Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 1
The Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT) of the American Library Association (ALA) publishes a suggested reading list, the Over the Rainbow (adult literature) and Rainbow Books (literature for youth birth to eighteen) lists. It is evaluated annually and provides communities with guidance in selecting commendable books which reflect LGBTQ experiences. I would like to identify and compare the suggested readings to what is offered in our local libraries. Public libraries are often the institution in which an LGBTQ person can safely begin to explore information. It is the responsibility of the library to be inclusive of all available information and to seek out literature and information that are reflective to the community needs. If the library profession as a whole has set expectations and suggestions like the projects previously mentioned are they in fact being utilized? I would like to conduct the research to illuminate the challenges faced by the marginalized population. Cortney Barnes, April Parker, Jennifer Patterson, Rachel Smith Professor Julie Hersberger LIS 600 26 September 2011 Information Barriers Affecting Minority Groups “One of the most subversive institutions in the United States is the public library…”― Bell Hooks, Rock My Soul: Black People and Self-Esteem Introduction Our library system is fundamentally flawed as it is a mirrored reflection of society as a whole. The library is a treasure chest of the world‟s social resources. The uneven distribution of material perpetuates social inequality. It is these disparities that plague our nation. Libraries being a public serving institution have responsibilities of providing inclusive policy, equitable information access, which includes access to the web, collections, and community resources. Rampant discrimination has rendered marginalized communities silent and prohibited them from actualizing their fullest potential. Conversely, the collective power of any community is in our differences. Librarianship is activism because of its unique platform with the ability to embrace diversity as a means to eradicate discrimination. It is imperative to investigate the current
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 2
repetitive practices that contribute to the sustained invisibility of minorities within our community. When we dismantle the barriers to information and embrace multiculturalism, we can acquire unlimited perceptions which are paramount to evolution and progress. Upon exploration of the disparities of information dissemination it is clear that we are not far removed from primitive practices such as book burning. Modern day forms of censorship exist, and historic prejudices have bled into our current handling of materials. Attitudes towards underserved communities negatively impact our society on a continuous basis. The purpose of this research is to illuminate the barriers to access, and the accessibility of information produced for, about, and by minorities. We can no longer turn away from the ill effects of information blockades, and all of the many other repercussions of inaccessible information and the damage that has been done. Nor can we dwell in the ruins, because there is so much work to be done. Change is upon us. It is in this research that these authors wish to identify the disparities of service and barriers to information as they affect underserved populations specifically those of the hearing impaired, youth, African American, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, and Queer (LGBTQ) communities.
Deafness and Hard-of-Hearing Status as an Information Barrier Millions of people live and work in the United States; unfortunately, many of these otherwise "normal" people are members of the deaf community. More specifically, over 35,000,000 people (13% of the U.S. population) report some degree of hearing trouble (Mitchell). The current state of thinking regarding the deaf community, which also includes the hard-of-hearing, has improved its standing as of late by leaps and bounds. Members of the community are refusing to remain silent in a world in which they would seem to have no other choice. Deaf people are becoming successful executives, actors, doctors, service people, and educators. Gallaudet University, the first school in the world for the advanced education of the deaf community, is still a force to be reckoned with in the scholarly world as well as the realm of extracurricular activities and athletics. With all of these major strides forward, there still remains an information barrier for this community as it relates to the acquisition of knowledge on an everyday basis. Not only is information lost in translation, so to speak, between members of the hearing community and deaf community, but information is not as easily accessible for the deaf community because of social stigma. In order to break down this barrier, the best weapon is to have ample and relevant services as well as tolerance, tempered with kindness, in all areas to help meet the needs of this community. Problems Faced as a Result of this Information Barrier
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 3
Studies have shown that deaf students face educational hardships even when steps are taken to ensure their special needs are met. Deaf students using an interpreter experience a “lag time” in receiving information (Foster, Long, and Snell 226). Many members of the deaf community read the lips of speakers in order to understand conversation; however, oftentimes the line of sight between the speaker and the audience member becomes broken, leaving the deaf audience member lost in a sea of communicatory confusion. In computer labs or technologyheavy situations, speakers often perform tasks on computers or manipulate PowerPoint presentations while speaking. In instances such as this, the audience member is forced to make a difficult choice to either pay attention to the speaker‟s words via lip-reading or miss out on the information and processes being displayed, or to catch the processes being displayed but miss out on the important information describing the process. In this situation, the deaf audience member will always be disadvantaged. The most egregious foul committed against the deaf community, however, takes place on a personal level. Family members, friends, classmates, and associates oftentimes deny their deaf counterparts access to information without realizing the severity of their denial. “Don‟t worry about it”, “Oh, he didn‟t say anything”, “She wasn‟t talking to you”, and “Nothing, they were talking to me” are familiar phrases often expressed to members of the deaf community by the hearing people they trust, know, and love.
