A critical policy analysis of dysconscious ableism in public library policies

Abstract

This study examines how public library policies construct understandings of disability and perpetuate systemic exclusion through the operation of dysconscious ableism. Utilizing critical policy analysis (CPA) and critical disability studies (CDS), the research interrogates the taken-for-granted assumptions embedded in library governance that often go unexamined in Library and Information Studies (LIS) literature. The methodology involved an environmental scan and a critical policy analysis of 52 policy documents collected from urban and suburban library systems. To produce a more honest account of these institutional discourses, the study also employed counter storytelling to analyze high-interest policy types, including patron conduct, materials selection, and facility use. Significant research findings demonstrate that public library policies frequently reflect dysconscious ableism by constructing disability as a deficit, abnormality, or inconvenience. The analysis reveals a discourse of disruptiveness, where vague and subjective terms like “disruptive behavior” allow for the punitive interpretation and penalization of harmless disability manifestations. Moreover, the findings show that policies often reinforce the status quo by prioritizing non-disabled comfort and omitting explicit requirements for accessibility in gift acceptance, exhibition guidelines, and digital resource selection criteria. This research contributes to LIS by introducing dysconscious ableism as a vital framework for analyzing institutional exclusion, and for practitioners and scholars aiming to dismantle systemic barriers and to foster equitable access within public library policies. The study found misalignment between local policies and the ALA’s inclusive expectations, revealing a lack of attention to accessible formats, diverse perspectives, and equity. This paper advocates for a fundamental shift in public librarianship. By centering the lived experiences of disabled patrons—adhering to the “Nothing About Us Without Us” principle—and revising exclusionary policies, libraries can begin to disrupt dysconscious ableism.

Introduction

Library policies are central to guiding the practices that librarians engage in and set expectations for patrons’ library experiences (Hill, 2021). Policy further articulates the values of a professional organization, thereby shaping ideology in the profession. Historically, library policies have reenforced dominant oppressive norms of exclusion, censorship, and morality, as well as have pushed back against these norms (Austin, 2020; Cooke, 2021; Ettarh, 2018; Wheeler, 2021). Analyzing the literature and the national library policies of Australia, Canada, and the United States, Hill noted that the presence of disability access and inclusion policies in use at local public libraries are largely unknown and highly unexamined, and that “[n]o research has yet been done to assess how these national library association policies influence the development of services and policy at the local level.” (p. 1388).

For instance, Bastiansen and Wharton (2015) reviewed toy collections in public libraries and commented on the experience of disabled children in this context but made no mention of collection or accessibility policies. Moeller et al. (2015) cited the relevance of Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines in their discussion of library makerspaces and specifically noted the absence of policies on point. Liu et al. (2019) suggested the importance of web accessibility policies addressing web design and web review but referenced no such existing library policy. And Jones (2021) evaluated the conflicting and fragmented context of publishing company policies addressing the accessibility of e-books and the efforts of the American Library Association (ALA) to effect more inclusive publisher policies but did not address whether or what policies public libraries might have to guide their collection and subscription protocols in obtaining accessible e-books.

These examples reflect the dearth of Library Information Studies (LIS) research addressing public library policy. More specifically, these examples show the deficiency of attention to policies focusing on the design and implementation of accessible and inclusive services and programs, or the engagement of the disability community in these endeavors. This paper arises from a wider study on how dysconscious ableism operates in the mindsets of public librarians and in the experiences of disabled patrons, leading to impacts on the lived experiences of disabled patrons (in press). It specifically reports on how dysconscious ableism operates in public library policies thereby informing public librarian mindsets, and public library environments, programs and services.

A note about language used

As the author/researcher I use identity-first language as a disabled scholar in solidarity with the disability community. This intentional choice affirms that identity is a core, valued part of a person—not something separate or negative. For many, it reclaims historically stigmatized terms, transforming them into expressions of pride and empowerment. Use of identity-first language demonstrates respect and belonging, and reflects resilience, which aligns with how individuals and communities define themselves, and resists marginalization through shared history and collective strength (Foley, 2024). I do respect that some in the disability community prefer person first language.

Policy analysis

Traditional tools of policy analysis are drawn from a positivistic theoretical position, where information is seen as obtainable, quantifiable, and interpretable using human reason and practices that are neutral, scientific and rational. For instance, traditional policy scholars believe information meaningfully reflects reality, and that they can use it to make policy and practice decisions. Moreover, traditional policy scholars view desired outcomes as attainable through a deliberate process of policymaking (Diem et al., 2014). Much important work on policy has been conducted using these tools. However, there is a necessity for recognizing that objectiveness and neutrality are unachievable goals in a world run by non-robotic humans, who are inherently subjective. Contemporary psychology provides empirical evidence that human judgment is inherently subjective. Humans are not immune from the harmful effects of implicit biases where subconscious views, instead of facts and observations, impact their decision-making (Beegly and Madva, 2020).

In contrast to traditional policy tools, critical policy analysis (CPA) is a methodology derived from critical discourse analysis, employing critical theory to challenge power dynamics in society and the notion that policy is neutral or objective. CPA scholars see knowledge as socially constructed and fallible, and view policy creation as a value-laden and political process. They believe that policy reflects dominant society’s status quo, which oppresses the disability community (Allan et al., 2010; Chase et al., 2014; Fairclough, 2013; Kennedy-Lewis, 2014; Quinn and Bates, 2017; Stevenson, 2016). In terms of power relations CPA is used to illuminate the contradictions and inconsistences between policy language and outcomes and can demonstrate how policy produces and maintains inequities of economic, social and cultural capital (Cahill, 2015; Kennedy-Lewis, 2014; Taylor, 1997; Winton and Tuters, 2015).

