From protests to practice: Confronting systemic racism in LIS

Abstract

The death of George Floyd, at the hands of the Minnesota police on May 25, 2020, sparked a global uproar that many have argued has not occurred since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. It is unclear why this particular incident elicited such a visceral and widespread response, especially in light of the fact that police brutality towards Blacks in America is not a new phenomenon. This paper examines the national response to Floyd’s death within the contexts of CRT, the history of systemic racism in the United States, and questions how race and inequity issues have been addressed in LIS. The authors provide actionable measures that could go a long way in moving the discipline toward a shift in thinking. However, they find that these efforts need to be sustained, because one-shot events, training sessions, or activities rarely result in any real change. Real progress, they conclude, will require more than new laws. It will also require a seismic societal shift in attitude.

What are the options for library and information studies education reform in addressing racial inequity in the library profession in the UK?

“…However, she notes that ‘ the field continues to not reflect, and perhaps not fully understand, the diverse and dynamic communities it serves’ (Cooke and Jacobs, 2018: 3). Alongside her work, diversity and cultural competence have been increasingly discussed, in relation to their inclusion in the LIS curriculum, in readings thus creating awareness (Villagran and Hawamdeh, 2020), developing best practice (Bashi̇r, 2020), preparing students to work with different cultural groups (Alajmi and Alshammari, 2020) and moving beyond the focus on collections and access and towards race and privilege (Chancellor et al, 2021), although ‘diversity was scarcely increasing in terms of the number of professionals, faculty, students, and resources’ (Poole et al, 2021: 260). It seems that despite scholarly effort in discussing marginalisation and well-intended interventions the impact of these on the make-up of the profession is so-far minimal (Caidi and Dali, 2017).…”

“…If we are to successfully challenge the orthodoxy and recognise the central part LIS education plays in the (potentially) virtuous circle then recognising the embedded nature of privilege and tackling this at through curriculum development this should develop students’ (and our own) abilities in challenging the lack of diversity in the profession (Alajmi and Alshammari, 2020; Chancellor et al, 2021; Singh and Rioux, 2021; Villagran and Hawamdeh, 2020). These recommendations can equally be applied to the British context, where multiculturalism sits within a history of imperialism and colonialism, and decolonisation efforts are widely discussed (Bergan and Harkavy, 2018; Bhambra et al, 2018; Crilly and Everitt, 2021; Jason and Heidi Safia, 2018; Sian, 2019).…”

“…It requires what Cooke et al (2016) would call a ‘blended approach that emphasises culture; context; and critical thinking that extends across curricula, professional practice, and research’ (2016: 120). This requires a radical shift across the profession – from association through LIS school to the workplace – a holistic approach, or ‘a seismic societal shift in attitude’ (Chancellor et al, 2021: 183). It requires tools (Brook et al, 2015), training (Cooke et al, 2016), and a reassertion of the social justice role in all library sectors.…”

“…It means making social justice and cultural competence course content visible, including in learning outcomes (Jones, 2020), educating all in issues of marginalisation (Gibson and Hughes-Hassell, 2017), developing teaching skills enabling the delivery of inclusive services for all abilities (Moorefield-Lang et al, 2016). It means looking closely at how we have addressed issues of race and inequality (Chancellor et al, 2021) and making the effort to learn from colleagues with lived experience (Ndumu and Walker, 2021). It means recognising that there is work to be done (Maestro et al, 2018) and engaging with the wider profession (Moen et al, 2020).…”

“…'dismantle the umbrella term "multiculturalism" and treat as separate entities its constituent components, especially race; make alliances with, and even recruit, faculty with a scholarly interest in race; set aside the faculty-as-expert model of curriculum development and practice in favor of the principles and methods of critical pedagogy; seek inspiration and ideas from other types of organization; and above all, prioritize race as a matter of urgency (just as LIS prioritized technology in the last two decades of the twentieth century)'. (Pawley, 2006: 153) If we are to successfully challenge the orthodoxy and recognise the central part LIS education plays in the (potentially) virtuous circle then recognising the embedded nature of privilege and tackling this at through curriculum development this should develop students' (and our own) abilities in challenging the lack of diversity in the profession (Alajmi and Alshammari, 2020;Chancellor et al, 2021;Singh and Rioux, 2021;Villagran and Hawamdeh, 2020). These recommendations can equally be applied to the British context, where multiculturalism sits within a history of imperialism and colonialism, and decolonisation efforts are widely discussed (Bergan and Harkavy, 2018;Bhambra et al, 2018;Crilly and Everitt, 2021;Jason and Heidi Safia, 2018;Sian, 2019).…”