Solutions for Dismantling this Information Barrier The problem of the barriers to information for members of the deaf community is known, but less discussed is the solution. The best way to tackle the problems faced by a marginalized societal group is to simply not marginalize its members. Steps have been taken to accommodate members of the deaf community on a public scale. Most mobile phone carriers provide devices which feature TTY mode, which lets members of the deaf community use the phone to communicate via text message. Educational institutions are required to provide interpreter services for deaf students and faculty. Many residential complexes provide the option for deaf residents to have sight responsive alarm systems installed free of charge as opposed to residents having to deal with not hearing doorbells, fire alarms, etc. The difficult task in accommodating members of the deaf community lies in the personal realm. Practices similar to the “Golden Rule” doctrine must be re-adopted on a large scale. When responsible for information transfers with a member of the deaf community, one should merely treat the duty of passing on information with the same level of reverence as if the information were being passed to oneself. There are many barriers to information that still exist in civilization today. Amidst the technological advancements and societal gains made for and by members of the deaf community, there still exists a barrier to information on a daily basis. Access to pertinent information is denied to the deaf community in the classroom, on the job, and even at home. It is the
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 4
responsibility of the hearing community to help accommodate deaf counterparts by including and even engaging them in conversation in a means of communication that is equally convenient for all parties. Intolerance and inequality never falls on deaf ears. Barriers to Information and Youth In world ruled by social media, mp3‟s, I-pads, I-pods, and everything in between; it is hard to imagine that not all people have access to a computer. It is a startling realization to learn that many adults do not own their computers or have basic computer skills. This means that if parents do not have these skills then their children, the youth of this country, will lack technological skills as well. We assume that all children and teens are infatuated with video games, you tube videos, and twitter but most youth in America struggle with word processing tools such as Microsoft word. The Youth of America and the Digital Divide For many people in the United States, especially youth; the main barrier to information is the digital divide. Wikipedia defines the digital divide as, “the gap between individuals, households, businesses, and geographic areas at different socio economic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communications technologies (ICT) and their use of the internet for a wide variety of activities” (digital divide wikipedia). The education of our youth is one area where the digital divide is prominent. Even schools and libraries cannot fully fix the problem of inequality between the haves and have not‟s. Unfortunately, access to technology is often divided due to socio-economic status. Dictionary.com states that “socio-economic status depends on a combination of variables, including occupation, education, income, wealth, and place of residence.” (dictionary.com) We can see how all these variables effect youth if their parents have a low socio-economic status. As stated before, parents who are disadvantaged are not privy to many information resources which lead to their children more than likely being informationally challenged. Unfortunately, this situation reins true for many disadvantaged communities which usually happen to be minority communities. Statistically, two out of every three white students (67%) use the internet, but less than half of blacks and Hispanics do; (Hispanics 44% and for Blacks 47%) (Feller, Ben). The digital divide is not directly felt at school, since all U.S. schools are connected to the internet but at home, “some 54 percent of white students use the Internet at home, compared with 26 percent of Hispanic and 27 percent of black youngsters. Limited access at home can erode a student's ability to research assignments, explore college scholarships or just get comfortable going online” (Feller, Ben). The article, Digital Divide Changing but Not for Students Torn by it, written by the University of Oregon tackles the topic of how the digital divide not only affects students when
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 5
they are young but more so when they get older. All students need computer technology and access to the internet, not just in school but also outside of school. “But students often have left high school with skills ranging from very little to fully saturated”, Goode found. “Very few of the students had received formal training geared for academic success in their high schools” (Goode, Joanna). Sadly, Joanna Goode discusses the long term effects of the digital divide on children, she states: “some kids are being trained for using technology for academic purposes or they may be taught for low-level vocational uses that makes them good workers but not necessarily good scholars”. Once you walk onto campus, you can't enroll in classes, you can't get financial aid, you can't get onto Blackboard (a widely used electronic education software suite), and you can't answer emails. If you have no technology knowledge, you will not even survive the first week at most university campuses." (Goode, Joanna) This leaves these students ill equipped for college and consequently; they struggle throughout their college careers to gain skills that many of their peers may already have. The School System as a Barrier to Information Schools play a major role in preventing