Ableism in the library

Power relations operate in public libraries, and disabled library patrons and staff have encountered significant ableist experiences. For instance, Muir et al. (2019) encountered a patron who feared being seen as “an idiot” due to delayed responses from aphasia, and another patron’s heightened embarrassment from tics in quiet spaces (p. 221). Disabled patrons also experienced inconsistent access to physical and virtual spaces, and the lack of American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, alternative formats, and staff knowledgeable about assistive technology (Kazuye Kimura, 2018; Lawrence, 2013; Lazar and Briggs, 2015; Liu et al., 2019; Price et al., 2016). Environmental factors like inconsistent color use, excessive noise, or busy environments may trigger panic attacks, making patrons feel unwelcome or “othered” (Anderson and Phillips, 2021; Muir et al., 2019). These experiences align with Reeve (2012) conception of internalized oppression, leading to self-limiting behaviors and anxiety about others’ perceptions.

Disabled staff endured the labor of managing non-disabled colleagues’ discomfort and the stigma associated with their disabilities (Anderson and Phillips, 2021; Lawrence, 2013; Muir et al., 2019). They experienced cultural taxation, an unrecognized added burden to demonstrate “good citizenship” toward the institution (Padilla, 1994: 26) and felt pressure to conceal or minimize impairments “to perform normativity” (Schomberg, 2018: 116). Microaggressions are prevalent, including comments questioning a disabled staff’s ability to work full-time, skepticism about disability authenticity, or being told they “should come with a warning label” (Siraki, 2021: 3). Siraki encountered hiring supervisors who claim to support diversity but fail to respond meaningfully to accommodation requests. Non-disabled staff perpetuate ableism through “special needs” ¹ conceptions, segregated programming (e.g. “Autism Night Out”), and imposing labor on disabled individuals, such as asking them to provide guidance or test the accessibility of materials (Adkins and Bushman, 2015; Bushman, 2020; Gill and Myers, 2023; Grassi, 2018).

Dysconscious ableism

Broderick and Lalvani (2017), critical disability studies (CDS) researchers in the field of preparing K-12 public teachers, argued that distorted understandings of disability “make it difficult for [pre- and in-service teachers] to create and enact equitable, liberatory, and just educational practices for all students” (p. 895). Drawing from King’s (1991) seminal paper addressing dysconscious racism at work in the preparation of future teachers, Broderick and Lalvani identified dysconscious ableism as a rhyming, “impaired or distorted way of thinking” about disability that leaves dominant norms unquestioned and sustains inequity (p. 895). Building on King’s analysis of dysconsciousness as a “limited and distorted understanding[]” that accepts the status quo, disability scholars show how practitioners routinely accede to deficit views of disability, thereby justifying segregation and inaccessible practice (p. 134). The problem is not merely ignorance; it is an uncritical habit of mind that naturalizes ableist privilege and renders alternative, justice-oriented practices unimaginable.

King’s later reflections sharpened why dysconsciousness matters. In the Brandon (2006) interview, King distinguished dysconscious racism from racism: racism, she argues, describes an effect without an evident cause; it “doesn’t give me enough information about what is happening and what is the solution to their problem. So if you say the problem is dysconsciousness, [then] that points you to something to work on.” (p. 200). Extending this logic, I posit that ableism refers to the effects of dysconscious ableism—the observable harms (e.g. segregation, inaccessibility, exploitation) that arise from a deeper, distorted analysis of disability. Naming the dysconscious apparatus directs attention to the work of developing fuller, critical understandings that can unsettle the taken-for-granted order.

For the purposes of this study, dysconscious ableism is operating when societal practices:

1. Reflect a limited, incomplete, impaired, or distorted understanding of disability; or accept deficit and culturally sanctioned assumptions, myths, and beliefs about disability;

2. Tacitly accept dominant ableist norms, privileges, and the status quo, or present no fundamentally alternative vision of society;

3. Promote inequity or inaccessibility or segregated treatment or exploitation of disabled persons.

This framing connects analysis to action. If the issue were simply “ableism,” we might observe prejudice or exclusion without knowing where interventions should begin. By identifying dysconscious ableism—the distorted, partial analyses embedded in practices, policies, and professional preparation—we target the social and cultural structures that reproduce ableist effects. In short, dysconscious ableism clarifies both cause and consequence: it explains how institutions come to accept and perpetuate ableist orders, and it points directly to the locus of change—our collective ways of thinking about disability and society.

Purpose

This paper examines how public library policies construct understandings of disability and perpetuate and reinforce systemic ableism (Foley, 2024). Public library policies have not previously been critically analyzed through the lens of dysconscious ableism. Using CPA, this study analyzes public library policies for the operation of dysconscious ableism. First, this paper presents the critical theory guiding the study, and the tools of policy analysis and data collection. Next, the analytical implementation of CPA is presented. Third, this paper presents the key findings of the study that explain how dysconscious ableism operates in public library policies. Lastly, recommendations for librarian practice, limitations of the study, and implications for further research are presented. Notably, Hill’s (2021) concern that local policies may not reflect the national policy visions about disability access will be revisited.

Research methodology

This study presents a critical examination of public library policies using the framework of dysconscious ableism informed by critical disability studies and the tools of critical policy analysis.

Critical disability studies theory

Critical Disability Studies (CDS) theory is a radical re-evaluation of the frameworks used in disability studies, aiming to comprehend disabled lived experiences and advance change by engaging with politics and socio-cultural factors. It challenges binary conceptions of disability (e.g. impairment vs disability, social vs medical models) and broadens the theoretical and methodological approaches (Kafer, 2013; Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009). CDS is highly interdisciplinary, drawing from diverse fields like psychology, humanities, and cultural studies. It critically interrogates contemporary institutions and their practices, exposing how they classify and control individuals deemed “abnormal.” A key aspect of CDS is its adoption of an intersectional lens, grounded in Black Feminist activism, recognizing how disability intersects with other marginalized identities like race and gender to create complex and compounded oppression. It resists the flattening of human difference, acknowledges the co-existence of privilege and oppression, and seeks to uncover silences in dominant discourse about marginalized persons (Crenshaw, 1989). Embracing the motto “Nothing About Us Without Us,” CDS prioritizes the voices and lived experiences of disabled people in research and decision-making, ultimately striving to expose inequity and promote social justice (Ferguson and Nusbaum, 2012; Meekosha and Shuttleworth, 2009; Morgan, 2021; Stack and McDonald, 2014: 83).

Tools of policy analysis

CPA questions how assumptions of discourse structure social understandings and determine them as natural or expected (Allan et al., 2010; Chase et al., 2014; Mansfield and Thachik, 2016). It further draws attention to conflicting ideologies and philosophical beliefs, unintended consequences, and silences in discourse (Allan et al., 2010; Chase et al., 2014; Kennedy-Lewis, 2014; Taylor, 1997). Specifically, CPA asks such questions as “how does a policy democratize, empower, or equitably distribute resources?” “who benefits and who loses from a policy, “how do marginalized populations fare?” “what is missing?” and “who is privileged by a policy?” (Chase et al., 2014: 675; Mansfield and Thachik, 2016).

Counter storytelling, a valuable tool of critical race theory (CRT), is further brought to bear in this study as it is well suited for embracing the lived experiences of non-dominant populations, which dominant narratives typically exclude or obscure, thus not addressing the interests and needs of minoritized (e.g. disabled) populations (Smith and Patin, 2024). These exclusions and obscurities require investigation to illuminate the subtle ways policy language upholds, or on occasion, challenges inaccessibility, segregation, and exclusion (Mansfield and Thachik, 2016). Mansfield and Thachik explain that “It is not that counter narratives offer a perspective that is “truer”; rather, it offers a “more honest account of the world around us” (p. 5, quoting Atwood and López, 2014: 1145).The approach of counter storytelling closely reads the discourse data first inductively, without a critical theory in mind, to produce meaning-making, and presents the taken-for-granted themes of the policy. Then the researcher deductively reads the policy through a critical theoretical lens (e.g. CDS) to produce a counter story that critiques the policy. Specifically, this analysis closely examines the policy and its status quo themes to ascertain whether and how it speaks to the principles and concerns of the theoretical lens (Mansfield and Thachik, 2016). This study specifically applies the critical framework of dysconscious ableism to interrogate policies and to produce that “more honest account.”

Operationalization of dysconscious ableism

Drawing from King (1991) and Broderick and Lalvani (2017), as discussed above, this study defines dysconscious ableism to operate in societal practices and beliefs that:

• Reflect a limited, incomplete, impaired, or distorted way of thinking about or understanding of disability; or accept deficit and culturally sanctioned assumptions, myths, and beliefs about disability, or

• Tacitly accept dominant ableist norms, privileges, and the status quo, or present no fundamentally alternative vision of society, or

• Promote inequity or inaccessibility or segregated treatment or exploitation of disabled persons.

Policy data collection

A county in (Inland) State in the United States was selected with a mid-sized city, and suburban and rural communities. The county is comprised of 20 public library systems including 1 large urban system (i.e. Melville) with 10 branches, and 19 suburban systems which also serve rural communities. Each system has its own Board of Trustees. However, collectively the 20 systems have a Memorandum of Understanding that guides a level of collaboration across the county. This includes, for instance, a shared online catalog system and inter-library loan. Importantly, pseudonyms are used for all library systems referenced in this study, and for the state in which it takes place.

An environmental scan was conducted of Melville’s website searching for policy materials. Altogether, copies of 24 policies were located and downloaded, which addressed such issues as meeting room use, patron conduct, computer use, internet safety, privacy, borrowing and circulation, library cards, challenges to library content, copyright, displays and exhibits, gifts, tobacco prohibition, unattended children, video surveillance and wireless access, among others.

Then an environmental scan of the 19 system libraries was conducted, which included locating the website of each system in the county and closely examining each website to identify what policies were publicly available. One system offered no policies on its website. Two hundred thirty-one (231) different policies were identified from the suburban library systems. These were sorted by topic and resulted in 67 different topics across the suburban systems. These policies collectively addressed all of the issues of the 24 Melville policies, and an additional 51 topics, such as Social Media, Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure, Emergency in the Library, Staff Grievance, Film Screening, and Sponsorship.

All 24 Melville policies were selected for analysis and a comparative number of policies from across the suburban systems were identified for analysis. This latter selection process involved three criteria objectives, that is, to select: (1) a range of topical policies comparable to that of the Melville system, (2) a few policies of higher interest that resonated with the topic of this project, and (3) a selection of policies that represented as many of the suburban libraries as practical. Altogether 28 suburban policies were selected. For a complete list of policy topics selected and the pseudonym of the library system they arose from, visit Appendix 1.

