Sojourna J. Cunningham. A Subtle Censorship: A Study of the Shelving Practices of Young Adult Materials in North Carolina Libraries. A Masters Paper for the M.S. in L.S degree. April 2010. 49 pages. Advisor Ronald Bergquist.
The proposed study describes an investigation into the extent of censorship by categorization of materials. The study will examine the placement of ten historically controversial young adult works in ten public library systems in North Carolina. This investigation was conducted to measure what percentage of libraries classified pre-designated young adult materials as adult material. Failure to place the more than 25% of the preselected young adult materials into the section classified as young adult within their library resulted in the library being designated as engaging in advertent or inadvertent censorship by placement.
Headings: Censorship
Censorship/North Carolina
Censorship/ Public Libraries
A SUBTLE CENSORSHIP: A STUDY OF THE SHELVING
PRACTICES OF YOUNG ADULT MATERIALS IN NORTH
CAROLINA LIBRARIES
By
Sojourna J. Cunningham
A Master’s paper submitted to the faculty of the School of Information and Library Science of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Library Science.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
Approved by
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION ... 3
THE LIBRARIAN AS CENSOR ... 6
REASONS FOR A LIBRARIAN TO CENSOR ... 7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 10
LIBRARIANS AND SELF-CENSORSHIP ... 11
RESEARCH QUESTION ... 18
METHODOLOGY ... 19
SELECTION OF LIBRARIES ... 19
SELECTION OF TITLES ... 20
COLLECTION OF DATA ... 22
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS OF DATA ... 24
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF METHOD ... 28
CONCLUSION ... 30
WORKS CITED ... 31
APPENDICES ... 35
APPENDIX 1 ... 35
LEXILE NUMBERS OF BOOKS USED WITHIN THE STUDY ... 35
APPENDIX 2 ... 36
APPENDIX 3 ... 39
101GREAT BOOKS RECOMMENDED FOR COLLEGE-BOUND READERS ... 39
APPENDIX 4 ... 42
CONTROVERSIAL YOUNG ADULT MATERIAL ... 42
APPENDIX 5 ... 43
ANNUAL ESTIMATES OF RESIDENT POPULATION FOR COUNTIES IN NORTH CAROLINA,JULY 1, 2008 ... 43
APPENDIX 6 ... 46
First Amendment Freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the
beginning of freedom – Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 2002)
Introduction
Libraries and other educational institutions are areas wherein First Amendment
freedoms are exercised on a daily basis. Libraries and librarians protect the public’s right to access to information by disseminating a broad range of materials. And in turn the public has the ability to pick and choose materials from the libraries’ collection for their
own personal use. Because a library is a community organization, the public can attempt to shape the collection of the library. They may offer suggestions for an addition to the
collection or, in some cases attempt to remove a particular item from a collection. That act, the attempted removal of controversial material from a library is known as a
challenge. If the challenge is successful and the material is removed from the library, that
act is known as banning.
Materials can be challenged or banned with the best of intentions on the part of the censor. According to the Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) the top three reasons
1. The material was considered to be sexually explicit.
2. The material contained “offensive language.”
3. The material was “unsuited to any age group.” (ALA OIF, 2009)
While the motive of protection of the public may be commendable, the Supreme
Court has stated explicitly that the removal of materials from a governmental institution simply because society finds the material offensive or disagreeable constitutes a clear First Amendment violation. (Texas v. Johnson, 1989) In rulings specific to libraries, the
court has stated that the library is “a mighty marketplace of ideas” and that “the most effective antidote to the poison of mindless orthodoxy is ready access to a broad sweep of ideas and philosophies.” (Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the
City of Chelsea, 1978)
Despite the clear cut case law on the subject of banning and challenging materials,
challenges and attempted banning still occur. The OIF has recorded 10,415 challenges from 1990-2008. The OIF additionally speculates that many challenges go unreported, so the number of challenges may be much higher. However, based upon the actual numbers,
the school, the school library and the public library are the largest targets of challenges. Altogether they have received 3614, 3616 and 2569 challenges respectively in the period
between 1990 and 2008. (ALA OIF, 2009)
There are recourses for libraries and librarians when a patron or group of patrons
attempts to challenge materials. The American Library Association (ALA), the
but are not limited to, contacting the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the OIF, the People for the American Way, and the National Coalition Against Censorship, etc. In
providing those resources on their website the ALA implicitly states that it will support a librarian who choose to fight a challenge. (ALA OIF, 2009)
More explicit than the statements regarding support options if a librarian chooses to fight a challenge, the Library Bill of Rights, ratified by the ALA in 1980 and revised in 1996, states as its first proclamation that "Books and other library resources should be
provided for the interest, information, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves. Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or views of those contributing to their creation.” The ALA Bill of Rights goes onto further
state that, “Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.” Essentially these statements by the ALA
reinforce the belief that a librarians overriding duty is to preserve the collection of the library in the name of intellectual freedom. (ALA, Library Bill of Rights, 1996)
This is standard is further spelled out by the “Freedom to Read Statement” put
forth as a joint statement by the ALA and the Association of American Publishers (AAP) and endorsed by the Freedom to Read Foundation. The statement declares that “The
Freedom to Read is Essential to our democracy…we as individuals devoted to reading and as publishers responsible for disseminating ideas…[the] Freedom [to read] keeps open the path of novel and creative solutions, and enables change to come by choice.
and resilience of our society and leaves it the less able to deal with controversy and difference.” (ALA Freedom to Read, 2009)
The Librarian as Censor
However that overriding duty, as spelled out by the ALA Bill of Rights and the Freedom to Read statement, can come into conflict with personal beliefs put forth by the
patrons visiting the library and even from the librarian who chooses the materials for the library. The ALA code of ethics, ratified in 1997 and amended in 2008, acknowledges the
ethical dilemmas that may come into fore when personal beliefs and professional values clash. “[Librarians] significantly influence or control the selection, organization,
preservation, and dissemination of information. In a political system grounded in an
informed citizenry, we are members of a profession explicitly committed to intellectual freedom and the freedom of access to information. We have a special obligation to ensure
the free flow of information and ideas to present and future generations.” (ALA Code of Ethics, 2008)
The code goes onto further state that it is imperative that librarians “distinguish
between [their] personal convictions and professional duties and do not allow [their] personal beliefs to interfere with the fair representation of the aims of [their] institutions or the provision of access to their information resources.” (2008) The ALA does
recognize the difficulty of always instituting those ideals in the complex network of political aims, financial difficulties and all the other internal and external pressures that a
collection that is a genuine representation of the needs of their community. But in many cases there is no one monitoring the librarian to make sure that they create that fair and
balanced collection.