youth from obtaining information. Many schools face severe budget cuts that slash program funding, prevent the hiring of new staff, acquiring new equipment, adequate books, and materials needed for a successful school. The best example of schools as a barrier to information is seen in the Detroit Public School System. “The Detroit schools are beset by daunting problems: troubles with funding, a poverty rate among the highest in the state, and students who perform poorly. Detroit Public Schools‟ students have typically posted some of the worst scores in the state while its high schools are graduating just over half its students” (Mrozowski, Jennifer). Although Detroit is far from the only district in the country facing such problems, it is by far one of the worst cases. Some students in Detroit and nationwide have to contend with overcrowded classrooms, no materials or outdated materials, and little to no means of technology. Children have to suffer in the school system due to circumstances out of their control. It is not fair that students cannot get the information they need because disparities in access to information. In Detroit, “they continue to mismanage money, have outstanding debt to vendors and cannot supply the books and supplies needed for children‟s education” (Mrozowski, Jennifer). The school system which amassed a nearly $140 million deficit for fiscal year 2008 was in such dire financial straits that a financial emergency was declared (Mrozowski, Jennifer). As a result of this type of mismanagement, the youth are the ones who suffer many not graduating from high school, or leaving parents to opt for nearby charter schools, or moving to other cities to better “quality” schools that still may have inadequate information tools for their students. The Library as an Information Barrier
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 6
The library offers books, magazines, journals, and technology that can be accessed by youth, however; the library faces budget cuts that affect the materials, technology, and services they can provide for the patrons. An article by the American Library Association (ALA) reported that “school, public, and academic libraries in more than 40 states have absorbed more than 50 million in funding cuts over the past year, according to a national study ” (Clark, Larra). “Libraries have experienced cuts of up to 50 percent in funding this past year which means that the libraries ability to serve people is being compromised” (Clark, Larra). These massive library cuts effect the “low income adults and their children who are more likely to rely on the public library as their sole access to computers and the internet” (Shepard, David). The budget cuts of the library also affect “half of the nation‟s 14-18 year olds who reported that they used a library computer during this past year typically to do school homework” (Shepard, David). Although libraries do offer resources providing information to youth; the amount, quality, and quantity is being challenged because of these budget cuts that affect the patrons, librarians, and community. This is why ALA, libraries, and library supporters are trying to alert local and national media and the public to library funding cuts and the real impact they‟re having on people (Clark, Lara). Those in charge of formulating the yearly budget need to take into account the needs of our youth and cut accordingly. Breaking the Information Barrier for Youth In the near future, the barriers of information for youth will disintegrate. To make this happen, it will take money and resources that are specifically set aside to allow schools and libraries more and better access to information (i.e. text books, trade books, book mobiles, magazines, journals, computers/ software). Some parents‟ socioeconomic status may never change and they may never have the funds to buy their children information tools, but; programs such as the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation that constantly give funding, computers, and other tools to schools and libraries will help bridge the gap. Additionally, programs such as One Laptop per Child, which strives to give poor and underprivileged children all over the world “a rugged, low-cost, low-power, connected laptop with designed hardware, content and software for children” (Mission: One lap top). Technology inventions such as Moontitin which “will allow free access to the internet without the requirement of internet connection” (How it works: Moontin) will also be helpful in getting information access to youth. Greater funding, programs, and grants will contribute tremendously to breaking the information barrier for youth and giving them the tools they need to succeed. African American Barriers to Information: The Digital Divide The digital divide can and has been defined in many ways, one way being: “the wide division between those who have access to information and communications technologies and are using it effectively and those who do not” (Bridges.org, 2006). As technology increases, the importance of having access to it grows also. Those who do not have access to technology lag
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 7
