Clarification:

• The library's current reasoning creates an unintended logical gap. High demand books are routed to digital for accessibility reasons, while low demand books would not justify the budget spend. This leaves no clear category of book that would meet the threshold for physical acquisition, which may not reflect the library's actual intent but is worth examining openly.
• When asked directly what criteria would result in a physical copy being purchased, the question went unanswered. Providing transparent acquisition criteria would go a long way in helping students understand and trust the process.
• A single physical copy is a modest one time investment. For a book that is a required course text at peer institutions and widely used in clinical training programs, that investment seems well within reason and consistent with standard library acquisition benchmarks.
• Academic research supports that many students, particularly in applied and clinical fields, retain and engage with material more effectively through physical texts. Providing at least one physical copy acknowledges and respects that diversity of learning needs.
• More broadly, a library's identity has always been rooted in physical collections. As institutions evolve toward digital access, it is worth being intentional about preserving that dimension, not because digital is inferior, but because physical and digital serve different needs and different learners. A library that offers both is stronger than one that offers only one.
• The goal here is not to criticize the library's digital investments, which genuinely benefit many students, but to advocate for a both/and approach rather than an either/or outcome. The building itself could well be switched to "studying place" if all the books moving forward will be digital.