Abstract
This paper argues that in the name of tolerance if nothing else, libraries should maintain robust collections of LGBTQ+ resources, and as a result, emphasizes the importance of an inclusive collection. Briefly, some history is added to the consideration of censorship, which so deeply harms the library. As for censorship, both self-censorship by the librarian and censorship by the community are discussed, as well as ways that censorship has been countered. Reasons why a librarian may avoid including LGBTQ+ resources are also considered, and the extent of the problem of censorship.
Keywords: LGBTQ+, censorship, library collections, libraries, tolerance
Introduction
There has been a long history of censorship of LGQBT+ materials, especially in libraries. Few topics are more controversial than the LGQBT+ community’s lifestyles in today’s world. Even though LGQBT+ rights have come far in recent decades, censorship is still an issue. That, along with neglect of LGQBT+ collections, has made it difficult to find good LGQBT+-friendly resources in libraries. This is despite the fact that other controversial material has been included within collections to a greater degree, including materials that explore multiple sides of issues, even going over unpopular opinions. Rubin (2016) explains that one of the values of librarianship is tolerance (p. 540). “It presumes that more than one perspective on a subject might be reasonable and exposure to many ideas might help us to understand and approach the truth” (Rubin, 2016, p. 540). In the name of tolerance, LGQBT+ collections should be robust and inclusive in every public library, and censorship and neglect of these collections should be avoided whenever possible.
The importance of an inclusive collection
At this time, most libraries are failing to round out their collections when it comes to LGBTQ+ resources. “Studies have shown that the vast majority of libraries lack high-quality, comprehensive LGBT collections” (Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, p. 104). This is a major issue when it comes to upholding the value of tolerance and when considering the fact that librarians should be engaging in service to all their patrons. Having a comprehensive collection of LGBTQ+ resources benefits the learning and tolerance of all patrons when it is done correctly AASL, 2018, p. 5).
This issue is especially critical considering that “research suggests that between 3 percent and 10 percent of any community is gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender” (Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, p. 106). That may not seem like much, but consider that low percentages of the population are in other minorities, and yet in these other minorities, books are expected to be part of the library collection. For instance, very few people have bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, and many other mental health conditions, but a public library would have some explaining to do if they did not include any resources for these minorities. Additionally, the American Library Association maintains “that libraries and librarians have an obligation to resist efforts that systematically exclude materials dealing with any subject matter, including sex, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation” (as cited in Winter, 2019, p. 5).
Having a robust LGBTQ+ collection in school libraries is especially important, even though it certainly is important in public libraries too. Whelan (2006) believed it “could discourage teasing and bullying in schools and foster a climate of tolerance and acceptance.” (as cited in Garry, 2015, p. 74). That makes sense, since greater understanding of the LGBTQ+ community’s unique challenges and struggles is likely to increase empathy. Furthermore, students themselves are asking for these titles (Garry, 2015, p. 75).
The collection should be inclusive for the sake of children, in both public and school libraries. Dr Rudine Bishop (1990) says “When children cannot find themselves reflected in the books they read, or when the images they see are distorted, negative, or laughable, they learn a powerful lesson about how they are devalued in the society of which they are a part.” (as cited in AASL, 2018, p. 17). Representation does matter, and it can be done well or poorly. When it is done well, the entire community benefits.
Additionally, the mental health of LGBTQ+ youths must be considered. According to Winter (2019),
The Trevor Project: Saving LGBTQ Lives, http://www.thetrevorproject.org, reports on some unsettling numbers among our LGBTQ youth. They report that LGBTQ youth are “almost five times as likely to have attempted suicide compared to heterosexual youth” and “LGBTQ youth who come from highly rejecting families are 8.4 times as likely to have attempted suicide as LGBTQ peers who reported no or low levels of family rejection.” (p. 6)
Promoting the mental health and physical safety of the community is part of the library’s responsibilities.
Another reason for an inclusive collection is the problems caused by failure to have an inclusive collection in the past. “Time and time again, sexual minority adults say that as young people they turned to libraries to try to find out something about LGBTQ realities and identities—usually, until recently, to little or no avail other than for dictionary definitions.” (Schrader, 2009, p. 107). People go to libraries to discover information typically, but sometimes they come to the library to discover themselves.
According to the American Library Association (2018) “In the light of the number of challenges that LGBTQ+-focused books face, school librarians need continued support to safeguard their collections against challenges that target their inclusive books featuring LGBTQ+ realities.” Even though librarians should conceivably be able to maintain their collections of LGBTQ+ books and other resources on their own, support from the community is also important. Aggressive efforts by the community to censor these materials put pressure on librarians. The continued support of the community can make an inclusive collection more likely.
History of censorship
Censorship of LGBTQ+ resources has a long history. To use just one example, the censorship in comics was evident until very recently. This is relevant to libraries because libraries had no chance of including enough LGBTQ+ resources until these resources were widely published. Continuing with the example of comics, it must be remembered that:
Despite occasional sightings of such characters likely intended to read as gay or lesbian, most newspaper strips remained bound by the Comics Code Authority, which kept GLBTQ representation limited to offensive stereotypes. Not until the 1970s, when the Code’s regulatory stronghold loosened in the face of independent cartoons and social movements including gay and women’s liberation, was there space for more realistic and sensitive portrayals of GLBTQ characters on the funny pages (Greyson, 2007, p. 132).
Regular books and other resources have shown a similar trajectory in their rise to being more inclusive.
Self-censorship and LGBTQ+ materials
Self-censorship is an even larger problem than censorship by the community, because it is carried out by the librarians, either through fear of retaliation from the community or due to personal beliefs. Both of these reasons are problematic, because libraries should be a force for democracy and tolerance in their communities. According to Antell, Strothman, and Downey (2013), “Self-censorship is tricky because it’s usually invisible—if a library is missing a book, nobody can say for certain why it’s missing” (p. 104). It may have been taken out, been too expensive, been overlooked, been not chosen because there was a better option ((Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, 2013, p. 104). These reasons can all hide what is sometimes the true reason—censorship by the librarian.
Even if the library has a book in its collection, something similar to censorship by librarians can still occur. This can be from “limiting access to young adult books with LGBTQ themes by shelving them in the adult section or placing them on restricted shelving where students cannot access them without special permission” (Garry, 2015, p. 76). Placing LGBTQ+ materials in the adult section for no other reason than the fact that they depict LGBTQ+ relationships is very similar to censorship because it is making it harder for teens and children who need this information and support from these resources. Winter (2019) noticed a similar problem: “library personnel are hesitant to provide students with age-appropriate lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning (LGBTQ) resources” (p. 5). Librarians are treating age-appropriate material for children as adult material just because of controversial content.
Additionally, Garry (2015) wrote that “Other librarians reported that they “hid” controversial titles by removing references to homosexuality and related identifiers in the catalog records, to make the titles all but invisible to young patrons and potential censors” (p. 76). It does make sense that this is a way to prevent censorship, but it still makes it hard for people to access information. That is not what librarians should be doing, since one of their greatest goals is to make it easier for people to access information.
Censorship by the community
Censorship by the community is especially strong in school libraries. For instance, the book Call Me Max by Kyle Lukoff was censored by parents in Austin, Texas, because it tells the story of a transgender boy (Censorship dateline, 2021, p. 14). Additionally, a “trustee on the board of the Evansville Vanderburgh Public Library (EVPL) lost her seat after supporting the library’s plans for an event with drag queens and kings reading to children” (Drag Queen Story Times, 2019, p. 67). Of a similar event, a pastor said publicly, “We are not here to reject the LGBTQ community. We are here simply to reject the program” (Drag Queen Story Times, 2019, p. 67). It is clear that the pastor is rejecting a person reading because their lifestyle is believed not to be suitable, however. This should not be allowed to interfere with story times. Parents, after all, can choose whether or not to bring children to these events.
Pekoll (2021) notes that “In June, during ALA’s Rainbow Book….libraries often receive complaints about displays that celebrate Pride Month or recognize LGBTQ+ history” (p. 27). There are people who want these books censored, or at least want to make them less visible.
Countering censorship in the community
When a policy prohibited any display that promoted “gay pride,” “The FLA Executive Board resolved that the association will not hold conferences….until the county commission rescinds the policy.” (Oder, 2005, p. 16). Clearly, there are organizations that will not stand for censorship by local governments. In this same case, in which a display of LGBTQ+ books was taken down, “The group Equality Florida held a read-in at the Westgate Regional Library in Tampa” (Oder, 2005, p. 16). During this read-in, people quietly checked out the books that had been part of the display and read them in public. These efforts show that not everyone supports the censorship of these materials.
Reasons a librarian may not maintain a significant LGBTQ+ collection
Librarians are not short on reasons why they are not maintaining a comprehensive LGBTQ+ collection. For instance, they may claim that it is difficult to find good LGBTQ+ books. That is, however, not true. There are tons of resources for anyone willing to look, even if traditional sources “such as Publisher’s Weekly and Booklist” do not have them (Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, 2013, p. 105). If nothing else, the popular website Goodreads.com has a variety of reviews of LGBTQ+ resources, and the website Diversebooks.org has a selection of resources.
Other librarians worry what maintaining a diverse collection of LGBTQ+ resources says about them as a person. This is not a legitimate concern. Having a book about a controversial topic in the library does not reflect badly on the priorities of the librarian. Instead, it shows that the librarian is committed to their profession regardless of their personal feelings on certain subject matters (Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, 2013, p. 105).