According to Steven Bell, the former library director at Philadelphia University,
librarians have long held the role of gatekeepers, “historically determining what books, media, and other materials to acquire and then creating the structures that allow our community members to access them.” (2009, 51) Guy Marco furthers that definition of
librarians as gatekeepers by asking, “Is it not necessary that [librarians] should also be the rejection gatekeepers? The rejection gatekeeper corresponds to a censor, being a legally authorized examiner who may restrict what is potentially harmful.” (1995, 16)
Reasons for a Librarian to Censor
Family Friendly Libraries, a grassroots organization started in 1992 has the stated goal of “keeping libraries accountable to the taxpayers in the communities they serve by providing tools, information and networking resources to citizens across the nation.”
(2007) This organization urges readers to target libraries that “place books with
gratuitous sexually explicit and graphic violent content in what is deceptively called the
“young adult section” which but [sic] actually served children ages twelve and up.” This organization has branches in all fifty states and takes credit for getting the library director of Gwinnett County, GA fired and replacing them with someone who “respects and
organization and others like it may cause a librarian to avoid purchasing a controversial work out of fear of community outrage and/or loss of livelihood.
Community outrage may not be the only reason a librarian may choose to censor materials. Personal bias toward a particular author, work, or genre may also cause a
librarian not to choose a particular work. Kenneth L. Donnelson in the work, “Shoddy and Pernicious Books and Youthful Purity: Literary and Moral Censorship” writes of an incident that informed his reading habits and views of librarians. “I met my first literary
censor when I was a child in Clarinda, Iowa. The librarian in charge of the children’s room made clear her irritation about both my presence and the kinds of books I insisted on checking out, staring down her very long nose…she announced that if I really wanted
to read that, she could not stop me, but she hoped I would turn to something worthwhile soon.” (9, 1981) In the previous statement the librarian acts an inhibitor, not outright
stopping the patron from checking out the material, but certainly attempting to dissuade them.
In 2007, Time Magazine, the publisher of Sports Illustrated, withheld the yearly
edition of the swimsuit issue from over 21,000 libraries nationwide. The reason the publisher gave for withholding the swimsuit edition was external pressure. The publisher
claimed it had received complaints from both parents and librarians that the issue was too risqué for the library. (Whelan, 2007, 17)
was censorship by the library community. Lyga claimed that librarians refused to order the book for their libraries. He claimed that censorship by librarians is very common and
is “a soft, quiet, very insidious censorship, where nobody is raising a stink, nobody is complaining, nobody is burning books. They’re just quietly making sure [the book}
doesn’t get out there.” (Whelan, 2009, 27)
The law and professional organizations state that the purpose of collecting materials is to provide open access to a range of information. However conflicting
external viewpoints are informing librarian’s collection development decisions. These viewpoints may come from a patron that walks into library or even the librarian. Another major factor that may inform collection development decisions is the desire to avoid the
conflicts that may come from putting forth controversial material. Tom K. Reynolds believes that “selection policies depend on individual librarians for implementation; and
this is where attitudes, fears, and perceptions play a key role in what gets purchased and what doesn't…. and the question that librarians have to ask is whether certain materials are not being purchased primarily because of fear that their purchase will be challenged.
If so, self-censorship is at work.” (1999, 20)
However, at this point in library science research, investigators have only
speculated that librarians censor materials by refusing to purchase them. Few studies have attempted to empirically measure the extent to which librarians self-censor. Even fewer studies have attempted to measure the ways in which censorship by librarians may
Review of Related Literature
Lester Asheim, in the piece “Not Censorship but Selection” defines censorship as
“any deliberate bar against free access to a book”. (1953, 63) Henry Reichman, furthers this definition of censorship in the book “Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers
for Schools”, by stating that censorship is “the removal, suppression, or restricted circulation of literary, artistic or educational materials – of images, ideas, and
information– on the grounds that these are morally or otherwise objectionable in light of
standards applied by the censor.” (2001, 2)
In normal collection development duties, to assure the continued growth of the
library, a collection development librarian may have to make decisions relating to specific inclusion or exclusion of material. That decision could be construed as an act of censorship. Asheim (1953) acknowledges the ability of a librarian to act as a covert
censor by stating unequivocally that a librarian is practicing censorship rather than selection when “of their own volition, [the librarian] chooses not to stock a book, which
has every right to be in the library. “ Asheim (1953) creates a significant definition that helps to differentiate between selection and censorship by stating that the selector will approach collection decisions by looking for a reason to include a book in the collection.
A censor, in turn will look for a reason to reject the book. (64-65)
know with absolute certainty whether a librarian or English teacher was censoring or selecting, one would need to enter that person's mind and psyche and soul, and, in some
cases, the librarian or teacher might be honestly unsure whether she or he censored or selected.” (9)
Common wisdom states that libraries should make collection development decisions based upon a pre-determined collection development policy. This collection policy is supposed to guard against the previously mentioned self-imposed censorship.
(Evans and Saponaro, 2005, 5-10) However collection development policies can be very broad. For example the Santa Cruz Public Libraries’ Collection Development Policy declares that the collection scope of adult popular materials “will embrace only a few
general works on a subject and those will be nonscholarly or popular discussions.” (Futas, 1995, 136) That statement is nonspecific to particular titles, which leaves
discretionary title decisions up to the judgment of the librarian.
