The Quest for Diversity in Library Staffing: From Awareness to Action

by Jennifer Vinopal

The work of diversity in libraries begins at the crossroad where superiority, inaction, and denial become intolerable. – Sandra Ríos Balderrama, “This Trend Called Diversity”

In Brief: Despite our ongoing quest for diversity and a growing number of initiatives to increase it, the demographics of the professional librarian population haven’t changed in any significant way. We are starkly lacking in diversity based on race and ethnicity (we are overwhelmingly white), age (librarianship is an aging profession), disability, economic status, educational background, gender identity, sexual orientation, and other demographic and identity markers of difference. This lack of diversity should be seen as a signal, an invitation to us to look critically at our culture, our practices, and our assumptions, and investigate what it is about ourselves and our profession that is preventing underrepresented people from being able to, or even wanting to, enter and stay. We need an awareness of how privilege, bias, and the attendant power differentials and oppression play out at the individual and the systemic levels of our profession. And we must consider how these affect the experiences of underrepresented and marginalized people within our dominant (white, heterosexual, cisgender, and patriarchal) culture. In this article I consider the meaning of diversity in librarianship. Then, using the ClimateQUAL Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment as an example, I analyze the potential problems with our data collection and analysis related to diversity and organizational culture. I conclude by suggesting some practical steps for library leadership and by identifying future directions for research.

Why Diversity and What does it Mean?

We often read about the benefits of diversity in organizations. ((For a recent example, see: Page, The Difference.)) The typical corporate “business case for diversity” focuses on the economic benefits of workplace diversity for the company, thereby treating staff from underrepresented groups simply as any other resource acquired and deployed to increase market share. Conversely, our professional library associations affirm a commitment to creating diverse workplaces so that we may better serve diverse user communities, and even support democracy. ((For a critical discussion of libraries, democracy, racial exclusion, and structural oppression, see Honma, “Trippin’ Over the Color Line,” 8.)) For example, the Association of Research Libraries’ Initiative to Recruit a Diverse Workforce mentions better organizational decision-making and problem-solving, as well as the correlation between institutional diversity and customer satisfaction. ((Association of Research Libraries, “Initiative to Recruit a Diverse Workforce (IRDW).”)) The American Library Association’s Policy Manual section on Diversity says, “Libraries can and should play a crucial role in empowering diverse populations for full participation in a democratic society.” ((American Library Association, “ALA Policy Manual, Section B.3 Diversity.”)) The Canadian Library Association’s Statement on Diversity and Inclusion states, “[A] diverse and pluralistic society is central to our country’s identity. Libraries have a responsibility to contribute to a culture that recognizes diversity and fosters social inclusion.” ((Canadian Library Association / Association Canadienne des Bibliothèques, “Canadian Library Association Position Statement on Diversity and Inclusion.”)) The International Federation of Library Association’s IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto recognizes that “[c]ultural and linguistic diversity is the common heritage of humankind and should be cherished and preserved for the benefit of all…Therefore, libraries of all types should reflect, support and promote cultural and linguistic diversity at the international, national, and local levels, and thus work for cross-cultural dialogue and active citizenship.” ((IFLA, “IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto.”)) Not unlike the corporate business case for diversity, library arguments for diversity are usually framed as benefits to the organization and its users. Less frequently do these explanations center on the potential benefits, or recognize the attendant risks to the underrepresented people hired as a result of these efforts.

What do librarians mean when we say “diversity”? ARL’s IRDW and ALA’s Spectrum Scholarship Program focus exclusively on “racial and ethnic diversity.” ((Association of Research Libraries, “Initiative to Recruit a Diverse Workforce (IRDW).”)) However, the ALA Manual’s section,“Diversity,” has a much broader scope, committing to combat discrimination based on “race, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, creed, color, religious background, national origin, language of origin or disability.” ((American Library Association, “ALA Policy Manual, Section B.3 Diversity.”)) The CLA states that “Canada’s libraries recognize and energetically affirm the dignity of those they serve, regardless of heritage, education, beliefs, race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, physical or mental capabilities, or income.” ((Canadian Library Association / Association Canadienne des Bibliothèques, “Canadian Library Association Position Statement on Diversity and Inclusion.”)) IFLA talks about serving a “heterogeneous society” with “complex identities,” and focuses on “cultural and linguistic diversity.” ((IFLA, “IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto.”)) As well, some individual libraries and library schools have included diversity in their strategic plans and created special initiatives to diversify their staff or bring more people from underrepresented groups to the profession. ((Some examples include: Penn State University Libraries, “A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State University Libraries’ Diversity Strategic Plan 2010-2015”; West Virginia University, “WVU Libraries Launches Librarian Diversity Initiative”; Simmons School of Library and Information Science, “Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives.”)) Some are quite specific about what “diversity” means to them and why it’s important, and some are less so. Unless we are clear about what we’re trying to accomplish and why, and unless we’re willing to name and examine the underlying factors that thwart the changes we hope to see, we will ultimately fail.

Despite the growing emphasis on increasing the diversity of library school students and library staff, and despite the significant demographic changes in the United States population, the demographics of the professional librarian population have barely shifted in decades. ((The ALA’s 2007 “Diversity Counts Report,” notes that whereas the racial and ethnic minority population of the United States grew by a combined 152% from 1990-2000, “[d]uring roughly this same period…the number of racial and ethnic minorities receiving accredited MLIS degrees grew by only 4%.” Davis and Hall, “Diversity Counts Report,” 3.)) Our concerns sound remarkably similar to those of Gerhard and Boydston in 1993 who, looking back to affirmative action efforts of the 1970’s and 1980’s, lamented that “[l]ibrarianship has been committed to affirmative action, yet it has been historically difficult to convert that philosophical commitment into activity.” ((Gerhard and Boydston, “A Library Committee on Diversity and Its Role in a Library Diversity Program,” 335.)) ALA’s 2007 “Diversity Counts” report states, “Credentialed librarians are predominantly women, ages 45–54, and white. They are not limited by disability and work full-time.” ((Davis and Hall, “Diversity Counts Report,” 5.)) Comparing the 2009-2010 ALA Community Survey Estimates ((American Library Association, “ALA: Diversity Counts Website.”)) with the 2010 United States Census bureau’s figures ((United States Census Bureau, “Quick Facts, United States. Population Estimates, July 1, 2014.”)) reveals the disparity for race and ethnicity:

Comparison of the 2009-2010 ALA Community Survey Estimates and the 2010 United States Census Bureau estimates

Race/Ethnicity (includes differences in language used)	2009-2010 American Community Survey Estimates (Diversity Counts 2012 Tables)	U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates, 2010
ALA: White U.S. Census: White alone, not Hispanic/Latino	88%	63.7%
ALA: African American U.S. Census: Black	5.2%	12.6%
ALA: Asian-Pacific Islander U.S. Census has two categories	2.7%	Asian     4.8% Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander alone:  0.2%
Native American/Alaskan	0.16%	0.9%
Latino	3.1%	16.3%
Two or more races	0.85%	2.5%

The Association of Research Libraries statistics for 2012-2013 are comparable to the ALA numbers above and underscore the magnitude of the disparity for representation by race and ethnicity in research libraries. ((Association of Research Libraries, “Minority Representation in US ARL University Libraries as of 2012-2013: Taking a Closer Look at the Evidence.”)) These poor numbers are not unique to libraries; the statistics are similar in most institutions of higher education across the United States. The US National Center for Education Statistics states that “[i]n fall 2013, of all full-time faculty in degree-granting postsecondary institutions, 79 percent were White (43 percent were White males and 35 percent were White females), 6 percent were Black, 5 percent were Hispanic, and 10 percent were Asian/Pacific Islander.” ((National Center for Education Statistics, “Fast Facts.”)) The “Diversity Counts” authors state, “In regards to racial and ethnic diversity, the need for both intensified recruitment and retention strategies is evident.” At the same time they observe that “existing LIS minority education and recruitment programs are able to yield just enough new graduates to provide for the replacement of retirees and those leaving the profession prematurely.” ((Davis and Hall, “Diversity Counts Report,” 11, 3.))

We lack other forms of diversity as well, though demographic data for areas other than race and ethnicity are less well tracked in the profession. The “Diversity Counts” authors say “The comparatively low employment of librarians with disabilities is also deserving of attention given the increase between 1990 and 2000 of people self-identifying [on the 2000 United States Census] as having one or more disabilities.” ((Ibid., 3.)) While 19.2% of the population between the ages of 21 and 64 self-identified as having a disability on the 2000 United States Census, according to ALA statistics the percentage of credentialed librarians with disability status was 4% that same year. ((Ibid., United States Census Bureau, “Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF 4) – Sample Data.”)) The authors are also concerned about the high attrition rate of librarians under age 45, which “accounted for 44% of credentialed librarians leaving the work force, [and which] speaks not so much to an inability to effectively recruit individuals to LIS education and practice as to an inability to effectively retain them.” They go on to note that, “some racial and ethnic minority groups, notably African Americans and Latinos, are actually seeing a decrease in the number of credential [sic] librarians under age 45.” ((Ibid., 11.)) While the attrition rates of librarians is a more generalized problem in the profession, it would be well worth examining whether and why staff from underrepresented groups are leaving the profession at even higher rates than others.

The same report acknowledges a vicious cycle that the lack of diversity perpetuates: “[T]he lack of diversity [in libraries] in regards to race and ethnicity, age group, disability, and other dimensions…work [sic] to distance the very communities they seek to attract.” ((Ibid., 3.)) The authors continue:

The persistent lag in diversity in our LIS schools, the number of librarians and library assistants leaving the profession prematurely, the aging of racial and ethnic minority library workers, and the continued under-representation of workers with disabilities, suggests a proportionally less diverse library workforce on the horizon.” ((Ibid., 18.))

We need to ask ourselves why “Diversity Never Happens: The Story of Minority Hiring Doesn’t Seem To Change Much.” ((Kelley, “Diversity Never Happens.” Using the term “minority” to refer to underrepresented racial and ethnic groups is increasingly seen as pejorative, and it is also becoming numerically inaccurate as the United States moves toward becoming a “plurality nation,” where no race or ethnic group is projected to have a numerical majority within the total population. Ferguson, “Minorities: Time to Retire This Outdated Term?” and Colby and Ortman, “Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060,” 13.))

Underlying Factors

In attempting to answer this question, some library literature points to factors beyond just ineffective recruiting strategies. In a brief article in American Libraries magazine, Keith Curry Lance looks at the differences in the levels of racial and ethnic diversity in librarian versus library assistant positions. Comparing the percentage of racial and ethnic subgroups in the US population, he finds that the distribution in library assistant positions is more or less proportional, whereas the distribution in professional librarian positions is not, the latter skewing heavily toward an overrepresentation of white people. ALA’s 2007 “Diversity Counts” report confirms this discrepancy, and calls out academic libraries as particularly problematic: “When looking by types of libraries, the racial distributions are most pronounced in academic libraries. Library assistants in academic libraries have three times as many Latino and twice as many African American staff than their MLS counterparts.” ((Davis and Hall, “Diversity Counts Report,” 14.)) Lance concludes that this is because of a “pipeline issue” related to national disparities in educational attainment between whites and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. He says,

Where a relatively low level of educational attainment is usually required, the racial/ethnic discrepancies between the general adult population, high school graduates, and library assistants are either minimal, or, in the case of Asians/Pacific Islanders, favorable to the group. It is librarian jobs—positions that generally require a graduate degree—that see more troubling discrepancies. ((Lance, “Racial and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Library Workers,” 43.))

Based on the 2003 data tabulations from the United States Census, Lance shows that when one considers just the subset of these groups in the general population that hold graduate degrees, Hispanics, African Americans, and American Indians/Alaskan natives are actually represented proportionally in librarian positions. ((United States Census Bureau, “Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation.”)) Looking at graduate degree holders only, Lance notes “the most underrepresented group, proportionally, is Asians and Pacific Islanders.” ((Lance, “Racial and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Library Workers,” 41. Lance doesn’t say why this is the case.)) Recent United States Census Bureau numbers on educational attainment and ALA statistics on credentialed librarians support Lance’s observations. ((United States Census Bureau, “Current Population Survey (CPS) Data on Educational Attainment”; American Library Association, “ALA: Diversity Counts Website.” Based on the detailed United States Census Bureau CPS tables for 2014, I calculate that the percentages for higher degree attainment (meaning Master’s, Professional, or Doctoral degree) by racial group were 12% for non-Hispanic whites, 18.4% for Asians, 6.5% for Blacks, and 3.8% for Hispanics. (Here I’m using the terminology used by the United States Census Bureau.))