behind and end up in the gap of the digital divide. Usually the majority of people that fall in the digital divide gap are in developing countries around the world, but a large number can be found right here in the United States. Several factors seem to play a part in who becomes a victim of the digital divide. These factors include race, socioeconomic status, education, and location. The statistics for race and access to the internet in the home show that 46.1 percent of white households are online and 56.8 percent of Asian American and Pacific Islanders have access to the internet in their homes. These statistics show that these groups have double the percentage of household internet access than African American households. 23.5 percent of African Americans have home access to the internet (Fact Sheet, 2004). In the United States, the person who does not own a computer is more likely to be a person of color with little income and education (Fact Sheet, 2004). Socioeconomic status may have an even greater influence on who is affected by the digital divide. Studies have shown that ethnic groups of the same income level have about the same average use of technology (Custodio, 2004). The problem is that on average, African American populations have lower incomes than other Americans and they also have a lower rate of technology use. Households that have a yearly income of $75,000 and over average 86.3 percent internet access while households earning $15,000 and less a year average 12.7 percent internet access (Fact Sheet, 2004). Not having access to the internet can make the day to day struggles of people in low income households that much worse because they will have a harder time getting out of the situation they are in without access to the proper resources and information. Recent employment projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show that “eight of the ten fastest growing occupations are computer-related”. “African American children, children living in poor families, and particularly those living in high poverty neighborhoods are the least likely to have a computer at home or access to the internet” (Custodio, 2004). Education can also affect access to the internet. Statistics show that 65 percent of college graduates have access to the internet at home while only 11.7 percent of households headed by people with less than a high school degree are connected (Fact Sheet, 2004). Within these statistics, African American college students are less likely to have internet access at home despite the increasing amount of African Americans attending college. A large majority of college graduates more than likely utilized the internet and technology during their college careers and are more familiar and comfortable with it than those who did not continue on to higher education or finish high school. Location is also an issue regarding access to information technology. Urban areas are the most likely to have internet access and are actually 50 percent more likely to than rural areas (Steele-Carrin, 2000). Part of the reason for lack of access in rural areas may be due to the lack of infrastructure and the expense it would cost to connect in those areas. Statistics show urban areas have 42.3 percent of households connected to the internet while rural areas have 38.9
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 8
percent; however, rural areas are not the least connected. Inner city areas average only 37.7 percent of households being connected (Fact Sheet, 2004). Statistics show that African Americans make up the majority of inner city populations at 46.5 percent (Fact Sheet, 2004); thus, African Americans in the inner city are less likely than other groups to have access to the internet. The Why’s of the Digital Divide? Numerous experts believe that the digital divide is caused by a lack of interest rather than a lack of access. Steve Bett, a director of TeleLearning for Louisiana, says Louisiana school‟s situation is a perfect example of a lack of interest and not a lack of access. He says: “We serve 100 under-resourced high schools across the state of Louisiana. Fifty of them have obtained computers and internet connections. Thirty have next to nothing and no real interest in joining the digital revolution. I contacted all the schools with an offer for a free computer and internet connection. All a school had to do to receive federal funds was fill out a 20-page form. The majority of the most under-resourced schools did not respond” (Steele-Carrin, 2000). Dr. Margi Winters, a director of instructional technology at Tunxis CommunityTechnical College in Connecticut, describes the digital divide as a “values divide” (SteeleCarrin, 2000). She says that “computer giveaways occur frequently, used computers cost under $200, and often time‟s internet access can be obtained for free, many schools just choose not to take advantage of these resources”. Additionally, many of the populations affected by the digital divide do not have any interest in learning how to use technology because they do not see its value to them. Sarah Phinney, who works with adult learners, says “you can give a person a computer, but if they do not see its value in their life and do not know how to operate it, chances are good that they will sell the computer to produce cash–something that everyone sees a personal value in”( Steele-Carrin, 2000). Bridging the Gap The digital divide is a major social concern and steps have been taken to bridge the gap. The problem is that technology is becoming more and more important and it is true that many people are learning to use it, but the percentage that does not are becoming more and more disadvantaged. Gary Chapman, a professor and a director of a project called 21st Century Project, noted “when you have a small number of people who don‟t have access it becomes a huge problem because that‟s when institutions ignore them” (Blau, 2002). Blau talks about how libraries are an important part of closing this gap, not just to provide access but to teach communities and individuals how to use the internet to best benefit them. Carvin, in the article, Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millennium, describes five puzzle pieces as key to closing the gap on the digital divide: access, content, literacy, pedagogy, and community. What Carvin describes reminds us that access is not the whole solution to the
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 9