Librarians and Self-Censorship
Evans and Saponaro (2005) claim in “Developing Library and Information
Center Collections”,“that librarians often [have] deeply held beliefs and values, and it is often difficult not to let them become a key factor in [selection decisions.” (416) Asheim (1953) points out that “many libraries have been known to defer to anticipated pressures
and avoid facing issues by suppressing possible issue making causes.” Asheim further, bluntly states, “In such cases, the rejection of a book is censorship, for the book has been
stating that it is “the restriction of resources by librarians before they become available to information users.” (102)
Marjorie Fiske’s work, “Book Selection and Censorship: A Study of School and Public Libraries in California”, is credited as being the first large-scale study into the
prevalence of censorship in public libraries. The study focused on the attitudes of librarians, book selection policies, and handling of challenges to materials within libraries. The study found that librarians were practicing conscious and unconscious
censorship. (1968, 1-10)
In interviews conducted by Fiske, (1968) librarians revealed that in “actual practice, nearly two-thirds of all librarians who have say in book selection reported
instances where the controversiality of a book or author resulted in a decision not to buy.” The study also took into account the effect of professional training on a librarian’s
attitudes towards collection development. It was established that, “among librarians, those with professional training were more likely to give verbal support to the freedom to read than those without training. (64) The study eventually found that when a library
and its personnel enjoy a favorable status in the community, greater freedom of book selection was exercised.
In the study, “Censorship or Selection? In Hoosier Libraries”, Charles Adams and Clayton Shepherd use a survey method to assess the flexibility or rigidity in selection
isolated libraries in Indiana were more likely than larger public library systems to limit the amount of controversial materials allowed within the library. This study is noteworthy
because the answers to the survey disseminated by the authors suggest that librarians have a bias against collecting controversial materials, which echoes Fiske’s earlier
findings. (1967, p.58-66)
The study ultimately recommends minimum education and certification standards for librarians to “discourage insular thinking.” (65) However it is a relatively established
trend among libraries to require graduation from an ALA accredited library school for workers in leadership positions so that recommendation is rather dated. It is also
noteworthy that studies in censorship within libraries have continued even after the
trend-requiring librarian to graduate from an accredited library school.
The study is also rather regionally based, which can limit its scope in that the
population studied is somewhat homogenous. It is possible that the attitudes of Indiana librarians will not reflect the attitudes of New York of California librarians, so an
understanding of the demographics of the Indiana librarians would not be unwarranted. It
is also possible that a different type of library, academic or special, or even a mix of the three, would reflect a less or more homogenous population and thus the study would have
an entirely different outcome.
David Harmeyer’s (1995) study addresses the lack of complexity in type of
percentage of those eight specific pro-choice titles present in 580 libraries in California, Harmeyer concluded that the libraries surveyed were three times more likely to collect
pro-choice materials than pro-life. The study claims “academic and public libraries appear to be involved in selection development processes that consciously or
subconsciously discriminate against a conservative social/political perspective.”(110)
In their commentary on the Harmeyer studies, (1995) researchers Pankake, Wittenborg and Carpenter(1995) argue that the study “leaps from the numbers of copies
held to conclude that librarians who built the collections are biased. The only conclusion the study safely makes is the libraries in California hold a larger number of copies, editions, or title of these particular pro-choice books than of these particular pro-life
books”. They argue that the methodology would be put into better practice if more care were taken in choosing the books to represent a particular stance. (113)
Ken P. Coley in his study “Moving Toward a Method to Test for Self-Censorship by School Library Media Specialist” takes Harmeyer’s (1995) methodology to create a procedure that used twenty recent, relevant and well reviewed potentially controversial
young adult titles to test for indications of self-censorship in school libraries in Texas. (2002) Coley (2002) searched for those books in the library catalogs of one hundred
randomly selected high schools. If the school did not have at least fifty percent of the selected books, which eighty percent of the schools did not, Coley (2002) speculated that the school was engaging in self-censorship. After applying that standard Coley found that
Coley chose each of the twenty titles that were searched carefully. Each title had to meet two of five benchmarked criteria. They had to:
1. Have content commonly found to be a basis upon which challenges are
tendered.
2. Have six or more reviews in book review resources commonly used by School
Library Media Specialists for collection development.
3. Have highly recommended or starred reviews from professional organizations
or journals noted for their expertise in the field of YA literature
4. Have awards for which the book or its author was nominated, or which they
won.
5. Have placement on a list of recommended books for School Library Media
Specialists by an organization noted for its expertise in YA literature (2002)
By benchmarking the selection of those titles so specifically Coley (2002) was able to create a method that could be followed by other researchers. This lack of benchmarking is the problem that was identified with Harmeyer’s (1995) study by the
researchers Pankake, Wittenborg and Carpenter. (1995)
Coley (2002) chose his method, an OPAC analysis of title possession - to avoid
the subjectivity and inaccuracy due to lack of data- that went along with interviews and mailed in surveys. Coley (2005) felt that if librarians were asked if they censored
only way to isolate the variables in a censorship study was to ask librarians directly about their attitudes towards restricting materials. (2004)
Through the use of an online questionnaire Moody (2004) questioned librarians in Australia on their opinions of censorship and carrying controversial materials in libraries.
Moody (2004) explained that the questionnaire was designed to “not only identify stated attitudes toward the topic but also to attempt to determine actual professional behaviours, as the two do not always relate strongly. “ (170) In an attempt to subvert the expectations
of the librarians taking the questionnaire Moody (2004) never used the words “censorship” or “censor” within the questionnaire.
Moody (2004) presented the librarians with a list of potential titles that could be
purchased. They were then asked whether or not they would purchase the material. They were also given the option to restrict access to the title or label the title for limited use.
Over 80% of the librarians chose not to purchase and item on the list. Additionally close to 70% of the respondents chose not to collect materials that contained materials related to illegal subject matters such as bomb and drug making. Moody’s (2004) findings
indicated that although librarians claimed to oppose censorship, they still practiced to some extent.
Moody (2005) is unique in self-censorship literature and studies because Moody (2005) not only attempts to measure censorship and its effects, she also attempts to
Hellions” by John Pope, which is evangelical Christian material. The work was publicly reclassified from Evangelical Christianity to Religion. Moody (2005) hypothesizes that
“the primary consequence of [the] reclassification is that the library patrons browsing the evangelical section of the library catalogue [will] not locate the book. A secondary
consequence could be that book will be used by patrons less often, as it cannot be readily found and therefore more likely to be deselected when weeding is conducted.” (142)
Tracking censorship by reclassification adds to the previous definitions of
censorship by stating that censorship can be a combination of passive and active actions. The active action may be the unwillingness to collect certain materials. The passive action may be an unconscious decision, like making a passing judgment not collect a
book that would fit within the collection scope of a particular library. It can be something as simple moving a book from the logical place it should be, to placing it in a slightly less
intuitive position.