What both Lance and the “Diversity Counts” report are acknowledging is a much larger and more troubling systemic problem negatively affecting the ethnic and racial makeup of the library profession. Research shows that the educational attainment and general life trajectory of individuals is largely a result of the socio-economic status of their parents. A decades-long study of nearly 800 Baltimore children illustrates how hard it is for the children of disadvantaged parents to move out of their income brackets. Karl Alexander, a main researcher on the project, says “Almost none of the children from low-income families made it through college.” ((Rosen, “Study.”)) The library staffing pipeline is rooted in the discrepancies in socioeconomic status based on race and ethnicity, discrepancies which are inherited generationally. Alexander explains, “This view is at odds with the popular ethos that we are makers of our own fortune.” ((Ibid.)) As a 2007 ACRL white paper on diversity acknowledges, “Academic librarianship recruitment history cannot be divorced from the history of education and federal education policy in the United States. Also important to federal education policy history is its relationship to civil rights history.” ((Neely and Peterson, “Achieving Racial and Ethnic Diversity among Academic and Research Librarians: The Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement of Librarians of Color,” 8.)) Library discussions of and initiatives around diversity must recognize the historical and current factors contributing to how our profession is structured and functions.

In addition to the structural pressures that inhibit educational attainment in certain socio-economic, ethnic, or racial groups, there are other insidious factors working against our stated goals of diversity. The dominant culture of our profession, from its foundations to the present day, reinforces itself by normalizing whiteness and other forms of oppression and by marginalizing difference. ((For a recent article on the history of whiteness in the library profession, see Honma, “Trippin’ Over the Color Line.”)) As April Hathcock tweeted recently, “We treat diversity as a prob[lem] to be solved when the prob[lem] to be solved is whiteness in all its forms.” ((Hathcock, “Twitter Post, 8/18/2015.”)) In a recent article, Hathcock provided a definition of whiteness that recognizes other forms of oppression by the dominant (white, heterosexual, cisgender, and patriarchal) culture.

[Whiteness] is a theoretical concept that can extend beyond the realities of racial privilege to a wide range of dominant ideologies based on gender identity, sexual orientation, class, and other categories….it also stands as a marker for the privilege and power that acts to reinforce itself through hegemonic cultural practice that excludes all who are different.” ((Hathcock, “White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS.”))

In their article “Diversity matters? Rethinking Diversity in Libraries,” ShinJoung Yeo and James R. Jacobs suggest that “diversity means little if there is no understanding of how the dominant culture and ideas are articulated within our institutions and our daily library practices.” They continue:

One must ask oneself if it would be possible to really achieve diversity without challenging our racist, homophobic and sexist consciousnesses that are so deeply imbedded that we don’t even recognize them? If we are blind to our unconscious biases, then striving for numerically diverse organizations is building on a foundation of sand. ((Yeo and Jacobs, “Diversity Matters? Rethinking Diversity in Libraries,” 1.))

Unconscious or not, this ignorance of our own biases is willful and difficult to cure: the dominant group’s hold on power and privilege is at risk in any effort to open our eyes and to investigate the underpinnings of our profession’s whiteness and oppression named by Yeo, Jacobs, Hathcock and others.

Recent research confirms the existence of this willful ignorance of bias within the dominant culture and how it plays out in practice. In a study of gender-based microaggressions, Basford et al. note that, while overt sexism may be in decline, “many scholars fear that discrimination is not disappearing but rather has become more subtle in nature[,]”–equally pernicious but less likely to be perceived by those not targeted. They conclude that “women were significantly more likely to perceive workplace gender microaggressions than men….” and “women are more attuned to subtle forms of discrimination than men.” ((Basford, Offermann, and Behrend, “Do You See What I See?,” 345.)) Similarly, in her study of racial microaggressions in academic libraries, Jaena Alabi says,

academic librarians of color noted that they are treated differently than their white peers. Minority academic librarians are also more likely to perceive racial microaggressions directed toward colleagues. However, non-minority librarians are unlikely to report observing racial microaggressions. ((Alabi, “Racial Microaggressions in Academic Libraries: Results of a Survey of Minority and Non-Minority Librarians,” 52.))

Alabi notes as well that “Racism and racial discrimination are seldom discussed explicitly in the LIS literature, despite the presence of works chronicling the experiences of minority librarians.” ((Ibid., 47. See the article for her survey of the scant library literature on racism in academic libraries.)) What the research of Alabi and Basford et al. suggests is a dynamic already well known to people from marginalized groups: individuals from the dominant group have a tendency not to perceive (or to ignore) acts of subtle discrimination by members of their own group against individuals from marginalized groups. Thus there is little incentive to report such experiences to the very members of that dominant group with the potential power to do something about it. When we refuse to recognize our own biases and the biases of others around us, our actions and their repercussions go unnoticed and therefore unexamined.

Measuring Diversity and its Implications

One way that willful ignorance of bias manifests itself is in the ways that organizations measure “diversity” and interpret the results. I will illustrate this by considering the increasingly popular tool used by academic libraries to evaluate their organizational diversity, ClimateQUAL: Organizational Climate and Diversity Assessment, designed at the University of Maryland and now run by the Association of Research Libraries. In this article I use ClimateQUAL as a means to examine the ways that collective ignorance of the dominant group to bias and unexamined perpetuation of privilege and oppression can affect how libraries interpret the data that we collect and the way that we set priorities based on it. ClimateQUAL is described on its website as “an assessment of library staff perceptions concerning (a) their library’s commitment to the principles of diversity, (b) organizational policies and procedures, and (c) staff attitudes.” ((ClimateQUAL, “About: What Is ClimateQUAL?” (emphasis mine). I’m not sure what “principles of diversity” they are referring to, and they don’t provide a link to a source, but their Core Scales page does describe the different kinds of diversity that are covered by the instrument. These include “surface diversity” (related to differences based on external characteristics) and “deep diversity” (related to differences based on internal characteristics like values, interests, competencies, personality, beliefs, and assumptions). These two types of diversity are related, and ClimateQUAL measures both.)) The theory on which the survey is based suggests that:

[a] healthy organization is defined as one in which employees feel empowered and believe that the organization values diversity. It is an organization in which the policies, practices, and procedures are administered fairly and employees believe that they are treated fairly. ((ClimateQUAL, “ClimateQUAL FAQs: Survey Theory and Methodology.” (emphasis mine).))