problem. Carvin‟s ideas remind us that people who do not know anything about accessing the internet will not magically be able to use it effectively just because they are given a computer. An example of steps being taken to bridge the gap is New Mexico State University‟s Cooperative Extension Service. With a $250,000 grant from Qwest the service will teach rural leaders about e-commerce through free seminars that create awareness and familiarity and workshops that teach background on how to use the internet (Holmes, 2000). This program hopes to bring the technology of the internet to business leaders who are not implementing it because of lack of knowledge and access. When Bill Clinton was president, he proposed the New Markets Initiative which consisted of “a general plan to help communities with sagging economies attract new domestic investors” (Hillebrand, 1999). Addressing the digital divide was part of this initiative. Many projects were spurred by this initiative, including in 1999 when the AT&T Foundation, along with the Urban League, and the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People (NAACP), made plans to create a new technology center in Washington D.C. as well as improve a training center in the city. Microsoft has also supplied urban technology centers with software and equipment (Hillebrand, 1999). Efforts like these to help those in need become more technologically advanced and to gain knowledge about the internet are very important steps to bridging the gap between the have and have not‟s of the digital divide. LGBTQ Barriers to Information: The Digital Divide Modern societies, with high levels of technological development, are far more complex, and as a result, there are numerous bases of differentiation. The individuals and communities that do not have access to the information technologies are at a dangerous disadvantage which is known as the digital divide. These conditions foster social stratification creating hierarchies of class, race, ethnicity, and gender. This lack of access develops oppressive dynamics as those with the technology will be able to exert power over those who are without. We live in an information society where our everyday activities from basic daily functions, to our economy, are all conducted with continuous use and manipulation of information. This easy flow of information has led us into the information age which is the time period where the use of the computer and digital technologies is embedded deeply within our culture. In our library system, we are disillusioned with the myths that the flow of information is easy and that technology provides an abundance of accurate literature. The web is supposedly free information that cannot be governed by libraries, however; software filters utilized by libraries are tools of censorship. Historically, because of the classifications within the library when the terms, 'gay' and 'lesbian' are searched most people are confronted with information pertaining to sexual fetishes, social deviance, pedophilia, sideshow exhibits, pornography, and the Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Even recent studies show that the web does not provide inclusive information regarding the LGBTQ community it has been reported in:
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 10
“An important study by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2002 tested access to health information sites for teens by surveying seven commonly used filters (CyberPatrol, Symantec, BESS, 8e6, SmartFilter, Websense, and AOL Parental Controls). The study found that filters had a major negative impact on access with 25% of general health sites blocked, 50% of sexual health sites such as those dealing with safer sex, and 60% of lesbian and gay health sites. There is little doubt from this study that homophobic censorship by many commercial filters is pervasive; some even target by category in addition to keywords.” (Schrader. Pg. 107-09) Much of this is fueled by the underlying morality that continues to permeate all sectors of this country, which the library realm is not exempt from. Unfortunately, website filtering is being used throughout the nation and is clearly a barrier to inclusive information. The above mentioned quote also magnifies the suppression of vital information for the LGBTQ community and its inaccessibility. This lack of information undoubtedly affects their quality of life. The lack of holistic portrayal of the lives of those of diverse sexual orientation and gender expression keep alive stigmas that exist in society. Cataloging as a Barrier to Information On the brink of tremendous strides toward equality of all kinds, at the crux of tolerance and acceptance, after the perseverance of millions that have endured the trials and tribulations of living in a heterocentric world, the very fundamental practices within librarianship such as cataloging act as barriers to information. Historically, homosexuality was considered a mental health disorder until 1973. The Library of Congress has contributed to the inaccessibility of accurate information regarding the LGBTQ community and still we are undoing the harm of this classification. It is noted that prior to 1969 the official heading when cataloging literature that mentioned homosexuality was Sexual Perversion (Snyder. 2005). Such books during this time were placed in cages away from the rest of the collection, only to be used by those in the health fields and for research and even then, they were scrutinized as if it were criminal to be homosexual. Subsequently, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) decided in 1973 that homosexuality was no longer a mental illness. When mainstream dominates the culture of libraries – including that of the cataloging practices, archives, management information systems, records, and databases – it perpetuates the oppression of underserved people. In fact, the APA reports: “Intense prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people was widespread throughout much of the 20th century. Public opinion studies over the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s routinely showed that, among large segments of the public, lesbian, gay, and bisexual people were the target of strongly held negative attitudes. More recently, public opinion has increasingly opposed sexual orientation discrimination, but expressions of hostility toward lesbians and gay men remain common in contemporary American society. Prejudice against bisexuals appears to
