ACCESSIBILITY OF GLBT-THEMED PICTURE BOOKS
IN CHILDREN’S DEPARTMENTS
IN CONNECTICUT PUBLIC LIBRARIES
BY
MARTHA BLUME
A Special Project Proposal Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Master of Science
Southern Connecticut State University
New Haven, Connecticut
May 2013
Southern Connecticut
State University
School of
Graduate
Studies
Special Project Completion
Signature Sheet
Name: Martha Blume
Banner J.D.: 70442505
Address: 125 Mountain Road
City: Cheshire
State: CT
Zip Code:
06410
Program: Masters of Library and Information Science Number of Credits Completed: 30
Name of Special Project Advisor: Dr. Chang Suk Kim, Ph.D.
Name of Second Reader: Sue Hartley, MLS, Director of Children's Services, Cheshire Public Library
Title of Special Project: Accessibility of GLBT-Themed Picture Books in Children's Departments in
Connecticut Public Libraries
Date of completion of Special Project: May 30, 2013
Advisor/Reader/Chairperson Statement: I have reviewed the Special Project final product and final
report and find they meet the standards of the discipline and the department for a Special Project.
Signature of Special Project Advisor
Date
Date
Signature of Department Chairperson
Date
Signature of Graduate Dean
Date
ii
Abstract
While the gay/lesbian lifestyle is becoming more prevalent in America, with various celebrities
and athletes “coming out of the closet,” some states legalizing gay marriage and, recently, the American
Pediatrics Association releasing a statement in support of same-sex marriages, libraries have been slow to
catch up with this sociopolitical issue; it is still difficult to find children’s books that represent same-sex
parents.
This study explored reasons for the lack of accessibility of gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered
(GLBT) picture books for children in twenty-five public libraries in the state of Connecticut. Specifically
it looked at geographic differences by comparing accessibility in urban vs. suburban vs. rural libraries. It
also looked at the education level of the children’s librarian in these same libraries to see if there was a
correlation between accessibility and whether the children’s librarian holds an MLS. Accessibility for the
purposes of this study means that the book is in the children’s collection and is located on the children’s
shelf, rather than in a special collection such as a parent/teacher shelf.
The hypothesis was that (1) urban libraries, with a more concentrated population of gays/lesbians
and presumably more liberal ideas about homosexuality would provide more access to GLBT-themed
literature for children; and (2) libraries where the children’s librarian holds an MLS would also provide
more access because the librarian has been trained in the principles of intellectual freedom for all,
regardless of age. While findings supported the hypotheses—the urban libraries and those with an MLSeducated children’s librarian provide significantly more access than suburban and rural libraries, and than
those whose librarians do not have an MLS—none of the libraries in the study provide sufficient access,
given the populations of gays and lesbians in our society.
iii
Chapter 1. Introduction
The past forty years have seen the introduction of gay and lesbian literature, coinciding with a
gradual and fragmented acceptance of the homosexual culture in America. There have been numerous
studies regarding the accessibility of gay and lesbian literature in libraries. Most of these have focused on
adult or teen collections. The author has personal experience with children of lesbian parents who have
sought gay/lesbian literature, and has worked with a children’s librarian in Connecticut who did not see
the need for gay and lesbian titles in the children's department. These facts, along with a personal
commitment to intellectual freedom for all regardless of age, inspired this project.
An individual’s understanding of his or her identity begins in childhood as one sees the world
around him and begins to compare himself or herself with others. One way of exploring one’s identity is
through literature, and we have all had fictional and non-fictional characters with whom we could
identify, who helped us understand who we are.
For children of gay or lesbian parents, or those who are beginning to come to terms with their
own sexuality, this need is especially important (Hopkins, 2012). Children of minority populations need
to know that they are not alone: that others live lives like theirs; that other children have two moms or two
dads. They need books that reflect their world. Reading these books helps them feel that they are “okay.”
For children in heterosexual families, they too need to see stories that include same-sex parents, if
our society expects to curb bullying of these children from an early age. Being sexually different exacts a
psychological toll. GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgendered) youth are more likely to suffer depression
and four times as likely as straight youth to attempt suicide (Kosciw, et al. 2012).
Young people who identify as GLBT can turn to the public library for an understanding of sexual
diversity. The public library may be the only safe place for them to explore their sexuality, or that of their
families. Alexander and Miselis’ study (2007, p.45) determined that the library is “the most important
information source” for children in GLBT families. While adults can find GLBT themed books easily in
1
book stores or online, a library may be the only access point for children. This is extremely important to
keep in mind.
This paper will explore the accessibility of gay and lesbian literature, henceforth referred to as
“GLBT,” in the children's departments of public libraries in the state of Connecticut, and some of the
factors that may influence accessibility.
Statement of the Problem
Is GLBT literature accessible to children in public libraries in Connecticut, and is there a
relationship between accessibility and (a) library location or (b) whether the children’s librarian
holds an MLS? The purpose of my question is to determine what factors account for accessibility;
specifically, whether geographic location or the professional training of children’s librarians affects the
accessibility of children’s GLBT literature.
The research question will be broken down into two sub-problems: (1) I will compare the
holdings of urban libraries--having a significant gay and lesbian population--with suburban and rural
libraries. I will look at the number of children’s GLBT books the libraries hold and if they are shelved on
the children’s shelves or in another area of the library, such as parent/teacher shelves. (2) I will likewise
compare the holdings of libraries where the children’s librarian has an MLS with those where the
children’s librarian does not hold an advanced degree.
I expect that libraries in urban areas with MLS-certified children's librarians are more likely to
provide access to GLBT literature for children.
Background
The American Library Association originally published the Intellectual Freedom Manual in
the 1960’s. The Introduction to the 6th edition, (ALA, 2002, p. xiii) defines intellectual freedom as
“unrestricted access to information.” Intellectual freedom guarantees the rights of speech and press that
are part of the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution. Significant social changes throughout
our history have led to re-evaluating the meanings of intellectual freedom and accessibility.
2
Intellectual freedom has been challenged by groups at both ends of the spectrum—conservatives
and liberals. “Family values” has become a rallying cry around a conservative agenda since the 1980’s
and 1990’s. Some of the organizations that have been at the forefront of challenges to intellectual freedom
include the Christian Coalition, Focus on the Family, Citizens for Excellence in Education/National
Association of Christian Educators and Concerned Women for America. Issues that have been challenged
include pornographic, racist, homophobic, witchcraft/occult themes and parental rights legislation that
may limit the availability of constitutionally protected information in schools and public libraries (ALA,
2002, p. xv).
In 1999, the ALA augmented the Library Bill of Rights with “Libraries: An American Value,”
which specifically holds up the intellectual freedom of teens and children. These ALA Intellectual
Freedom documents are published on the ALA website and are taught in library schools as standards for
the profession.
Intellectual freedom is not a given; it must be guarded and defended by librarians no matter what
their own beliefs or the beliefs of their community. In the tasks they undertake every day—including
collection development, cataloging and dissemination of information—they must uphold the principles of
Intellectual Freedom.
Number VII of ALA’s Code of Ethics (ALA, 2002, p.408) states that “we (librarians) distinguish
between our personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow our personal beliefs to
interfere with fair representation of the aims of our institutions or the provision of access to their
information resources.” Ethical librarians must not withhold children’s materials, whether controversial or
not, if they are of value to any members of the community.
The United States Supreme court backs up this policy with a decision made in Board of
Education vs. Pico (1982), where some students challenged the school board’s right to remove
“objectionable” material from the school library. The decision stated: “In the school setting, a student’s
right to receive available viewpoints cannot be suppressed by school officials merely because they
3
politically disagree with the information.” Freedom of information is a protected right in this country,
regardless of age.
A seminal study of acquisition and censorship issues was done in 1958 by Marjorie Fiske,
sponsored by the School of Librarianship of the University of California (Fiske, 1960). Fiske questioned
whether restrictions were being imposed on librarians from governing boards and communities, or
whether they were imposing restrictions on themselves, that might threaten the public’s right to access to
an adequate collection of materials. Studies were done in 26 communities, selected on a wide range of
demographic variables. Public and school librarians and administrators were interviewed.
Fiske’s study found, based on verbal responses, almost half of librarians interviewed called
themselves committed to “freedom to read.” The other half were divided between defining themselves as
having “weak, wavering or contradictory” convictions and “restrictive” convictions regarding freedom to
read (Fiske, p. 124). The highest proportion of those with restrictive attitudes had no professional training.
In actual practice, however, nearly two-thirds of the librarians who had a say in book selection
reported that they did not buy a book if it the book or its author were considered “controversial.” Highest
categories for objections included sex/obscenity (44%); politics (16%); and profanity (12%).
Furthermore, they would frequently cite a different reason for rejecting a book, such as “too advanced a
reading level” or because it was considered “literary trash” (Fiske, p. 65).
