Chase Talks About Segregating LGBTQ Books

I initially misread the first part of the prompt response for this week regarding the question of whether or not to separate LGBTQ and African American fiction from the general collection. I saw the word “separate” as a good thing but neglected to catch on to the true intention of the word, which was “segregate.” In separating these types of books, I think more in regards to celebrating these communities, authors, and stories. Libraries in diverse communities sometimes create special collections around LGBTQ, African American, and other groups of people who make up their stakeholders. In other cases, libraries often do special displays around Black History Month or in conjunction with their local Pride celebration. In other words, there are times when separating books out is a spotlight on a library’s community and its commitment to everyone within it.

Reading on down into the response scenario, I realized that it wasn’t separation, as in an intentional collection, that was being asked for but segregation particularly in regards to LGBTQ literature. In Orange City,IA, a group of community members requested that the library “separate” books that contained LGBTQ themes. One community member in favor of segregating the books stated that these types of materials are being pushed upon his community, which he feels was created on Christian values. They believe these materials are being used to indoctrinate children. The library stated that it will be experimenting with sectioning out books by themes similar to how nonfiction is shelved. Furthermore, the petition for segregating the books calls for a halt on new acquisitions in this area until the community can give their feedback on any materials concerning LGBTQ themes.

If the decision was mine to make, I would not segregate LGBTQ fictional books from the general collection. The idea of moving these books into their own section due to community demand is demoralizing to the LGBTQ community and an endorsement of religious beliefs that seek to “pity” those who are different. I would go so far as to call it the scarlet lettering of that section, those materials, and the community members who seek them out. Unlike a display celebrating Pride, the intention of this move is to produce a sense of shame and a sense of “other” that the LGBTQ community has fought hard against.

Despite the gains that have been made for LGBTQs, there is obviously still a stigma, which is even more prominent in people who are still questioning and living a closeted life. An integrated collection gives these people a sense of privacy, one of the virtues of librarianship, when seeking out valuable information and stories about people like themselves. A questioning person will avoid that section out of fear especially in that town. If that questioning person was a teenager, he or she would face ridicule from their peers for even being near that section. In the cloak of the stacks, those people are more likely to seek LGBTQ themed items, which could help them find themselves, battle depression, or avoid suicide.

Most of all it’s a slippery slope when libraries make concessions such as segregating LGBTQ materials. Maybe the next step would have those books be put behind the desk and given out only at special request, or books with sexual situations would be kept in a room at the back of the library. Perhaps non-Christian books should be labeled as such. While the collection should reflect the community it serves, the library abandons its principles when they let that community dictate what the collection should be and how it should be used.