Analysis

Critical policy analysis

The collected policies were uploaded into MAXQDA software to manage the coding and thematic construction processes. A “Guiding Questions” document was prepared that included the question stem: “How does this policy __________?” Initially 25 potential responses to the question stem prompt were compiled, for example, including: “How does this policy: reflect or hide power dynamics?” . . . construct disability?” . . . embody goals or values?” . . . democratize processes?” . . . equitably distribute resources?” . . . and “What is missing in this policy?” The Guiding Questions document also included characteristics drawn from Broderick and Lalvani’s (2017) and King’s (1991) dysconsciousness, critical race theory, and critical disability studies (Kafer, 2013; Okun, 2021).

The guiding questions were not intended to be prescriptive of what would be looked for in policies, but rather of being a starting point for coding of the policies. Then, beginning with the Melville policies, the policies were worked through and as codes emerged a brief memo was prepared and attached to each code loosely defining that for which it was intended. The process was iterative, and codes evolved, periodically requiring the recoding of policies. Additionally, a policy level memo was drafted for each policy identifying overarching features, such as dates of review and adoption, formats and whether templates were used, file names and policy titles, and cross-referencing to other policies. As the process continued the code definition memos became more detailed and fixed (visit Appendix 2 for sample code definitions). Broader themes began to emerge, that is, whereby groups of codes were found to better align with the concepts of library practice and focus of the study (e.g. library procedure, patron responsibility, child / minor focus, constructing disability). The results of this analysis are presented in the Findings section. First, however, a counter storytelling analysis is demonstrated to construct a more honest account of select policies, and which provides additional and complementary findings not revealed in the thematic CPA.

Counter storytelling analysis

Four of the policies collected were reserved for counter storytelling analysis. These included the Springfield Code of Conduct Policy, the Bonavista Collection / Materials Selection Policy, the Oak Tree Challenged Materials Policy Procedure, and the Melville Community / Meeting Room Policy. This selection was designed to allow direct comparisons between Melville and suburban library governance. These specific documents were chosen because they were high-interest policy types to which I could apply a nuanced analytical method to comparable policy types. This strategy ensured the counter storytelling analysis focused on a representative cross-section of institutional discourses that significantly impact the marginalization or empowerment of disabled patrons. Each policy initially was summarized to present a non-critical review, which reflects the status quo of the policy. Then the framework of dysconscious ableism was used to produce a counter storytelling analysis that critiques the policy. That analysis is presented next.

Counter storytelling

The Oak Tree Challenged Materials Policy Procedure does not provide guidance as to what constitutes a “work” that can be challenged, which renders this term ambiguous and potentially underinclusive or overinclusive of library content. For instance, could a library poster promoting content from and for the LGBTQ+ community be challenged? Could handouts from a climate scientist presenter be challenged, or books for new parents of a child on the spectrum presenting arguments for curing autism and against awareness of neurodivergence? The Request for Reconsideration form is not available online and must be requested from a library staff. There is no indication whether the form is accessible to a Blind patron or how an alternative format could be requested.

The form calls for the requester to reflect on their basis for challenging content, such as whether they have read or viewed it and whether they are acting on behalf of an organization. However, it is unclear what role this information, which could be intentionally fabricated, may have in the review process. The policy only notes that “pertinent reviews, and state or national holding patterns” would be consulted. Are there best practices for the reviews and patterns consulted that are endorsed by diverse leaders in the field to prevent the hermeneutical epistemic injustice of marginalized communities knowledge (Smith and Patin, 2024)?

The Director appoints a committee to review the request, which does not have independence from the Director, as the Director is one of three members of the committee. The other two professional staff must include the staff who is "responsible for selection of the book.” What provisions are made if the content is not a book, or if the responsible staff no longer works for the library? The policy statement—“Often books that are called upon for challenge are speaking to/for a minority or marginalized populations.” – is an important acknowledgment. But what protections are in place to ensure content serving marginalized populations is not excluded? Does only content that is in book form deserve this acknowledgment? Could members of the community most impacted serve on the review committee to ensure there is voice from a relevant perspective? Should leaders in the impacted community be notified of the Request for Reconsideration, and be notified of the decision? These alternative perspectives can arise from intentional community outreach endeavors that work to establish or collaboratively create paid community advisory boards in partnership with community-based organizations (Arnos et al., 2021; Shakesprere et al., 2021). Or does making the statement that books serving marginalized communities are often under attack in fact invite dominant society members to challenge the materials of marginalized groups?

When the decision of the Director is documented in print and mailed to the requestor, there are no apparent mechanisms in place to request the decision in an alternative format, such as in accessible text attached to an email that a Blind person could access with a screen reader. There is no apparent process for a member of a marginalized community negatively impacted by the decision to appeal the decision; only the challenging requestor can make an appeal if not satisfied. The policy does not provide guidance on what constitutes dissatisfaction with a decision. Does simply not liking the outcome justify an appeal? Or does there need to be evidence of bias in the decision, or the lack of a clear process?

There is no direct mechanism by which the general public is informed of the Director’s decision, largely precluding leaders of a marginalized community aggrieved by a decision to appeal, if that were an option. There is an indirect mechanism, however, whereby notice of Requests for Reconsideration are made to the Board at the monthly Board meeting, and presumably noted in the minutes and made public for those who are not able to attend a Board meeting. That is, Board minutes are commonly available on the library website, but are they in an accessible format and are they available any other way for members of the community without internet access? Moreover, would the minutes be available before 10 days had passed from the date of the decision, the window in which an appeal must be brought? Quite conceivably not, a decision at the beginning of the month may not be reported to the Board until the end of the month, and then several more days would likely pass before the minutes were made public.

