Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion

STATEMENT OF COMPETENCY

U.S. Census data demonstrates that while 64 percent of the U.S. population identifies as white, approximately 88 percent of credentialed librarians are white, by comparison (Espinal, et al., 2018, p. 147). Considering the disproportionate whiteness of the library workforce, and its impact upon the design of collections, services, and programming, De Jesus (2014) asserts that the prevailing culture “manages to construct a reality wherein whiteness is default, normal, civilized, and everything else is Other” (p. 10). Factors contributing to whiteness as a dominant sociocultural force within libraries include: our nation’s history of systemic, institutionalized racism, (Honma, 2005) unchecked racial biases on an interpersonal scale, (Alabi, 2018; Espinal, et al., 2018) a lack of equitable access to MLIS degree programs for people of color, (Jennings & Kinzer, 2022) and insufficient efforts to not only recruit, but additionally retain and promote librarians of color (Alabi, 2018; Bocko, et al., 2022; Cruz, 2019; Espinal, et al., 2018; Riley-Reid, 2017).

Academic libraries and librarians can make steps toward meaningful inclusion of colleagues and users of color by examining historical factors and personal prejudices which contribute to systemic and interpersonal discrimination, (Honma, 2005) as well auditing institutional policies, practices, and user-facing collections, services, and programming for bias (Cruz, 2019). Additionally, Ferretti (2020) notes that by applying critical perspectives which interrogate the politics of power structures, academic libraries and librarians can expand race-based frameworks to advocate for other marginalized groups, including but not limited to: women, elders, non-English speakers, the LGBTQ+ community, disabled people, neurodivergent people, and intersectional identities thereof (p. 148).

Given a long history of systemic racism which continues to permeate our institutions and culture, well-intentioned white librarians commonly display unchecked racist attitudes and assumptions in the form of implicit bias, which is deployed interpersonally via covert, discriminatory statements or gestures, known as microaggressions (Alabi, 2018, pp. 134-138). Espinal, et al. (2018) note that implicit bias informs hiring decisions, leading to subconscious preferences toward white candidates among library administrators (p. 150). Alabi (2018) observes that routine microaggressions from white colleagues can contribute to tense, even traumatic environments, which drive librarians of color to withdraw socially, (p. 135) and which result in high turnover rates (p. 132); Riley-Reid (2017) adds that self-isolation, due to discriminatory work environments, can keep librarians of color from developing “professional relationships which lead to key research collaborations which in turn can lead to…a better chance at successfully achieving tenure” (p. 393). 

Additionally, librarians of color are often expected to join campus diversity committees and similar initiatives; these obligations are found to consume valuable time which could otherwise be spent on research, thus diminishing chances of achieving promotion and tenure (Alabi, 2018; Riley-Reid, 2017). These factors, combined with the fact that libraries frequently decline to groom employees of color occupying service roles for administrative positions, contribute to relatively low retention and promotion rates (Espinal, et al., 2018; Kung, et al., 2020). Beyond employment issues, Jennings and Kinzer (2022) note that only 22.2 percent of MLIS degrees are awarded to people of color, and that relevant scholarships do not adjust for income and wealth disparities between people of color and their white counterparts (p. 70); as a result, librarians of color are largely noncredentialled, and disproportionately occupy service positions which lend themselves to relatively few opportunities for promotion and retention (Kung, et al., 2020, p. 103).

Institutionalized and interpersonal discrimination is observable in multiple other aspects of academic librarianship. For example, Library of Congress Subject Headings are routinely criticized for utilizing culturally insensitive terminology, and reflecting discriminatory viewpoints; Bocko, et al. (2022) note that the subject heading of “illegal alien” was only changed to “non-citizens” in 2021, in response to mounting public pressure, (p. 11) and Espinal, et al. (2018) add that the Library of Congress has twice rejected the proposed subject heading of “white privilege” (p. 151). Notions of neutrality—discussed further within the Information Ethics section—heavily inform the American Library Association (ALA) and Association of College & Research Libraries’ (ACRL) published ethics statements, and are routinely exploited to justify collection development policies which permit hate literature (McPherson, 2019), reference service protocols which allow marginalized librarians minimal recourse in instances of discrimination (Chiu, et al., 2022), and other measures which fail to sufficiently balance intellectual freedom concerns with the safety and well-being of marginalized people.

