LGBTQ+ Collection Policies in the rural southern United States by Steven E. Kirby

 

Dawn Betts-Green (2020) “We Could Do Better”: Librarian Engagement in LGBTQ Collection Development in Small and Rural Public Libraries in the Southern U.S, Public Library Quarterly, 39:6, 510-536, DOI: 10.1080/01616846.2020.1737493

 By Steven E. Kirby

 

This article discusses an important aspect of the LGBTQ+ community as it pertains to libraries; Their representation and engagement within rural counties in the Southern United States. Though I have not studied the issue in detail it is a generally held belief that the southern United States is not a bastion for inclusiveness and tolerance. They explain this as : “Although it is certainly not relegated to only rural areas of the southern US, this region has higher rates of anti-LGBTQ sentiment, actions, and violence. This can be partially attributed to the notably higher instances of religious fundamentalism (Pew Forum 2008, 8) in these states, but generally conservative political views also contribute” (pg. 911)

The article goes over LGBTQ+ representation in libraries and how there is a fair amount of information on their community in terms of libraries because of a libraries need and focus on studying their community and the needs that they have. The writers strain that though there are negative connotations to the South and other peoples it is not necessarily how all LGBTQ+ peoples view those areas nor do they reflect on all of their experiences.

The article tries to gather a collection of data that reflects the collections of libraries as they pertain to LGBTQ+. They used key terms to determine what is in those collections such as: “Lesbian* (lesbian, lesbian couples, lesbians, lesbians’, and lesbianism), Gay (gay, gay men, gay couples, gays, and gays’), Homosexual* (homosexual, homosexuals, homosexuals’, and homosexuality), Bisexual (bisexual, bisexuals, bisexuals’, bisexual men, bisexual women, and bisexuality), Transgender etc.

The librarians that consented to the interview were very enthusiastic about discussing their collections, and all of them explained that it was a work in progress and that there was much to be done to improve. There was only one respondent that said that their collection policy had language for collecting materials and resources for diverse populations. Only two of the librarians interviewed said that there was not any community opposition to such materials. One respondent stated that there were no barriers to adding to the collection while the other stated that the only barrier was a financial one.

One of the things that were discussed was the relatively low participation of the libraries in the areas they were studying. The interviews that were conducted accounted for only ten percent of the respondents that were asked. This is important in having context for the article. So be aware that there was a relatively small portion of respondents that were hoped for.

Much of the information they received also came from interviews with individual librarians of their respective libraries to discuss the topic. This can be troublesome only because many people would be reticent on the subject of LGBTQ+ considering they are being recorded, though anonymously.

Either way I believe that this is an interesting look at the representation of LGBTQ+ people within one of the most contentious areas of the United States on this topic.