Policies
Patron Conduct Policy
Photographic, Video, and Audio Recording Policy
Reflection Room Shared Use Guidelines
Sponsorship Requests
Volunteer Policy
Library Statements
Sensitive Content Statement
The items in the Digital Collections of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Library contain materials which represent or depict sensitive topics or were written from perspectives using outdated or biased language. The Library condemns discrimination and hatred on any grounds. As a research library that supports the mission and values of this land grant institution, it is incumbent upon the University Library to preserve, describe, and provide access to materials to accurately document our past, support learning about it, and effect change in the present. In accordance with the American Library Association’s Freedom to Read statement, we do not censor our materials or prevent patrons from accessing them.
If you have questions regarding this statement or any content in the Library’s digital collections, please contact digitalcollections@lists.illinois.edu.
Statement on Potentially Harmful Language in Library Catalog
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library strives to describe our collections in a way that is inclusive and respectful of the communities we serve, in accordance with the University’s and the Library’s strategic plans .
While we follow national and international metadata standards when describing our collections, some terms in these standards may not always be in accord with our efforts toward diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). In addition, description is a product of the time in which it is created, and some of our historical resources may have been described employing language and values that are not consistent with current best practices at the University of Illinois Library.
We are committed to the ongoing work of creating and updating our cataloging and metadata practices to reflect the Library’s values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
Our practice on cataloging
When creating and reviewing catalog and metadata records in all library systems and services, we honor and adhere to the Cataloguing Code of Ethics. The Cataloging and Metadata Working Group continues to monitor and engage with emerging developments for DEIA-related best practices and to implement appropriate changes to our cataloging and metadata practices.
Our practice on working with potentially harmful language in existing metadata
The Cataloging and Metadata Working Group has already taken the first action of changing certain potentially harmful terms in existing metadata. We recognize that maintaining updated and accurate descriptive metadata is an ongoing process and we will continue to actively identify potentially harmful terms and language and revise them with inclusive and respectful terms.
Review Procedures for Removing Suggested Harmful Language
The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library accepts suggestions from users for any potentially harmful language found in library catalog records. The Library will review all user suggestions following procedures established based on three principles:
- Subject terms in the library catalog should use inclusive and respectful language.
- Alternative terms should be accepted and used widely in cultural heritage institutions, such as archives, museums, and libraries, to describe their collections.
- The review process should be completed in a timely manner.
Suggestions for removal or change of potentially harmful language should be submitted to the CAPT Catalog and Metadata Working Group (CMWG) for review. CAPT CMWG will review the submitted suggestion and conduct additional inquiry as necessary into the potentially harmful language and suggested alternative language. If CAPT CMWG determines a change is necessary, it will communicate the acceptance of the suggestion to the requestor and begin the process of executing the change. If the suggestion is rejected, CAPT CMWG will inform the requestor, along with providing a detailed explanation of why the suggestion was rejected. The user may either resubmit to CAPT CMWG with additional information as requested or appeal the decision to CAPT, as appropriate. CAPT may involve or consult with the Library’s Administrative Council as necessary.
Some potential reasons a suggested change may be rejected include:
- The original term and the substitute term are not equivalent (user can resubmit with new substitute term).
- The substitute term is also harmful (user can resubmit with new substitute term).
- The substitute term is not specific or clear enough (user can resubmit with a new term).
- The issue was with inaccuracies/misrepresentations in the specific catalog record/s cited and not a broader issue (Library staff will re-catalog items; user can resubmit with additional examples if found).
- Unclear statement of justification for why this is a harmful term (user can resubmit with a clearer explanation).
- References supporting the use of the substitute are not sufficient (user can resubmit with better references).
- Term is not found to be widely used in other cultural heritage institutions to describe their collections (user can resubmit to supply evidence to the contrary).
CMWG may consider the following questions when reviewing a suggested change:
- Is the problematic subject heading one that is currently in use, or has the Library of Congress (LC) changed it already?
- Is the substitute term already defined as something separate in Library of Congress Subject Headings?
- Is the substitute term already in use by other agencies, such as Medical Subject Headings?
- How many records are using the problematic term? Does this affect the approach we would take to address this issue?
- Have any other institutions made this change? If not, do we want to consider being the first library to make the change?
- While ours is a different procedure and audience, the explanations on the FAQ on SACO Subject Heading Proposals and reviewing some of the recent Summaries of Decisions may provide helpful perspective on making decisions about subject terms. LC also provides a list of Web Resources for SACO Proposals.