WHAT IF I’M WORKING THROUGH THIS CURRICULUM IN A GROUP?

If you plan to work through the Project READY minicourse with others, you will want to establish additional group agreements that will help guide your interactions with one another throughout the process. Each member of the group should agree to the following, and all members should commit to holding each other accountable for upholding these agreements:

• Listen to understand, not to respond: Growing in your understanding of race and racism requires a willingness to learn about the experiences of others who may not share your background or culture. Unfortunately, our ability to listen is often compromised by our desire to respond in some way to what has been said. This might be a positive response or a negative one, but either way, when we focus on what we will say next instead of allowing for time to simply process new information, we risk missing important pieces of what has been said.

• Share accountability for challenging racism and the dominant culture. Often in discussions of race and racism, the burden of noticing and defending against biased or racist remarks and behavior falls on the shoulders of BIPOC. All group members, but especially white group members, should look out for potentially offensive or hurtful language and behavior and call it out when observed. If a BIPOC brings an incident to the group’s attention, it is important that all group members acknowledge the harm done and take proactive steps to address it and prevent future harm.

• Step forward, step back: We have all been in meetings with “that person” who dominates the conversation, shutting out other voices in the process. Commit to monitoring your own contributions to the conversations you will share in group settings. Sometimes, you may need to “step back” to allow others to speak. At other times, you may need to “step forward” to inject a new perspective into the conversation. You should also agree to group norms for gently reminding each other to step forward and step back as appropriate. As part of these conversations, consider how the racial and gender backgrounds of the people in your group may contribute to expectations about who will do most of the speaking and whose voice might be more valued in other settings, such as faculty members. Commit to prioritizing and centralizing the voices of people of color and Native people within your group.

• Use “I” statements: When we state our opinions as facts or attempt to generalize from our individual experiences, we can alienate others whose experiences may not be the same as ours. Instead, commit to using “I” statements to make it clear that your thoughts and experiences are your own. This isn’t about making your conversations nicer or more polite, but rather about fostering clear communication among group members and encouraging each person to take personal responsibility for their contributions.

• Brave space: Exploring racial equity issues in community with others will open you up to vulnerability. You may say something hurtful, or you may be hurt by what someone else says or does in the space. Thus, you can’t guarantee that your group can create a “safe space” for these conversations, in the sense of ensuring that no negative emotions arise from your work together. Instead, commit to establishing a brave space, which Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens (2013) have described as having five main elements:

1. Controversy with civility: varying opinions are encouraged and openly discussed.
2. Owning intentions and impacts: when someone is hurt by the actions or words of another, the incident is openly acknowledged and discussed.
3. Challenge by choice: each group member always has the option to step out of a challenging conversation.
4. Respect: group members show respect for each other’s shared humanity.
5. No attacks: group members agree not to intentionally inflict harm on one another.

Assumption #1: We do not live in a “post-racial” world.

When Barack Obama was elected as America’s first Black president, the national dialogue was full of optimistic rhetoric declaring our attainment of a “post-racial” society. His election was seen by some as proof that race was no longer a barrier to achievement, or at least, that it was a barrier that could now be overcome. The following decade, however, showed just how premature that conclusion was. Explicit racist attacks on the Obamas and on people of color generally increased in visibility as the news filled with stories of unarmed Black men shot by police, renewed Islamophobia and controversies over immigration, and Native tribes facing threats of environmental and physical violence. These conversations have only increased in their stridency and impact since the election of President Donald Trump in 2016.

Aside from high-profile individual examples of continued racial tension, national statistics on issues such as wealth and income, employment, education, and healthcare continue to show persistent and in some cases growing disparities between BIPOC and whites in the United States (we will share much of this data in later modules). These disparities are upheld by the fact that the political and economic power in this country is concentrated among white people. Consider the following statistics from 2019-2023:

• All ten of the richest Americans are white (2023)
• The U.S. Congress is 75% white⁴, and 92% of  U.S. governors are white⁵
• The US presidential cabinet is 60% white⁶
• 87% of TV executives and 92% of film executives are white⁷
•  Executives in the publishing industry were 78% white in 2019⁸
• 86% of music executives were white in 2021⁹
• 76% of journalists were white in 2023¹⁰
• 73%  percent of full-time faculty at post-secondary institutions were white in 2021¹¹
• 80% of K-12 teachers were white in 2022¹²

Assumption #2: Racial inequity cannot be explained away by socioeconomics.

