The Harvard University Library System recently announced to employees that as part of an ongoing restructuring that aims to streamline its massive network of libraries it will seek to reduce the size of its workforce. Library Exectuve Director Helen Shenton announced the cuts at a series of town hall meetings last week, emphasizing that they will be merely one step of many in a wide-ranging modernization process. According to Robert C. Darnton ’60, the Harvard University Librarian, this process is designed to make the Harvard’s libraries more “efficient,” and is presumably connected to the effort to digitize large swathes of Harvard’s collection. Darnton himself has received attention over the past year for spearheading the Digitial Public Library of America project, a nationwide digitization scheme. As the University seeks to position itself at the forefront of twenty-first century technology, it is inevitable that some will find themselves negatively affected. The job cuts may be painful, but they are necessary for catching up with technological progress and dealing with Harvard’s bloated library infrastructure. We support Harvard’s plans, although we wish to see them carried out in a humane manner.

So far, the University seems to have been surprisingly untactful in its handling of a delicate situation. HULS’s rather sudden announcement of the potential workforce cuts left much to be desired. Employees do not know exactly what their fate will be, only that some will be laid off.  As a result of the dearth of information rumors have flourished. One worker posted to Twitter that “All of Harvard library staff have just effectively been fired.” The University has exacerbated this unhappy state of affairs by asking all employees to upload their personal information and resumes onto an online database, sparking speculation that existing workers will compete among themselves for a limited number of positions. Surely, a department with a workforce of nearly 1,000 could have known better.

As the library system transforms itself, current workers should be treated fairly. Those to be dismissed deserve fair warning—not the disappointing ambiguity so far provided—and severance pay. If possible, older workers close to retirement should be gradually phased out so that the cuts cause as little harm as possible. Furthermore, once the process of renewal concludes, remaining employees should not face a larger workload than is currently the norm. Technology may supplant some labor, but the employees that remain should not be made to deliver stressful levels of productivity.

Having said this, it is also necessary to remember that Harvard’s library system has one overarching goal, namely to facilitate academic progress both within the University and outside of it. The library system is not a government public works program, nor should it be. In order to provide the services that push the boundaries of knowledge forward, the libraries may have to shed some workers. While we commiserate with those who lose their jobs, we must recognize that sometimes the University must take unpleasant action. We just hope that it does so in a considerate and thoughtful manner consistent with Harvard’s historically positive labor track record.