The ALA Bill of Rights statement regarding challenges to be materials can be inferred to mean that a librarian should attempt to include a wide range of materials and
protect their collections from those who would seek to exclude materials. The Bill of Rights operates under the assumption that if librarians’ allow censorship, educational
Research Question
The research questions to be addressed are: Do the ten major libraries in North
Carolina each own ten specific controversial young adult novels? If they do own these novels, are they cataloged in the young adult section or the adult section? Ultimately, the
Methodology
This study, whose methods are heavily based on Ken P. Coley 2002 methodology,
will examine the holdings of ten public library systems in North Carolina with regards to controversial young adult library materials. Based upon resources cited in the American
Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom and the College Board’s
recommended reading lists for college bound readers, ten titles were selected for further study.
Each title will be searched in each of the ten public libraries catalogs to determine whether that library held that title. If the title is held by the library, it will it will be
determined whether or not the material is shelved in the adult section or the young adult section. The purpose of the investigation will be to determine whether or not the libraries were practicing a form of censorship by placement of materials.
Selection of Libraries
North Carolina was chosen to be the focus for this study, in part because each county library in North Carolina represents a different local sensibility and focus. It has
been said that the “political context in which North Carolina’s public libraries operate is one characterized by strong local identification and a strong local sense of ownership.” (Bergquist, 22) Each county represents an almost autonomous library board and local
and will give a fuller and broader understanding of the placement of young adult materials.
The ten libraries studied are: Cabarrus, New Hanover, Union, Gaston, Buncombe, Durham, Cumberland, Forsyth, Guilford, Wake and Charlotte and Mecklenburg County.
The ten counties represent the largest counties by population in North Carolina, as of the 2008 population census, with population ranging from 890,515 in Charlotte and
Mecklenburg County to 168,740 in Cabarrus County. The county library systems have 99
branches located throughout all of North Carolina.
Selection of Titles
Ten representative titles were chosen to be searched within in the libraries
systems OPAC. The ten titles were chosen using the website of the American Library Associations Office of Intellectual Freedom. (OIF) The OIF publishes a set of lists related to the banned and challenged books. Year, authors by year, decade, and banned and
challenged classics subdivide the lists. Within the banned and challenged classics section of the lists there is “One Hundred Novels Banned and/or Challenged from the Twentieth
Century”. (Appendix A) Each title on the aforementioned list has an attached paragraph that explains why it was challenged and/or banned and the dates that the challenges were issued. This list is thought to be an excellent representative of proven controversial
material.
This list was then cross-referenced with the list “101 Recommended Reads for
education institutions to measure a student academic ability. The tests managed by the College Board include the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test/National Merit
Scholarship Qualifying Test (PSAT/NMSQT), the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the Advanced Placement Program Exams (AP). This list is thought to be both a
representative of quality young adult materials and a list of materials that a governing educational board has predetermined is necessary for college bound students.
The first ten items found on both lists (Appendix C) were then chosen to be a
representative sample. The reasoning behind this decision relates to the assumption that the items found on both lists represent quality controversial young adult material. The ten titles were then further checked for appropriateness by consulting the Lexile Framework
for Reading. The Lexile Framework for Reading measures either an individual’s reading ability or the difficulty of a text. Lexile testing measures comprehension, not controversy
of materials. When used correctly, Lexile helps readers find books and articles at an appropriate level of difficulty.
Grade Level Equivalents
Grade Reader Measure Text Measure
4 445L to 810L 650L to 850L
5 565L to 910L 750L to 950L
6 665L to 1000L 850L to 1050L
7 735L to 1065L 950L to 1075L
8 805L to 1100L 1000L to 1100L
9 855L to 1165L 1050L to 1150L
10 905L to 1195L 1100 to 1200L
11 and 12 940L to 1210L 1100 to 1300L
The educational levels displayed on the Lexile Grade Level Equivalents map
grade-level classroom. According to the Lexile measurement system the representative sample texts fall between a range of 790 to 1170. Meaning that they are appropriate for grade
levels 5 through 12, well within the range of what is considered to be “young adult” material.
Collection of Data
Those ten items will then be searched for in the ten regional libraries OPAC. The researcher will check to see if:
1. The items are present in the libraries catalog.
2. The items are within the system, how many copies are does the library own?
a. Note how many copies are missing and/or lost
3. The items are labeled as Adult, Young Adult or other. Examples of other labels
include Classic, African American, or Hispanic.
Once the data has been collected a spreadsheet will be created that will reflect
1. The library system name
2. The title of the books
3. The number of copies present within the catalog, if present
Once that data has been compiled, the researcher will compare and contrast to see if:
1. The necessary materials are present to conduct study
2. Young Adult Materials were reclassified as Adult Materials or Other Materials by
the library systems OPAC
a. If none of the material have been reclassified, the researcher can make the
conjecture that these particular library systems do not use reclassification as a
method of censorship
b. If some of the materials have been reclassified as Adult, or other, or
c. If all of the materials have been reclassified as Adult
If more than 75% of the chosen materials have been reclassified as adult, the researcher can make the conjecture that the libraries may be, knowingly or unknowingly,
Results and Analysis of Data
Number of Titles Held By County Libraries
Library System Number of titles held
Cabarrus County 135
New Hanover County 84
Union County 92
Buncombe County 233
Durham County 142
Cumberland County 259
Forsyth County 445
High Point Library System 99
Wake County 589
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County 659
Altogether 2,737 books were counted within the study. The Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County had the highest number of total copies, 659. New Hanover County had the lowest number of total copies with 84. According to the data set,
Number of Copies of Each Title
Title Number of Copies
The Catcher in the Rye 286
The Lord of the Flies 270
Beloved 164
Animal Farm 309
Their Eyes Were Watching God 411
The Color Purple 174
Brave New World 213
The Great Gatsby 301
To Kill a Mockingbird 479
Catch 22 130
Overall, the ten libraries studied shelved young adult materials in the adult section
at a rate of 79%. The library most likely to shelve young adult materials in the young adult section was High Point Library System. At High Point the young adult titles were shelved in the young adult section at a rate of 87%. The county system most likely to
shelve young adult materials in the adult section was Durham County library. The young adult titles were shelved in the young adult section at a rate of 0%.