Library users from marginalized backgrounds, too, demonstrate negative feelings when faced with library collections, services, and spaces bearing the influence of dominant groups, and designed with inadequate consideration for their needs and lived experiences. Bocko, et al. (2022) find that Black university students and staff regard Black and Asian reference librarians and subject librarians as more approachable than their white counterparts, citing routine microaggressions as well as insufficient academic knowledge of racial issues (p. 8). Stewart and Kendrick (2019) observe that LGBTQ+ students’ information needs are often not met by their academic libraries, referencing judgmental library staff, in addition to collections developed from heteronormative perspectives (p. 607). Sanchez-Rodriguez and LoGuidice (2018) contend that disabled and/or neurodivergent students demonstrate lower capacity for, and interest in, utilizing their academic libraries’ physical spaces and digital services when they are not designed with their needs in mind, or according to Universal Design standards (pp. 145-146).

Academic libraries and librarians can take proactive measures toward improving library spaces, collections, resources, services, and experiences for students, faculty, and other users from historically marginalized backgrounds. Given ongoing biases toward dominant groups and narratives within the publishing industry, collection developers can increase their efforts to build equitable collections which reflect marginalized perspectives, (Bocko, et al., 2022; Cruz, 2019; Jennings & Kinzer, 2022) and which incorporate numerous information formats, for the benefit of disabled and neurodivergent users (Sanchez-Rodriguez & LoGuidice, 2018). Research guides, programming, and book displays, concerning issues of race, gender identity, and sexual orientation, can be developed and promoted from critical perspectives; additionally, liaison librarians can incorporate these issues into their subject specialties, where applicable (Cruz, 2019; Jennings & Kinzer, 2022). Librarians can forge partnerships with student organizations representing marginalized groups, in order to develop spaces, collections, reference protocols, instructional design, and other elements of library service, which more equitably meet their needs (Cruz, 2019; Sanchez-Rodriguez & LoGuidice, 2018).

Librarians can support their marginalized colleagues by engaging in reflective practice, and consulting educational resources which describe current and historical issues of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability, as well as notions of implicit bias and microaggressions (Alabi, 2018, p. 138). Library administrators can launch similar initiatives on a larger scale by implementing cultural competency training programs for white employees in particular, and hiring outside consultants to facilitate these sessions, so as to relieve marginalized employees from the pressure of educating their colleagues (Alabi, 2018; Jennings & Kinzer, 2022). Honma (2005) stresses that educational initiatives which promote values such as “diversity” and “multiculturalism” must “articulate social and institutional structures of discrimination” in order to productively and transformatively address marginalized employees’ feelings and circumstances, rather than performatively addressing these issues on a superficial level (p. 11).

Librarians can directly support their marginalized colleagues by confronting librarians demonstrating racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and other forms of discrimination, whether through microaggressions or more overt means (Alabi, 2018, p. 141). Additionally, white, heterosexual, cisgendered, and/or able-bodied librarians can leverage their privilege to the advantage of their marginalized colleagues, by offering to mentor them; Riley-Reid (2017) notes that mentors can guide mentees through the professional ranks by “encouraging [them] to participate in committee meetings, offering suggestions for research topics, and editing and critiquing papers” (p. 395). Alabi (2018) suggests that academic library administrations can begin to advocate for their marginalized employees by conducting audits—and continual assessments—of internal policies, as well as standards for hiring, promotion, and granting tenure (pp. 142-143). 

Administrations can account for diminished access to MLIS programs among paraprofessionals from marginalized backgrounds, by offering to subsidize their education if they pursue the MLIS while employed (Espinal, et al., 2018, p. 157). The expansion of existing residency programs—which offer foundational career experience for newly credentialled librarians from marginalized backgrounds—can shape the culture of academic librarianship to be more equitable, while potentially incentivizing more marginalized people to pursue the MLIS (Cruz, 2019; Espinal, et al., 2018; Kung, 2020). Riley-Reid (2017) proposes that administrators should encourage marginalized employees to network across campus departments—so as to improve the likelihood of retention and eventual tenure—and, should subsidize professional development opportunities which can further their careers, and connect them with a more robust network of fellow marginalized librarians (p. 395).

COMPETENCY DEVELOPMENT

My competence within this area arguably emerged in my time as an undergraduate student at The Evergreen State College in Olympia, WA, during which I took a history course regarding race in the U.S., and more specifically in the Pacific Northwest, from critical perspectives. This course established my understanding of Oregon’s ugly history of racial exclusion; given my eventual goal to work as an instruction librarian in the Portland area, knowledge of issues regarding race and diversity, on historic and regional levels, will likely serve me well. This baseline of understanding served me well as I began to investigate issues of diversity and marginalization within information professions, in particular.