ClimateQUAL is clearly designed and described as a measure of staff perceptions about the organization’s climate, including what they believe and how they feel about the organization’s fairness and how it values diversity. Because of its focus on perceptions about what the organization values, ClimateQUAL can be a powerful tool for revealing and understanding fairness and bias within an organization. However, for a profession greatly lacking in diversity, relying on staff perceptions of demographic diversity and fairness as a proxy for organizational health might be quite problematic if not handled in an extremely thoughtful and well-informed way. A look at relevant research on race from outside the library literature will make it clear why this is the  case.

As the above-cited statistics show, the library profession is overwhelmingly white. Research studies have shown that, while white people say they like diversity, election and census trends suggest otherwise. A Pew study found that while the majority of people in the United States profess a desire to live in racially, politically, religiously, and socioeconomically diverse communities, residential segregation belies their stated preference. ((Pew Research Center, “Americans Say They Like Diverse Communities; Election, Census Trends Suggest Otherwise.”)) We know that choice is hardly the reason why most people of color live where they do. As far as housing is concerned, choice in location is still a privilege primarily enjoyed by white people. ((Madrigal, “The Racist Housing Policy That Made Your Neighborhood.”)) The Pew data suggest that “when the subject is community diversity, Americans talk one way but behave another.” ((Pew Research Center, “Americans Say They Like Diverse Communities; Election, Census Trends Suggest Otherwise.”)) Research also shows that white people’s tolerance for residential racial diversity is much lower than that of Blacks. In “Does Race Matter in Neighborhood Preferences? Results from a Video Experiment” Krysan et al. write:

For the most part studies of residential preferences find that whites are willing to live with only a handful of African American neighbors (some put the figure at around 20 percent), while African Americans are open to quite a diverse range of neighborhoods, though a “50-50” neighborhood is routinely identified as the most attractive… ((Krysan et al., “Does Race Matter in Neighborhood Preferences?,” 2.))

While this research did not study the preferences of whites for workplace diversity, we can imagine that many of the same dynamics and biases play out in white-dominated workplaces–even those that profess a desire for diversity. How much diversity is enough to make staff in the dominant culture, race, ethnicity, sexual identity, etc. feel like the workplace has achieved an acceptable amount of, but not too much diversity? And how much “valuing diversity” does the organization need to demonstrate in order for staff from the dominant culture to perceive it as sufficient, regardless of whether or not staff from marginalized groups would consider it enough?

These questions and the research that underlies them should inspire us to think more carefully about how we interpret our ClimateQUAL results. ClimateQUAL respondents are asked to react on a 7-point scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree, to phrases such as:

• The race of a team/division member does NOT affect how they are valued on this team/division.
• The support from supervisors that team/division members receive does NOT differ as a function of team/division members’ race.
• The support from supervisors that team/division members receive does NOT differ as a function of team/division members’ sexual orientation. ((ClimateQUAL, “ClimateQUAL Sample Questions.”))

The survey instrument is designed to elicit individuals’ perceptions about their own relationship to the organization. Yet the way these question are worded–using the generic “a team/division member” and “they,” rather than “your race/sexual orientation” and “you”–thereby leaves the possibility open for respondents to answer based on their perceptions of how staff of other races, sexual orientation, gender, etc. are valued and supported in the organization. If your organization is between 80-90% white (a fair assumption based on ALA and ARL statistics), the overwhelming majority of the organization’s answers to questions about race will be based on white people’s perceptions and reflect a white cultural perspective. (The same holds for questions about other demographic categories vis-à-vis the dominant culture.) Both the popular press and research on diversity attest to the fact that white people are unlikely to understand the lived experience of people of color and do not recognize racial bias when it occurs. ((Starr, “10 Things Black People Fear That White People Don’t (Or Don’t Nearly as Much).”)) As Jaena Alabi noted, “non-minority librarians are unlikely to report observing racial microaggressions” even though “minority” librarians are, in fact, experiencing them. ((Alabi, “Racial Microaggressions in Academic Libraries: Results of a Survey of Minority and Non-Minority Librarians,” 52.)) Thus, in an overwhelmingly white (and heterosexual, cisgender, and patriarchal) organization, it is important to recognize that the data we collect represents primarily the worldview of the dominant culture and will be shaped by its limitations and biases.

The ways that the ClimateQUAL results are reported could potentially compound the problem. The results of an organization’s ClimateQUAL assessment can be evaluated in various ways. For example, organizations may compare results to their own own results from previous years’ assessments, or organizations may compare results to those of peer institutions that have also administered the survey. Comparing a library’s own results from survey to survey, it’s impossible to know, for example, if an improvement in score is a result of actual increased support for diversity within the organization, or simply the demographic majority staff’s increasing comfort with the (likely biased) organizational culture they already have. As well, a common way to review ClimateQUAL results is to look at a library’s average scores on the various rubrics. Focusing data analysis at the organizational level obscures dynamics happening within organizational subgroups, including minority identity groups. (This problem can be mitigated by further analysis, as discussed below.) Ironically, the research cited above suggests that because of the dominant culture’s willful ignorance of bias, the less diverse the organization, the more satisfied the staff may be with their library’s current support for diversity, no matter how inadequate it is. As well, the ClimateQUAL site explains that comparing a library’s results with those of peer institutions “provides feedback from the survey that is grounded in a baseline from the libraries that have already participated.” ((ClimateQUAL, “ClimateQUAL: Benefits of Participation.”)) However, if other institutions are having the same biases in their results as described above, comparison among them is unlikely to tell us anything useful about our own biased results.