An appeal made to the Board of Trustees is first evaluated as to whether it has merit. Might this determination similarly be based on such criteria as there being evidence of bias in the decision, or the lack of clear process? The policy does not state what factors the Board weighs in making the merit decision. As a decision stands for 3 years, providing a balanced process for both challengers and impacted communities to challenge decisions should be provided.

This counter storytelling analysis is a powerful tool for exposing the implicit biases and structural inequities embedded in library policies. By juxtaposing the status quo narrative with a critical lens, this method illuminated how seemingly neutral language can marginalize disabled patrons and obscure power dynamics. The process revealed gaps in accessibility, representation, and procedural fairness, particularly for those from historically excluded communities. Ultimately, counter storytelling not only challenged dominant assumptions but also offered a pathway for reimagining more inclusive, equitable policy frameworks grounded in lived experience and social justice (Smith and Patin, 2024).

Findings

Key findings of this study advance the knowledge in public librarianship by demonstrating how public library policies construct understandings of disability and perpetuate dysconscious ableism in the field. These findings are discussed in turn.

Constructions of disability

The policies critically examined socially constructed understandings of disability as a deficit or inconvenience. Policies do this through their discourse of disruptiveness, abnormality, and by presenting distorted understandings of disability. For instance, policies often use vague and subjectively defined terms like “disruptive behavior.” On point, the Melville Guidelines for Incident Reports and Patron Barrings prohibited talking loudly, unintentional noise, loitering in the bathroom, excessive personal grooming, horseplay, and all disruptive behaviors. This provision allows for punitive interpretations that can disproportionately affect disabled patrons whose behaviors, such as stemming physically or verbally, might not align with dominant society’s abled norms.

The policies analyzed further do not adequately address the need for reasonable accommodations for disabled patrons. For instance, the Springfield Public Library Patron Code of Conduct Policy expectation that patrons do not express “extensive noise” may not consider individuals who are neurodivergent or have an intellectual or developmental disability (IDD). Library policies frame disruptive behaviors as issues requiring staff intervention, rather than opportunities for accommodation and understanding (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010: 139). These policies reflect culturally sanctioned myths about disability, such as the idea that disabled individuals are inherently disruptive or that their presence is less valuable than that of non-disabled patrons. The presence of such policies is further indicative of the high likelihood that the disability community was not represented at the policy writing table, a well-known phenomenon for which the disability rights movement mantra “Nothing About Us Without Us” is invoked (Stack and McDonald, 2014).

The medical model code was applied to policy discourse that casts disability in the context of deficit, abnormal, medical, or charitable language about disability, or that needs to be treated, fixed, or cured. The Melville Board Hybrid Meetings Policy permits remote participation only in “extraordinary circumstances . . . including disability, illness, caregiving responsibilities,” which pathologizes disability as extraordinary and in the company of other issues deemed burdensome. It further requires virtual attendees to be “heard, seen, and identified,” presuming any variation (e.g. a nonverbal patron) from these privileges as abnormal. The medical model arises in framing “offensive” body odor, sleeping, spitting, and staring as inherently deviant and prohibited behaviors under the Melville Patron Code of Conduct. While these behaviors can cause legitimate management and safety issues for library staff, they also may be misunderstood, harmless behaviors of disabled patrons (e.g. narcolepsy (excessive daytime sleeping), hypersalivation or saliva pooling associated with Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy, or medication side effects).

Importantly, banning all behaviors that the library views as inconvenient or disruptive because these behaviors at time may be truly challenging (e.g. a sleeping patron who has overdosed on opioids) is likely overinclusive, dysconsciously ableist, and / or potentially violative of federal law. Policies based on assumptions, fears, or stereotypes without factual or objective evidence of significant risk and substantial harm or that fail to allow for an individualized assessment and reasonable modifications are unlawful (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010: 139). Rather, policies must be narrowly tailored with its provisions being necessary for the service’s or program’s operation (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010: 130(b; 8).

This policy, in part, prohibits “Use of public restrooms for bathing or laundry; other inappropriate use of restrooms; use of other public areas for personal grooming.” These provisions, again, represent legitimate library management issues. Yet, a wide variety of disabled experiences may risk their physical and mental health if they are unable to use public restrooms for basic hygiene, personal care, and dignity needs (e.g. inflammatory bowel disease, obsessive-compulsive disorder, mobility impairment; Barry et al., 2024; Ducharme, 2024). These legitimate human needs for hygiene and personal dignity are pathologized as their requirements for a public restroom are cast as abnormal.

Policies may present incomplete or distorted understandings of disability without providing actionable guidance. A distorted analysis was found in the policy data when discourse presented missing essential elements or an incomplete analysis. For instance, a distorted analysis arose in the context of the Calloway “Safe Child and Vulnerable Adult Policy . . . intended to inform the public and library staff of the guidelines in effect for the safety of all patrons at these libraries.” A distorted analysis is evident here because there is no definition of the confusing term “vulnerable adult,” which is featured prominently in this policy. The closest the policy comes to defining this term of art is referring to this as “any person who requires direct supervision and/or assistance.”

The term “vulnerable adult,” when in light of the Calloway library’s specialized and segregated programs for disabled adults, which prominently are attended by patrons with intellectual or developmental impairments or neurodivergence, functions as code for a disabled patron. In this context this policy demonstrates a distorted analysis as it offers no clear actual guidance to whom it applies, and casts disabled patrons as vulnerable. Altogether, these policy discourses embolden dysconscious ableist constructions of disability that reinforce systemic marginalization.