Fiske also points out that there are two levels on which a book may be censored: (1) in the act of
book selection and/or (2) in circulation procedures that may limit who has access to the book based on
where it is shelved. This second type of censorship is often referred to in the literature as “selfcensorship.”
Kristin Pekoll, a public librarian from Wisconsin, talks about how a censorship issue tore her
town apart (Pekoll, 2012). She says it helped shine a spotlight on all forms of censorship, including
labeling, re-cataloging, permission slips and “hiding books”, as in shelving them in special collections.
4
She says, “When you deny that person…his or her book—when you ban that book—you ban that kid,”
(p. 117).
Objective of the Study
The objective of this study is to determine the factors that contribute to inaccessibility of GLBT
literature for children. My proposal is to examine the concept of accessibility, as it is defined within the
realm of censorship, by comparing the accessibility of GLBT children’s books in children’s departments
in public libraries in the state of Connecticut. The study will focus on two factors—library location and
degree of professional training of children's librarians—to see if they have a significant effect on
accessibility.
Conceptual Definitions
Library accessibility is sometimes defined in terms of access to information for specialized
groups of people, for example, patrons who have cognitive, mental, or emotional illnesses or patrons with
learning and/or developmental disabilities. However, for the purposes of this study, accessibility means
the ability of children (preschool through eleven year olds) to find materials on a shelf, in the children's
department, by browsing or by first finding a shelf location in the online catalog that directs them to the
book. Accessibility is the dependent variable that will be investigated, in relationship to the independent
variables of (1) library location and (2) librarian professional training.
For the purposes of this study, a book is not considered accessible if it is shelved with the parents
or teachers collection, or in any location other than the children’s collection. This study is looking at
children’s picture books--written for a children’s audience--not guides written for parents or teachers. So,
accessibility means the factors that increase children’s ability to find GLBT literature.
Censorship, for the purposes of this study, refers to limiting access for children to GLBT
literature, either by not selecting GLBT picture books for a collection based on the subject matter, or by
not shelving the book appropriately in the children’s collection.
5
Self-censorship refers to the practice by some librarians of limiting accessibility by selecting a
book for their collection but shelving it on a special shelf, like the teacher/parent shelf. This concept will
be discussed further in the literature review.
Significance of the Study
Because intellectual freedom is at the core of the library profession, it must be upheld in the face
of prejudice and discretionary values. In the past, themes that have been explored in light of censorship
have including issues of racism, sexism, political themes and other themes contemporary to the American
experience. A current issue in our society in the 21st century is the inclusion of gays and lesbians, by
allowing them to serve openly in the military and, in some states, have legal rights associated with
marriage. TV shows and movies feature openly gay characters. Many of our society’s celebrities have
“come out” as being gay or lesbian.
The American Pediatrics Association recently released a statement supporting same-sex marriage,
as being in the best interests of the children involved if their same sex parents want to marry (New York
Times, 2013). The United States Supreme Court is currently looking at the constitutionality of defining a
marriage as a bond between a man and a woman, rather than a same-sex couple.
In light of gay rights being a current issue of freedom and equity, the accessibility of GLBT
literature has contemporary significance. It is simply the latest in a long line of freedoms that Americans
have struggled to uphold.
According to the National School Climate Survey conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight
Education Network (Kosciw, et al. 2012), 63.5 percent of GLBT students expressed feeling unsafe in
school because of their sexual orientation. Seventy percent had experienced bullying due to their sexual
orientation. Nearly 57% percent said that they had been shoved, pushed or otherwise physically harassed
or assaulted.
Given that homosexual or questioning teens are often bullied in our schools, as are children of
gay and lesbian parents, these groups deserve the right to access of literature that helps them identify and
6
value their selfhood. And providing access to this literature for non-homosexuals promotes
understanding and acceptance of a different “norm”, which is the reality for a significant portion of our
population. Families wishing to teach understanding and acceptance of diverse lifestyles need access to
books showing families with two mothers or two fathers, as well as multiracial literature.
The percentage of the population of gays and lesbians is estimated to be anywhere from 1% to
10%, depending on location and method of gathering statistics. Thus, it safe to say that most communities
have a population of gays and lesbians and that this population has the right to free access in the public
library to materials that relate to their sexual orientation. According to the Gay and Lesbian Atlas (Gates
& Ost, 2004), approximately one-fourth of same sex couples have one or more children under 18 living in
their homes. And same-sex couples are found in 99% of the counties in the United States. They also
include members of all demographic groups.
In the article, “Missing! Picture Books Reflecting Gay and Lesbian Families” (2007), Rowell
describes how important picture books depicting gay and lesbian families are to the diversity of the
curriculum in early childhood education. Children in families with same-sex couples need to see the
people they know and love illustrated as a ‘normal’ family option. And other children need to see these
illustrations so that harassment and bullying become a thing of the past. Alexander and Miselis (2007, p.
45) propose that the library is the “most important information source” for GLBT people. And, based on
the principles of Intellectual Freedom, it is the professional responsibility of librarians, whatever their
personal beliefs, to be sure that books with GLBT themes are available and accessible.
Note: For the purposes of this study, ‘picture book’ is defined as a highly illustrated book, 32
pages in length for children aged four to eleven. ‘Board book’ will refer to books printed on thick
paperboard for toddlers and preschoolers. ‘GLBT literature’ is meant to embrace books about or featuring
gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered relationships, or having gay or lesbian people as primary or
supporting characters.
7
In the following Literature Evaluation, I will discuss the major related studies that have been done
up to this point. The Literature Review reveals many gaps in information.
8
Chapter 2. Literature Evaluation
This chapter will explore the concepts of intellectual freedom and censorship in relation to
children’s GLBT literature. It will review the development of GLBT literature in the past several decades,
and look at issues of accessibility from the literature. Finally it will look at gaps in other studies and how
this is related to the methodology of this study.
History of GLBT Literature Development
The availability of GLBT literature in public libraries has a very short history. Prior to the
Stonewall riots in New York City in 1969, which many consider the beginnings of the gay liberation
movement, gay and lesbian literature was basically non-existent, particularly in children’s literature.
There was some literature available for adults, especially following WWII, but the message toward
homosexuality in these books was primarily negative. Homosexual characters were regarded as sick,
criminal, suicidal or amoral (Passet, 2012). GLBT literature was rarely reviewed, which added to the lack
of titles on public library shelves.
There was no subject heading for GLBT literature until the heading “homosexuality” came into
use in 1946, and “lesbianism” in 1954 (Greenblatt, 1990). The term “gay” as an equivalent to
“homosexual” did not appear until 1987, though it had been in use in popular vernacular since the 1970’s
(Greenblatt, 1990). Reviewers generally did not comment on a work’s treatment of homosexuality, either
intentionally or out of ignorance (Passet, 2012).
Nancy Garden, author of Molly’s Family (2004) and Annie on My Mind (1992), wrote that as a
child and teen, in the 1950’s, she wished she had access to GLBT literature that was positive and helped
her deal with the prejudice she experienced. Books with gay and lesbian characters that were published at
that time always ended badly (Pavao, 2003).
That is no longer true, especially in YA literature, but for children there are still relatively few
titles available that show positive families with two mothers or two fathers, and of those that do exist, few
are found in our public libraries. These books are still creating controversy and are among the ALA most
9
challenged books. In the 1980’s and 90’s, more books were published but finding them is still not easy
(Wiesbard, 2001). For families with gay or lesbian parents, or for parents wishing to expose their children
to diverse lifestyles, few picture books are available.
The American Library Association created the Stonewall Awards for books with GLBT themes,
beginning in 1971 for adult literature. In 2010, an award was created for Children's and Young Adult
(YA) literature. Since then, these awards have all gone to YA literature. Several children’s books were,
however, given honor book status: The Boy in the Dress (in 2011) by David Williams; Drama (in 2013)
by Raina Telgemeier; and picture books: 10,000 Dresses (in 2010) by Marcus Ewert; Daddy, Papa and
Me and Mommy, Mama and Me (both in 2010) both by Leslea Newman (ALA, Stonewall Book Awards,
2013).
Intellectual Freedom and Censorship of GLBT literature
Central to the ethical core of the library science curriculum is the concept of intellectual freedom.
Students in the MLS program at SCSU are introduced to the concept in their required introductory
courses. Documentation for this concept is found on the ALA websites. According to the statement,
“Libraries: An American Value,” adopted by the ALA in 1999:
We defend the constitutional rights of all individuals, including children and teenagers, to
use the library’s resources and services; and
We value our nation’s diversity and strive to reflect that diversity by providing a full
spectrum of resources and services to the communities we serve;
Furthermore, in the Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights, “Free Access to Libraries for
Minors,” (ALA, 1972), the ALA clearly dictates that libraries cannot infringe the rights of patrons due to
their age, thus children have as much right of access to books as adults.
