Why Libraries Must Fight for DEI
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion are fundamental democratic virtues worth fighting for and neutrality is always the wrong answer
In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election in 2024, a fellow librarian told me about an initiative to promote civil discourse, not only among patrons but in the Library and Information (LIS) profession as well and at large. The feeling seemed to be that partisan neutrality is not quite enough and that, in some cases, it is potentially counterproductive to the goal of inclusivity. While neutrality was once thought to be ideal in library spaces, there is a powerful argument against. Neutrality seems to say, “Don’t talk about some things; you might offend someone. Just keep your thoughts about it to yourself.” (It simply doesn’t work, no more than “don’t ask don’t tell” as a policy of the U.S. Military from 1994-2011.) Those kinds of thoughts produce a lot of anxiety. Anxiety puts people on edge. Public libraries especially are already beleaguered with tensions about parental-guardian rights, age-group-appropriateness, race and gender issues, and day-to-day struggles in the most vulnerable communities—like hunger and crime. It is quite common to find library professionals more than a little paranoid about touching anything that reeks of too much politics—and yet this attitude, that we’d better not talk about it, quite harmfully works against the atmosphere of inclusion we all should aspire to. Too much emphasis on being neutral puts a community under duress, possible oppression, and ignores our professional duty to encourage communities to engage with each other, individuals to think beyond themselves. Of course we want to build bridges. (Dankowski, 2024).1 We also want to remember the power of the collective and the critical role that libraries, as cultural institutions, play towards expanding human thought and knowledge. (Carr, 2002).2 We cannot be engaged with community learning without being mindful, and there is nothing mindful, or thoughtful about neutrality. Neutrality is passivity. Mindfulness requires alertness, attention, presence, and the willingness to allow individuals to think together towards a better understanding of things. Take the prevalent issue of DEI for an example. The Trump Administration has made an enemy of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies. One of Trump’s first actions as 47th President was to rescind a number of President' Biden’s Executive Orders, including E.O. 13985.3 That was the very first executive order of President Biden, a sweeping motion toward the “advancement of racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government.”4 Trump and his acolytes, most prominently the billionaire Elon Musk, outright call DEI harmful and “another word for racism.” (Ellis, 2025)5
Prior to Trump’s second term, the federal government had a longstanding policy of prioritizing woman-owned and minority-owned contractors. Affirmative Action is what we called it when I was in the military in the 1990s. Executive Orders in the 1960s established equal opportunity practices and so-called “affirmative action” in federal hiring and employment. DEI is the much more recent evolution and a more expansive approach to leveling the playing field and tackling systemic inequities on a wide scale, not just racial inequities, but ones that harm disabled and LGBTQIA+ communities as well. Between 2019 and 2022, DEI gained enormous traction not only in federal workplaces but also in the wider private sector, with businesses assigning “diversity and inclusion” officers to give training and promote widespread multicultural awareness. (Ellis, 2025).6 With the Republicans gaining not only the White House but majorities in both Houses of the 119th United States Congress, DEI has become an increasingly favorite scapegoat in the studios at Fox News. LIS professionals cannot take a neutral position in this polarized climate without running the risk of ignoring real harms to already distressed communities. Of course, we don’t want to merely pay lip service to DEI principles; “performative antiracist politics” (Mehra, 2021)7 are hardly more desirable than the Elon-Musk-led revolt against DEI. (Elon Musk, as a white billionaire with many government contracts, has a compelling economic interest in dismantling a policy that bolsters his competition.) Bharat Mehra warns that too many LIS institutions have merely scratched the surface of equity rather than slicing deep into racial and sexual inequalities to authentically hold the culprits accountable. Perhaps this is why it has been so easy for Trump and Musk to reverse what