Perpetuation and reinforcement of Ableist norms

This section examines the ways that library policies and practices tacitly accept dominant ableist norms, privileges, and the status quo, or present no fundamentally alternative vision of society (Brandon, 2006; Broderick and Lalvani, 2017; King, 1991). Policy discourse was found to (1) tacitly accept the status quo, (2) embrace the mythical norm, (3) present subjective and vague decision-making criteria, and 4) take a non-controversial and / or non-favoring position. Mingus (2011) coined the term “mythical norm” to capture the uncritiqued assumed normative, neutral, objective and highly privileged ways of being in society. Discourse of the mythical norm may further be code for the value attributed to capacity, ability, empowerment, independence, strength, self-help, masculinity, and other privileged ways of being that cast disabled persons living outside the mythical norm as deviant, undeserving, needy, fragile, invisible, and burdensome (Goodley, 2011). These four themes are taken up below.

Status quo

Public library policies often reinforce the status quo by overlooking accessibility. For instance, the Melville Gift Policy provides four criteria to be considered by the Board of Trustees to determine whether to accept a gift. Among the criteria are considerations of enhancing the facility’s beauty, commemorating community contributions and recording community history or culture. Absent are explicit commitments to accessibility, without which the needs of Blind, Deaf, and intellectually disabled patrons are unlikely to be met. Afterall, public libraries are Title II entities under the Americans with Disabilities Act and their programs, services and resources must provide equal access to and effective communication with disabled community members. While a not fully accessible gift may be accepted, policy provisions are necessary to ensure that alternative and equally effective access is provided (U.S. Department of Justice, 2010:102(a) and 35:130(b; 7)).

A counter-storytelling analysis of the Oak Tree Challenged Materials Policy Procedure revealed that the form to challenge content is only available in print and must be requested from staff. Responses from the director are also only provided in print and mailed, creating barriers for those with print disabilities. Art exhibition policies further reflect inaccessibility. For instance, the Melville Distribution, Bulletin Board and Exhibit Spaces Policy offers only space, stating: “Exhibitors/artists are responsible for the installation and removal of their displays and any associated expenses.” If a disabled artist is selected but cannot independently install their work due to physical barriers, the library risks violating its obligations under Title II. However, the policy lacks guidance on how to accommodate disabled artists, and staff may not view artists as entitled to the same accessibility considerations as patrons.

Similarly, the Melville Internet Research Link Selection Criteria outlines detailed standards for evaluating websites—such as uniqueness, clarity, reliability, and lack of intrusive ads—but omits any mention of accessibility. There is no requirement to meet Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), such as screen reader compatibility or alternative text for images. This omission reflects a broader pattern: accessibility is not prioritized, reinforcing ableist norms and sustaining the social and economic advantages of non-disabled individuals.

Ableist privilege and mythical norm

Policy discourse reflects the code “Ableist Privilege and Mythical Norm” when it implies that certain abilities are required or presents rules as neutral while privileging dominant ableist norms. This is especially evident in policies addressing patron behavior, communication, and noise. Policies often bar patrons for perceived noncompliance. For example, the Melville Guidelines for Incident Reports and Patron Barrings state that if a patron refuses to leave and police are called, they will be barred. This assumes communication norms such as hearing ability and fluency in complex spoken English. Similarly, the Melville Patron Code of Conduct expects patrons to behave in ways that “do not disrupt other patrons or staff,” a standard rooted in neurotypical and other privileged norms. For example, harmless behaviors like flapping, rocking, or vocalizing—common among neurodivergent and Blind individuals—may be misinterpreted as disruptive.

Noise-related policies also reflect mythical norms. The Cherry Grove Barring Policy prohibits loud speech, disregarding the acceptability of involuntary vocalizations or tics. Though disabled persons with sound sensitivities (e.g. neurodivergence) may be disproportionately impacted by these sounds, the growing awareness of these needs can be addressed with public libraries establishing sensory friendly spaces, available to all patrons seeking a quiet and calm place to read, write, or decompress (Frank and Pawlak, 2024). Similarly, the Little Thicket Computer & Internet Policy and Melville Guidelines for Incident Reports may penalize patrons using assistive technologies like text-to-speech software that reads aloud. Yet libraries can make headphones available to eliminate the sound of spoken text. The Marley External Harassment and Code of Conduct Policy and the Melville Patron Code of Conduct cite disruptions to others’ enjoyment or the library’s “normal functioning,” but fail to define acceptable sound levels or account for accommodation needs as required under law before penalizing patrons—again privileging able-bodied norms. (e.g. U.S. Department of Justice, 2010: 139).

The counter storytelling analysis of the Springfield Public Library Patron Code of Conduct Policy revealed similar concerns when articulating the consequences for “repeated” non-compliance. If the “repeated” conduct is a harmless disability manifestation (e.g. flapping, vocalization) does banning occur? When and how might library staff educate a complaining “offended” patron about the different and non-harmful behaviors of a person with a different identity? Notably, if a patron refuses to leave the library when asked to do so, library staff can call law enforcement. What constitutes a refusal? Could library staff perceive a frightened adult male with intellectual disability to be refusing to comply by backing away from staff? Could library staff perceive the action of seeking to understand what one had done wrong to be non-compliance or a refusal? And how might law enforcement unnecessarily escalate a situation for lack of training on issues of navigating situations with disabled persons, as well as BIPOC and LGBTQ+ population members? This policy is ripe for upholding ableist privileges and the dominant, white, cis-straight mythical norm.