In reviewing ClimateQUAL survey results, we in the dominant culture are also less likely to recognize the built-in bias described above because of confirmation bias, “the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s beliefs or hypotheses.” ((Wikipedia contributors, “Confirmation Bias.”)) If we feel like we’re doing well on diversity and we believe our organization is fair and just (as it may well be for staff in the dominant culture), of course our diversity results will look pretty darn good to us. Why question them? Instead of falling prey to confirmation bias, it is possible instead to use the results of ClimateQUAL to reveal some of our unconscious or implicit biases. In addition to the perception questions, at the end of the survey ClimateQUAL asks respondents to voluntarily provide demographic information such as work status, race, religion, age, disability status, sex,  sexual orientation, and gender identification. Although some of these  questions are asked in problematic ways, with them we are able to contrast the organization’s demographic data with its scores for staff perceptions of its commitment to the principles of diversity. (One of the most disturbing demographic questions mixes options for sexual orientation and gender identification in a single question and allows the user to choose only one or not respond at all, thereby forcing some respondents to erase a part of their self identity. This is a good example of a microaggression.) If an organization’s perceived level of diversity fairness is quite high but the actual demographic diversity of the organization is low, that is one clue that the results may be skewed by the significant underrepresentation of the very people who would notice and experience bias and discrimination in the organization. As well, we can compare the data for individual demographic groups to see if there are discrepancies in various identity groups’ perceptions of the organization’s climate for diversity based on demographic characteristics. ((In order to maintain respondent anonymity, the instrument requires that you have enough respondents in each demographic category in order to break the data down in this way. If there aren’t enough respondents from the already-marginalized groups in question, this method is unavailable to us and the scant voices within these groups will be further marginalized. ClimateQUAL, “ClimateQUAL FAQs: Survey Theory and Methodology.”)) For example, what if the comparison revealed that white people (or heterosexual people) think we’re doing well on diversity fairness whereas black people (or gay people) say they perceive discrimination? Looked at this way, the ClimateQUAL data could provide us with a rare opportunity to experience organizational bias awareness, the first step toward addressing discrimination in our organizations.

A Path Toward Awareness and Action

There is a large and rich body of research on workplace diversity, investigating questions such as self and group identity and stigma, power relations between groups, social networks, conflict and problem solving, and the emotional toll of being from a marginalized group in a workplace designed for and around the needs of dominant, white culture. ((For an introduction to the wide variety of ways to investigate diversity in the workplace, see Roberson, The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work.)) The research of Dobbin and Kalev provides a cautionary note for us in our quest for diversity. In their article on corporate diversity programs from the 1960s to the present, they acknowledge the harm done in diversifying without dismantling power differentials: “[E]vidence to date suggests that bureaucratic hiring and promotion systems may have done more harm than good, institutionalizing patterns of inequality rather than challenging them.” ((Dobbin and Kalev, “The Origins and Effects of Corporate Diversity Programs,” 273.)) They note that programs to increase gender and racial diversity had mixed success, and that even as some programs were successful, women and members of other underrepresented groups were often denied access to the management training that would have helped them move up in the management structure. They observed,

innovations designed to quash managerial bias have been broadly ineffective. Bureaucratic practices designed to eliminate managerial discretion from the hiring and promotion process have not led to increases in diversity; nor have diversity training programs designed to make managers aware of their own unconscious biases; neither have diversity performance evaluations that give managers feedback and career incentives to improve diversity. ((Ibid., 274-275.))

However the authors do note that some interventions were actually successful, including making managers responsible for advancing diversity and for recruiting women and people from other underrepresented groups. ((Ibid., 256.))

In its 2012 Diversity Standards: Cultural Competency for Academic Libraries, ACRL acknowledges that moving from ignorance to awareness and then to positive action is a learning process. “To achieve diversity in substance as well as in form, libraries have to open their arms to all perspectives and experiences. That requires competency in matters of cultural pluralism that are not intuitive and must be learned, like any other essential skill.” ((Association of College & Research Libraries, “Diversity Standards: Cultural Competency for Academic Libraries (2012).”)) Research indicates the effectiveness of bias awareness interventions as a first step to developing insight into how implicit biases affect negative workplace behavior. In their article on gender bias and bias literacy, Molly Carnes et al. show how becoming conscious of one’s own bias is a prerequisite for taking action to correct it: “Scholars in learning theory and organizational change converge on the importance of being able to articulate tacit knowledge to bring it into consciousness.” ((Carnes et al., “Promoting Institutional Change Through Bias Literacy,” 64.)) The results of their research-based bias awareness interventions at the University of Wisconsin-Madison suggest that this kind of approach to “consciousness raising” can be effective: “This broad range of research literature presents consistent advice regarding the steps necessary to overcome bias and produce intentional behavioral change.” ((Ibid., 65.)) These conclusions are supported by the research of Ferguson and Porter who looked at studies of intergroup bias and prejudice reduction.

The importance of reducing implicit bias in the workplace cannot be overstated. Implicit intergroup bias has far-reaching negative effects in many organizational domains, including, but not limited to, selection, retention (including compensation and promotion issues), teams-related issues, general work environment, and worker self-esteem and well-being…. In other words, fostering harmonious intergroup interactions is at the crux of producing the best possible outcomes in organizational productivity, organizational climate, and social justice.” ((Ferguson and Porter, “An Examination of Categorization Processes in Organizations: The Root of Intergroup Bias and a Route to Prejudice Reduction,” 105.))

A widely used instrument in social psychology for raising awareness of individual bias is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which is freely available on the website of Project Implicit, an organization that promotes research on implicit social cognition. ((Project Implicit, “Project Implicit: Implicit Association Tests.”)) Project Implicit’s website explains that “The IAT measures the strength of associations between concepts (e.g., black people, gay people) and evaluations (e.g., good, bad) or stereotypes (e.g., athletic, clumsy).” They continue, “Implicit attitudes are positive and negative evaluations that occur outside of our conscious awareness and control.” ((Project Implicit, “Project Implicit: FAQs.”)) Like Carnes et al.’s conclusions, Project Implicit contends that through awareness and vigilance, implicit preferences and biases can be changed. “Research shows that implicit preferences are quite malleable so it is possible to manage and change them if you want to.” ((Ibid.)) In an article on bias in library collection development, Brian Quinn suggests the Implicit Association Test as a tool for selectors to become more aware of biases in collecting, as well as other tools such as self-paced online tutorials, guest lectures, and brown-bag discussions. ((Quinn, “Collection Development and the Psychology of Bias,” 297.))