The only library system that met the requirement of shelving 25% of the young adult materials in the young adult section was the High Point Library System. This percentage however, may be an aberration due to the fact that High Point only has one
library. The other regional library systems are comprised of multiple libraries, (See Appendix 11) which may skew the percentages. The other library that came closest to the
Percentage of Individual Young Adult Titles Shelved in the
Adult Section by County Library System
North Carolina County Library Systems T h e G rea t G a ts b y T h e C a tch er i n t h e Ry e T o Kill a Mo ck in g b ird T h e C o lo r P u rp le B el o v ed T h e L o rd o f t h e F li es C at ch 22 B ra v e N ew W o rl d A n im al F ar m T h ei r E y es W ere Wat ch in g G od
Cabarrus 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 77 100
New Hanover
100 48 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Union 100 32 100 100 50 100 100 100 88 67
Buncombe 76 71 85 86 90 37 100 72 68 100
Durham 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Cumberland 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 100 93 100
Forsyth 100 95 99 100 100 100 100 100 100 99
Guilford 13 13 0 29 0 0 33 0 0 42
Wake 97 100 92 100 100 23 100 100 100 100
Mecklenburg 42 18 71 9 5 23 46 50 22 0
Percentage of Overall Young Adult Materials Shelved in Adult
Section by County Library System
System Percentage of Young Adult Materials Shelved in Adult Section
Cabarrus County 98%
New Hanover County 95%
Union County 83%
Buncombe County 79%
Durham County 100%
Cumberland County 98%
Forsyth County 99%
High Point Library System 13%
Wake County 91%
Charlotte and Mecklenburg County 29%
Catcher in the Rye was shelved in the adult section at a rate of 68%. The titles least commonly shelved in the young adult section rather than the adult section were Catch 22
by Joseph Heller and To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee. Catch 22
Overall Percentage of Young Adult Titles Shelved in Adult
Section
was shelved in the adult section at a rate of 88%. To Kill a Mockingbird was shelved in the adult section at a
rate of 84%.
Young Adult Titles Percentage of Young Adult Titles Shelved in Adult Section
The Catcher in the Rye 68%
The Lord of the Flies 68%
Beloved 75%
Animal Farm 75%
Their Eyes Were Watching God 81%
The Color Purple 82%
Brave New World 82%
The Great Gatsby 83%
To Kill a Mockingbird 84%
Correlation between Lexile Number and Percentage of Books
Shelved in Adult Section
Surprisingly there seems to no direct correlation between the difficulty of reading level, as measured by the Lexile number, and the chances it will be placed in the young adult section of the library. Meaning that the difficulty of materials aka the Lexile
number has little to no effect on the placement of these materials.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Method
To the best of this researcher’s knowledge this is the first study to investigate
censorship of young adult materials in public libraries by placement of material in the adult section using a search of the libraries OPAC. Censorship by librarians is often
thought to be an unconscious defense mechanism. Since the blocking of materials may be unconscious or unacknowledged, it was thought that an unobtrusive method, rather than interviews or surveys, would be the most effective and accurate way of measuring the
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
0 20 40 60 80 100
phenomena. This method also eliminates the problem of low return rates of surveys, which will hopefully increase the accuracy of the results.
One of the problems that Coley (2002) acknowledged in his study was a variable relating to budgetary and financial issues facing the libraries surveyed. If the surveyed
material was not present within the library it could be speculated that the reason the material was not present could be because the library could not afford to purchase the material. That is why this study removes the variable of budgetary limitations by
checking not for presence or lack thereof as a measure of censorship. Instead the study uses placement of material as a measure of censorship.
Judith Serebnick, in the work, “Self-Censorship by Librarians: An Analysis of
Checklist Based Research”, notes that one of the weaknesses of large-scale checklist based research is that the conclusions can be somewhat skewed. “[Checklist studies]
have generally offered contrasting findings on patterns…. As the conclusions of investigators were often partly dependent on subjective analyses of data, careful
systematic considerations of the objectives and methodologies are required.” (1982, 45)
This study attempts to isolate as many variables as possible, in addition to making an attempt to remain as objective as possible in research. However some variables, such as
the definition of what constitutes “young adult” can be somewhat subjective. The lack of an official classifying body that determines what is and what is not young adult literature. It was thought by this researcher that the College Board and the Lexile determination of
Conclusion
Library science by its very nature is an interdisciplinary academic field. Selection
issues can affect all aspects of university life. From the librarian who refuses to stock anything but creationist designs theory, to the student who cannot find works by Salman
Rushdie. Moving away from the academic library sphere, we have public and school librarians who are responsible for educating and entertaining minds, young and old alike.
This study is first and foremost an attempt to add to the breadth and depth of
censorship literature in library science. There have been non-scholarly articles regarding censorship by librarians and there have been articles that speculate that censorship by
librarians is more prevalent and pervasive than previously acknowledged. This study is an attempt to bring all those issues to the forefront of librarian and patron’s minds. This study will hopefully cause the reader to question not just if censorship occurs within their
Works Cited
Allen, C. (2007). Are We Selecting? Or Are We Censoring. Young Adult Library
Services, 5(3), 5.
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 198 F.3d 1083 (2002)
Asheim, L. (1953). Not Censorship but Selection. Wilson Library Bulletin. 28(1), 63-67
American Library Association: Website. (2009) ALA Freedom to read Statement.
Retrieved December 1, 2009, from
American Library Association: Website (2009). ALA/ Office for Intellectual Freedom.