Procedural policies also impose ableist expectations. The Melville Public Comment Policy allows 3 minutes for public comment, requiring written submissions for longer topics. This assumes that all individuals can speak or write efficiently within that time limit, excluding those with speech or cognitive disabilities. The policy reinforces the mythical norm that concise verbal or written communication is universally accessible. Overall, these policies often fail to consider disability-related behaviors and access needs, reinforcing ableist assumptions and marginalizing those who do not conform to dominant norms.

Subjectivity

Subjectivity in policy discourse emerges when vague criteria or undefined standards allow decisions to be based on personal opinions or biases. This can result in punitive or exclusionary outcomes, particularly for disabled individuals. For example, the Melville Internet Safety and Acceptable Use Policy states that if a user’s conduct “disrupts the Library or its computer network,” it constitutes a violation. The term “disrupts” is undefined and open to interpretation, allowing staff to penalize behaviors such as flapping, rocking, or vocalizations—natural expressions for some disabled patrons. Similarly, the Melville Meeting Room Policy prohibits activities “detrimental to the accomplishment of the mission and goals of the library.” Even with the mission defined as “creating opportunities, empowering people, and inspiring ideas,” the term “detrimental” remains vague. Would a disability rights group challenging dominant ableist structures be considered detrimental?

The Evangeline Computer & Internet Policy allows staff or patrons to end someone’s computer session if the content is deemed offensive “in accord with overall community standards.” These standards are undefined, reinforcing dominant cultural norms and enabling subjective enforcement based on personal or ideological discomfort. This gives one patron power over another’s access to resources. The Bearcat Library’s Unattended Children Policy requires children under 10 to be accompanied by a responsible adult—but provides no guidance on how age is determined. Notably, disabled persons may be infantilized, or viewed and treated as children, erroneously. The lack of guidance for accurately determining age invites inconsistent enforcement and potential bias that is likely to disproportionately impact disabled patrons (Carter et al., 2022; Lo Bosco, 2023).

The counter-storytelling analysis of the Oak Tree Challenged Materials Policy Procedure found ambiguity in what constitutes a “work” eligible for challenge, leaving room for subjective interpretation. Similarly, the Melville Library Meeting Application & General Rules for Community Room Use claims to promote equity by limiting frequency and duration of use. However, it fails to define “equity” or explain how decisions will be made to ensure it. Restrictions—such as limiting advance planning to 3 months or allowing only one meeting per month—may disproportionately affect under-resourced groups, like disability affinity groups, which lack alternative spaces. The policy also limits use to non-profit purposes “unless it is to further library purposes,” without clarifying what qualifies. This ambiguity could be exploited by for-profit entities or used to exclude marginalized groups. Clearer guidance or removal of this exception is needed.

The Springfield Public Library Patron Code of Conduct raises two additional concerns. First, it requires compliance with staff directives, but does not define what constitutes a directive—spoken, written, or posted signage? Nor does it consider whether directives are accessible to the Deaf and Blind communities, to those with intellectual disabilities, or to English language learners. Second, the policy mandates “appropriate” attire without defining the term. This opens the door to biased judgments: Is a disabled trans man in a dress appropriate? A disabled college student in pajamas? The cultural dress of a disabled indigenous woman? Or the superhero dress of a disabled Marvel fan ? Without clear, inclusive guidelines—ideally posted in accessible formats and multiple languages—patrons may be unfairly judged or excluded. Overall, these policies rely on vague language and undefined standards that enable subjective enforcement. This perpetuates ableist and dominant cultural norms, undermining equity and inclusion in public library spaces.

Neutral position or no guarantees

Policy discourse often adopts a neutral or non-committal stance, especially regarding organizations, resources, and services, avoiding controversy and offering no guarantees of access, quality, or comprehensiveness. For example, the Melville Book Challenge Policy states that inclusion of an item “does not imply an endorsement of its viewpoint,” signaling neutrality. While this avoids controversy, it also suggests the library does not actively challenge ableist perspectives or promote inclusive ones (Gibson et al., 2017). This neutral stance is also evident in the Melville Internet Research Link Selection Criteria, which allows commercial sites only if they offer free, useful information and clarifies that the collection is not comprehensive. The policy further disclaims responsibility for the accuracy of external websites. While defensible, this passive approach may fail to meet the needs of disabled users seeking reliable, accessible resources.

The Bonavista Collection Management Policy similarly emphasizes neutrality, stating the library “does not endorse the opinions expressed in materials.” Yet, it also includes a section on Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion, aiming to reflect the needs of historically marginalized groups. This raises a key tension: can a library truly center equity while prioritizing neutrality? (Gibson et al., 2017). For instance, would a display featuring disability-focused materials be seen as violating neutrality?

The Melville Sponsorship Policy prohibits sponsors from influencing material selection or requiring endorsement of their products. While this protects against commercial bias, it may also limit opportunities to promote inclusive services. For example, if a community bookstore specializing in accessible formats offered to sponsor an adult literacy group by providing free materials in Braille, large print, or audio, would this be seen as undue influence? And if demand for such formats grew, could the library continue the partnership without violating its own policy?

The Dogwood Community Library Meeting Room Policy allows nonprofit groups to use space on equal terms but prohibits advertising or selling products or services. Similarly, the Melville Meeting Room Policy bars commercial activity to maintain neutrality. However, this may prevent the library from supporting services beneficial to disabled patrons—such as demonstrations of assistive technology by for-profit advocacy groups.