While a crucial step, consciousness raising and addressing bias at the individual level must then be followed by critical analysis of the assumptions, behaviors, processes, and structures that undergird our profession. Creating a culture of ongoing bias awareness, challenging individual and structural discrimination, and building organizations that truly value diversity also require leaders who are awake to the biases and oppression that are foundational to our political and socio-economic systems and to our profession. While organizational culture rests in the collective hands of all staff, library leadership controls the money, resources, and power needed to transform an organization’s strategic direction and policy. Leaders can shape the organization’s values, and instigate change by setting strategic priorities, allocating staff time for learning opportunities (such as bias awareness), and encouraging critical inquiry by modeling the behavior we want to see. ((A recent McKinsey Quarterly article underscored the importance of leadership in addressing the problem of gender equity in corporations. See Barton, Devillard, and Hazlewood, “Gender Equality.”)) Leaders can encourage and empower us to engage with essential questions like “In what way do I benefit from and perpetuate the status quo and how can I disrupt it?” and “How is valuing difference foundational to the mission of our profession?” ((American Library Association, “Core Values of Librarianship.”)) Sandra Balderrama says,

We must be able to articulate why we in our profession would want someone distinct from us to work with us, not for us. To work alongside us, not beneath us. To create with us, not duplicate us. To reciprocate with us, not assimilate to us. To mentor us, not intimidate us. To be an equal, not a box in the organizational hierarchy. To be a colleague. ((Balderrama, “This Trend Called Diversity,” 198.))

In a 2014 conference paper on women in leadership, Chris Bourg cautioned library staff interested in social justice issues but reluctant to take on leadership positions, that avoiding them “might mean that you are leaving the leadership of our profession in the hands of those who aren’t concerned about those things…” ((Bourg, “Mentors, Gender, Reluctance.”)) We need socially engaged library leaders who will push us beyond the next diversity initiative toward examinations of privilege, bias, power, structural discrimination, and institutional oppression, and how they further marginalize and drive away the very people we claim we want to include.

Brass Tacks for Library Leaders

Organizations take their cues from their leaders. If our enthusiasm for diversity isn’t backed up by concrete actions, our expressions of concern about it ring hollow. Here are a few specific steps that high-level library leaders must take if we are to make our organizations and our profession inclusive, open to difference, and diverse. The ideas listed below aren’t new; many others have already suggested them. Library leaders are in a position to prioritize them and make them happen.

Bias Awareness and Valuing Difference

Create opportunities in the organization to raise awareness of implicit bias, discuss it, and take steps to reduce it. Research supports the importance of openly recognizing difference vs. color- or gender-blindness (or other kinds of willful ignorance to recognize difference). Ferguson and Porter conclude that “a multicultural ideology is more beneficial than a colorblind ideology for both majority groups and minority groups, and for multiple intergroup and work-related outcomes.” ((They define multiculturalism as “an ideology that promotes the recognition and acceptance of group differences.” Ferguson and Porter, “An Examination of Categorization Processes in Organizations: The Root of Intergroup Bias and a Route to Prejudice Reduction,” 108-109. For a critique of the term “multicultural” see Honma, “Trippin’ Over the Color Line.”)) Create opportunities for staff to have meaningful conversations about bias and discrimination, organizational climate, culture, and diversity.

Name the Problem

Don’t disguise the issues or use euphemisms. In research under way to evaluate library diversity plans, Ione Damasco notes that, while the word “inclusion” was frequently used, none of the plans included words such as “racism,” “anti-racist,” “whiteness,” “white privilege,” “privilege,” or “racial justice.” She continues, “We have to name our problems before we can fix them….our inability to articulate these issues in our formal documents might reflect our difficulties in overcoming the lack of diversity in our field.” ((Damasco, “The Practice of Core Values: Academic Library Diversity Plans and the ACRL Diversity Standards.”)) We need to learn not just to see and name bias in ourselves and in the world around us, but to understand the underlying dynamics that perpetuate them and speak openly about them.

Mission and Follow-through

Make diversity and social justice a genuine and regular part of the organization’s work. Rather than just paying lip service to the concept of diversity, include diversity initiatives in the library’s strategic plan and then make time and provide support for staff to accomplish them. Create a standalone diversity plan. Damasco’s research shows that of 1500+ 4-year colleges and universities libraries surveyed, only 1.4% (22) had independent diversity plans. As a profession we can’t legitimately say that we believe in diversity if only a miniscule percentage of our libraries have plans to address it. ((Ibid.))

Data Collection

Think critically about the data collection tools your organization employs, the data gathered, and how you make sense of it. In addition to knowing what kind of information the tools are designed to elicit and how they do so, it is also crucial to understand what biases we bring to our interpretation of the data, and to think about what data is missing and why. Consider how different types of data might help expose bias in interpretation, for example, as noted above, by considering what it might mean to have a high ClimateQUAL score for perceived level of diversity fairness when the actual demographic diversity of the organization is low.

Recruiting

For all but the highest-level library positions, for which recruiting firms may be engaged, we typically post job ads on websites and listservs and then encourage library staff to promote the position through their own networks. This reliance on personal networks, which tend to lack diversity, can serve to perpetuate demographically homogeneous workplaces. ((Thanks to Ian Beilin for suggesting this problem.)) Instead, go out and recruit job candidates from among the communities you wish to include in your organization. Send staff to attend conferences or meetings that individuals from underrepresented groups attend and encourage them to think of your organization as a place that would welcome their applications. Within your own organizations, recruit staff who are already credentialed but who, for whatever reason, haven’t made their way into professional positions. ((Thanks to Jill Conte for providing me with this insight.))

Mentoring

Devise targeted mentoring and professional development strategies that encourage, support, and develop all staff in your organization. In her article on diversity initiatives in the profession, April Hathcock strongly recommends mentoring early-career librarians from underrepresented groups in order to better support them as they rise in the profession. She specifically notes the importance of “[helping] library workers new to the profession to navigate the culture of whiteness in the profession at large and within your specific place of work.” ((Hathcock, “White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS.”)) We can also encourage non-credentialed staff already working in our libraries to pursue careers as library professionals and mentor them as they progress. ((Recognizing the low pay of non-credentialed library staff and the cost of graduate school, these efforts will be most successful if financial support is provided in addition to mentoring.))

Pay for Work

All staff, including interns, should be fairly compensated for their work. As Angela Galvan explains, “only students with access to money can afford to take an unpaid internship…insuring the pool of well-qualified academic librarians skews white and middle class.” ((Galvan, “Soliciting Performance, Hiding Bias.”)) Leaders in a growing number of library organizations are rejecting unpaid internships. Recent examples include MIT Libraries, which will now pay all interns, and the Digital Library Federation, which no longer advertises non-paying internships. ((For a statement about MIT’s new paid internship policy, see Bourg, “The Radicalism Is Coming from inside the Library.”))

