lot for skateboarding. They were having a wonderful time. Obviously this presents issues that must be addressed once we open and have cars and people in the parking lot, but it also raises questions about teen-friendly libraries that are not so easy to answer. I am hoping that we will be able to walk a gentle middle road and become a welcoming place for those teens.

  2. Amen! Let’s hope that the people in the pews and the people in the choir hear this message. (Gee…this sounds like spam, but it isn’t!)
    BTW I’m doing a workshop on library outreach tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what people think of some of the examples I’m going to show.

  3. Right on. At one library I know of, kids have to turn in their skateboards to the reference desk. I like the idea of a box or a shelf much better, though–it’s more like “here’s a place for your skateboard” and less like “you have to turn that in.”

  4. This is great in theory. However, the problem is not simply the use of skateboards to get to the library. This in itself is fine, the kid carrying the board while in the library is fine.
    The problem is property damage done to the library grounds when it is used as a skate park.
    The problem is parents of young children and elderly patrons who avoid the library because they are scared to pass through the teens doing skate jumps off the front steps.
    The problem is the liability of the library when said skater falls on his head and breaks his neck on library property.

  5. Laura (et al) – how are those concerns any different from risks already incurred by enabling _people_ to use the library?
    Liability, property damage, worried patrons are absolutely still issues even without skateboards.
    So the question becomes, why is a single mode prohibited when it is the _behavior_ that is the problem?

  6. Bsaxton… your point has little validation. Yes, liability, property damage, etc. are still issues. But, do me a favor and replace the skateboard with a firearm. Does the presence of a firearm mean someone will get hurt? No. Does it drastically increase the likelihood that someone will? I would say yes. And, so would the police that your taxes fund. And, so would the “head policeman” that your community, most likely, voted into office.
    I’m not even going to get into the problems my library faces. I can, however, tell you that my little brother has had at least 10 skateboards in the past two years. His friends, likewise, have had numerous boards. Those boards don’t just magically break. They undergo insane amounts of stress. So do the skateboarders themselves. In two years, my brother and ALL his skateboarding friends have had serious injuries (broken bones, sprained joints, bruised ribs, concussions, etc). Any trial lawyer with bills to pay will jump at the chance to represent someone who has been skating in a certain place during business hours for an extended period of time who, finally, injures him-/herself.
    Think I’m wrong? McDonald’s works with food. Roaches eat food. If you find a roach in your child’s Happy Meal… we’ve heard the ridiculous amounts awarded.

  7. Correction: Andrew* Not Bsaxton… I erroneously associated bsaxton with the latest entry. Apologies…