As part of our committment to correcting harmful practices, staff members at Columbia University Libraries have undertaken efforts to revise and recontextualize library resource descriptions containing harmful language. We have also established technical solutions that enable the display of more respectful, accurate, and inclusive terminology in place of problematic terminology in some resource descriptions. Our staff also advocate for more inclusive cataloging and archival description practices at a national and international level through active participation in professional committees and conferences, presentations and publications, subject heading revision proposals, and similar efforts.

What does harmful or outdated language mean, in descriptions of library and archival resources?

Language evolves over time and in different contexts—notably terms related to race, gender, sexual orientation, national origin, Indigenous peoples, immigration status, ability status, religion, and other characteristics or identities. Pejorative, inaccurate, and outdated terminology is a difficult product of the structural oppression embedded in the cataloging systems used by our libraries, as well as in the cultural record represented in our collections. Catalog records and archival descriptions can also perpetuate structural oppression by omission, erasing individuals and communities with marginalized identities from the cultural record and glossing over harmful actions of individuals and communities from dominant groups. 

As a result, catalog records and archival descriptions sometimes contain language that is harmful or omits important information. Primary historical resources and older descriptions are more likely to reflect terms that may have been widely used in their time, but are now seen as biased, dehumanizing, or obscure. In many other cases, the language in question was always harmful, but what is changing is an awareness of who has the power to impose terminology on others and an awareness that people should have the power to self-determine the terminology used for their own identities or communities.

How is the staff of the Columbia University Libraries addressing harmful language in resource descriptions?

The Columbia University Libraries aims to enable a thriving, inclusive community by embedding support and welcome for all identities and cultural experiences in our efforts, conversations, and actions. We seek to affirm the voices and perspectives of people with marginalized identities, including Black, Indigenous, Asian, and Latinx people; queer people; transgender people; women; undocumented people; people with disabilities; low-income people; and people with multiple or other marginalized identities. We are aware of the harmful impact of biased language on library users, and we have undertaken efforts to revise and recontextualize library resource descriptions containing this language. We have also established technical solutions that enable the display of more respectful, accurate, and inclusive terminology in place of problematic terminology in some resource descriptions.

You may continue to see harmful language in quotations, titles of resources, names of organizations, and other data taken directly from the resource itself or from the creators of those resources.

How can I report harmful language in resource descriptions?

We acknowledge that our efforts to address harmful language and omissions in resource descriptions are ongoing and imperfect. We invite feedback and continued dialogue on our cataloging and archival description practices. Reports of harmful language or omissions in catalog records, archival finding aids, and descriptions of digital collections can be brought to our attention by using the Suggestions & Feedback option in the Feedback/Help menu in CLIO​, or by emailing ​cliofeedback@library.columbia.edu.

For more information about this work at Columbia and beyond, see our Reparative and Inclusive Description Initiatives "Behind the Scenes" page.