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 11
exist at comparable levels. In fact, bisexual individuals may face discrimination from some lesbian and gay people as well as from heterosexual people” (APA. 2008). Ironically, it was not until 1988 that homophobia became an official heading used by the Library of Congress. The headings used by the Library of Congress are slow to evolve which impedes accurate headings and appropriate cataloging practices. Individuals within the LGBTQ community have a rich diversity in sexual orientation and gender expressions which is not summed up in the enforced binary of gay or lesbian. Without knowing the complexities of the community it is almost impossible to meet this community‟s needs, create collections relevant to this community, and effectively and adequately classify materials. There are several decades of research which have only highlighted the discrimination that sexual and gender minority individuals have disproportionately endured. This practice of discrimination places them among those most at risk for suicide, depression, substance abuse, academic failure, emotional distress, compromised relationships, and homelessness. Research which only serves to emphasize these maladjustments can only serve to paint a bleak picture of what it means to be lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) in this country. It is the responsibility of the library to be inclusive of all available information and to seek out literature and information which highlights the resistance movements and the resiliencies found in marginalized populations. More inclusive library collections are required in order to reflect a strengths-based perspective and illuminate the spirit and ingenuity of LGBTQ communities. In seeking to fill the gaps in information available and depose the deficit model that has defined LGBTQ histories and service provision, it is necessary to employ a more holistic lens that works to explicate the extensive and often omitted narratives of queer people. As librarians we have to focus on how the information is cataloged and distributed as there are clearly larger implications. Censorship of LGBTQ Materials Books with LGBTQ themes are consistently the most frequently banned and scrutinized in libraries. This has implications of homophobia that is rooted deeply in our historic prejudices of this minority group that has been mirrored in our library procedures. Unfortunately, some librarians are practicing self-censorship which includes omitting controversial literature from the shelves to avoid any objections or possible controversy. Excluding materials pertaining to the LGBTQ community is condoning homophobia. During the last decade, censorship was one of the most pervasive issues in US schools and public libraries. Between 1990 and 1999, 497 of the 5,718 challenges recorded by or reported to the American Library Association‟s Office for Intellectual Freedom were for materials with a homosexual theme or promoting homosexuality. Also, two of the ten most challenged books of that decade were LGBTQ books: Daddy‟s Roommate (number two on the list) and Heather Has Two Mommies (number nine on the list) (www.ala.org).
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 12
Book banning is a blatant barrier to information. This practice is a threat to our intellectual freedom, contradictory to the ethics of library work. The American Library Association affirms: “The freedom to read is essential to our democracy. It is continuously under attack. Private groups and public authorities in various parts of the country are working to remove or limit access to reading materials, to censor content in schools, to label "controversial" views, to distribute lists of "objectionable" books or authors, and to purge libraries. These actions apparently rise from a view that our national tradition of free expression is no longer valid; that censorship and suppression are needed to counter threats to safety or national security, as well as to avoid the subversion of politics and the corruption of morals. We, as individuals devoted to reading and as librarians and publishers responsible for disseminating ideas, wish to assert the public interest in the preservation of the freedom to read.” (ALA.1953) Conclusion Our work to dismantle barriers to information is plentiful and urgent. Libraries‟ programming and resources should reflect the needs of the communities which they serve. One way that people connect across marginalized communities is to engage in dialogue and supply literature that is relevant to those communities. Helping to produce socially conscious people is one way of ensuring equity, empowering communities, and supporting diverse community members in leading fulfilled lives. Making information thoroughly accessible, creating sustainable and strong community foundations should be an effect of great library work. Works Cited "ALA | Freedom to Read Statement." ALA | Home - American Library Association. Westchester Conference of the American Library Association and the American Book Publishers Council, 25 June 1953. Web. 10 Sept. 2011 <http://www.ala.org/alaorg/oif/freeread.cfm>. ALA | Home - American Library Association. Web. 10 Sept. 2011. <http://www.ala.org>. Blau, A. Access Isn’t Enough. American Libraries, 33(6), 2002. 50-52. Bridges.org. Overview of the Digital Divide. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from http://www.bridges.org/digital_divide.
