Introduction

When I began teaching graduate-level library and information sciences (LIS) courses in the areas of diversity and social justice, among the resources I relied upon was Dr. Kathleen de la Peña McCook’s issue of Library Trends published in 2000.¹ This issue, devoted to ethnic diversity in LIS, honored and gave voice to an important part of the LIS landscape: minority communities and minority library professionals. Of particular significance is Sandra Rios Balderrama’s piece in this issue, “This Trend Called Diversity.” As the title implies, Balderrama says that diversity is trendy, and more importantly, it means different things to different people. She states:

“Diversity” is fiery and tame depending on one’s perspective, the context, the issue at hand, and one’s own energy flow for the day. Sometimes the definitions and visualizations are sharp and explicit: racism, white privilege, homophobia, heterosexual privilege, inequity of access, institutional racism, organizational barriers, apologies and reparation, “illegal” aliens, non-English speaking, non-white, non-user, old boys’ network, and old girls’ network. Sometimes the definitions and visualizations are easier on the senses and perhaps more elusive: celebration of difference, internationalism, intellectual diversity, global village, multiculturalism, organizational cultures, pluralism, diversity of work style, and diversity of learning styles. At times the term is simply empty and unfulfilling and has not earned its credibility.

(2000, 195)

She goes on to suggest that in our conversations, some of us speak too strongly and others may be speaking too softly, all of which contributes to cyclical conversations. Cyclical does not imply unproductive, but it does relate directly to Balderamma’s assertion that these conversations are “trendy.” In 2018, we are currently engaged in a trendy phase, exacerbated by our societal and political climate characterized by renewed conversations about diversity, oppression, equity, racism, and social justice.

There are also a variety of factors that have not changed and that push back against the question of “why are we still talking about this?” Among the constants that require us to continue these conversations are things pointed out in “This Trend Called Diversity,” compounded by the following:

• • Our terms and definitions keep changing (Peterson 1999) and semantics often prevent people from having the same conversation.

• • These conversations are uncomfortable and hard to have, and thereby easy to dismiss.

• • New professionals, scholars, and ideas continue to enter the landscape.

• • Our profession remains pathetically nondiverse.

• • The discussions being had are often devoid of context.

• • Diversity rhetoric does not consistently equate to action, nor does it spur lasting change.

Librarianship in the United States has long been a profession characterized by women, specifically white women, though the field was previously dominated by white men (Keer and Carlos 2015). The field continues to not reflect, and perhaps not fully understand, the diverse and dynamic communities it serves (ALA 2012a, 2012b). Our profession may be notoriously white, but our communities are not. In fact, “our communities are increasingly pluralistic and intersectional” (Apple 2006, 61–62), yet they are still considered the “other” and not served in the manner they deserve, with staff and resources that look like them or represent their experiences and information needs. To this end, the American Library Association Diversity Counts report points out that Latinos compose 16.3% of the population, but just 3.1% of credentialed librarians; African Americans compose 12.6% of the population, but just 5.1% of credentialed librarians; Asian and Pacific Islanders compose 5% of the population, but just 2.7% of credentialed librarians; and, Native American / Indigenous people are less than 1% of the population and just 0.2% of credentialed librarians (ALA 2012a, 2012b).

The workforce issue is a more complicated phenomenon that involves issues of recruitment, retention, low wages, and competition for professional positions. Graduate LIS curricula are another dimension of the problem as they may not be reflective of changing society, and are therefore not attractive to potential librarians who don’t see themselves reflected in the profession (which is part of the larger recruitment and retention problem).

Another important dynamic of our cyclical discussions is the content itself; sensitive and/or “taboo” topics such as racism and privilege can...