Yes, libraries sometimes "throw away" books - it's called *discarding*

Now that I think about it, I've posted on this topic before.  Most people are outraged when they learn that libraries cull their collections, weed out unnecessary, unused and inaccurate titles to make way for the new, relevant and accurate books.

Sacrilege.

Sometimes this can be taken perhaps a bit too far, as evidenced in the Fairfax County library system that "destroyed" 250,00 books.  



Or was it?

I recommend that the library system hire a PR coach, or perhaps the article did not include the director's entire response.  Sam Clay (director) said something like this:

"... it was a necessary part of bringing the libraries from 'a print environment to a digital environment' and an unfortunate consequence of budget cuts. 'We’ve got decrease after decrease.'” 

To fully represent both sides, the article should mention why fewer books save money.  If the library is moving digital, they may not have people to work behind the circulation desk to actually check out books.  The article also states that several "highly relevant" titles were found in the dumpster, such as Harry Potter and a Charlie Brown book (thanks to a suspicious dumpster diver, the books were found).  My question is, how many of these titles remain on the shelf?  They may have 55 copies of Harry Potter and discarded 5, hardly a crime.

Finally, for an answer as to why these books weren't given to the Friends of the Library for fundraising purposes, one need look no further that this article.  An  uniformed, or misinformed, public and lousy journalism that only paints one side can get people all into a tizzy.  Don't we clean out our closets and give to Good Will?  Throw a garage sale?  Our libraries are not second hand stores.  Our patrons deserve sought after books and current, accurate information or else we aren't doing our job.  Libraries are dynamic, constantly changing centers of information and discarding reflects that. Period.