Librarianship has long been one of the whitest professions, with its demographics barely shifting over the last generation. Recently, there has been increased public questioning as to why programs aimed at increasing diversity in the profession have failed to make a significant impact. Much scholarly ink has been spilled to answer why despite serving a diverse audience, libraries not only continue to be staffed primarily by https://librarianbyday.net/2018/03/15/the-unbearable-male-whiteness-of-library-leadership/white people, but its leadership is predominantly white. In fact, library leadership across North America is primarily white men, disproportionate to the ratio of women in librarianship. In The Unbearable Male Whiteness of Library Leadership, Bobbi Newman asserts that males in librarianship not only fill management roles at a much higher percentage than their portion of the profession, but they also tend to dominate as speakers at conferences.
In Rich White Men: What It Means to Be a Leader in America, Garrett Neiman examines the entrenched power and influence of wealthy white men in the United States. The book explores how this demographic has historically shaped leadership and decision-making across various sectors, including politics, business, and culture. Neiman highlights the systemic advantages that affluent white men have, which perpetuate inequality and marginalize other groups.
Ultimately, this is a societal phenomenon that pervades every job sector, not just librarianship. Neiman argues that the dominance of rich white men in leadership roles creates significant barriers for women, people of colour, and other marginalized communities. He discusses the necessity of understanding these dynamics to foster more inclusive and equitable leadership.
What resonates with me most in Niemen’s book is the practice of elevating a few members of a minority group in a perfunctory and superficial way - better known as tokenism. As a performative exercise to convey a false sense of diversity, libraries often discourage racialized staff from challenging existing biases and power structures. I've experienced firsthand how futile even my own faculty association can be when confronted with complaints about the racial pay gap among librarians. It’s also now common practice to exaggerate the extent to which racially marginalized populations are represented in the Library – oftentimes carefully placed photos of racialized students and staff in action on the Library’s website and promotional materials. This “diversity washing” is one of the most dangerous elements of DEI.
Some of the structures are so inherently embedded in the colonialist structures of which libraries were created that it’s fooling us into thinking the profession can change overnight. But I do have hope for the next generation of librarians and archivists who can begin a transformation for the better. The plethora of scholarship published this past decade has been impressive and will only continue to grow and with it, hopefully, the way and means of how the next generation of librarians are taught at LIS programs.
In Rich White Men: What It Means to Be a Leader in America, Garrett Neiman examines the entrenched power and influence of wealthy white men in the United States. The book explores how this demographic has historically shaped leadership and decision-making across various sectors, including politics, business, and culture. Neiman highlights the systemic advantages that affluent white men have, which perpetuate inequality and marginalize other groups.
Ultimately, this is a societal phenomenon that pervades every job sector, not just librarianship. Neiman argues that the dominance of rich white men in leadership roles creates significant barriers for women, people of colour, and other marginalized communities. He discusses the necessity of understanding these dynamics to foster more inclusive and equitable leadership.
What resonates with me most in Niemen’s book is the practice of elevating a few members of a minority group in a perfunctory and superficial way - better known as tokenism. As a performative exercise to convey a false sense of diversity, libraries often discourage racialized staff from challenging existing biases and power structures. I've experienced firsthand how futile even my own faculty association can be when confronted with complaints about the racial pay gap among librarians. It’s also now common practice to exaggerate the extent to which racially marginalized populations are represented in the Library – oftentimes carefully placed photos of racialized students and staff in action on the Library’s website and promotional materials. This “diversity washing” is one of the most dangerous elements of DEI.
Some of the structures are so inherently embedded in the colonialist structures of which libraries were created that it’s fooling us into thinking the profession can change overnight. But I do have hope for the next generation of librarians and archivists who can begin a transformation for the better. The plethora of scholarship published this past decade has been impressive and will only continue to grow and with it, hopefully, the way and means of how the next generation of librarians are taught at LIS programs.
No comments:
Post a Comment