Introduction

The SILS Ethical and Inclusive Metadata Practices in UC Library Search (EIMP) Project Team (PT) recommends each UC campus create a public-facing statement of commitment to describing library collections in an inclusive, respectful manner and acknowledgement of potentially offensive language in library metadata. Special Collections & Archives have been at the forefront of this work, and campuses may already have their own statements for these materials. Because boundaries between various types of library materials may not be apparent to users of UC Library Search, it is important to (also) have a single, overarching statement.

Components of an Inclusive Language Statement

Below are suggested components of harmful languages that EIMP-PT identified through the evaluation of statements from various libraries and archives.

Commit to inclusive/ethical description and user experience

Providing an explicit commitment to addressing harmful language in the library catalog is an important way of making clear to readers how the library values and prioritizes an inclusive user experience within the library catalog. By detailing the specific commitments the library is making with regard to ethical description, the library can demonstrate an action-oriented approach to readers, as well as tie these commitments to larger Library values and mission statements around equity, diversity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Examples:

To ensure that the result of our work is inclusive, humanizing and anti-oppressive, we have adopted the following commitments to create and remediate description:.. (UCLA Library Ethical Description Policy)

We are committed to the on-going work of creating and updating our cataloging and metadata practices to reflect the Library’s values of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Statement on Potentially Harmful Languages in Library Catalog)

Acknowledge the presence of harmful language in the description 

The statement should acknowledge that the language used to describe library resources is not neutral. Users should be warned that they may encounter metadata that is biased, outdated, or offensive and that the presence of this problematic library metadata can perpetuate the oppression of marginalized communities. The statement should acknowledge the library's responsibility to catalog critically, describing resources and their creators respectfully and carefully. This is especially true for resources representing historically oppressed groups.

Examples:

As a result, catalog records and archival descriptions sometimes contain language that is harmful or omits important information. (Columbia University Libraries Statement on Inclusive Editing of Harmful Language in Library and Archival Descriptions)

While personnel in UMD Libraries' Cataloging and Metadata Services department strive to use inclusive language to describe library materials, you may encounter harmful language in our catalog. (University of Maryland Libraries Statement of harmful language in catalog records)

While we strive to catalog our collections as carefully and thoroughly as possible, we acknowledge that previous descriptive practices and outdated metadata conventions sometimes produce entries and information that are not historically accurate, or are offensive or discriminatory. (UCLA Clark Library Statement on Cataloging)

Provide information on why harmful language may be present 

Providing information on why harmful language might be present in a library catalog is essential because it acknowledges the historical and ongoing impact of oppressive systems on marginalized communities. When providing a statement, it's important to distinguish between transcribed data, which reflects the language used by the creator of the material, and cataloger-provided data, which may introduce additional biases. Furthermore, statements should acknowledge that catalogers may not be members of the communities they are describing, which can lead to misrepresentation or erasure. Additionally, statements should also mention that legacy data in the catalog may contain harmful language that was previously acceptable but is now recognized as offensive.

** Differentiate between transcribed and prescribed(?) metadata

**Acknowledge library staff may be describing communities they are not a part of

**Legacy data

Examples:

…you may encounter harmful language in our catalog. You may find examples of such language in book titles, subtitles, or other information transcribed directly from library materials. In these instances, harmful words are not censored because this content provides historical context for understanding the era, attitudes, and opinions of their creators. (University of Maryland Libraries Statement of harmful language in catalog records)

Many of our catalog records and finding aids were created years ago and may contain harmful language. It was a common practice to reuse language provided by creators, previous owners, and vendors. (Brandeis University Library Statement on Potentially Harmful Language in Collections, Cataloging and Description)

Provide a mechanism for reporting offensive language

Determine a method for users to report problematic language in library metadata.  Consider existing workflows for responding to user questions and actions the library will take, including responding to the user.   A web form offers the option of anonymity and may collect more information.  Using an email address is an easy option for collecting user feedback.  It should be an email address for a dedicated group, rather than an individual email.

Decide on the location of your reporting mechanism.  Placing a feedback mechanism in the individual record display enables users to report issues at the point of need.  A feedback mechanism can be included in the “About” section of the library website or within a statement on inclusive language in library metadata.  Including a feedback mechanism in more than one location is also an option.

Examples:

If you encounter language in UW Libraries catalog records, archival finding aids, or digital collections that you find offensive or harmful, or if you have questions about this statement or our work, we welcome your feedback via this form or uwlib-critcat@uw.edu. (University of Washington Statement on Harmful Language in Catalog Records and Archival Finding Aids)

We may be able to change language in these records. If you encounter harmful language, please fill out our feedback form. We will respond to your feedback and communicate any action we will take to update the language. (University of Maryland Statement of Harmful Language in Catalog Records)

Provide a resource/reference list

It may be helpful to your users to include a list of references for your institution’s inclusive language in library metadata statement. The references can provide further context for the work your library is pursuing in reducing harmful language from your metadata and emphasize the challenges of this work within a collaborative metadata environment, while keeping your statement brief and direct.   

Examples:

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

For library and archives professionals interested in doing similar work, we encourage you to read the annotated bibliography found in the Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia’s “Anti-Racist Description Resources,” linked below. This resource focuses on race and racism in archival collection descriptions, but the bibliography covers many related issues of representation in the archives. (Drexel University Libraries' Statement on Harmful Content in Archival Collections)

How often this statement is reviewed / updated

This statement … was last updated on 2021-08-11. (Brandeis University Library Statement on Potentially Harmful Language in Collections, Cataloging and Description)

SCRC 2018.04 Last Updated: 10/10/2018 (Temple University SCRC Statement on Potentially Harmful Language in Archival Description and Cataloging)

Invitation for feedback on the statement itself

Allowing users to ask questions and provide comments can help demonstrate transparency and accountability in the library's commitments. Welcoming feedback acknowledges the iterative process for improving both descriptive practices as well as clarity and understanding of the statement. It might help to offer one or more channels through which users can provide feedback, or combine it with a mechanism for reporting metadata as described above.

Examples:

UCLA Library welcomes your questions and invites your comments while we improve our descriptive practices. Please use our feedback form(opens in a new tab) to let us know... (UCLA Library Ethical Description Policy)

Please contact the Cataloging and Metadata Working Group (capt-cmw@library.illinois.edu) if you have any questions or suggestions for additional changes. (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Statement on Potentially Harmful Languages in Library Catalog)

Attribution statement

If the statement was created in consult with inclusive language statements from other institutions, provide attribution, including links if possible, for those works in order to acknowledge the contributions of the original authors.

Examples:

Reference and Resource List

• Public-facing statements on harmful language in library and archival description: Recommendations for implementation (Presentation Video, Slides), Katie Dunn, Samantha Garlock

• CatalogingLab - List of statements on bias in library and archives description