Library response to Black Liberation Collective: a review of student calls for change and implications for anti-racist initiatives in academic libraries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In September 2015 protests erupted at the University of Missouri following a series of racist incidents on campus and culminating in the resignation of the university president in November 2015. In solidarity with the protests student activists at universities across the United States and Canada organized into the Black Liberation Collective and held the first #StudentBlackoutOut day of protests on university campuses on November 15 followed by the publication of lists of demands to over 80 colleges in 28 states, the District of Columbia and Canada in the hopes of creating more-equitable and inclusive institutions. These demands shared similarity in requests for equity as those put forth during the Black Campus Movement of the late 1960s which led to the establishment of Black studies and cultural centers at colleges and universities. Academic libraries in particular were included with several demands to better serve the Black Indigenous People of Color (BIPOC) community. Design/methodology/approach While librarianship has largely been a historically White profession, libraries have undertaken many diversity and inclusion initiatives over the years. This article will examine seven case studies concerning college and university libraries addressing demands collated by the Black Liberation Collective in 2015. Six years out from the publication of the lists, we will evaluate statements issued by the libraries and posted on their websites, the promises that have been made to address inequities and the ensuing actions the libraries have taken to create a welcoming, inclusive community. Findings The authors examine seven institutions where demands from student activists speak directly to the library. We examine the library's response to make changes and subsequent actions. Originality/value The authors take a journalist approach to their research and examination of library responses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it