Every Princeton student knows what to do on the way out of Firestone Library. Pausing at the security desk, library visitors open their bags for inspection. After a quick glance into the backpack, the guards smile, give a thumbs-up, and visitors are free to exit.
Firestone’s security is extensive. In 2012, renovations to library systems introduced digital scanners at the desk at Firestone, which sound an alarm if a book that has not been checked out is brought through the library’s exit, and a digital card sensor, requiring users to swipe their Princeton ID to enter the library. If a visitor who is not a member of the University community wants to access Firestone’s collections, they can register for entry as the guest of a student, faculty member, or alumnus. Library borrowing cards are also available for $800 a year. Effectively, Firestone administrators have not only taken measures against book theft; they have also ensured that all library visitors are identified upon entering.
On top of these substantial measures, the bag check for books is a ridiculous redundancy — and an unnecessary inconvenience given the time it takes. And, in a University that prides itself on its vaunted Honor Code, insisting on both checks and electronic scanners suggests an unjustified lack of trust in the student body.
Stealing books from University libraries was an epidemic in the 1970s. According to one student at the time: “You just put the book in the waistband of your pants where it’s covered by your jacket and walk straight out. No one’s going to stop you.” In 1982, a police search found over 1,000 stolen Princeton library books in the home of a former graduate student. While some students would steal by concealing their books, others had to resort to more drastic measures. In 1974, one method of theft among students was throwing books from Firestone windows at night. The thieves would then leave the library and collect the books from outside. The window method was so prevalent in the 1970s that University administrators had Firestone’s windows locked to ensure the thefts would stop.
But this kind of rampant theft is no longer a problem.
When the electronic scanners were originally installed in 2012, it was understood that the devices could eventually make bag checks obsolete. As then-Director of Library Finance and Administration Jeff Rowland noted, the changes to Firestone’s entrance were meant to make the library “a safer, more open environment for everyone on campus.” Rowland went on to suggest the possibility that the library could follow the new book scanners with an eventual end to bag checks. Despite Rowland’s suggestion, there have been no major developments in library policy over the last 13 years.
Most security guards at Firestone examine bags with the quickest of glances, likely assuming that no library visitor would dare to steal a book given Firestone’s extensive security measures. Guards typically only give the main pocket of students’ bags a cursory glance. Although guards are technically supposed to inspect students’ laptops, many don’t bother —- and rightfully so. It would take an incredible lapse of judgment to attempt to sneak a book past the library’s scanning system. Instead, bag searches feel mainly symbolic, a University gesture meant to project care about propriety, rather than effectively function as a security check.
Still, as the library approaches closing time, or occasionally during busy daytime hours, lines for the bag check at Firestone can stretch across the entryway. While individual checks are not particularly time-consuming, exiting the library can come with a long, unnecessary wait.
Given that some books in Firestone’s stacks are worth over $1,000, and that not all library visitors are members of the University community, it is understandable that the University takes some security measures. But the bag check as practiced isn’t a serious attempt to find contraband. Getting rid of the checks would emphasize a new level of trust between library administration and visitors.
Students have legitimately criticized the bag check for decades. Complaints over the absurdity of library checkout policies date as far back as a 1979 satire of library policies in the ‘Prince’. In 2007, ‘Prince’ columnist Michael Medeiros noted that the bag check policy creates long lines to exit Firestone just for the sake of largely performative inspections. As Medeiros wrote, under Firestone’s policy, stealing books is easily achieved by “[keeping] your hidden library books in your backpack’s side pocket.” The University clearly didn’t get the memo — the same is true today. Princeton students left throwing books out the window in the seventies; it’s time for University policy to catch up.
Josh Stiefel ’29 is a contributing Opinion writer for the ‘Prince.’ He is from Teaneck, N.J. and can be reached at js9365@princeton.edu.
Read More
Terms of Respect defends student speech — but doesn’t respect it
Ava JohnsonEisgruber characterizes student speech as practice, not real engagement. His one-dimensional view of students fails to account for our simultaneous existence within and outside of the Orange Bubble. But our speech, like us, is not confined to the Princeton community, and attempting to shield or protect students from the real world can underrate our participation in it.
Eisgruber characterizes student speech as practice, not real engagement. His one-dimensional view of students fails to account for our simultaneous existence within and outside of the Orange Bubble. But our speech, like us, is not confined to the Princeton community, and attempting to shield or protect students from the real world can underrate our participation in it.
Don’t swipe left just because you disagree on politics
Roberto LachnerWe should strive for more than just “common courtesy” for everyone to “feel safe” in the discussion. We should hold space for the possibility that the human being sitting across from us may be one of good values and would bring immense joy and growth into our lives as a close friend or partner.
We should strive for more than just “common courtesy” for everyone to “feel safe” in the discussion. We should hold space for the possibility that the human being sitting across from us may be one of good values and would bring immense joy and growth into our lives as a close friend or partner.
Vote Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president: your guide to the winter 2025 USG ballot
Daily Princetonian Editorial BoardThe Daily Princetonian Editorial Board weighs in on the USG candidates up and down the ballot, including endorsing Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president. In his platform and responses to our questions, Colón Roosevelt focused on relevant issues and pathways through which USG can exercise power — both in ways that address inefficiencies and leverage existing structures and in ways that expand the current role of undergraduate student representation.
The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board weighs in on the USG candidates up and down the ballot, including endorsing Quentin Colón Roosevelt ’27 for president. In his platform and responses to our questions, Colón Roosevelt focused on relevant issues and pathways through which USG can exercise power — both in ways that address inefficiencies and leverage existing structures and in ways that expand the current role of undergraduate student representation.