progress had been made; if that progress was barely more than just above the surface, it must have been feeble, indeed! What good, after all, is a performative strategy, with politically correct language, if nothing ever changes in a meaningful way? A lot has happened in the twenty years between David Carr’s call for a “community mind” in 2002 and Bharat Mehra’s substantial and authentic measures against institutional racism. Mehra’s warning about “crocodile tears” was published after the murder of George Floyd but before the second presidential term of Donald Trump. Trump’s annihilation of federal DEI initiatives will set us back such that we will undoubtedly have to start from scratch in the post-Trump era. Neutrality is not and will never be the answer. Neutrality in response to racial discrimination is like trying to be “color blind.” After the aggressive anti-racial policies of the 1960s, American institutions gradually adopted the doctrine of “color blindness,” which ended up being very unhelpful and outright damaging to the wellbeing of racial minorities. Color blindness, like neutrality, dictates that the issue must be ignored instead of combated. By pretending that the issue was already solved, society devolved into old habits and biases. For libraries to take a neutral stance, therefore, would be for them to tolerate endemic injustice and delay resolution until DEI is “politically correct” again. LIS professionals are no different from other professionals in belonging to an organizational culture where civility is prized. We are told to use “de-escalation” tools to deal with disruptive patrons. Some libraries are more tolerant than others when it comes to access to library spaces. For instance, some library systems carefully curate the list of groups who can reserve meeting rooms; they have policies that allow free access to such rooms on a first-come-first-serve basis, but only pre-approved groups can reserve them in advance. Such policies ensure that groups are not discriminated against for beliefs or affiliations and that everyone in the community is assured of access to services. Pre-approval status, though, hinges on whether a group meets the reasonable criteria and fair standards of safety and conduct. On the other hand, if a library decided to be “neutral” about reserving spaces, they could run the risk of hate groups utilizing spaces where the public quite naturally and reasonably expects to feel safe and respected. There is always a risk of disruptions in libraries, but these are largely mitigated when there are well-thought-out and consistent policies governing the access to services. A position must, therefore, be adopted and agreed upon in the formulation of these policies; anything like neutrality puts the library in serious danger of allowing chaos to reign.
The Biden years between the Trump presidencies already seem, in retrospect, like an oasis—four glorious years when we didn’t have to watch the President’s every move, when mostly things he said in speeches were quite mundane and typical. Joseph Robinette Biden ushered in a short-lived return to normalcy, a general civility we might have taken for granted, and while no administration is perfect, the change back to Trump, has been so jolting to the national consciousness as to feel like an electric shock—no doubt literally shocking many Americans from a political snooze. For long stretches during Biden’s time in office, we heard little about Trump unless there was a court filing, indictment, or conviction; and then, suddenly last summer there was the strange shooting from a rooftop in western Pennsylvania, Secret Service trying to pull the shot ex-president to his feet, Trump looking for his shoe before pumping his fist in a show of bravado. Events rolled on in quick succession: the Republican National Convention, the nomination of Trump and Vance, “childless cat lady” comments, the Biden-Trump debate, Biden stepping aside for Kamala Harris, and the rest is history. Right out of the gate, Kamala Harris was mocked by Trump as a DEI hire. Recall the “black jobs” comment, and the backlash of black Americans boasting about their “black jobs”. (Brown, 2024 / King, 2024).8 The whole notion that anyone thinks of a job as typical of or belonging to a racial group underscored the perseverance of racial bias and the very necessity of DEI. If the white people who voted for Trump truly believe that there are unique “black jobs” for “black people,” surely that proves the need for DEI. It is a bias of perception that reveals the historic failure of “colorblindness” as an antidote to racism. We can’t talk of equality in the workplace without a baseline acceptance of equal potential. If