The ALA Banned Books Week held annually celebrates the concept of intellectual freedom by
outing those books that have a history of being banned in libraries across the nation. Many frequently
banned books were written for children and young adults. For example, Richardson’s And Tango Makes
Three (2005), about two male penguins at the New York City Zoo that “adopt” a baby penguin, was at the
top of the ALA’s list of challenged books in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 (ALA, 2013, Frequently
10
Challenged Books). Two children’s picture book GLBT classics, Heather has Two Mommies (1989,
2009) by Leslea Newman and Daddy’s Roommate (1994) by Michael Willhoite, were challenged
repeatedly in the 1990’s.
James LaRue is librarian in a public library that received a book challenge to Uncle Bobby’s
Wedding (Brannen, 2008). The book was challenged by a parent whose reasoning was that it was not
appropriate for children. Space does not allow the printing of LaRue’s entire blog in response to the book
challenge. Here are a few key parts:
You say that the book is inappropriate, and I infer that your reason is the topic itself: gay
marriage. I think a lot of adults imagine that what defines a children's book is the subject.
But that's not the case. Children's books deal with anything and everything. There are
children's books about death (even suicide), adult alcoholism, family violence, and more.
Even the most common fairy tales have their grim side: the father and stepmother of
Hansel and Gretel, facing hunger and poverty, take the children into the woods, and
abandon them to die! . . . There is a lot out there that is confusing, or faintly threatening,
and even dangerous in the world. Stories help children name their fears, understand them,
work out strategies for dealing with life. . .
So what defines a children's book is the treatment, not the topic. “Uncle Bobby's
Wedding” is 27-28 pages long … and each page is illustrated. The main character…is
that of a young girl. The book is published by G. P. Putnam's Sons, “a division of
Penguin Young Readers Group.” The Cataloging in Publication information … shows
that the catalogers of the Library of Congress identified it as an “E” book – easy or
beginning reader. Bottom line: It's hard for me to see it as anything but a children's book.
La Rue goes on to explain why cataloging it in the parents’ section, as the objector suggested, is
not desirable:
First, we tried the “parenting collection” approach a couple of times in my history here.
And here's what we found: nobody uses them. They constitute a barrier to discovery and
use. The books there – and some very fine ones -- just got lost. In the second case, I
believe that every book in the children's area, particularly in the area where usually the
parent is reading the book aloud, involves parental guidance. The labeling issue is tricky,
too: is the topic just homosexuality? Where babies come from? Authority figures that
can't be trusted? Stepmothers who abandon their children to die?
Ultimately, such labels make up a governmental determination of the moral value of the
story. It seems to me – as a father who has done a lot of reading to his kids over the years
– that that kind of decision is up to the parents, not the library. Because here's the truth of
the matter: not every parent has the same value system.
11
LaRue then shares a story of a mother who came to him seeking a picture book for her young son,
whose father had left her for another man. She was looking for a way to begin discussing the situation
with her child. LaRue was able to share Daddy’s Roommate with her, which she found very helpful.
Gough and Greenblatt (Eds., 1990) published a much-cited collection of articles related to GLBT
censorship issues, entitled Gay and Lesbian Library Service. In chapter 1, Gough lists “Key Issues in the
Collecting of Gay/Lesbian Library Materials.” Among these issues are “gay people don’t live in my
community” and “gay people don’t use my library.” Clearly this is not the case in most communities in
America, though gays and lesbians may be unreported and not necessarily visible, given the stigma still
faced by many gays when coming out. This is particularly true among children and youth who face a host
of identity issues already (Alexander and Miselis, 2007). Greenblatt (2003) adds an additional myth to the
list: “Offering services and materials to these people is promoting their ‘lifestyle’.”
Because of the underlying threat of a book challenge, many libraries practice self-censorship, or
censorship by omission. Whelan (2009) calls this a “dirty little secret.” It’s more dangerous than outright
banning or removal of challenged materials because it falls under the radar. When a children’s or YA
book is shelved with the adult books, or in a parent/teacher collection within the children’s department,
that is a form of self-censorship and a limit to accessibility for the intended audience. Not only does it
deprive young people in GLBT families of materials that they can relate to, it also means that children in
heterosexual families will not come across information that provides insight into GLBT families.
Shea (2010) surveyed the directors of a random sample of Connecticut public libraries in order to
examine the records of challenges to these libraries. Of the 24 directors that responded, 22% said that they
had received challenges of books related to homosexuality. However, it becomes clear that a majority of
these challenges go unreported; it is difficult to find published data on books challenged in Connecticut
libraries. According to the Book Bans and Challenges 2007-11 website (Banned Books Week, 2013),
only five books were challenged in Connecticut libraries in this time period and none were children’s
books with GLBT themes. So there is still a lot we don’t know.
12
Furthermore, in Shea’s (2010) study, only 32% of directors felt that their staff was trained in
issues of intellectual freedom. Since, in the children’s department, it is often up to the children’s librarian
to decide what books to acquire and where to shelve them, I was interested in whether a children's
librarian having an MLS, and who therefore should be trained in the issue of intellectual freedom, makes
a difference to what is available in the library’s children’s collection. In addition, some directors, of
Connecticut public libraries, reported a policy of relocating potentially offensive children’s materials to
the adult or parent/teacher shelves, so as to avoid challenges.
All of this points to the difficulty in getting an accurate picture of self-censorship in Connecticut
libraries. Shea suggests further study, including how many of the frequently challenged books
Connecticut public libraries have in their collections, and if there are restrictions to access, such as
shelving these books on parent/teacher shelves. This is the area my paper will explore.
Previous Studies of Accessibility of GLBT Literature
There have been previous studies of accessibility and collection development of GLBT books; the
most frequently cited and relevant to this study are Sweetland and Christensen (1995), Spence (1998,
2000), Rothbauer and McKechnie (1999), Hughes-Hassell, et al (2013) and Howard (2005). Sweetland
and Christensen (1995) did a comparison study of adult books that won Lambda Book Awards--awards
dedicated to GLBT titles-- and were reviewed in the Lambda Book Report, with a control group of nonGLBT books reviewed in Publisher’s Weekly. Though all titles received approximately the same number
of reviews per title, the Lambda reviewed books were held in significantly fewer libraries.
Spence (1998) studied 19 libraries, in Canada and the United States, for GLBT holdings. He
hypothesized that GLBT titles that had won awards should be held at 100% in urban libraries and should
be held to the same extent in rural libraries. “This hypothesis … assumes that there is recognition by
library professionals that gay men and lesbians live in all areas of cities more or less uniformly and that,
consequently, appropriate gay-related material would be made available uniformly throughout the library
system, just as are books on computers or cooking”(Spence, 1998, p. 5). Not surprisingly, his hypothesis
13
was false. The range of books carried varied from a high of 96.8 percent (San Francisco) to a low of 48.6
percent (Regina) but did not seem to associate with urban areas in particular. So his study was
inconclusive regarding a correlation between population size and access to GLBT literature.
Likewise, Rothbauer and McKechnie (1999) looked at young adult GLBT fiction in forty libraries
in Canada, and compared the holdings of large and medium-sized libraries. Of the forty titles they
researched, the average number held was 16.2 or 40.4%. There was no significant relationship found
between library size and number of titles held. Questions remain from their study as to whether young
adults know of the existence of GLBT literature, and whether they are classified appropriately for easy
access.
Hughes-Hassell, et al (2013) took the study to high school libraries. Citing rationale for their
study through facts--like GLBT youth are four times more likely to commit suicide, and 5.9% of high
school students are gay--they looked at percentages of GLBT YA books carried by 125 libraries in a
“southern state.” The books were all award winners, many on lists that do not focus on GLBT titles,
including YALSA Best Books for Young Adults, School Library Journal’s Best Books for Youth and the
EBSCO Senior High Core Collection of recommended books.
Hughes-Hassell, et al (2013) found that the libraries were severely under collecting. Some of the
schools carried no GLBT-themed books. Overall, only 0.4% of books carried by public high school
libraries had GLBT themes. They could find no identifiable trends in collection development by
geographic region or school district. From these findings, they deduced reasons for the lack of GLBT
titles as: individual librarians’ personal attitudes; fear of being challenged by parents; a perceived anti-gay
culture in the school or community; and real or perceived pressure from school administrators.
Spence’s (2000) study was the first to look at children’s picture books with GLBT themes. His
objective in this study was to see whether GLBT illustrated books for preschool and elementary age
children were carried in a diverse group of public libraries. He considered the mandate of intellectual
freedom with respect to how well it is being put into practice for GLBT titles for children in a diverse
14
group of public libraries across the United States and Canada. He found large differences among the
number of titles held and number of copies of each title; one trend that surfaced was there was a positive
correlation between media prominence (in reviews and catalogs and press about challenges) of certain
titles and the number of those titles held. He found that size of library had little correlation to number of
titles held.