Taking INFO 204 (Information Professions) and INFO 210 (Reference & Information Services) might have only touched on these issues peripherally, but offered opportunities to consider them from standpoints of administrative work and reference service, respectively. INFO 230 (Issues in Academic Libraries) valuably established themes of discrimination within issues which face academic librarianship: namely, retention, promotion, and tenure bids for librarians from marginalized backgrounds. INFO 281 (Building a Critical Culture) presented the most comprehensive overview of marginalization and discrimination of my experience within this program: addressing matters of race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, and placing these issues within the contexts of information ethics and critical librarianship. During my internship at Portland State University Library, the process of creating instructional video content necessitated close observance of accessibility and Universal Design standards; while adjusting to these institutional standards presented a significant learning curve, I emerged from the experience far more confident in my ability to generate instructional materials which equitably serve disabled and neurodivergent library users.

CONCLUSION

Academic libraries and librarians can meaningfully support and include colleagues and employees from marginalized backgrounds by providing and expanding educational and professional development opportunities, residencies, and mentorships, continually pursuing spaces, standards, and behaviors which prioritize dignity, antiracist values, and accessibility, and pushing librarians from dominant backgrounds to engage in critical self-reflection. By engaging in these proactive measures, academic libraries can improve chances of retention, promotion, and successful tenure bids for marginalized employees, and establish a more inclusive work environment for everyone, while contributing to greater equity of opportunities within the profession at large.

REFERENCES

Alabi, J. (2018). From hostile to inclusive: Strategies for improving the racial climate of academic libraries. Library Trends, 67(1), 131-146. http://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0029

Bocko, A. F., Guth, L., & Broadnax, M. (2022). Library response to Black Liberation Collective: A review of student calls for change and implications for anti-racist initiatives in academic libraries. Reference Services Review, 50(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2021-0036

Chiu, A., Ettarh, F. M., & Ferretti, J. (2022). Not the shark, but the water: How neutrality and vocational awe intertwine to uphold white supremacy. In Leung, S. Y., & López-McKnight, J. R. (Eds.), Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory (pp. 49-71). https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11969.001.0001

Cruz, A. M. (2019). Intentional integration of diversity ideals in academic libraries: A literature review. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(1), 220-227. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.011

De Jesus, N. (2014, September 14). Locating the library in institutional oppression. In the Library with the Lead Pipe. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/locating-the-library-in-institutional-oppression/

Espinal, I., Sutherland, T., & Roh, C. (2018). A holistic approach for inclusive librarianship: Decentering whiteness in our profession. Library Trends, 67(1), 147-162. http://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2018.0030

Ferretti, J. (2020). Building a critical culture: How critical librarianship falls short in the workplace. Communications in Information Literacy, 14(1), 134-152. https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2020.14.1.10

Honma, T. (2005). Trippin’ over the color line: The invisibility of race in library and information studies. InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 1(2), 1-27. https://doi.org/10.5070/D412000540

Jennings, A., & Kinzer, K. (2022). Whiteness from the top down: Systemic change as antiracist action in LIS. Reference Services Review, 50(1), 64-80. http://doi.org/10.1108/RSR-07-2021-0027

Kung, J. Y., Fraser, K. L., & Winn, D. (2020). Diversity initiatives to recruit and retain academic librarians: A systematic review. College & Research Libraries, 81(1), 96-108. http://doi.org/10.5860/crl.81.1.96

McPherson, A. (2019). Does hate literature belong in the public library? Progressive Librarian, 47(1), 18-30. http://www.progressivelibrariansguild.org/PL/PL47/018mcpherson.pdf

Riley-Reid, T. (2017). Breaking down barriers: Making it easier for academic librarians of color to stay. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 43(1), 392-396. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2017.06.017

Sanchez-Rodriguez, N. A., & LoGuidice, J. (2018). Building bridges: Fostering dynamic partnerships between the library department and office of student disability services in higher education. Journal of Access Services, 15(4), 142-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15367967.2018.1520640

Stewart, B., & Kendrick, K. D. (2019). “Hard to find”: Information barriers among LGBT college students. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 71(5), 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-02-2019-0040