Finally, the Francistown Library Social Media Policy prohibits staff from expressing personal views, reinforcing a stance of neutrality. While intended to maintain professionalism, this may also silence advocacy for disability rights and uphold dominant norms—white, abled, cisgender, and heterosexual—by default (Gibson et al., 2017). In sum, these policies reflect a preference for neutrality that can unintentionally reinforce the status quo and limit proactive inclusion of marginalized communities, particularly people with disabilities.

Collectively these findings demonstrate how public library policies construct disability through a medical model lens and perpetuate dysconscious ableism. Policies often use vague, subjective language that marginalizes disabled patrons, reinforce ableist norms, and fail to prioritize accessibility. Key themes include maintaining the status quo, privileging dominant norms, enabling subjective enforcement, and adopting neutral stances that avoid accountability. These practices collectively exclude disabled individuals and hinder equity and inclusion in library spaces.

Conclusion

Research has confirmed that patrons and staff with disabilities face complex challenges in public libraries, including internalized oppression, labor dynamics, and the impact of microaggressions on their personal and professional experiences in addition to inconsistent accessibility of spaces, services, programs and events. This study applying critical policy analysis was focused on understanding how dysconscious ableism operates in public libraries, particularly through policies, toward developing knowledge for disrupting this phenomenon in public librarianship, but also in librarian education. Policies often reflect vague, subjective, and deficit-based understandings of disability, reinforcing exclusion through terms like “disruptive behavior” and privileging mythical norms of independence and productivity. They use undefined terms leading to subjective enforcement that prioritizes non-disabled comfort and perpetuates ableist mythical norms. Policies perpetuate the status quo, frequently lacking explicit accessibility considerations and using neutral language that passively disadvantages disabled patrons. Policies adhere to the medical model, framing disability as abnormal or a burden, and tacitly accept the status quo by frequently lacking explicit accessibility considerations, or by adopting neutral stances, thereby maintaining inequities and presenting no alternative vision of society (Broderick and Lalvani, 2017; Gill and Myers, 2023).

Previously noted in this study, Hill (2021) questioned the inclusion of accessibility standards in local public library policies and noted the absence of research on whether local policies aligned with national library policies addressing accessibility and patrons with disabilities. The ALA’s (2018) Services to People with Disabilities: An Interpretation of the Library Bill of Rights presents laudable expectations on these issues such as promoting an understanding of intersectionality, disabled persons being “a broad range of individuals with a diversity of abilities, identities, and appearances,” and the importance of library staff not assuming an individual’s limitations based on disability. None of the library policies critically examined in this study promoted these visions. However, the ALA policy did define disability consistently with the ADA’s medicalized definition: “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Though a specific definition of disability was not found in the local policies analyzed, they did strongly reflect a medical model of understanding.

At odds with the ALA (2018) policy’s provisions, the local policies did not address the importance of accessible and alternative formats or the need to work closely with software vendors to address and resolve accessibility issues. Furthermore, the local policies offered no assurances or provisions “for all people to be heard, including those with perspectives that are voiced less often or less loudly,” especially absent in the context of material challenges (ALA). So, to respond to Hill’s (2021) concern, we now have evidence from this study that the positions and visions of the ALA policy have not being taken up by the local policies analyzed in this study.

Dysconscious ableism in library practices may be disrupted by intentionally embracing an inclusive and informed understanding of disability. This involves centering the lived experiences of disabled patrons and staff in all aspects of library operations, from policy development to program planning, ensuring that decisions reflect the “Nothing About Us Without Us” principle. Libraries must actively critique normativity and question assumptions about “normal” behavior, communication variances, and productivity. A fundamental shift toward understanding the social construction of disability is essential, recognizing how societal barriers, not individual impairments, create disability, and moving away from a medical or deficit view (Gill and Myers, 2023). This can be supported by the implementation of Universal Design principles, embedding accessibility from the outset in physical and digital spaces, rather than relying on reactive accommodations.

Libraries should foster collective responsibility and interdependence, emphasizing mutual support and an ethic of care among staff and patrons, and challenging neoliberal values that prioritize efficiency over inclusion. An ethic of care promotes a workplace culture where the diverse needs of all staff are recognized and supported (Tronto, 2005). Finally, disrupting dysconscious ableism may require embracing resistance and the reclamation of historically stigmatized terms, and by fostering agency and independence through the design of services that allow self-directed use and that provide diverse, accessible spaces for all patrons (Gill and Myers, 2023). Furthermore, it is recommended that public librarians critically examine and revise conduct policies to avoid penalizing disability-related behaviors and critically examine material challenge policies that privilege dominant society norms.

This study’s policy analysis had limitations. Policies were collected in early 2024, meaning they might not reflect recent federal changes impacting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion initiatives, which could render them non-current. The research did not investigate a cause-effect relationship between policy and practice. While all public-facing Melville’s policies were examined, suburban policies were selectively chosen, limiting their comprehensive representation. Furthermore, the analysis was guided by applied critical theoretical frameworks, potentially overlooking other relevant themes.

Future research on library policies should expand beyond the study’s local context, examining policies from different counties, states, or countries, and covering further topics in policies like Staff Grievance, Public Record Access and Child & Teen Programs. A crucial implication is to investigate the cause-effect relationship between policy and practice. Future work should also compare policy implementation across diverse communities (e.g. urban vs rural) and potentially use quantitative surveys to assess commonalities more broadly. Lastly, longitudinal studies could track policy changes and their long-term impacts on disabled patrons and staff.