Retrieved October 1, 2009, from
American Library Association. (2010). Careers in Librarianship. . Retrieved March 23,
2010, from
http://www.ala.org/ala/educationcareers/careers/librarycareerssite/whatyouneedm
American Library Association. (2008). Code of ethics of the American Library Association. Retrieved October 1, 2009, from
American Library Association. (1996). Library Bill of Rights. Retrieved October 1, 2009,
from http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/statementspols/statementsif/librarybillrights.htm.
Bell, S. (2009) From Gatekeepers to Gate-Openers. American Libraries. 50(8/9), 50-53.
Bergquist, Ronald E. (2006). “It could have been bigger, but its residents like it as is”: small town libraries in Moore County, North Carolina. Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States -- North Carolina. Retrieved March 14, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses @ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.(Publication No. AAT 3207333).
Coley, K. (2002). Moving toward a method to test for self-censorship by school library media specialists. School Library Media Research, 5(2002)
Donelson, K. L. (1981). Shoddy and Pernicisous Books and Youthful Purity: Literary and
Moral Censorship, Then and Now. Library Quarterly. 51(1), 4-19
Evans, G. Edward., & Saponaro, M. Zarnosky. (2005). Developing library and
information center collections. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited
Family Friendly Libraries. (2007) Family Friendly Libraries. Retrieved December 5,
Lowenthal, M Fiske. (1959). Book selection and censorship; a study of school and public libraries in California. Berkeley,: University of California Press.
Futas, E. (1995). Collection development policies and procedures. Phoenix, Ariz.: Oryx Press.
Harmeyer, D (1995). Potential Collection Development Bias: Some Evidence on a
Controversial Topic in California. College and Research Libraries. 56 (2), 101-11
Marco, G. A. (1995). Two False Dogmas of Censorship. New Library World. 96(7),
15-19
Moody, K. (2004). Censorship by Queensland Public Librarians: Philosophy and Practice. Australian Public Libraries and Information Services. 17(4), 168-85.
Moody, K. (2005) Covert Censorship in Libraries: a discussion paper. Australian Library Journal. 54 (2),138-147
Pankake, M., Wittenborg, K., & Carpenter, E. (1995). Commentaries on collection Bias.
College & Research Libraries, 56 (2),113-18.
Reichman, Henry. Censorship and Selection: Issues and Answers for Schools. 3 ed.
Chicago: ALA, 2001.
Reynolds, T. (1999). Is it worth defending? Self-censorship: should we just accept it?.
Right to Read Defense Committee v. School Committee of the City of Chelsea, 454 F. Supp. 703 (1978)
Serebnick, Judith. (1982). Self-Censorship by Librarians: An examination of checklist-based Research. Drexel Library Quarterly. 18(1), 35-51.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
Van Kampen, D., & Spino, R. (2007). Issues in the Retention and Selection of Materials:
Censorship and Self-Selection. Catholic Library World, 77(3), 222-225.
Whelan, D.L. (2009). A Dirty Little Secret. School Library Journal. 55(2), 27-30
Whelan, D.L. (2007). Sports Illustrated admits to swimsuit Blunder. School Library
Appendices
Appendix 1
Lexile Numbers of Books Used Within the Study
Title Author Lexile Number
The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald 1070
The Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger 790
To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee 870
The Color Purple Alice Walker 670
Beloved Toni Morrison 870
Lord of the Flies William Golding 770
Catch – 22 Joseph Heller 1140
Brave New World Aldous Huxley 830
Animal Farm George Orwell 1170
Appendix 2
Banned and Challenged Classics
Each year, the ALA's attempts by individuals and groups to have books removed from libraries shelves and
from classrooms.
According to the Office for Intellectual Freedom, at least 42 of the Radcliffe Publishing Course Top 100 Novels of the 20th Century have been the target of ban
attempts.
The highlighted titles represent banned or challenged books. For more
information on why these books were challenged, visit
Title Author
1 The Great Gatsby F. Scott Fitzgerald
2 The Catcher in the Rye J.D. Salinger
3 The Grapes of Wrath John Steinbeck
4 To Kill a Mockingbird Harper Lee
5 The Color Purple Alice Walker
6 Ulysses James Joyce
7 Beloved Toni Morrison
8 The Lord of the Flies William Golding
9 1984 George Orwell
10 The Sound and the Fury William Faulkner
11 Lolita v Vladmir Naboko
12 Of Mice and Men John Steinbeck
13 Charlotte's Web E. B. White
14 A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man James Joyce
15 Catch-22 Joseph Heller
16 Brave New World Aldous Huxley
17 Animal Farm George Orwell
Title Author
19 As I Lay Dying William Faulkner
20 A Farewell to Arms Ernest Hemingway
21 Heart of Darkness Joseph Conrad
22 Winnie-the-Pooh A. A. Milne
23 Their Eyes are Watching God Zora Neale Hurston
24 Invisible Man Ralph Ellison
25 Song of Solomon Toni Morrison
26 Gone with the Wind Margaret Mitchell
27 Native Son Richard Wright
28 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Ken Kesey
29 Slaughterhouse-Five Kurt Vonnegut
30 For Whom the Bell Tolls Ernest Hemingway
31 On the Road Jack Kerouac
32 The Old Man and the Sea Ernest Hemingway
33 The Call of the Wild Jack London
34 To the Lighthouse Virginia Woolf
35 Portrait of a Lady Henry James
36 Go Tell it on the Mountain James Baldwin
37 The World According to Garp John Irving
38 All the King's Men Robert Penn Warren
39 A Room with a View E. M. Forster
40 The Lord of the Rings J. R. R. Tolkien