In her more recent study, Howard (2005) also looked at children’s picture books. She identified
30 picture books with GLBT content published between 1989 and 2002. She included only books that
were reviewed in Booklist. She looked at these alongside non-GLBT picture books, all of which were
reviewed in either Booklist or Horn Book Magazine. Then she compared holdings of the titles at nine
Canadian public libraries. Public libraries held on average 52% of the GLBT themed picture books,
compared to 87% of the control titles. She found that access differed significantly depending on location,
but could not point to factors that drove this trend, other than that the largest two cities, Vancouver and
Toronto, both of which also had the largest gay populations, held the highest percentage of GLBT titles.
She could not determine whether that is because of the size of the community, the overall collection size,
or the perceived need of the community for these titles. Howard concludes that much more data needs to
be collected about library budgets, staff size, collection policies, city population, and demographic
attributes of the population, and self-censorship, if we are to provide meaning to these findings.
Addressing Some Questions that Remain
Questions remain as to whether community pressure, professionalism of librarians, lack of
awareness of titles, or some other factors are involved. Like Rothbauer and McKechnie (1999), Spence
suggests the need for further study as to whether titles that are held are in fact shelved in the children’s
collection so that they are freely accessed by their intended audience. He also asks how well ILS students
are being prepared for dealing with controversial issues, like censorship, and questions of professional
ethics.
15
So, based on the premise that intellectual freedom is the right of children as well as adults, this
study will look at issues of access to GLBT literature for children in Connecticut public libraries. There is
still much to be known about why some libraries carry GLBT titles in their children’s collections and
others do not.
Studies discussed above looked at urban vs. rural environments, but found little significant
differences based on population size. Spence writes in his 1998 study: “Perhaps alternative propositions,
based not on size of population served, but rather on, say, perceived regional social environment
(conservative/liberal), general education level of the community served (university town/blue-collar
community) could be developed” (p.22). These are difficult parameters to identify.
Summary
Alexander and Miselis’ survey (2007) showed that library workers from urban or liberal areas
believe that due to their location they are less likely to face book challenges. Based on this premise, this
study will determine whether librarians in urban areas, or areas with a greater number of gays and
lesbians, are more likely to collect and appropriately shelve children’s GLBT literature.
Passet (2012) pointed mainly to training in intellectual freedom as a definitive factor in access
issues and Shea’s (2010) study highlighted librarian training as a factor to explore further.
Because of findings in the literature, and because of the author’s personal experience with a children’s
librarian in Connecticut who seemed unaware of the right of access for children wanting to explore GLBT
family themes, this study will also address whether children’s departments with MLS-certified librarians
have more GLBT titles in their collections.
16
Chapter 3. Methodology
The following questions will be addressed: Are librarians in urban areas more likely to provide
children’s access to GLBT literature? Again, access is defined by this study as having the book in their
collection and shelving it on the children’s shelf. And do children’s departments with MLS-certified
librarians have more GLBT titles shelved appropriately in their collections than those whose children’s
librarian does not have an MLS?
Hypotheses
If a positive correlation exists between children’s librarians holding an MLS and the number of
GLBT titles shelved appropriately in their collection, this suggests that librarians who are educated in an
MLS program have a more professional response, based on the ALA Code of Ethics, to free access to
literature that some patrons may find offensive.
If a positive correlation exists between urban libraries and access to children’s GLBT literature,
this suggests that areas which may have higher populations of gay and lesbian patrons and/or more open
ideas about sexual orientation are more willing to provide free access to GLBT literature for their patrons.
These questions and hypotheses will be investigated using data from a sample of libraries in the
state of Connecticut. The research method chosen is a descriptive (quantitative) correlational study that
will look at two specific characteristics—educational level of children’s librarians and library location—
and will determine how these are related to the dependent variable, which is accessibility (ownership and
shelf location).
Assessment
These data are already published, so surveys or interviews will not be necessary for the research.
Data will be acquired from two online sources: the Connecticut State Library’s Statistics (Connecticut
Public Libraries: A Statistical Profile, 2012) and the Connecticut online state library (iConn.org).
First, the author will identify a list of GLBT literature. In compiling the list, she will begin with
the LGBT Youth Literature Project (2013), a project of the Lambda Literary Society, at Goodreads.com.
17
The LGBT Youth Literature Project is an online resource center for promoting and sharing all literature
that may be relevant for GLBT children, youth families, educators and friends. That list of 66 titles will
be compared with those lists used by Spence (2000) and Howard (2005).
For the most part, books that are chosen for the list will have been reviewed by School Library
Journal and/or Publishers Weekly, because studies have shown that the more often a book is reviewed,
the more likely it will be purchased by libraries for their collections (Spence, 2000; Rothbauer &
McKechnie, 2000; Serebnick, 1981).
Also, any books for children that have won the Stonewall Awards, the American Library
Association’s award for GLBT books will be chosen. Only children’s picture books or board books will
be chosen. The list will be narrowed to 25 books. The book titles will be arranged on a spreadsheet. (See
Appendix 1 for book titles).
Sampling
For the sample of libraries, the five libraries in urban areas with populations of 100,000 or over
will be included: Waterbury (Silas Bronson), Stamford (Ferguson), New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport.
The Gay and Lesbian Atlas (Gates & Ost, 2004) lists the top five communities in Connecticut for
populations of gays and lesbians as Hartford, West Hartford, New Haven, New London and Norwalk. The
top “metro areas” for gay and lesbian populations are Danbury Primary Metropolitan Service Area
(PMSA), New Haven-Meriden PMSA, Hartford MSA and Stamford-Norwalk PMSA. By including the
five libraries in population centers over 100,000, all but four of these top gay and lesbian centers will be
covered (West Hartford, Danbury, New London, and Norwalk). This goes along with the premise that the
urban areas with the largest populations of gays and lesbians in Connecticut will be most aware of issues
related to this population and will therefore be most likely to make related children’s literature accessible.
Then, ten libraries from those with populations between 10,000 and 100,000 (“suburban”), and 10
from the list of those with populations less than 10,000 (“rural”) will be randomly selected. In order to
avoid bias, a list of the libraries will be created, in order of population size of town, and every nth one in
18
an even distribution will be selected, so that the sample will include ten “rural” and ten “suburban”
libraries. This is a systematic sample.
In Spence’s study (1998), he designated urban libraries as those in cities with populations
between 100,000 and 3 million. He assumed smaller libraries would show similar results if Lamda
winning titles were chosen. He selected libraries based on accessibility of their catalogs on the Internet.
So this method is similar to Spence’s method but it will also include two stratified groups: those with
populations under 10,000 and those with populations between 10,000-100,000, and then an urban group
with all libraries in the state in towns with populations over 100,000.
Rothbauer and McKechnie (1999) likewise chose stratified samples based on population size.
They defined small as <10,000; medium as 10,000-100,000 and large as >100,000. Their sample size was
40 public libraries. The size in this study will be 25, which represents 16% of the public libraries in
Connecticut.
The libraries will be divided into three groups for purposes of comparison: The groups will be
Group R for rural; Group S for suburban; Group U for urban. The list of libraries by size category is
found in Appendix 2.
Data Collection
Using the iConn website, the author will search each of the 25 book titles at each of the 25
libraries on the list. If the library carries the book and it is in the children’s collection, the library gets a
score of “2”. If it carries the book but it is not in the children’s collection, rather on a parents’ or teachers’
shelf or elsewhere, it will get a score of “1”. That means that the book is NOT fully accessible to children
because it would require a parent or other adult to locate the book. Thus a child would not find the book
by browsing in the picture book section. This is not full accessibility to the intended audience. If the
library does not carry the book at all, it will get a “0” for the value. This is a ratings scale with values 0-2.
This is a nominal variable. The optimal score is “2” because that means that library carries the book and it
is fully accessible to children. This is also the dependent variable in this study.
19
Table of Variables
Librarian holds
MLS?
Library location
Does the library
carry the book?
Independent
“YES” or “NO”
nominal
Independent
Dependent
R, S, or U
0-2
(0=No; 1=Yes but not in
children's shelf; 2=Yes on
children’s shelf)
nominal
nominal
The following shows an example of the spreadsheet of library data by library location, where
B1=Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, the first title on the list, through B25=Daddy’s Roommate, the last title;
U1=Bridgeport Public Library through U5=Waterbury Silas Bronson Library;; 0 = the library does not
carry the book; 1=the book is in the library collection but on a teacher/ parent shelf; 2=the library has the
book in its collection and it is located on the children’s shelf. Similar tables will be composed for
suburban libraries and rural libraries.
Appendix 3: Table 1
Titles located in each
library in Group U (Urban)
n=5
U1
U2
U3……
U5
Number of U
libraries with “2”
(n=0-5)
B1
% of all U libraries
w/”2”
B2
B3
B25
Total
(t=0-50)
(n=0-125)
Totals in the last row of each table, the sum of all previous rows, will show if the numbers are
significantly higher at those libraries that are urban vs. those that are rural and/or suburban. The more
books the library carries and holds in the children’s collection, the higher the score. The higher the score,
the more accessible the book is to its audience, children. The study will also look at mean and standard
20
deviation of these values and compare among library size groups. Urban libraries will be expected to have
significantly more accessible titles.
