Editorial

It is perhaps a little ironic that a notice announcing the temporary closure of the Library should sit so close to a letter condemning it. The timing of this stage of the Library’s development is also unfortunate coming so soon after another closure of half the Library due to an electrical fault earlier this week. Together, these closures put extra pressure on Library users who may have exams in the coming weeks.

Presumably the scheduling of works in the Library is done in advance, so why was such an inappropriate time chosen? It reminds me of similar situation at the end of last year when Weeks Hall residents were treated to a cacophony of building noise and disruption in the week proceeding the summer exams. The building work was not a major concern; a path was being laid to connect the north side of Prince’s Garden’s to a newly purchased piece of land behind Weeks. In order that the path be ready for a garden party to mark the opening of the new plot, the path had to be completed during the revision period of the residents.

They were not impressed and made their feelings known to various members of the College hierarchy. Their disquiet went so far as to advertising the internal telephone number of Ian Caldwell about the Hall along with an encouragement to use it.

Eventually, the College agreed to a rebate on the residents’ rent for the disturbance, which accounts for disruption to the students as residents, but not academically wise. However, in the current situation I think some form of compensation to those put out by the Library’s closure is unlikely. It would be difficult in any case to identify who should receive renumeration, but also how can the effect of the missing resource be quantified and the result applied to exam scores?

The biologists who have signed the letter have a valid point - the closure is going to affect them - but in the absence of any suitable compensation, I would recommend that you take as many books out as possible.