In response to the idea that racism is still present and harmful in today’s America, you may have heard someone argue that socioeconomic inequality, rather than racial inequality, is the primary driver of our society’s problems. This argument proposes that people of color and Native people are primarily disadvantaged not because of their race, but because they are disproportionately poor, and if we were somehow able to equalize economic inequality across racial categories, the impact of race would disappear. This pervasive myth has been repeatedly debunked by extensive research showing that even after controlling for economic circumstances, race plays a central role in determining life outcomes in the United States.

This does not mean that socioeconomic inequality and racial inequality are unrelated. In fact, socioeconomic disparities are one of the clearest points of evidence we have for the continued negative impact of racism on BIPOC. Now, please visit the Project READY Module 1b: Introduction page to explore the data presented in the slide deck titled The Racial Wealth Gap, found under Assumption #2. In the next module, we will discuss how we have reached this point, but for now, it’s important to understand that racial disparities cannot be explained away by socioeconomic data.

Assumption #3: Niceness will not end racism, even if we could magically eliminate racial prejudice overnight.

One common misunderstanding about racial inequity is that it is primarily supported and perpetuated by a small number of actively hateful individuals. Much of our national conversation around race and racism focuses on improving our individual behaviors across racial lines, implying that if we could all simply get along and treat each other with respect and decency, racial inequity would disappear. This is an attractive idea for a couple of reasons. First, it feels doable, or at least more doable than changing the basic structures and systems of our country. Second, it allows people – especially white people – to feel good about themselves for the simple act of being nice to people of color. Unfortunately, this is not nearly enough. To understand why, listen to this NPR story, in which anti-racism expert Robin DiAngelo unpacks this idea.

Assumption #4: Libraries and librarians are not neutral.

The American Library Association maintains a list of the profession’s Core Values, including commitments to social responsibility, diversity, and democracy. What’s not included on that list is neutrality, although there are still some librarians and library stakeholders who believe that libraries are, or should be, neutral. On issues of social justice, however, we hold that neutrality only benefits those who already have privilege and power.

For example, librarians who want to claim neutrality often say that they have a responsibility to collect resources, invite speakers, and offer programs that represent “both” or “all sides” of every issue. This argument creates a false equivalence between issues on which there are reasonable disagreements possible, such as which diet best meets health needs, and those on which the “other side” denies the basic humanity of entire groups of people. Presenting “both sides” of racial issues as if they are equally valid can do real harm to BIPOC, and can make them feel unsafe or unwelcome in the library. Furthermore, racist ideas such as the myth that white people are inherently more intelligent than people of color have been thoroughly debunked by decades of empirical research and history. If you would not keep an inaccurate science book on your shelf, why would you promote disinformation about race and racism?

Even librarians who agree that libraries should not be neutral can sometimes fall into the trap of thinking that they themselves should provide neutral service to their users. Certainly, librarians should treat every user they serve with respect. However, neutrality would take this a step farther – it would require that librarians not “take sides” on issues that affect the children and teens they serve, such as police violence, educational inequities, or the detention of immigrant children at our nation’s border. When librarians choose to opt out of these conversations by simply staying silent, BIYOC lose potential allies and may assume that the librarians’ silence means they agree with the positions of the oppressors. As above, attempting to stay neutral in this way does nothing to help BIYOC, and can actively harm them.

At the 2018 ALA Midwinter Conference, several prominent practitioners and scholars debated the idea of library neutrality at the President’s Program. If you are challenged by the idea that libraries and librarians are not, and should not be, neutral, please read David Lankes’s remarks from the program.

Assumption #5: Libraries can make a difference.

Racial equity is the work of a lifetime, and none of us are likely to see true racial equality in the United States within our lifetimes. However, immense progress has been made over the past several decades, and immense progress can be made in the near future. For you to benefit personally from your work with Project READY, and – more importantly – for the youth you work with to benefit, you must believe that libraries and librarians can make a positive difference in the lives of BIPOC. Furthermore, you must believe that you, personally, have the power to create positive change.

Too often, we hear librarians say things like:

• This work is simply not politically possible for me because I work in a rural, conservative town.
• As a junior librarian, I don’t have the authority to change my work environment.
• My library is a government institution, so we can’t legally take a stand on these issues.
• My coworkers don’t care about equity and inclusion, and I can’t make them value this work

These frustrations are common and human, but ultimately unproductive. Instead of focusing on what you can’t change, ask yourself: What do I have power over? What change can I make? In what ways do I serve as a gatekeeper for information or resources at my organization, and how can I use those responsibilities to conduct racial equity work? There may be understandable reasons why libraries and librarians haven’t yet reached their potential in the realm of diversity and inclusion, but these reasons are simply not good enough, and never will be good enough, to justify the continued marginalization and oppression of people of color and Native people. Therefore, we need to accept our ability and responsibility to engage in this work.