Next, data will be taken from the Connecticut Statistics for libraries in 2012 for the same 25
libraries to record whether or not the children’s librarian has an MLS degree. This will be recorded with
an “x” in the YES column or an “x” in the NO column. This is an independent variable. The data will be
recorded as follows, where U1-R10 are the same libraries already identified (Appendix 2)
Appendix 3: Table 4
Does the Children’s Librarian have an MLS?
Library
GROUP A=YES
U1
x
U2….
x
R10
GROUP B=NO
x
Total
Percentage of
total libraries
in study
n=0-25
25-n
v=0-100%
100-v
Next, a table will be comprised of all the book titles, B-1 through B-25. A comparison will be
made to determine how many libraries in Group A provide full access to that title in the children’s
department with how many in Group B, as well as percent of libraries in each group that provides access.
Appendix 3: Table 5
Holdings of specific titles by library group and % of holdings
Titles
Group A
n
Group A
Group B
% of total Group A n
B1…..
B25
Total of all titles
21
Group B
% of total Group B
When percentages of Group A are compared with those of Group B in the final row, it will be determined
if libraries where the children’s department head has an MLS provide significantly more access to
children’s GLBT literature. An advanced degree would suggest that those libraries would provide access
to significantly more titles. Other factors that may influence this conclusion will be discussed.
Validity and Reliability of Data
The data in this study should be valid, as they are records of discrete information that will be taken
from official library websites. If there is a change in whether or not a library carries a specific title, or
chooses to shelve the title in a different location from where it has been shelved when the study was done,
it is likely that there was a change in librarians, or there was a book challenge. Those types of changes in
reliability of data should be minimal, and are not anticipated to greatly affect the results of this study.
22
Chapter 4. Analysis
The purpose of this study was to determine accessibility of GLBT titles in children’s picture
books in public libraries in the state of Connecticut. A random sample of 25 rural, suburban and urban
libraries was chosen and checked to see if they carry titles from a list of 25 GLBT children’s picture
books, and whether they are shelved appropriately to be completely accessible to children.
Because, due to discrepancies between titles listed by library on the iConn.org website and titles
listed on each individual library’s online catalog, I opted to change my methodology to use the online
catalogs of each particular library to count titles, assuming that to be the more correct and up-to-date data.
The exception was R3, which did not have a catalog currently online, so I made a phone call to inquire
about titles they carried. Another exception was the R8, which did not have an online catalog but I was
able to search its titles on iConn.org.
Also, because the results were so poor, that is, I found so few titles at the libraries, in many cases
I looked under the subject headings “homosexuality” and “same sex parents” in the libraries’ online
catalogs. I did this to see if there were any titles that came up that I did not consider when I made my list.
I did not find any additional titles in children’s picture books that I had not considered for my list. There
were sometimes chapter books for children as well as fictional and nonfictional titles for teens in these
subject headings.
The total number of titles held by all 25 libraries was 117, so the average number of titles was
4.7.
When one considers whether these titles are fully accessible to children, that is, are located on a
children’s shelf rather than a parent/teacher shelf, the numbers are considerably lower. The total number
of books from all 25 libraries that are totally accessible is 88, with an average of 3.5 per library.
Accessibility by Location
Table 1 shows the breakdown when considering the libraries by urban vs. suburban vs. rural.
23
Table 1: Accessibility of Children’s books in libraries by location
Total number of titles
Urban
Suburban Rural
Total "2"*
52
22
14
Total "1"**
4
23
2
Total "0"***
69
205
234
Where:
*= the library carries the title on the children’s shelf
**=the library carries the title on a parent/teacher shelf
***=the library does not carry the title at all
Therefore, there is a significant difference found between library location and number of titles
held. However, when one considers full accessibility vs. the number of titles held (see Table 2 below),
rural libraries have an 88% of accessibility of their GLBT collections, whereas urban have 93% and
suburban have only 49%. But, when one looks at the numbers of fully accessible books as a percent based
on all 25 books in the study being fully accessible at all libraries (n=125 for U; n=250 for S and R), urban
libraries come out far ahead, with 42% of the books available and located on children’s shelves, compared
with 9% at suburban and 6% at rural libraries.
Table 2: Accessibility based on number of titles held
% of number of “2” books
based on:
GLBT Titles held by
library
All GLBT titles in study
Urban Suburban
93
42
49
9
Rural
88
6
In addition, looking at the libraries, all five urban libraries in the study had some GLBT titles on
the list; 90% of suburban libraries had book titles from the list; and only 50% of rural libraries had any
titles on the list. These percentages do not take into account whether the book was carried on the
children’s shelf or the parent/teacher shelf.
24
Table 3: Number of each library location holding GLBT titles
Urban Suburban
Libraries holding any GLBT
titles
5*
% Libraries holding GLBT
titles
100*
*=based on 5 libraries total
**based on 10 libraries total
Rural
9**
6**
90**
60**
Accessibility as related to whether the Children’s Librarian holds an MLS
When comparing results of public libraries in Connecticut where the Children’s Librarian holds
an MLS, out of the 25 libraries selected, fourteen of the Children’s Librarians do hold an MLS and eleven
do not. The following Table 4 shows a comparison of those libraries with an MLS-educated children’s
librarian vs. those without.
Table 4: Number of Fully Accessible Titles—Children’s Librarian holds and MLS vs no MLS
Group A=
Holds MLS
Total of fully accessible
titles (“2”)
73*
Ave
5.214286
S.D.
4.522619
t-test
0.007506
*=based on 14 libraries in group
**=based on 11 libraries in group
Group B=
No MLS
14**
1.272727
1.710444
A t-test showed that the p=0.007506, which indicates a significant difference between the two
groups. This means that a difference this large would occur just under about eight times in 1000 (rounding
up) f these two groups were not significantly different. Just looking at the numbers, one can see that the
libraries in Group A average over five titles per library, whereas the libraries in Group B average just over
one title per library.
Though it was not in the scope of this project to identify the most popularly held titles, it is
interesting to look at that data as well. Table 5 shows the 25 titles and the number of libraries in each
geographic group that held that title.
25
Table 5: GLBT titles held by each geographic group (“1” or “2”)
Ref.
#
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
Title
Brannen, Sarah. Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
(2008)
Combs, Bobbie. ABC a Family Alphabet
Book (2001)
DeHaan, Linda. King and King (2003)
Ewert, Marcus. 10,000 Dresses (2008)
Fierstein, Harvey. The Sissy Duckling
(2005)
Garden, Nancy. Molly’s Family (2004)
Gonzales, R. Antonio’s Card (2005)
Kilodavis, Cheryl. My Princess Boy (2010)
Newman, Leslea. Heather Has Two
Mommies (1989, 2009)
Newman, Leslea. Too Far Away to Touch
(1998)
Newman, Leslea. The Boy Who Cried
Fabulous (2007)
Newman, Leslea. Mommy, Mama, and Me
(2009)
Newman, Leslea. Daddy, Papa, and Me
(2009)
Oelschlager, Vanita. A Tale of Two Daddies
(2010)
Oelschlager, Vanita. A Tale of Two
Mommies (2011)
Parr, Todd. The Family Book (2010)
Polacco, Patricia. In Our Mothers’ House
(2009)
Richardson, Justin and Peter Parnel. And
Tango Makes Three (2005)
Ryan, P. One Hundred is a Family (1990)
Setterington, Ken. Mom and Mum are
Getting Married! (2004)
Simon, N. All Families are Special (2003)
Skutch, R. Who’s in a Family? (1997)
Valentine, Johnny. One Dad, Two Dads,
Brown Dad, Blue Dads (2004)
Vigna, Judith. My Two Uncles (1995)
Willhoite, Michael. Daddy’s Roommate
(1994)
26
% Urban
libraries
60
% Suburban
libraries
20
% Rural
libraries
0
% Total
libraries
20
20
0
0
4
20
0
100
0
10
10
10
0
30
8
4
36
80
60
20
60
40
0
0
50
20
0
0
0
40
12
4
32
40
10
0
12
20
20
0
12
20
20
0
12
40
20
0
16
60
10
0
16
20
10
0
12
100
20
50
30
30
30
52
28
100
80
40
68
80
20
0
0
0
0
16
4
60
0
20
10
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
4
60
40
20
40
0
0
20
24
Only two of the 25 titles were held in more than fifty percent of the libraries in the study: And
Tango Makes Three by Richardson and Parnel; and The Family Book by Parr. Four additional titles were
held in more than twenty-five percent of the libraries: Fierstein’s The Sissy Duckling; Garden’s Molly’s
Family; Newman’s Heather Has Two Mommies; and Polacco’s In Our Mothers’ House.
In conclusion, the data do show significant differences in accessibility between libraries in urban
vs. suburban vs. rural locations. There is also a significant difference in accessibility for libraries where
the children’s librarian holds an MLS and those without an MLS-educated children’s librarian.