Future Directions for Research

There is much research still to be done on issues related to the lack of diversity in librarianship and on how to recognize and dismantle the privilege and whiteness that are at the heart of our culture. Here are just a few areas that need further inquiry:

• Data on Diversity: It’s much easier to write about the lack of racial and ethnic diversity in libraries than about other kinds of diversity because we lack meaningful demographic data for and research on other identity groups. What kinds of data might we gather to more fully understand the landscape, while being respectful of the many reasons why people from certain identity groups may not want to share personal information?
• Organizational Processes: What are effective ways to incorporate bias awareness into our organizational and professional development? What kinds of processes or structures might help push an organization toward a better understanding of privilege and discrimination, and an appreciation for cultural and demographic difference?
• Attrition and Avoidance: The ALA’s research suggests that staff from underrepresented groups are leaving the profession at even higher rates than others. What reasons do departing staff give for leaving the profession? Are these attrition rates higher than in comparable professions? Does pay influence the decision by members of underrepresented groups to leave the profession or to avoid it completely?
• Leadership: Are there leadership styles or methods that can help promote organizational awareness of bias and discrimination and to develop actions to address them? How can leaders help managers and supervisors turn this awareness info positive change within their departments? How can leaders maintain a focus on these issues and hold themselves and the organization accountable, even while tending to all the other work of the organization?

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank April Hathcock and Jill Conte for their engaging and challenging conversations during the research process and their helpful comments and editing on drafts of this article. I’m especially grateful for Jill’s patient and careful reading and her willingness to question my assumptions and point out my own biases in my writing. A special thank you to Ian Beilin, my In The Library With The Lead Pipe Internal Peer Reviewer, who asked difficult and important questions, and pushed me to clarify my arguments and polish my prose. Finally, my gratitude to Lead Pipe editors Erin Dorney and Ellie Collier for their thoughtful feedback throughout the peer review process.

Works Cited

Alabi, Jaena. “Racial Microaggressions in Academic Libraries: Results of a Survey of Minority and Non-Minority Librarians.” The Journal of Academic Librarianship 41 (2015): 47–53. https://www.atla.com/Members/programs/libtools/Documents/Alabi_Racial%20Microagressions%20in%20Academic%20Libraries.pdf .

American Library Association. “ALA Policy Manual, Section B.3 Diversity.” American Library Association, Accessed July 27, 2015. http://www.ala.org/aboutala/governance/policymanual/updatedpolicymanual/section2/diversity .

———. “Core Values of Librarianship.” American Library Association, June 29, 2004. http://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/statementspols/corevalues .

———. “ALA: Diversity Counts Website.” American Library Association. Accessed July 28, 2015. http://www.ala.org/offices/diversity/diversitycounts/divcounts.

Association of College & Research Libraries. “Diversity Standards: Cultural Competency for Academic Libraries (2012).” Association of College & Research Libraries (ACRL), 2012. http://www.ala.org/acrl/standards/diversity .

Association of Research Libraries. “Initiative to Recruit a Diverse Workforce (IRDW).” Association of Research Libraries. Accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.arl.org/leadership-recruitment/diversity-recruitment/initiative-to-recruit-a-diverse-workforce-irdw#.VbQLDRNVikp .

———. “Minority Representation in US ARL University Libraries as of 2012-2013: Taking a Closer Look at the Evidence.” Association of Research Libraries. Accessed July 31, 2015. http://libraryassessment.org/bm~doc/24morrisposter.pdf .

Balderrama, Sandra Ríos. “This Trend Called Diversity.” Library Trends 49, no. 1 (2000): 194–214. http://hdl.handle.net/2142/8331 .

Barton, Dominic, Sandrine Devillard, and Judith Hazlewood. “Gender Equality: Taking Stock of Where We Are – Why Are Women Still Underrepresented at Every Level of Today’s Corporations?” McKinsey Quarterly, September 2015. http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/gender_equality_Taking_stock_of_where_we_are .

Basford, Tessa E., Lynn R. Offermann, and Tara S. Behrend. “Do You See What I See? Perceptions of Gender Microaggressions in the Workplace.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 38, no. 3 (September 1, 2014): 340–49. http://pwq.sagepub.com/content/38/3/340  doi:10.1177/0361684313511420 .

Bourg, Chris. “Mentors, Gender, Reluctance: Notes from Taiga Panel on Leadership at ER&L.” Feral Librarian, March 24, 2014. https://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2014/03/24/mentors-gender-reluctance-notes-from-taiga-panel-on-leadership-at-erl/ .

———. “The Radicalism Is Coming from inside the Library.” Feral Librarian. Accessed December 21, 2015. https://chrisbourg.wordpress.com/2015/12/10/the-radicalism-is-coming-from-inside-the-library/ .

Canadian Library Association / Association Canadienne des Bibliothèques. “Canadian Library Association Position Statement on Diversity and Inclusion.” Canadian Library Association / Association Canadienne Des Bibliothèques. Accessed July 27, 2015. http://www.cla.ca/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Position_Statements&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4713  .

Carnes, Molly, Patricia G. Devine, Carol Isaac, Linda Baier Manwell, Cecelia E. Ford, Angela Byars-Winston, Eve Fine, and Jennifer Sheridan. “Promoting Institutional Change Through Bias Literacy.” Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 5, no. 2 (2012): 63–77. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3399596/ doi:10.1037/a0028128 .

ClimateQUAL. “About: What Is ClimateQUAL?” ClimateQUAL. Accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.climatequal.org/about .

———. “ClimateQUAL: Benefits of Participation.” ClimateQUAL. Accessed August 8, 2015. http://www.climatequal.org/about/benefits .

———. “ClimateQUAL Sample Questions.” ClimateQUAL. Accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.climatequal.org/about/concepts/sample .

———. “ClimateQUAL FAQs: Survey Theory and Methodology.” ClimateQUAL. Accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.climatequal.org/about/faq .

Colby, Sandra L., and Jennifer M. Ortman. “Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060.” Current Population Reports. Washington, D.C.: United States Census Bureau, March 2015. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-tps16.html .

“Confirmation Bias.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, July 19, 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias .

Davis, Denise M., and Tracie Hall. “Diversity Counts Report.” Arlington, VA: ALA Office for Research & Statistics, ALA Office for Diversity and decision Demographics, January 2007. http://www.ala.org/offices/files/diversity/diversitycounts/diversitycounts_rev0.pdf.

Damasco, Ione. “The Practice of Core Values: Academic Library Diversity Plans and the ACRL Diversity Standards.” presented at the ACRL/NY Symposium, Baruch College, New York City, December 4, 2015.