we harbor a bias about the kinds of jobs suitable for (solve for x) group, that is a serious oversight in ethical reasoning. The backlash against Trump’s “black jobs” remark was encouraging. We saw #blackjobs become a thing on social media. (King, 2024).9 Yet, if we think about it, we don’t have to dig much to find historical precedent for the stereotyping of some professions—Jewish bankers, women as teachers and nurses, black American men as rappers and basketball players. I’m old enough to remember the rebranding of “stewardess” into “flight attendant” in order to overcome the rather demeaning stereotype about airline employees, and that’s to say nothing about the insulting distinction between “actors and actresses,” “authors and authoresses,” etc. It is not a coincidence that the MAGA movement has embraced the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, a 900-page manifesto that outlines the GOP plan to reverse cultural progress and erase the ability of government to help perennially disadvantaged and vulnerable populations. The side of the aisle backing Project 2025 are pushing to restore the kind of cultural norms that made American society “a man’s world” when others could hardly compete with them for the top jobs in every profession, when non-whites were relegated to a servile class of sharecroppers and housemaids, and women would stay at home to clean the house, bake cookies, and care for children. At any rate, Project 2025 backer J.D. Vance does not see any point of the “childless cat lady” or the menopausal woman beyond her potential as a grandmother. (Pengelly, 2024).10 It is a two-gender-only paradigm in which LGBTQIA+ and transgender are forced to suppress their real natures and immigrants are pressured to know their place as they assimilate into the worldview promoted by Christian Nationalism. Neutrality in the year of Project 2025 means being silent. It means letting oppressors and abusers invade spaces that should be respectful, decent, and safe. It means complicity as LGBTQIA+ shrink into the shadows, as immigrants shrink from seeking help for fear of being deported, as women are forced to give birth against their will, and as black people live in fear of looking at a racist police officer the wrong way.
In library school I learned that, above everything else, librarians are optimal when they empower patrons, not when telling them to “shush.” Yes, the public library is a place where we expect people to use their “library voices,” but the reasons for that have to do with creating a contemplative, peaceful, and calm atmosphere—kind of like the one I talked about in my article about my visit to Shakespeare & Company in Paris. (Rovira, 2025).11 It has nothing to do with a misguided notion of telling people to hold their tongues and share nicely with Nazis.
When public libraries across America tried to foster an attitude of civility during the 2024 election season, no one anticipated the way that a Donald Trump victory would embolden his most ardent supporters. Many of us hardly anticipated that he would indeed be victorious. Whatever one might say about Kamala Harris—that, perhaps, she was too much aligned with the status quo, with neoliberalism—one thing is certain: diversity would not be under attack right now under a President Harris. People convicted of horrendous crimes (in some cases assault on police officers) on January 6, 2021 would still be incarcerated. (Dreisbach, 2025)12 A Harris Administration would never have attempted to freeze funding to Medicaid and HeadStart. Elon Musk would not be allowed in the front door at the Treasury Department, let alone given sweeping access to classified databases that store social security numbers—not if the President was named Harris. If it had been President Harris at the Netanyahu press conference on February 4th, we would not be any closer to peace in the Middle East, but at the very least, we would not be talking about beachfront condos on the Gaza Strip. In such an alternative reality as Harris being “POTUS 47,” we might be able to talk about neutrality—because something like USAID—an international development agency that never ruffled feathers in previous administrations, and that gives life-saving aid to communities in crisis—would not be under active existential threat. Donald Trump reentered the White House with an agenda of destruction. He means to break all the metaphorical toys most of us thought were solidly baked into the system—just like we all thought that in our democratic notion of justice no man or woman is above the law. It turns out that, like so many other things we took for granted, is rendered just words on paper when maniacs rise to power.