41 Schindler's List Thomas Keneally
42 The Age of Innocence Edith Wharton
43 The Fountainhead Ayn Rand
44 Finnegans Wake James Joyce
45 The Jungle Upton Sinclair
46 Mrs. Dalloway Virginia Woolf
47 The Wonderful Wizard of Oz L. Frank Baum
48 Lady Chatterley's Lover D. H. Lawrence
49 A Clockwork Orange Anthony Burgess
50 The Awakening Kate Chopin
51 My Antonia Willa Cather
52 Howards End E. M. Forster
53 In Cold Blood Truman Capote
54 Franny and Zooey J.D. Salinger
55 The Satanic Verses Salman Rushdie
56 Jazz Toni Morrison
57 Sophie's Choice William Styron
58 Absalom, Absalom! William Faulkner
Title Author
60 Ethan Frome Edith Wharton
61 A Good Man Is Hard to Find Flannery O'Connor
62 Tender Is the Night F. Scott Fitzgerald
63 Orlando Virginia Woolf
64 Sons and Lovers D. H. Lawrence
65 Bonfire of the Vanities Tom Wolfe
66 Cat's Cradle Kurt Vonnegut
67 A Separate Peace John Knowles
68 Light in August William Faulkner
69 The Wings of the Dove Henry James
70 Things Fall Apart Chinua Achebe
71 Rebecca Daphne du Maurier
72 A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Douglas Adams
73 Naked Lunch William S. Burroughs
74 Brideshead Revisited Evelyn Waugh
75 Women in Love D. H. Lawrence
76 Look Homeward, Angel Thomas Wolfe
77 In Our Time Ernest Hemingway
78 The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas Gertrude Stein
79 The Maltese Falcon Dashiell Hammett
80 The Naked and the Dead Norman Mailer
81 Wide Sargasso Sea Jean Rhys
82 White Noise Don DeLillo
83 O Pioneers! Willa Cather
84 Tropic of Cancer Henry Miller
85 The War of the Worlds H. G. Wells
86 Lord Jim Joseph Conrad
87 The Bostonians Henry James
88 An American Tragedy Theodore Dreiser
89 Death Comes for the Archbishop Willa Cather
90 The Wind in the Willows Kenneth Grahame
91 This Side of Paradise F. Scott Fitzgerald
92 Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand
93 The French Lieutenant's Woman John Fowles
94 Babbitt Sinclair Lewis
95 Kim Rudyard Kipling
96 The Beautiful and the Damned F. Scott Fitzgerald
97 Rabbit, Run John Updike
98 Where Angels Fear to Tread E. M. Forster
99 Main Street Sinclair Lewis
Appendix 3
101 Great Books Recommended for College-Bound Readers
There are a number of ways you and your child can share the great books and enrich both of your reading experiences. Try picking a book to read together and discuss your
opinions as you both read. Or choose a text like The Odyssey that lends itself to being
read aloud, and take turns reading with your child. Listen to an audio recording of one of the classics while you're on a family trip. A great reader can bring these books to life for listeners of all ages and backgrounds.
Author Title
-- Beowulf
Achebe, Chinua Things Fall Apart
Agee, James A Death in the Family
Austen, Jane Pride and Prejudice
Baldwin, James Go Tell It on the Mountain
Beckett, Samuel Waiting for Godot
Bellow, Saul The Adventures of Augie March
Bronte, Charlotte Jane Eyre
Bronte, Emily Wuthering Heights
Camus, Albert The Stranger
Cather, Willa Death Comes for the Archbishop
Cervantes, Miguel de Don Quixote
Chaucer, Geoffrey The Canterbury Tales
Chekhov, Anton The Cherry Orchard
Chopin, Kate The Awakening
Conrad, Joseph Heart of Darkness
Cooper, James Fenimore The Last of the Mohicans
Crane, Stephen The Red Badge of Courage
Dante Inferno
Defoe, Daniel Robinson Crusoe
Dickens, Charles A Tale of Two Cities
Dostoyevsky, Fyodor Crime and Punishment
Douglass, Frederick Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass
Dreiser, Theodore An American Tragedy
Dumas, Alexandre The Three Musketeers
Eliot, George The Mill on the Floss
Ellison, Ralph Invisible Man
Emerson, Ralph Waldo Selected Essays
Faulkner, William As I Lay Dying
Faulkner, William The Sound and the Fury
Fielding, Henry Tom Jones
Fitzgerald, F. Scott The Great Gatsby
Author Title
Ford, Ford Madox The Good Soldier
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von Faust
Golding, William Lord of the Flies
Hardy, Thomas Tess of the d'Urbervilles
Hawthorne, Nathaniel The Scarlet Letter
Heller, Joseph Catch 22
Hemingway, Ernest A Farewell to Arms
Homer The Iliad
Homer The Odyssey
Hugo, Victor The Hunchback of Notre Dame
Hurston, Zora Neale Their Eyes Were Watching God
Huxley, Aldous Brave New World
Ibsen, Henrik A Doll's House
James, Henry The Portrait of a Lady
James, Henry The Turn of the Screw
Joyce, James A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
Kafka, Franz The Metamorphosis
Kingston, Maxine Hong The Woman Warrior
Lee, Harper To Kill a Mockingbird
Lewis, Sinclair Babbitt
London, Jack The Call of the Wild
Mann, Thomas The Magic Mountain
Marquez, Gabriel Garcia One Hundred Years of Solitude
Melville, Herman Bartleby the Scrivener
Melville, Herman Moby Dick
Miller, Arthur The Crucible
Morrison, Toni Beloved
O'Connor, Flannery A Good Man is Hard to Find
O'Neill, Eugene Long Day's Journey into Night
Orwell, George Animal Farm
Pasternak, Boris Doctor Zhivago
Plath, Sylvia The Bell Jar
Poe, Edgar Allen Selected Tales
Proust, Marcel Swann's Way
Pynchon, Thomas The Crying of Lot 49
Remarque, Erich Maria All Quiet on the Western Front
Rostand, Edmond Cyrano de Bergerac
Roth, Henry Call It Sleep
Salinger, J.D. The Catcher in the Rye
Shakespeare, William Hamlet
Shakespeare, William Macbeth
Shakespeare, William A Midsummer Night's Dream
Shakespeare, William Romeo and Juliet
Author Title
Shelley, Mary Frankenstein
Silko, Leslie Marmon Ceremony
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich
Sophocles Antigone
Sophocles Oedipus Rex
Steinbeck, John The Grapes of Wrath
Stevenson, Robert Louis Treasure Island
Stowe, Harriet Beecher Uncle Tom's Cabin