Dobbin, Frank, and Alexandra Kalev. “The Origins and Effects of Corporate Diversity Programs.” In The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, 253–81. Oxford Library of Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199736355 DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.001.0001

Ferguson, Hope E. “Minorities: Time to Retire This Outdated Term?” The Root, July 28, 2014. http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2014/07/minorities_time_to_retire_this_outdated_term.html .

Ferguson, Melissa J., and Shanette C. Porter. “An Examination of Categorization Processes in Organizations: The Root of Intergroup Bias and a Route to Prejudice Reduction.” In The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work. Oxford Handbooks Online. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199736355 DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.013.0006 .

Galvan, Angela. “Soliciting Performance, Hiding Bias: Whiteness and Librarianship.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe, June 3, 2015. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/soliciting-performance-hiding-bias-whiteness-and-librarianship/.

Gerhard, Kristin H., and Jeanne M. K. Boydston. “A Library Committee on Diversity and Its Role in a Library Diversity Program.” College & Research Libraries 54, no. 4 (July 1993): 335–43. http://crl.acrl.org/content/54/4/335.full.pdf+html .

Hathcock, April M. “Twitter Post, 8/18/2015,” August 18, 2015.

———. “White Librarianship in Blackface: Diversity Initiatives in LIS.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe, October 7, 2015. https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2015/lis-diversity/.

Honma, Todd. “Trippin’ Over the Color Line: The Invisibility of Race in Library and Information Studies.” InterActions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies 1, no. 2 (June 21, 2005). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4nj0w1mp .

IFLA. “IFLA/UNESCO Multicultural Library Manifesto.” International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions. Accessed July 27, 2015. http://www.ifla.org/node/8976.

Kelley, Michael. “Diversity Never Happens: The Story of Minority Hiring Doesn’t Seem To Change Much | Editorial.” Library Journal. Accessed July 25, 2015. http://lj.libraryjournal.com/2013/02/opinion/editorial/diversity-never-happens-the-story-of-minority-hiring-doesnt-seem-to-change-much/ .

Krysan, Maria, Mick P. Couper, Reynolds Farley, and Tyrone Forman. “Does Race Matter in Neighborhood Preferences? Results from a Video Experiment.” American Journal of Sociology 115, no. 2 (September 2009): 527–59. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3704191/ .

Lance, Keith Curry. “Racial and Ethnic Diversity of U.S. Library Workers.” American Libraries, May 2005. http://www.lrs.org/documents/workforce/Racial_and_Ethnic.pdf .

Madrigal, Alexis C. “The Racist Housing Policy That Made Your Neighborhood.” The Atlantic, May 22, 2014. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/.

National Center for Education Statistics. “Fast Facts.” Accessed September 18, 2015. http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=61 .

Neely, Theresa Y., and Lorna Peterson. “Achieving Racial and Ethnic Diversity among Academic and Research Librarians: The Recruitment, Retention, and Advancement of Librarians of Color.” ACRL Board of Directors Diversity Task Force, July 2007. http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/ACRL_AchievingRacial.pdf .

Page, Scott E. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8757.html .

Penn State University Libraries. “A Framework to Foster Diversity at Penn State University Libraries’ Diversity Strategic Plan 2010-2015.” Penn State University. Accessed July 30, 2015. http://equity.psu.edu/updates-10-15/pdf/academic_frmwrkplan/framework_plan/Univ_Lib_plan_10_15.pdf.

Pew Research Center. “Americans Say They Like Diverse Communities; Election, Census Trends Suggest Otherwise.” Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. Accessed July 25, 2015. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/12/02/americans-say-they-like-diverse-communities-election-census-trends-suggest-otherwise/.

Project Implicit. “Project Implicit: FAQs.” Accessed September 19, 2015. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/faqs.html.

———. “Project Implicit: Implicit Association Tests.” Project Implicit. Accessed August 4, 2015. https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/.

Quinn, Brian. “Collection Development and the Psychology of Bias.” The Library Quarterly 82, no. 3 (July 2012): 277–304. doi:10.1086/665933 . http://www.jstor.org/stable/info/10.1086/665933 .

Roberson, Quinetta M., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199736355  DOI:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199736355.001.0001

Rosen, Jill. “Study: Children’s Life Trajectories Largely Determined by Family They Are Born into.” The Hub, June 2, 2014. http://hub.jhu.edu/2014/06/02/karl-alexander-long-shadow-research .

Simmons School of Library and Information Science. “Diversity and Inclusion Initiatives.” Simmons College. Accessed July 30, 2015. https://www.simmons.edu/academics/schools/school-of-library-and-information-science/about/initiatives/diversity-initiatives.

Starr, Terrell Jermaine. “10 Things Black People Fear That White People Don’t (Or Don’t Nearly as Much).” Alternet, March 16, 2015. http://www.salon.com/2015/03/18/10_things_black_people_fear_that_white_people_simply_dont_have_to_partner/.

Unites States Census Bureau, Data Integration Division. “Current Population Survey (CPS) Data on Educational Attainment.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed August 2, 2015. http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/index.html .

United States Census Bureau. “Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Tabulation.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed January 7, 2016. https://www.census.gov/people/eeotabulation/about/page_c.html .

United States Census Bureau. “Profile of Selected Social Characteristics: 2000 Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF 4) – Sample Data.” American FactFinder. Accessed August 13, 2015. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SF4_DP2&prodType=table .

United States Census Bureau. “Quick Facts, United States. Population Estimates, July 1, 2014.” United States Census Bureau. Accessed December 16, 2015. http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045214/00 .

West Virginia University. “WVU Libraries Launches Librarian Diversity Initiative.” WVUToday. Accessed July 30, 2015. http://wvutoday.wvu.edu/n/2015/07/22/wvu-libraries-launches-librarian-diversity-initiative .

Wikipedia contributors. “Confirmation Bias.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confirmation_bias&oldid=672196556 .

Yancy, George, and Paul Gilroy. “What ‘Black Lives’ Means in Britain.” Opinionator: The Stone, October 1, 2015. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/paul-gilroy-what-black-means-in-britain/ .

Yeo, ShinJoung, and James R. Jacobs. “Diversity Matters? Rethinking Diversity in Libraries.” Counterpoise 9, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 5–8. http://freegovinfo.info/files/diversity_counterpoise.pdf .