Peyton Eck

Associate Professor of English Katherine Lanning listens along at the Thursday town hall. Lanning was among the numerous faculty members that attended.

At Ablah Library, a “lost book” isn’t one of the thousands of volumes thrown into a campus dumpster last spring; it’s a book that is one day overdue. Ablah is now strictly enforcing a fee policy that categorizes any and all overdue items as “lost” rather than “late.” You may ask yourself, what’s the difference? But if you’ve been hit with a lost-item fee lately, you’ll know the answer: cost.

The distinction between a lost library item and a late one matters because a lost-item fee is much larger than a late fee. It covers the cost of the item itself, plus reacquisition and processing fees, that can sometimes total upwards of $100 per item. With our library’s current policy, an overdue item is now “lost” when it is sitting on your desk, in your backpack, on your shelf, even in your hands. A student may still be using a library book for class, yet the moment a due date passes, that item is reclassified as “lost” when it isn’t lost at all.

Let’s make an important concession to Ablah Library here and to the many wonderful librarians who work there. A due date is a necessary administrative tool for library circulation. It sets a clear expectation for when an item should be returned so that others can use it. As patrons, we should all respect that due date and make every effort to heed the courtesy notices we receive and return checked-out materials on time.

But if we fail to meet that expectation, our lateness does not suddenly equal loss. Standard practice at many academic libraries involves a tiered system: overdue first and then, only after weeks or sometimes even months, does “lost” status apply. This tiered model recognizes both the busy realities of student life and the importance of encouraging continued engagement with library resources. Ablah Library’s policy cuts out these steps, collapsing “late” and “lost” into one category with financial consequences that far exceed those of traditional overdue fines.

Dean of University Libraries Dr. Brent Mai has indicated that there will be no waiving or reimbursing of fees upon returning an overdue item. This is also contrary to standard practice. Grace periods and fee-forgiveness policies are common, as they help students return to library use without financial barriers. Other Kansas universities, for example, take this approach. KU waives lost-item fees if the item is returned within 60 days of its due date, and K-State waives such fees if the item is returned within 6 months of the due date. At WSU, however, if I return an item one day after the due date, I must pay a lost-item fee.

Even more unusual, Ablah’s policy of “lost” books appears to absolve the library of ownership of its own material. When asked if the library would accept returned overdue items, Dean Mai stated that by keeping the item past its due date, the patron has effectively purchased the item and that any return would have to go through a donation process. This policy seems both needlessly complicated and worryingly disinterested in the integrity of our physical collection at Ablah Library. The library not only immediately categorizes an overdue item as lost; it also treats that status as final. The patron is, in effect, forced into buying the book at full replacement and processing costs, and the library will not accept the item as a return. In my view, it is this policy’s refusal to simply allow the item back into circulation that truly makes a book “lost.” Why is this our policy? Why are we being asked to accept that a late item and a lost item are the same thing and that we should therefore pay heftier fees for overdue material? Who does this benefit?

Whether intentional or not, the policy seems likely to generate revenue and reduce physical holdings. Neither of these outcomes aligns with the ethical purpose of library fines, which should aim to encourage responsible use, not punish patrons. For students already balancing rent, tuition and textbook costs, the financial hit of a lost-item fee can be devastating. While some may be able to absorb the fee, others may shy away from using the library altogether for fear of being penalized beyond what they can afford. That risks discouraging exactly the kind of engagement with physical media that a university library should encourage.

A late book is not automatically a lost book. Yet at our library, a late book cannot be returned, only purchased. Ablah Library’s patrons deserve a fair policy that follows best practices. Our current policy, one that assumes the worst and punishes the harshest, is not serving its students. And that is the real loss.