Swift, Jonathan Gulliver's Travels
Thackeray, William Vanity Fair
Thoreau, Henry David Walden
Tolstoy, Leo War and Peace
Turgenev, Ivan Fathers and Sons
Twain, Mark The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Voltaire Candide
Vonnegut, Kurt Jr. Slaughterhouse-Five
Walker, Alice The Color Purple
Wharton, Edith The House of Mirth
Welty, Eudora Collected Stories
Whitman, Walt Leaves of Grass
Wilde, Oscar The Picture of Dorian Gray
Williams, Tennessee The Glass Menagerie
Woolf, Virginia To the Lighthouse
Appendix 4
Controversial Young Adult Material
Cross Referenced from the list “101 Recommended Reads for College Bound Students” and “One Hundred Novels Banned and/or Challenged from the Twentieth
Century”
Title
1 Their Eyes were Watching God
2 To Kill a Mockingbird
3 Beloved
4 The Bell Jar
5 The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
6 The Color Purple
7 Catch 22
8 The Catcher in the Rye
9 Brave New World
Appendix 5
Annual Estimates of Resident Population for Counties in North
Carolina, July 1, 2008
Geographic Area
North Carolina 9,222,414
.Tyrrell County 4,087
.Hyde County 5,181
.Graham County 7,825
.Camden County 9,682
.Jones County 10,113
.Clay County 10,389
.Alleghany County 10,951
.Gates County 11,708
.Pamlico County 12,502
.Perquimans County 12,856
.Washington County 12,946
.Swain County 13,512
.Chowan County 14,565
.Mitchell County 15,784
.Avery County 17,884
.Yancey County 18,503
.Polk County 19,074
.Bertie County 19,337
.Warren County 19,388
.Madison County 20,432
.Northampton County 20,487
.Greene County 20,677
.Hertford County 23,224
.Caswell County 23,248
.Martin County 23,398
.Currituck County 24,183
.Anson County 25,162
.Ashe County 25,702
.Cherokee County 26,568
.Montgomery County 27,358
.Transylvania County 30,187
.Bladen County 32,312
.Macon County 33,005
.Dare County 33,584
.Scotland County 36,508
Geographic Area
.Jackson County 36,739
.Person County 37,438
.Yadkin County 37,954
.Davie County 40,971
.Pasquotank County 41,111
.Vance County 42,891
.Hoke County 43,409
.McDowell County 43,843
.Watauga County 45,196
.Richmond County 46,005
.Beaufort County 46,035
.Stokes County 46,171
.Pender County 51,314
.Edgecombe County 52,682
.Duplin County 53,362
.Columbus County 54,212
.Halifax County 54,983
.Haywood County 56,590
.Lenoir County 56,826
.Granville County 57,044
.Franklin County 58,927
.Lee County 59,091
.Stanly County 59,614
.Chatham County 63,077
.Carteret County 63,195
.Rutherford County 63,424
.Sampson County 63,927
.Wilkes County 66,655
.Surry County 72,468
.Lincoln County 74,746
.Wilson County 77,527
.Caldwell County 80,059
.Moore County 85,608
.Burke County 89,361
.Rockingham County 92,282
.Nash County 93,674
.Craven County 96,892
.Cleveland County 99,015
.Henderson County 102,367
.Brunswick County 103,160
.Harnett County 112,030
.Wayne County 113,671
.Orange County 126,532
Geographic Area
.Rowan County 139,225
.Randolph County 141,186
.Alamance County 148,053
.Iredell County 155,359
.Pitt County 156,081
.Catawba County 157,079
.Davidson County 158,166
.Johnston County 163,428
.Onslow County 165,938
.Cabarrus County 168,740
.New Hanover County 192,538
.Union County 193,255
.Gaston County 206,679
.Buncombe County 229,047
.Durham County 262,715
.Cumberland County 312,696
.Forsyth County 343,028
.Guilford County 472,216
.Wake County 866,410
Appendix 6
Number of Copies Present in North Carolina Libraries and how
they are shelved
North Carolina County Libraries ↓ Controversial titles → T h e G rea t G a ts b y T h e C a tch er i n t h e R y e T o K ill a M o ck in g b ir d T he C o lo r P ur pl e B el o v ed Th e L o rd o f t h e F li es C at ch 22 B ra v e N ew W o rl d A ni ma l F a rm
Cabarrus Total # of copies 14 18 21 9 9 18 7 11 13
Shelved in Adult Section 14 18 21 9 9 18 7 11 10 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
New Hanover Total # of copies 21 25 4 6 4 6 2 8 6
Shelved in Adult Section 21 12 4 6 4 6 2 8 6 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Union Total # of copies 11 9 14 11 6 8 6 10 8
Shelved in Adult Section 11 8 14 11 3 8 6 10 7 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Shelved in Multi-cultural section
3
Buncombe Total # of copies 29 17 52 21 20 22 11 25 19
Shelved in Adult Section 22 12 44 18 18 8 11 18 13 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
7 5 8 3 2 14 0 7 6
Durham Total # of copies 15 17 18 28 14 12 9 3 9
Shelved in Adult Section 15 17 18 28 14 12 9 3 9 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cumberland Total # of copies 30 16 36 20 7 24 15 15 42
Shelved in Adult Section 30 16 32 20 7 24 15 15 39 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3
Forsyth Total # of copies 26 19 83 11 21 30 10 25 20
Shelved in Adult Section 26 18 82 11 21 30 10 25 20 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shelved in Multi-cultural section
Guilford Total # of copies 15 8 15 7 7 10 3 6 16
Shelved in Adult Section 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
North Carolina County Libraries ↓ Controversial titles → T h e G rea t G a ts b y T h e C a tch er i n t h e R y e T o K ill a M o ck in g b ir d T he C o lo r P ur pl e B el o v ed Th e L o rd o f t h e F li es C at ch 22 B ra v e N ew W o rl d A ni ma l F a rm
Wake Total # of copies 68 90 65 28 34 71 34 58 100
Shelved in Adult Section 66 90 60 28 34 71 34 58 100 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
Shelved in Multi-cultural section
21
Mecklenburg Total # of copies 72 67 171 33 42 69 33 52 76
Shelved in Adult Section 30 12 122 3 2 16 15 26 17 Shelved in Young Adult
Section
42 55 49 20 7 53 18 26 59
Shelved in Multi-cultural section
10 33
