Harmful Content Working Group Recommendations

Executive Summary 

Per its charge, DPOG’s Harmful Content Working Group has produced three deliverables as part of first steps in Princeton University Library’s effort to address harmful or offensive content, for example, content that is racist, sexist, xenophobic, or homophobic, in its digital collections. The Working Group’s efforts supplement initiatives in the library related to ethical stewardship, inclusivity, and harm reduction, for example, projects being overseen by the Inclusive and Reparative Description Working Group and ADAPT’s Inclusive Description Working Group; adhere to PUL’s North Star Statement #4 to make diversity, equity, and inclusion the cornerstone of its culture; and are in alignment with current practices and initiatives within the library and archives professions more broadly (see this document for examples of similar work being done at other institutions). 

Deliverable 01

The first deliverable the Working Group produced is a Statement on Harmful Content. Similar to PUL’s Statement on Language in Description, this statement is meant to offer education and context to users who use the library’s digital collections. In addition to the statement itself, the Working Group has offered recommendations regarding its visibility on the library’s website and its various discovery platforms as well as maintenance and enhancement of the statement especially once a library-wide feedback mechanism for users is implemented. 

Deliverable 02

Secondly, the Working Group has provided recommendations for access mediation as a harm reduction method for library users who encounter offensive or distressing digital content. While these recommendations offer a certain level of specificity for how this type of mediation could be implemented, the Working Group recognizes that stakeholders, including other Library entities, specifically DPOG, DSSG, the Inclusive and Reparative Description Working Group, and ADAPT’s Inclusive Description Working Group, will need to determine descriptive practices and develop the necessary infrastructure and technology in Figgy. 

Deliverable 03

Lastly, the Working Group has authored recommendations for communication workflows among staff when staff identify harmful content that lacks contextual and inclusive description during digitization as well as when staff and users identify such content for collections that have already been digitized. One recommendation this document identifies, which we would like to highlight here, is the need for the Library to offer regular cultural competency, or DEI, training for staff so that they are able to engage in this work, and in their work more broadly, with the knowledge and skill sets that are required for ethical stewardship of PUL’s collections. This could include training by outside experts, for example, the bystander training organized by the former DEI Steering Committee or trainings offered by HR and other campus groups. Another way to accomplish this is for Library administration and leadership to encourage departments/units to prioritize or incorporate this type of training as part of professional development for their staff, for example, the recent inclusion of DEI-focused goals as part of performance reviews. There will also be opportunities to determine how to accomplish these goals with the creation of the new AUL for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion. 

Additional Recommendations

Additionally, the Working Group would like to emphasize the need for routine user testing in collaboration with the Assistant Director for Library Assessment and other staff persons who oversee this work for measures that the library implements in relation to harmful content, in particular access mediation, to ensure that they are actually helpful to users and prevent or reduce harm. 

The Working Group’s deliverables only scratch the surface of the thoughtful and informed work necessary to address issues surrounding harmful and offensive content in an effort to prevent and mitigate the harm caused to users and to staff who use and manage these collections; in other words, the implementation of harm reduction measures to avoid what Dr. Tonia Sutherland has described as the “uncritical reproduction of violent and harmful [content and] description” resulting in the continuation of harming those who have been victimized. As the work of the group comes to a close, it recommends that its work and recommendations continue to be carried forward and implemented by other library-wide committees that serve as key stakeholders and oversee similar initiatives, including DPOG, DSSG, and the Inclusive and Reparative Description Working Groups, in conjunction with departmental working groups such as ADAPT’s Inclusive Description Working Group. Alternatively, or in addition, the working group proposes the formation of a dedicated Harmful Content Working Group to continue addressing these issues as its primary goal, working in collaboration with the other groups mentioned. The overall goal of the recommendations set forth here is to move the responsibility of ethical stewardship and harm reduction from the personal commitment of individual staff and small groups within the library to an institution-wide commitment and prioritization of these efforts.