I want to close this article with a pop culture reference that may take the temperature down a bit. In my downtime, I’ve been making my way through the original Charmed TV series, about three witches playing out their destiny as the fighters of the demonic community. Viewers my age—old enough to have watched the show when it aired on the WB Network eons ago—might recall the predominant story arc of star-crossed love-and-hate between Phoebe Halliwell (Alyssa Milano) and Cole Turner/Belthazor (Julian McMahon). Their relationship hits the ultimate snafu (no spoilers here) when Cole becomes the Source of All Evil in Season 4. In the episode “Long Live the Queen” Phoebe tries to have it both ways—to be Cole’s wife and Queen of the Underworld, but at the same time still save Innocents and help her sisters. There is that amusing scene where Phoebe orders a demon to leave his prey alone and, being obeyed, she wonders why her sisters don’t agree that’s not quite good enough. It’s just like something I see a lot of people doing right now—trying to help and do good for people in need while at the same time falling into the trap of Both-Sidesism. We can’t help someone by surrendering to their attackers. “Oh, it’s OK if they want to have their hateful meeting over there, as long as they don’t try to kill us.” As long as evil hangs in the air, the threat stands. Phoebe learns in her brief spell as queen of the demons that the critical difference between the good and the evil is that it’s only evil that is willing to compromise in existential terms—because compromise in life or death situations will always give evil the advantage. The good do not compromise when it comes to evil. Good cannot capitulate to evil without losing its essence. Evil must be vanquished or it will destroy all goodness in its path. The character of Cole is a perfect specimen of this truth in action. Cole himself is part good, part evil. Cole is his good half, Belthazor his evil half. It is Cole who falls in love with Phoebe and will do anything to save her, but Cole is in a constant turmoil as Belthazor fights for dominance. Of course, in real life, we all have metaphorical demons that stir inside us. Echoes of bad experiences haunt us and trigger our worst impulses. The spiritualist Eckhart Tolle calls them “pain bodies,” which if we don’t learn to be aware of, can overtake us and destroy the real essence of our being. Tolle instructs us to learn to transmute these pain bodies, which I think is a softer way of saying vanquish. Whether the “pain body” is macro or micro it is an evil that undermines the good into an existential crisis. Our best impulses as a nation (equal justice under the law, diversity and equity, to name just a few) are just like our personal virtues—they can thrive only in the absence of capitulation to their enemies. They are values that must be defended in the dark times, and strengthened in the good times.
RELATED ARTICLES:
REFERENCES:
Dankowski, T. “Bringing Civility Back to Civic Life.” American Libraries Magazine. July 1, 2024. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/blogs/the-scoop/bringing-civility-back-to-civic-life/.
Carr, David. "A Community Mind." Public Libraries 41 (No. 5, 2002): 284-88.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/initial-rescissions-of-harmful-executive-orders-and-actions/.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13985.
Ellis, N.T. “What is DEI, and why is it dividing America?”CNN. January 23, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/22/us/dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-explained/index.html.
Ellis, N.T. “What is DEI, and why is it dividing America?”CNN. January 23, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/22/us/dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-explained/index.html.
Mehra, B. (2021). Enough Crocodile Tears! Libraries Moving beyond Performative Antiracist Politics. The Library Quarterly, 91, 137 - 149.
Brown, M. “Trump’s debate references to ‘Black jobs’ and ‘Hispanic jobs’ stir Democratic anger.” AP News. June 28, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/trumpblackjobsdebatebiden-7c520492a34fa902028ed4537d48cdb0
King, M. “What’s a ‘Black Job’? Trump’s Anti-Immigration Remarks Are Met With Derision.” The New York Times. June 28, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/black-job-trump-immigration.html.
King, M. “What’s a ‘Black Job’? Trump’s Anti-Immigration Remarks Are Met With Derision.” The New York Times. June 28, 2024. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/black-job-trump-immigration.html.
Pengelly, M. (2024). “JD Vance pleads sarcasm in latest effort to clean up ‘childless cat ladies’ remark.” The Guardian (UK). August 6, 2024. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/aug/06/jd-vance-childless-cat-ladies-tim-walz.
Dreisbach, T. (2025). “Criminal records of Jan. 6 rioters pardoned by Trump include rape, domestic violence.” NPR. January 30, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/01/30/nx-s1-5276336/donald-trump-jan-6-rape-assault-pardons-rioters.