Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Years ago I wrote that the greatest thing about Harvard was its magnificent library. This is even truer today since Mr. Metcalf has made out of it a remarkable library system with numerous innovations and departments efficiently staffed. Unfortunately, however, the tendency has been to allow more and more privileges on the non-reading side while restricting serious readers in various ways. Laxity on the one side will inevitably act as a restrictive measure on the other. It would seem as if American university libraries are doing their utmost to compensate for the rigorous regulations of European libraries, particularly the Bibliotheque Nationale. Continuous loud talking is allowed in periodical and reading rooms, not to mention the stacks, where even lunches are munched lately. Expensive reference works like encyclopedias and dictionaries are handled so roughly by users that pages are torn and parts are even ripped out. Feet are displayed right on the reading table, close to your nose, if you happen to be sitting opposite the comfort-seeker, and I can mention a few other habits and uses or rather abuses which students should have been taught long ago, if they haven't the inner breeding, to avoid.

Worst of all, however, is the fact that non-smokers, and particularly those who have allergies, throat sensitivity, or some bronchial condition must become martyrs if they wish to consult reference works either in Widener or Lamont; for a dozen or more foul-smelling pipes are exploding clouds of bitter smoke into their eyes, mouth, and nose until they are almost suffocated. In Lamont, although smoking is permitted only in the reference room, smokers wander about the reserve shelves, perfectly oblivious of the fact that there are boundaries.

It is a pity that this beautiful reading room of Widener is beginning to look more like a tavern, but what is of far greater concern is that a number of readers are victimized because others wish to enjoy a dubious luxury while reading. What prevents these latter from utilizing a smoking room for that purpose, since the primary use of a library is reading and not smoking? The other alternative is, perhaps, to build a library for non-smokers.

Perhaps I may make so bold as to content that it is just as natural and normal not to smoke as to smoke, and if so, then is not the non-smoker entitled to read without being annoyed by fumes of strong tobacco, especially on a damp day, with all the windows closed?

It would occur to me that where the primary use of a library is reading and not smoking, non-smoking readers should have as much right to read in comfort as smokers. A. A. Roback '17