Therefore, my predicted hypothesis, that the greatest number of accessible titles occur in urban
libraries with MLS-educated children’s librarians held true. More titles available means more
accessibility of GLBT books to children. Explanations, significance and areas for further study will be
discussed in the concluding chapter.
27
Chapter 5. Conclusions
Introduction/Findings
This study provides some elucidation on the accessibility of GLBT picture books to children in
Connecticut public libraries, based on the number of titles carried and how they are shelved. Data
collected supported the hypotheses: that libraries in urban areas would provide more accessibility than
those in suburban or rural, and that libraries where the children’s librarian has an MLS would carry more
titles and have them appropriately shelved.
Discussion and Interpretation of the research
The first hypothesis was that GLBT picture books for children would be more accessible in urban
libraries than in rural or suburban. This hypothesis was based on the fact that more resources for the
GLBT population are available in cities in general and that, according to the Gay and Lesbian Atlas
(Gates & Ost, 2004), the top five communities of gay and lesbian populations in Connecticut are in major
cities. The premise that follows this fact is that there is more awareness of GLBT-related issues in these
urban areas than in towns with smaller populations of gays and lesbians.
Results show that urban libraries in Connecticut provide significantly more accessibility to GLBT
picture books for children that those in suburban or rural locations. Total GLBT titles fully accessible in
U libraries was 52, vs. 22 for S libraries and 14 for R libraries (Table 1, p. 25). Fully accessible titles are
those that are carried by the library and located on the children’s shelf, rather than a parent/teacher shelf.
More titles shelved appropriately means more access for these titles to children. All of the U libraries
carried at least some of the titles on the list, whereas 90% of S libraries did, and only 60% of R libraries
did. (Table 3, p. 26).
These findings were contrary to other studies comparing GLBT literature in libraries based on
geographic location. Spence’s (1998) study was inconclusive as far as a correlation between libraries
located in urban areas and the number of GLBT titles they carried (for adults). Hughes-Hassell, et al
(2013) and Spence (2000) also found no significant differences between geographic location and the
number of GLBT titles a library carried in their studies of school libraries and public libraries,
28
respectively. Howard (2005) found significantly more children’s GLBT picture books in the largest two
cities in her study in Canadian public libraries—Vancouver and Toronto, but no correlation in location
and number of titles in the other libraries.
Several issues may explain these discrepancies. First, the geographic distribution of libraries in
the other studies is much larger. So there may be more variation between population dynamics such as
liberalism vs. conservatism, economic discrepancies, and education among the patrons and staff of
libraries among groups of urban vs. suburban/rural libraries chosen in the other studies. In Connecticut,
those population values may be more similar among the large cities and among the smaller towns.
Second, in the majority of cases, children’s librarians in the U and S groups in this study hold an MLS,
and R children’s librarians do not. (See Appendix 3, Table 4). So it is difficult to determine whether the
location or the fact of the MLS-educated librarian is more of a determining factor, as these two
independent variables are commonly associated.
The second hypothesis was that libraries where the children’s librarian holds an MLS would
provide more accessibility. This was based on the premise that librarians educated in an MLS program
would be familiar with and committed to the principles of Intellectual Freedom as laid out in the ALA’s
Intellectual Freedom Manual (ALA, 2002) and the Library Bill of Rights (ALA, 1972) and subsequent
interpretations thereof, which state that all persons, including young people, have the right to unrestricted
access to information and that librarians must not allow personal beliefs to interfere with these rights.
Results of this study show that libraries in Group A, whose children’s librarian holds an MLS,
have significantly more accessible GLBT titles than those in Group B, without an MLS. (See Table 4, p.
26). Those libraries in Group A had a total of 73 totally accessible titles vs. 14 totally accessible titles in
Group B. This is a significant difference. Again, in most cases, the libraries in Group B were also located
in “R” areas, so it is difficult to know which independent variable has the more weight.
Whatever the determining factors, it is clear from looking at the total numbers of titles carried
that the GLBT population in Connecticut is underrepresented by picture books that reflect their lifestyle.
29
From the compiled list of 25 titles, most of which had been reviewed by School Library Journal, Booklist,
Publishers Weekly, Lamda Book Report, or Goodreads, on average, only five titles were accessible in
libraries with an MLS-educated children’s librarian and only one on average where the librarian did not
hold an MLS (Table 4, p. 26).
The book that was found at the most libraries was And Tango Makes Three (Richardson and
Parnel, 2005). This book is one of the most challenged books of all time. It is the true story of two male
penguins at the Central Park Zoo that raised a young penguin chick. One could attribute the book’s
popularity to the amount of press it received. It was on the top of the ALA’s list of challenged books
every year from 2006-2010.
The second most popular title was The Family Book by Parr (2010). This book is by a popular
author, and there is only one page that references a same-sex couple. The theme of the book is that
families come in all shapes and sizes. One could guess that most librarians and parents find this book
mostly unobjectionable, although it has been challenged as well. Patricia Polocco’s In Our Mothers’
House (2009) is also by a very well-known and popular author, which could explain why 28% of the
libraries carried it.
Heather has Two Mommies (Newman, 1989, 2009) was the original breakthrough picture book
that features a family with two mothers. It is carried by 32% of the libraries in this study. It was originally
published in 1989, but a 25th anniversary edition came out in 2009, which might explain its current
popularity.
The Sissy Duckling (Fierstein, 2005), reviewed by both Publisher’s Weekly and School Library
Journal, is based on a television movie of the same name produced in 1999 and starring its creator,
Harvey Fierstein, also the author of the book, which may account for its popularity. It features a sensitive
duckling named Elmer. Molly’s Family (Garden, 2004), about a kindergartener who draws a picture of
her family with two mothers, was also reviewed in School Library Journal, Booklist and Publisher’s
Weekly. It was held by 40% of the libraries in the survey.
30
Other books, though equally publicized through reviews, did not fare so well. This may be
because some books on the list, such as Vigna’s My Two Uncles, are more than ten years old. Others,
such as the appealing books by Oelschlager, A Tale of Two Mommies (2011) and A Tale of Two Daddies
(2010), both recently published are held by fewer than 20% of the libraries.
The degree of self-censorship--shelving the books in a special collection, like the parent/teacher
shelf—was not as high as expected. An interesting find was that, though suburban libraries carried many
more GLBT titles than rural libraries, the percentage of the GLBT books that the library held on the
children’s shelves as opposed to a parent/teacher shelf was much higher at rural libraries than at suburban
libraries (Table 2, p. 25). This may simply be due to the fact that the rural libraries are smaller and have
less physical room for special shelves.
One library (U5) held copies of both The Sissy Duckling and The Family Book in “storage.” They
also carry The Family Book on the children’s shelves. This may be because the books are less popular
than they were at one time or, perhaps they have been met with a challenge by a patron.
Contributions of this study
This research pointed to a large gap in literature in Connecticut public libraries for children with
GLBT themes. A child living in a city in Connecticut may be able to find one of about eleven possible
titles as they browse through the children's shelves. A child in a suburban library has a chance of finding
one of five books. A child in a rural area would be lucky to find one or two books on the shelves there.
In Chapters 1 and 2, this study addressed reasons why it is important for children to find GLBT
books on the public library shelves. Children, especially, depend on libraries rather than bookstores or
online to find books. Children of GLBT families are much more likely to be bullied, to feel depressed, to
be targeted for hate crimes and to feel alienated from society. They need characters in books to whom
they can relate in order to help them feel “okay.” Like children of other minority populations that were
previously marginalized by society-- such as African Americans—and were led to believe they did not
matter because they did not find characters like themselves in children's picture books, children from
31
GLBT families must feel the same negation when they do not see representations of their families as
normal.
Other children need to see examples in literature of families with same sex parents to learn that
there are different kinds of families, and not all families have a mom and a dad. This awareness, as
represented in literature, may prevent them from becoming bullies. Education is the first step in
understanding and acceptance of diverse lifestyles.
Children’s librarians across the state need to be aware that they are underrepresenting a
significant population when they exclude GLBT literature, either through lack of knowledge of the
resources, self-censorship, fear of a challenge, or their own personal convictions. If they are not the
person in charge of the children’s collection at their library, they should be advocating for more GLBT
literature with their administrators or collections developers. Hopefully this study will raise this type of
awareness.
Limitations of the study
So many factors may come into play when considering why librarians choose the books they do
to add to their collections. It is not possible for this study to consider all of those factors. Therefore this
study focused only on geographic location and level of education of the children’s librarians. Other
factors that may be involved are training of the administrator and/or collections department chair;
available money; space and shelving issues; ideology of the library board; and awareness of local GLBT
populations. Other factors may be the lack of press about and lack of reviews of children's books with
GLBT themes, and unawareness of the Lambda Awards. This seems particularly true given that the books
that were among the most prevalent in public libraries were the ones that had the most challenges—like
And Tango Makes Three (B18) and Heather has two Mommies (B9)—and therefore had a lot of press.