Another concern is that the budget may be too tight. However, what subjects “hit the chopping block” first says a lot about the values of librarians (Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, 2013, p. 106). It shows whether they value all of their community or just part of it, and what subject matter is “expendable” (Antell, Strothmann, & Downey, 2013, p. 106).
Garry (2015) referenced another scenario, in which a librarian didn’t have LGBTQ+ books because she didn’t believe there were any LGBTQ+ students in her school (p. 83). She used the same reasoning to exclude all books with African American characters (Garry, 2015, p. 83). It is obvious that not having either of those scenarios deprives students of the diversity they deserve in their reading.
Stines (2005) explained that a display at their library had to be taken down partially because “the location of the display exhibited no sensitivity to the fact that small children could not approach the children’s area without directly passing this display.” (p. 25). That is problematic because it assumes LGBTQ+ content is unsuitable for children to see. That is not true in most cases. There are plenty of PG-rated shows, for instance, that are suitable for children such as She-Ra and the Princesses of Power. The only way it would be inappropriate would be if there was nudity or something obscene on the cover, which has nothing to do with the fact that they were LGBTQ+ books.
The extent of the problem
Garry (2015) completed a study on this issue, and offered this information:
Quantitative data were collected from 120 Ohio public high school libraries and 12 school librarians were interviewed. The results suggest that school libraries tended to have significantly fewer LGBTQ-themed books than titles with other kinds of controversial content (p. 73).
This should not be a problem, since school libraries should present conflicting experiences and viewpoints for their patrons to better come to understand the world. Yet, it is. Librarians are more afraid or unwilling to include LGBTQ+ materials in their collections even though they are willing to include other controversial materials. Garry (2015) provided a personal example of a teen blogger named Brent, who was told when he asked for LGBTQ+ materials that “This is a school library. If you’re looking to read inappropriate titles, go to a bookstore” (p. 73). Public libraries and school libraries across the country have the same issues—LGBTQ+ titles are neglected, not recommended, or unavailable.
Conclusion
LGBTQ+ materials should not be censored merely because part of the community does not appreciate or condone the LGBTQ+ members of the community. There are books on controversial topics that flourish in libraries and remain there despite attempted censorship by the community. It should be the same for LGBTQ+ materials. The library should stand for democracy and tolerance, not censorship and exclusion. The community should be unable to sway the library in this matter.
I have several recommendations. The first is that librarians should stop worrying about the community bullying them into removing books. There will always be people who disagree and try to censor. My second recommendation is that librarians should be more concerned with doing their jobs well according to the values of librarianship than their personal belief system. If they cannot do their job ethically, then they should not be librarians. Finally, I believe that all librarians should educate themselves about the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities in order to better serve their communities.
Sources
American Library Association, A. A. A. of S. L. (AASL). (2018). Defending intellectual freedom: LGBTQ+ materials in school libraries. American Association of School Librarians.
Antell, K., Strothmann, M., & Downey, J. (2013). Self-Censorship in selection of LGBT-themed materials. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 53(2), 104–107. https://doi-org.proxy-clarion.klnpa.org/10.5860/rusq.53n2.104
Censorship dateline. (2021). Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy, 6(2), 12–20.
Drag queen story times. (2019). Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy, 4(1), 67–70. https://doi-org.proxy-clarion.klnpa.org/10.5860/jifp.v4i1.7014
Garry, C. P. (2015). Selection or censorship? School librarians and LGBTQ resources. School Libraries Worldwide, 21(1), 73–90.
Greyson, D. (2007). GLBTQ content in comics/graphic novels for teens. Collection
Building, 26(4), 130–134. https://doi-org.proxyclarion.klnpa.org/10.1108/01604950710831942
Home. WNDB Diversebooks, https://diversebooks.org/
Oder, N. (2005). Florida county bans “Gay Pride.” Library Journal, 130(13), 16–17.
LGBTQ+. GoodReads, https://www.goodreads.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=LGBTQ%2B
Pekoll, K. (2021). A deeper look: Censorship beyond books: Confronting challenges to other library resources. American Libraries, 52(7/8), 26–28.
Rubin, R. E. (2016). Foundations of library and information science (4th ed.). ALA Neal-Schuman.
Schrader, A. M. (2009). Challenging Silence, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience: LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries. Feliciter, 55(3), 107–109.
Stines, J. (2005). A management issue. Florida Libraries, 48(2), 25–27.
Winter, J. (2019). Equity Through Diversity: The Importance of LGBTQ Titles in Our Elementary School Libraries. CSLA Journal, 43(1), 5–8.