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 13
Carvin, A. Mind the Gap: The Digital Divide as the Civil Rights Issue of the New Millennium. Multimedia Schools, 7(1), 56-58. 2000. Clark, Larra. "ALA | ALA launches Web site detailing library funding cuts nationwide." ALA | American Library Association. N.p., 12 Apr. 2004. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://www.ala.org/Template.cfm?Section=News&template=/ContentManagement/Cont entDisplay.cfm&ContentID=62423>. Custodio, Donna. Race Issues, The Digital Divide. 2004. Retrieved September 19, 2011 from http://www.pgschool.com/race.html. Digital Divide Network. Digital Divide Basics Fact Sheet. 2004. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org/content/stories/index.cfm?key=168 "Digital divide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_divide>. Feller, Ben . "Digital divide still separates students - Technology & science - Tech and gadgets msnbc.com." msnbc.com . Associated Press, 5 Sept. 2006. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14685703/ns/technology_and_sciencetech_and_gadgets/t/digital-divide-still-separates-students/>. Foster, Susan, Gary Long, and Karen Snell. "Inclusive Instruction and Learning for Deaf Students in Postsecondary Education." Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 4.3 (1999): 225-35. Web. 18 Sept. 2011. Hillebrand, M. US Government Attempts to Bridge Digital Divide. 1999. E-Commerce Times. Retrieved September 21, 2011 from http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/1086.html. Holmes, S. NMSU project aims to bridge â&#x20AC;&#x17E;digital divide.â&#x20AC;&#x;2000. Retrieved September 21, 2011
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 14
from http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/070600/usn_nmsu.shtml. "How It Works Moonitin...." Moonitin | Home | Welcome.... N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.moonitin.com/details/howitworks.html>. Joanna , Goode. "Digital divide changing but not for students torn by it | Media Relations." Media Relations. University of Oregon, 8 Apr. 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://uonews.uoregon.edu/archive/news-release/2010/4/digital-divide-changing-notstudents-torn-it>. "Mission | One Laptop per Child." One Laptop per Child. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://one.laptop.org/about/mission>. Mitchell, Ross E. "How Many People Use ASL in the United States?" Sign Language Studies 6.3 (2006). Oxford Journals. Web. 16 Sept. 2011. Mrozowski, Jennifer , and Mike Wilkinson. "DPS Fails Kids, Fed school Chief Says." The Detroit News. N.p., 14 Feb. 2009. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <detnews.com/article/20090214/POLITICS/902140377/DPS-fails-kids--fed-schoolchief-says>. Schrader, Alvin M. "Challenging Silens, Challenging Censorship, Building Resilience:LGBTQ Services and Collections in Public, School and Post-Secondary Libraries." Feliciter 55.3 (2009): 107-09. Print. "Sexual Orientation, Homosexuality and Bisexuality." American Psychological Association (APA). Washington, DC:[Retrieved from Www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.pdf.], 2008. Web. 10 Sept. 2011. <http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx>. Shepard, David , and Mamie Bittner. "First-Ever National Study: Millions of People Rely on Library Computers for Employment, Health, and Education | Bill & Melinda Gates
Barnes, Parker, Patterson, Smith 15
Foundation." The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. N.p., 25 Mar. 2010. Web. 22 Sept. 2011. <http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/opportunity-for-all-librarycompuer-use-study-100325.aspx>. Snyder, Stephanie. Out at the Library: Celebrating the James C. Hormel Gay & Lesbian Center. [San Francisco]: San Francisco Public Library, 2005. Print. "Socioeconomic Status." Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2011. <dictionary.reference.com/browse/socioeconomic%20status>. Steele-Carrin, S. Caught in the Digital Divide. Education World. 2000. Retrieved September 20, 2011 from http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech041.shtml.