Ideally, this study would have involved every public library in the state, and not just a sample of
libraries.
32
In some cases the books on my list are more than ten years old, which may account for their not
being on library shelves. They may have been held previously but pulled due to age. In other cases the
illustrations or the story itself are not terribly strong, which may be why some librarians have avoided
purchasing them.
This study did not address book challenges and whether any of these books had been held and
then been removed from shelves due to book challenges. It also did not address collections policies of the
libraries, though the researcher did look at policies on some of the library websites and did not find any
policies that specifically addressed the issue of books dealing with homosexual themes.
Recommendations for further research
One area for future study is looking at percentages of the number of GLBT books carried by each
library based on the total number of children’s books in the collection. That would make allowance for
smaller libraries that simply do not carry as many children’s books as larger libraries.
Another area for study would be whether a higher percentage of GLBT-themed children’s books
are carried in libraries where the population is more politically and socially liberal than those that are
more conservative. This is a difficult parameter to measure.
Also, it would be interesting to look at children's collections at school libraries in the State and
the percentage of GLBT-themed books they carry. This would provide an interesting comparison to the
results of this study.
It would likewise be interesting to do subject searches at all of the libraries to see how many
books could be found under the subject headings “homosexuality” or “same sex parents” or “lesbian
parents.” The author did some random searching under these subjects in some of the libraries in the study
and found that some did have subject headings such as “homosexuality” and “same sex parenting” in their
catalogs. If a child could look for books under these subject headings, would she or he be able to find
them without asking a librarian for help, which would be potentially embarrassing? Furthermore, are
these titles on booklists or are subject pathfinders available?
33
A study could be made of YA collections of GLBT literature which, from a general observation
seem to be much larger than those for children. Do the same libraries in this study have similar
percentages of GLBT literature for teens or does that vary? If so, what are the reasons?
A follow up of this study in five to ten years would be of interest to see if any significant strides
are made in the area of accessibility of GLBT-themed literature for children.
Conclusions of this study
GLBT-themed literature for children is grossly underrepresented in public libraries in the state of
Connecticut. In both the numbers of titles available and the way they are shelved, the level of accessibility
is very low.
Given that gay, lesbian and transgendered people make up anywhere from 1-10% of our
population, and live in every part of every state of the United States, there is a profound lack of literature
that represents this population, in spite of the fact that it has become a very prevalent sociopolitical issue.
The reality for many of our children is that they live in homes with same-sex parents and yet
would have a hard time finding any picture books in their public libraries that depict families that look
like theirs. Thus children who already face challenges at school and in their communities, due to bullying
and ostracizing, cannot find legitimacy of their family lifestyle which might give them hope and
validation.
Whether or not a children’s librarian, or a library director, accept homosexuality as a legitimate
lifestyle is irrelevant; it is a lifestyle that deserves representation. Self-censorship of GLBT-themed books
based on anti-gay sentiments or the perceived threat of a challenge by a parent are not acceptable reasons
for not including a book in the children’s collection. Library shelves should reflect the diversity of their
communities and librarians should uphold the principles of intellectual freedom and resist censorship.
Statements like “homosexuals don’t live in my neighborhood” or “homosexuals don’t use my library” are
most likely untrue in any communities in Connecticut.
34
This study found that, while MLS-educated librarians in urban environments do provide
significantly more access for children to GLBT-themed picture books, those books are still not available
in reasonable numbers. Children’s librarians should be the guardians of children's freedom to read about
characters that inspire them and reflect their reality.
35
Appendix 1
List of GLBT books used in study
(B1)Brannen, S. (2008). Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. New York: Putnam Juvenile.
(B2)Combs, B. (2001). ABC a Family Alphabet Book. Ridley Park, PA: Two Lives Publishing.
(B3)De Haan, L. (2003). King and King. Berkeley, CA: Tricycle Press.
(B4)Ewert, M. (2008). 10,000 Dresses. Salem, OR: Triangle Square.
(B5)Fierstein, H. (2005). The Sissy Duckling. New York: Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers.
(B6)Garden, N. (2004). Molly’s Family. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
(B7)Gonzales, R. (2005). Antonio’s Card. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press.
(B8)Kilodavis, C. (2010). My Princess Boy. New York: Aladdin.
(B9)Newman, L. (1989, 2009). Heather Has Two Mommies. Boston: Alyson Press.
(B10)Newman, L. (1995, 1998). Too Far Away to Touch. New York: Clarion.
(B11)Newman, L. (2007). The Boy Who Cried Fabulous. Berkeley, CA: Tricycle Press.
(B12)Newman, L. (2009). Mommy, Mama, and Me. Berkeley, CA: Tricycle Press.
(B13)Newman, L. (2009). Daddy, Papa, and Me. Berkeley, CA: Tricycle Press.
(B14)Oelschlager, V. (2010). A Tale of Two Daddies. Vanita Books.
(B15)Oelschlager, V. (2011). A Tale of Two Mommies. Vanita Books.
(B16)Parr, T. (2010). The Family Book. New York: Little, Brown Books for Young Readers.
(B17)Polacco, P. (2009). In Our Mothers’ House. New York: Philomel.
(B18)Richardson, J. & Parnel, P. (2005). And Tango Makes Three. New York: Simon and Schuster.
(B19)Ryan, P. (1990). One hundred is a family. New York: Hyperion Books for Children.
(B20)Setterington, K. (2004). Mom and Mum are Getting Married! Toronto: Second Story Press.
(B21)Simon, N. (2003). All families are special. Park Ridge, IL: Albert Whitman & Co
(B22)Skutch, R. (1997). Who’s in a Family? Berkeley, CA: Tricycle Press.
(B23)Valentine, J. (2004). One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads. Boston: Alyson Books.
36
(B24)Vigna, J. (1995). My Two Uncles. Park Ridge, IL: Albert Whitman & Company.
(B25)Willhoite, M. (1994). Daddy’s Roommate. Boston: Alyson Press.
37
Appendix 2: Lists of Libraries by Size Designation
Urban (population > 100,000) n=5
Designation
U1
U2
U3
U4
U5
Library Name
Bridgeport Public Library
New Haven Free Public Library
Hartford Public Library
Stamford—Ferguson Library
Waterbury—Silas Bronson Library
Suburban (10,000< population < 100,000) n=10
Designation
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
Library Name
Danbury Public Library
West Haven Public Library
Groton Public Library
Vernon--Rockville Library
South Windsor Public Library
Southbury Public Library
Bethel Public Library
Winchester—Beardsley Library
North Branford Public Library
Coventry—Booth Dim Library
Rural (population <10,000) n=10
Designation
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
Library Name
Woodbury Public Library
Prospect Public Library
Brooklyn Public Library
Lebanon—Jon Trumbull Library
Beacon Falls Public Library
Canterbury Public Library
Chester Public Library
Andover Public Library
Morris Public Library
Bridgewater-- Burham Public Library
38
Appendix 3: Data Tables
Table 1 - Titles located in each library--U (urban)
Title
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
Total GLBT
books
Ave # held
by U's
U1
U2
U3
U4 U5
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
0
9
11
13
16
7
Count of Titles All U
3
1
1
0
5
4
3
1
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
5
1
5
4
1
3
0
1
3
2
11.2 Range=7-16 44% of total in sample
39
Number of U
libraries with "2"
3
1
1
0
4
4
3
0
3
2
0
1
2
3
1
5
1
4
4
1
3
0
1
3
2
% of all U
libraries with "2"
60
20
20
0
80
80
60
0
60
40
0
20
40
60
20
100
20
80
80
20
60
0
20
60
40
Table 2 – Titles Located in Each Library—S (suburban)
Title
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
Total
GLBT
books
Avg #
held by
S
S1
S2
S3
S4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
0
10
6
3
6
Range=
4.5 0-10
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
2
2
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
5
2
1
9
18 % of total in
sample
40
Count
of
TitlesAll S
2
0
0
1
1
4
0
0
5
1
2
2
2
1
1
5
3
8
0
0
1
0
0
2
4
Number
of S
libraries
with a
"2"
% of all S
libraries
with a
"2"
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
5
2
6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
10
20
10
20
0
0
50
20
60
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
Table 3—Titles Located in Each Library—R (rural)
Title
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
B10
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
B20
B21
B22
B23
B24
B25
Total
GLBT
books
Avg. #
held by
R's
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
0
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
5
0
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
6.4 % of total in
1.6 Range=0-6 sample
41
R8 R9
R10
Count
of
TitlesAll R
0
0
1
0
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Number
of R
libraries
with a
"2"
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
% of R
libraries
with a
"2"
0
0
0
0
30
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
30
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Table 4—Does the Children’s Librarian Have an MLS?
Library
Group A=Yes Group B=No
U1
x
U2
x
U3
x
U4
x
U5
x
S1
x
S2
x
S3
x
S4
x
S5
x
S6
x
S7
x
S8
x
S9
x
S10
x
R1
x
R2
x
R3
x
R4
x
R5
x
R6
x
R7
x
R8
x
R9
x
R10
x
Total
14
11
% of total libraries in study
56
44
42
Table 5--Fully Accessible Holdings of Specific Titles by Library Group and % of Holdings
Titles
Group A--number % of total group A Group B--number % of total group B
B1
3
21
1
9
B2
1
7
0
0
B3
1
7
0
0
B4
0
0
0
0
B5
5
36
1
9
B6
6
43
0
0
B7
3
21
0
0
B8
0
0
0
0
B9
3
21
0
0
B10
2
14
1
9
B11
1
7
1
9
B12
1
7
1
9
B13
3
21
1
9
B14
3
21
0
0
B15
1
7
0
0
B16
11
79
2
18
B17
5
36
1
9
B18
9
64
5
45
B19
4
29
0
0
B20
1
7
0
0
B21
3
21
1
9
B22
0
0
0
0
B23
1
7
0
0
B24
3
21
0
0
B25
2
14
0
0
Total of all titles
72
21
15
5
43
44
References
Alexander, L. B., & Miselis, S. D. (2007). Barriers to GLBTQ Collection Development and Strategies for
Overcoming Them. Young Adult Library Services, 5(3), 43-49. Retrieved from http://0search.ebscohost.com.www.consuls.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ofs&AN=502914462&site=e
host-live
American Library Association. (1972). “Free Access to Libraries for Minors: An Interpretation of the
Library Bill of Rights.” Retrieved February 10, 2013 from
http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/librarybill/interpretations/freeaccesslibraries
American Library Association. (1999). “Libraries: An American Value.” Office for Intellectual Freedom.
Retrieved February 10, 2013 from
http://www.ala.org/offices/oif/statementspols/americanvalue/librariesamerican
American Library Association. (2002). Intellectual Freedom Manual, 6th Ed. Chicago: American Library
Association.
American Library Association. (2013). “Frequently Challenged Books.” Office for Intellectual Freedom.
Retrieved on February 10, 2013 from http://www.ala.org/advocacy/banned/frequentlychallenged
American Library Association. (2013). Stonewall Book Awards. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/glbtrt/award/honored#2012
Banned Books Week. (2013). Censorship: Mapping Censorship. Retrieved from
http://www.bannedbooksweek.org/mappingcensorship
Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).
Connecticut Online State Library. (2013). Connecticut State’s Re-search engine. www.iConn.org
Retrieved from http://rqst-agent.autographics.com/homepages/customerwide/iconnLandingPublic.asp?cuid=rqst&lid=CSH&myses=1
9852388&cusrvr=sql02
Connecticut Public Libraries: A Statistical Profile. (July 2011 - June 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.webjunction.org/documents/connecticut/CT_Public_Libraries_Statistical_Profile_FY
2012.html
Fiske, M. (1960). Book Selection and Censorship: A Study of School and Public Libraries in California.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gates, G.J. & Ost, J. (2004). The Gay and Lesbian Atlas. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute Press.
Gough, C. & Greenblatt, E. (Eds.). (1990). Gay and Lesbian Library Service. Jefferson, NC: McFarland
& Co., Inc.
Greenblatt, E. (1990). Homosexuality: The Evolution of a Concept in the Library of Congress subject
Headings. Gay and Lesbian Library Service. Ed. Ellen Greenblatt and Call Gough. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Co., Inc.
45
Greenblatt, E. (2003). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Library Users: Overcoming the Myths.
Colorado Libraries, 29(4), 21-25. Retrieved from http://0web.ebscohost.com.www.consuls.org/ehost/detail?vid=3&sid=4da51c3a-451a-4b22-9e9d7c807ac9269d%40sessionmgr111&hid=113&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db
=ofs&AN=502915436
Hopkins, E. (2012) Forward in True Stories of Censorship Battles in Libraries. Eds. Valerie Nye and
Kathy Barco. Chicago: American Library Association.
Howard, V. (2005). Out of the Closet...But not on the Shelves? An analysis of Canadian public libraries'
holdings of gay-themed picture books. Progressive Librarian, (25), 62-75. Retrieved from
http://0-web.ebscohost.com.www.consuls.org/ehost/detail?sid=465e17d7-6dce-4f8d-8c9a97a56cc3851e%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=106&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d
%3d#db=ofs&AN=502958349
Hughes-Hassell, S., Overberg, E. & Harris, S. (2013). Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and
Questioning (LGBTQ)-Themed Literature for Teens: Are School Libraries Providing Adequate
Collections? American Association of School Librarians. Retrieved from
http://www.ala.org/aasl/slr/volume16/hughes-hassell-overberg-harris
Kosciw, J. G., et al. (2012). 2011 National School Climate Survey: The Experiences of Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Youth in Our Nation’s Schools. New York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight
Education Network. <www.glsen.org/binary-data/GLSEN_ATTACHMENTS/file/000/002/21051.pdf> (accessed March 19, 2013).
LaRue, J. (2008, July 14). “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” Myliblog. Retrieved from
http://jaslarue.blogspot.com/2008/07/uncle-bobbys-wedding.html
LGBT Youth Literature Project. (2013). Goodreads.com Listopia LGBT Children’s Literature. Retrieved
on March 12, 2013 from
http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/15355.LGBT_Childrens_Literature
New York Times. (2013, March 21). Pediatrics group backs gay marriage, saying it helps children.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/21/health/american-academy-of-pediatricsbacks-gay-marriage.html?_r=0
Passet, J. E. (2012). Hidden in Plain Sight: Gay and Lesbian Books in Midwestern Public Libraries,
1900–1969. Library Trends 60(4), 749-764. DOI: 10.1353/lib.2012.0010
Pavao, K. (2003). Out of the Closet. Publisher’s Weekly 250(48). Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA111012954&v=2.1&u=21209&it=r&p=GPS&s
w=w
Pekoll, K. (2012). A community divided. In True Stories of Censorship Battles in America’s Libraries.
(Eds.) Nye, V. & Barco, K. Chicago: American Library Association.
Rothbauer, P. & McKechnie, L. (1999). Gay and lesbian fiction for young adults: Survey of holdings in
Canada public libraries. Collection Building, 18 (1), pp. 32-9. Retrieved from http://0www.emeraldinsight.com.www.consuls.org/journals.htm?issn=01604953&volume=18&issue=1&articleid=860912&show=html&view=printarticle&nolog=916138
46
Rothbauer, P. & McKechnie, L. (2000). The treatment of gay and lesbian fiction for young adults in
selected prominent reviewing media. Collection Building, 19(1): 5-16.
Rowell, E.H. (2007). Missing! Picture Books Reflecting Gay and Lesbian Families. Young Children,
62(3):24-26, 28-30. Retrieved from
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/recordDetails.jsp?searchtype=advanced&ERICEx
tSearch_Descriptor=%22Childrens+Literature%22&pageSize=10&ERICExtSearch_SearchCount
=0&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=gay&ERICExtSearch_Operator_0=and&eric_displayStart
Count=1&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=kw&_pageLabel=RecordDetails&objectId=0900019b
801760c1&accno=EJ769001&_nfls=false
Sears, J.T. (1991). Helping students understand and accept sexual diversity. Education Digest, 57(4), 53.
Serebnick, J. (1981). Book reviews and the selection of potentially controversial books in public libraries.
The Library Quarterly 51: 390-409.
Shea, C. (2010). Fighting the Censor: The State of Censorship in Connecticut Public Libraries. CLA
Today. Accessed on 2/5/1013 at http://www.clatoday.org/?p=265
Spence, A. (1998). Gay books in the public library: Responsibility fulfilled or access denied? How 19
large urban American and Canadian library systems compare in service to their communities.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: International Information Research Group. http://epe.lacbac.gc.ca/100/200/300/alex_spence/gay_books/Gay_Books_Public_Library.pdf
Spence, A. (2000). Controversial Books in the Public Library: A Comparative Survey of Holdings of Gay
Related Children's Books. Library Quarterly, 70(3). Retrieved from http://0www.jstor.org.www.consuls.org/stable/4309441
Sweetland, J. and Christensen, P. (1995). Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Titles: Their Treatment in the
Review Media and Their Selection by Libraries. Collection Building 14(2), 32-41.
Weisbard, P.H. (2001). Frances Ann Day, Lesbian and Gay Voices: An Annotated Bibliography and
Guide to Literature for Children and Young Adults. Feminist Collections, 22(304), 42. Retrieved
from http://search.proquest.com/docview/221210921?accountid=13743
Whelan, Debra Lau. (2009). A Dirty Little Secret: Self-Censorship is Rampant and Lethal. School
Library Journal 55(2), 26–30. Retrieved from
http://0go.galegroup.com.www.consuls.org/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=RELEV
ANCE&inPS=true&prodId=STOM&userGroupName=a30sc&tabID=T002&searchId=R1&result
ListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPositi
on=1&contentSet=GALE%7CA198209775&&docId=GALE|A198209775&docType=GALE&ro
le=
47