Introduction
¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 7 This framework has been developed as a tool both theoretical and practical in its orientation, as a guide for developing personal, organizational, institutional, and systems-level knowledge and understanding of the nature of racism, its many manifestations. Racism results in differential, inequitable, and often devastating impacts on communities who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) in the library and information science (LIS) sector, the communities we serve, and beyond. The framework is not intended to be liberatory practice in itself,–an instrument or agent that will abolish racial inequity–but, rather to provide the grounding needed to effect change in thinking, behavior, and practice that will lead to better outcomes for racialized and minoritized populations. Although the LIS sector cannot, on its own, solve the problem of racism in society, it can acknowledge the role it has played in sustaining systems of inequity and oppression of communities of color, and own the responsibility for countering its effects, both historically and today. (Add that Canada and the US are our intended audience).
This draft Framework will certainly resonate strongly with people who already agree with it, but will it connect broadly with all library workers? This document is full of confusing redefinitions of commonly-understood words and concepts. I feel the task force may not have considered how negative this language will feel for many library workers, or for our broader public inside and outside academia. The language also strongly reflects an inner-directed focus rather than a focus on the public good libraries represent and that library workers enable.
The authors, and many readers, will certainly feel that the statements about whiteness, systemic racism, colonialism, imperialism, etc. are their truth, but these highly charged topics do in fact ignite meaningful differences of opinion that are too simply dismissed as “white supremacy culture” (or “internalized racism”). The topics of racism and diversifying our profession are valid, but are they are complex. They are not amenable to moral certainty about the nature of the challenges or the right path forward.
There should also be real concerns about the extent to which psychological reeducation of individual library workers is an appropriate – or legal – goal for any employer. To one who disagrees with the radical shift from ACRL 2012 to this Framework, it feels like moral extortion, like being bullied. It feels the opposite of inclusive.