The University of Tulsa Libraries aims to describe our materials in a manner that is respectful to the individuals and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections.
However, users may encounter offensive and/or outdated language in our catalog records and finding aids. This language may be racist, sexist, and/or homophobic, etc. We are not identifying this language and adapting our descriptions in an effort to erase these terms, rather as a commitment to foster an inclusive and respectful environment.
Libraries and archives are not neutral. The individuals who work and oversee our institutions carry their own personal biases which greatly impact what we collect, what we exhibit, and how we describe our material. The same can be said of the materials themselves, which are the product of a variety of creators carrying their own biases and attitudes.
Problematic language may be present in our metadata (that is, the pieces of information that make up our descriptions) for a variety of reasons:
Language that was once acceptable is no longer considered appropriate and/or sufficient.
Terminology may originate from creators of our materials, former owners, booksellers, etc. Often, we retain the original language, particularly in our archival finding aids, as it's an accurate transcription of the item. In these instances, we aim to use quotation marks and/or provide additional historical context surrounding the item and its description.
We rely on various controlled vocabularies, essentially standardized terms, for our subject headings. Typically, we utilize Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), Getty’s Art & Architecture Thesaurus (AAT), and the Controlled Vocabulary for Rare Materials Cataloging (RBMSCV), though this list is not exhaustive. Some terms from these controlled vocabularies are also outdated and/or problematic.
The University of Tulsa Libraries are actively implementing descriptive practices that address offensive or problematic language. We recognize that critical cataloging is an ongoing process, and we strive to make appropriate decisions with our metadata based on current information, recognizing that terminology continues to evolve.
To address these issues, we commit to taking these steps with our description:
We will engage in ongoing discussions surrounding reparative description and historical bias in our catalogs.
We strive for accuracy when making choices about what language to use when updating and/or writing new descriptions of the materials and the people and groups who created or are represented in them.
We will continually evaluate our descriptive practices and work to incorporate new developments in critical metadata, as well as feedback from our users.
We will regularly revisit this statement and make updates and/or corrections as needed.
If you encounter offensive and/or outdated language in our metadata, and/or have feedback, questions, or concerns surrounding our description, please fill out our Problematic Language Report Form. This form is completely anonymous, though you can include your contact information if you would like to be contacted by library staff to further discuss an issue in our catalog. Library staff will review the description and determine what updates need to be made, if any. Revisions to records may encompass providing additional context, replacing outdated terminology, and/or incorporating other controlled vocabularies to address gaps in our description.
This statement is adapted from the work of numerous institutions, including but not limited to, Princeton University, Brandeis University, the Art Institute of Chicago, and the Folger Shakespeare Library.
Last updated February 11, 2025.
If you encounter offensive and/or outdated language in our metadata, and/or have feedback, questions, or concerns surrounding our description, please fill out our Problematic Language Report Form. Library staff will review the description and determine what updates need to be made, if any. Revisions to records may encompass providing additional context, replacing outdated terminology, and/or incorporating other controlled vocabularies to address gaps in our description, as well as adding content advisories if deemed appropriate.
If you would like to discuss the Statement on Reparative Metadata at the University of Tulsa Libraries, or have any questions on the critical cataloging work being taken at the University of Tulsa, please contact:
