Seeking Approval, Confronting Objectivity: Neutrality in the Library of Congress Subject Headings Approval Process

In Brief: This study examines the concept of neutrality in Library of Congress Subject Headings and the subject approval process by analyzing proposed headings that were rejected over a nearly 20-year period. It considers the place of neutrality in libraries more generally and argues that equity, rather than neutrality, is the appropriate lens for judging subject heading proposals. Finally, it recommends several reforms that could improve the subject heading process and make it more equitable.

By Allison Bailund, Deborah Tomaras, Michelle Cronquist, and Tina Gross

If a train is moving down the track, one can’t plop down in a car that is part of that train and pretend to be sitting still; one is moving with the train. Likewise, a society is moving in a certain direction—power is distributed in a certain way, leading to certain kinds of institutions and relationships, which distribute the resources of the society in certain ways. We can’t pretend that by sitting still—by claiming to be neutral—we can avoid accountability for our roles (which will vary according to people’s place in the system). A claim to neutrality means simply that one isn’t taking a position on that distribution of power and its consequences, which is a passive acceptance of the existing distribution. That is a political choice.^[1]

Introduction

Library workers and patrons have long been frustrated with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) for being out of date and lacking well-known concepts with abundant usage. Contributors to the Subject Authority Cooperative Program (SACO) have made many improvements to LCSH by proposing new headings and revising existing terms. Those attempts, however, have sometimes been hampered by the Library of Congress’s (LC) preference for supposed neutrality within the vocabulary; Subject Headings Manual (SHM) instruction “H 204,” released in 2017, specifically dictates that proposed headings should “employ neutral (i.e., unbiased) terminology.”^[2]

This desire for neutrality has been directly stated, alluded to, or otherwise upheld in myriad rejections of proposed subject headings, from Negative campaigning^[3] to White flight.^[4] Even Water scarcity, a quantifiable concept of worldwide concern, was rejected in 2008 as a non-neutral topic requiring value judgments with the following justification:

Works on the topics of water scarcity and water shortage have been cataloged using the heading Water-supply, post-coordinating^[5] as necessary with additional headings such as Water conservation and Water resources management. The meeting determined that this practice is appropriate and should continue, since Water-supply is a neutral heading that does not require a judgment about the relative abundance of water.^[6]

However, what exactly constitutes neutral and unbiased terminology is never defined in “H 204” or anywhere else in the SHM, nor in any other Library of Congress controlled vocabulary manuals.^[7] Much of the previous literature on neutrality in libraries focuses on debates over possible definitions of the term and what role neutrality should play in library services and collections. Building off previous critical cataloging literature, which focuses on addressing problematic terms, subject hierarchies, and biases within cataloging standards, this article extends that scrutiny further. We analyze how neutrality is embedded in the LC structures and systems that vet the terms catalogers utilize to describe materials.

Our article examines the ways in which neutrality is enforced in LCSH rejections between July 2005 and December 2024. We review “Summaries of Decisions” from LC Subject Editorial Meetings (along with associated discussion and commentary in the field); within these, we identify and interpret patterns of justifications used to reject subject heading proposals and maintain purported neutrality within the vocabulary. We argue that neutrality has been used to keep many concepts depicting prejudice (racism, sexism, etc.), as well as concepts related to the lived experiences of marginalized people, out of the vocabulary and/or to obscure materials about those topics under other, often more generalized or euphemistic, terminology. As a counterpoint, we suggest a values- and equity-driven approach to replace the principle of neutrality in a cataloging context and within the subject approval process. We acknowledge that the current political situation may be particularly fraught for equity-driven change, but believe bowing to political pressures is untenable, and continued pursuit of neutrality will only serve to further the discordance between library values and the realities of LCSH.

Background

Neutrality: Assumed, but Nebulous

Schlesselman-Tarango notes the perceived conceptual importance of neutrality for libraries and librarianship; their “status as ‘an essential public good’” is “contingent on the perpetration of the idea that [they are] also neutral.”^[8] Seale further situates this notion of libraries-as-neutral as not externally imposed, but emanating from within librarianship itself: “The positioning of the library as a neutral and impartial institution, separated from the political fray, resonates with dominant library discourse around libraries.”^[9]

However, despite both critics and supporters assuming that neutrality is fundamental to librarianship, there is a dearth of references to the term in official documents underpinning the ethics and standards of the library profession. The American Library Association’s (ALA) Working Group on Intellectual Freedom and Social Justice observed, for example, that “the word neutrality does not appear in the Library Bill of Rights, the ALA Code of Ethics, and any other ALA statements that the Working Group could locate. It does not appear in the Intellectual Freedom Manual (10th Edition) nor is it defined in any official ALA document or policy.”^[10] The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions’s (IFLA) Code of Ethics mentions but does not define neutrality in Section 5, in sentences such as “Librarians and other information workers are strictly committed to neutrality and an unbiased stance regarding collection, access and service.”^[11] For catalogers in particular, the Cataloging Code of Ethics, issued in 2021 and discussed further below, explicitly disputes the concept of neutrality.

Most pertinent to the subject proposal process, the National Information Standards Organization’s (NISO) Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies mentions neutrality exactly twice, yet again without definition. The first instance, in guidance about choosing preferred forms of terms, asserts that “Neutral terms should be selected, e.g., developing nations rather than underdeveloped countries.”^[12] The second appearance, in a discussion of synonyms, notes “pejorative vs. neutral vs. complimentary connotation[s]” of terms that might influence usage.^[13] The latter reference positions neutrality as the impartial fulcrum of term meanings, while the former implies, particularly via the example, a more active attempt at choosing equitable and unbiased terminology.

Although the terms “neutral” and “unbiased” are often linked when they appear in library literature (as in the IFLA Code of Ethics), they are not synonymous. Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definitions of neutral include “inoffensive,” and “not taking sides in a controversy, dispute, disagreement, etc.”; unbiased, however, while meaning “not unduly or improperly influenced or inclined; [and] unprejudiced,” does not necessarily imply a lack of involvement in social or political issues.^[14] The incompatibility between neutrality as inoffensive isolation versus unbiasedness as active equity plays out repeatedly in library discussions. Without clear definitions, neutrality in the NISO Guidelines and elsewhere is open to conjecture and interpretation. As noted by Scott and Saunders, “[T]he term ‘neutrality’ seems to be used for, or conflated with, everything from not taking a side on a controversial issue to the objective provision of information and a position of defending intellectual freedom and freedom of speech.”^[15]

Proponents of library neutrality don’t fully agree on definitions, either. In Scott and Saunders’s survey, some describe it as “lacking bias,” which more closely aligns with principles of equity.^[16] The depiction of neutrality by LaRue, the former Director of the ALA’s Office for Intellectual Freedom, also appears to resemble equity; he frames neutrality as not “deny[ing] people access to a shared resource just because we don’t like the way they think” and giving everyone “a seat at the table.”^[17] Dudley, reframing library neutrality in relation to pluralism, highlights similar values; his proposed ethos calls on librarians to “adhere to principled, multi-dimensional neutrality” which includes “welcoming equally all users in the community” and “consistently-apply[ing] procedures for engaging with the public.”^[18]

The 2008 book Questioning Library Neutrality examines many aspects of why neutrality is both an illusion and a misguided aspiration, and also disabuses readers of the idea that it has always been a core value. Rosenzweig points out that neutrality as a principle of librarianship does not go back to the early development of public libraries:

We would do well to remember that, if libraries as institutions implicitly opened democratic vistas, our librarian predecessors were hardly democratic in their overt professional attitude or mission, being primarily concerned with the regulation of literacy, the policing of literary taste and the propagation of a particular class culture with all its political, economic and social prejudices. In fact, the idea of the neutrality of librarianship, so enshrined in today’s library ideology (and so often read back into the indefinite past), was alien to these earlier generations.^[19]

Although Macdonald and Birdi’s literature review identifies four conceptions of neutrality within library science literature—“favourable,” “tacit value,” “libraries are social institutions,” and “value-laden profession”—the authors found that depictions of neutrality articulated by practitioners are more complicated. Many have “ambivalent” views of neutrality, seeing it as “a slippery and elusive concept.”^[20] The relative importance of neutrality to proponents varies, depending on its position vis-à-vis other library values: “When it is alone, or grouped with a simple, single other value like professionalism, it is very low in priority. When it is presented in a group of other values or left implicit, it fares better.”^[21] Catalogers tended to espouse neutrality the least among library specializations, with 21% reporting that they never think about neutrality.^[22] Further, some surveyed librarians “are more likely to eschew neutrality on matters of social justice,” when neutrality comes into conflict with core library values.^[23]

Neutrality versus Social Justice

Since the late 1960s, neutrality has increasingly come into question as librarians have embraced ideals centering social justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, particularly in the ALA.^[24] These values, codified in the ALA Code of Ethics and Library Bill of Rights, include a commitment to “recognize and dismantle systemic and individual biases; to confront inequity and oppression; to enhance diversity and inclusion; and to advance racial and social justice in our libraries, communities, profession, and associations.”^[25] ALA resolutions go a step further, acknowledging the “role of neutrality rhetoric in emboldening and encouraging white supremacy and fascism.”^[26] Scott and Saunders sum up the issue, noting that while some librarians cast neutrality as a “fundamental professional value, albeit one that is not explicitly mentioned in the professional codes of ethics and values,” others assert that it is “a false ideal that interferes with librarians’ role of social responsibility, which is an explicitly stated value of librarianship.”^[27] As Watson argues in an ALA 2018 Midwinter panel on neutrality in libraries, “We can’t be neutral on social and political issues that impact our customers because, to be frank, these social and political issues impact us as well.”^[28]

Even among library codes of ethics that explicitly hold neutrality as a core value, there is a tension between practitioners and official documentation. For example, the Canadian Federation of Library Associations / Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques (CFLA-FCAB) Code of Ethics calls for librarians to “promote inclusion and eradicate discrimination,” provide “equitable services,” and “counter corruption directly affecting librarianship”; but the Code also advocates for neutrality, advising librarians to “not advance private interests or personal beliefs at the expense of neutrality.”^[29] Once again neutrality remains undefined—though it’s implied, based on context, to be not taking sides, matching one of the OED definitions above. This understanding accords with a 2024 study on Canadian librarians, which noted most Canadian academic librarians seem to have coalesced around defining neutrality as “not taking sides,” followed by “not expressing opinions.”^[30]

Yet the same study also highlights a perceived incompatibility of neutrality with other values of librarianship, with “the majority (54%) of respondents” disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that “‘neutrality is compatible with other library values and goals,’” and 58% disagreeing “that it is ethical to be neutral.”^[31] Brooks Kirkland asserts that assuming neutrality as a key tenet of librarianship conflicts with such principles as promoting inclusion and eradicating discrimination.^[32] Pagowsky and Wallace note that, whether knowingly or not, upholding neutrality within inequitable systems ultimately supports them: “Trying to remain ‘neutral,’ by showing all perspectives have value … is harmful to our community and does not work to dismantle racism. As Desmond Tutu has famously said, ‘If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.’”^[33]

Cataloguing Code of Ethics, Critical Cataloging, and Other Recent Developments

The incongruity between neutrality and social justice as core library values has sparked the numerous debates detailed above and on mailing lists and social media. It has also led in part to the expansion of the critical cataloging movement and the creation of the Cataloguing Code of Ethics, published in 2021 and since adopted by several library organizations, including the ALA division Core. The Code explicitly refutes the concept of neutrality; it avers that “neither cataloguing nor cataloguers are neutral,” and calls out the biases inherent within the dominant, mostly Western cataloging standards currently in use. It particularly notes that “cataloguing standards and practices are currently and historically characterised by racism, white supremacy, colonialism, othering, and oppression.”^[34]

The most well-known critical cataloging subject heading proposal was the attempt to change the now-defunct heading Illegal aliens, as depicted in the documentary Change the Subject. In November 2021, five years after LC initially announced it would change the Illegal aliens subject headings and then backtracked after political pressure, LC announced it would replace the subject headings Aliens and Illegal aliens. However, LC did not adopt the changes it had initially announced, nor the recommendations made in a report by the ALA Subject Analysis Committee (SAC), which included revising the term to Undocumented immigrants.^[35] LC instead split Illegal aliens into two new headings: Noncitizens and Illegal immigration.^[36] Librarians have criticized the retention of “illegal” within one of the updated headings for continuing to make library vocabularies “complicit” with the “legally inaccurate” criminalization of undocumented immigrants.^[37]

Other critical cataloging proposals have been subjected to inordinate scrutiny by LC; even when headings have been approved, they have sometimes faced heavy editing and modification. One example is Blackface, where LC’s changes to the proposal obscured the racism characterizing the phenomenon. The broader term (i.e., the parent in the subject hierarchy) was altered from Racism in popular culture to Impersonation.^[38] Since Impersonation falls under the broader terms Acting, Comedy, and Imitation, this change emphasizes the performance aspect in lieu of its racist connotations. Similarly, the scope note (i.e., definition), was modified from “Here are entered works on the use of stereotyped portrayals of black people (linguistic, physical, conceptual or otherwise), usually in a parody, caricature, etc. meant to insult, degrade or denigrate people of African descent” to “Here are entered works on the caricature of Black people, generally by non-Black people, through the use of makeup, mannerisms, speech patterns, etc.”^[39] As noted by Cronquist and Ross, these changes ultimately “neutralize[d]” the proposal “in the name of objectivity.”^[40]

However, there have also been numerous successful updates to outdated terminology and additions of missing concepts, particularly in recent years. For example, in 2021, fifteen subject headings for the incarceration of ethnic groups during World War II, including Japanese Americans, were changed from the euphemistic phrase –Evacuation and relocation to –Forced removal and internment.^[41] The African American Subject Funnel added the new heading Historically Black colleges and universities in 2022 and helped to revise Slaves to Enslaved persons in 2023; the Gender and Sexuality Funnel successfully changed the heading Gays to Gay people, and proposed the new term Gender-affirming care, in 2023; and the Medical Funnel updated Hearing impaired to Hard of hearing people in 2024.^[42]

On a hopeful note, many of these large-scale projects coordinated with Cataloging Policy Specialists within LC, who worked closely with catalogers during the process and ensured that related term(s) and related Library of Congress Classification number(s) were updated as well. Further, LC has taken some recent steps to improve its vocabularies and create avenues for increased input from outside institutions. This includes hiring a limited term Program Specialist to help redress outdated terminology related to Indigenous peoples. LC also created two advisory groups for Demographic Group Terms and Genre/Form Terms, both of which allow for greater community input into these vocabularies.

Still, frustrations remain. Changing outdated terminology is a complicated process. Library of Congress vocabularies, in particular, are vulnerable to potential governmental interference. Attempted Congressional intervention during the updating of Illegal aliens and the passing of a statute mandating transparency in the subject approval process led to the creation of “H 204” codifying LC’s preference for a neutrality uninvolved in political and social issues.^[43] The complication of bibliographic file maintenance (e.g., reexamining cataloged materials to determine whether subject headings should be changed, deleted, or revised) also muddies the waters and impedes large-scale projects. Staffing issues within LC further hinder the ability to undertake or complete projects, as seen in the SACO projects process, paused in 2025 due to LC’s catalog migration.

Maintaining LCSH

Library workers are familiar with LCSH in our discovery tools, and most are aware of concerns about outdated and problematic headings. However, they may not see debates and conflicts about new headings and ongoing maintenance of the vocabulary as a built-in and inherent part of the system, as catalogers who engage in that work do.

As Gross asserts:

To remain effective, headings must be regularly updated to reflect current usage. Today’s LCSH People with disabilities used to be Handicapped and, before that, Cripples. Additionally, new concepts require new headings, such as the recently created Social distancing (Public health), Neurodiversity, and Say Her Name movement. The process of determining which word or phrase to use as the subject heading for a given topic is inevitably fraught and can never be free of bias. The choice of terms embodies various perspectives, whether they are intentional and acknowledged or not.^[44]

Both the need to continually revise existing headings and create new ones, and indeed wrangling over what they should be, are not defects, nor a surprise. They flow directly from the purpose of controlled vocabulary and the complications of language it exists to help navigate—the ever-changing and endless variety of ways to refer to things.

Some of the frequency and intensity of debates about LCSH stem from the fact that it attempts to be a universal vocabulary that covers all branches of knowledge. While it is created and maintained primarily for the needs of the Library of Congress, it is used by all kinds of libraries. Balancing the need to serve a user base that consists of federal legislators and providing the world with a one-size-fits-all vocabulary is clearly a formidable and contradictory endeavor. In recent decades, LC has made significant progress in opening up the maintenance process to input and contributions from the broader library community via the SACO program. These changes appear to be partly in response to demands to make the process faster and more transparent, but also a desire by LC to incorporate broader perspectives and experiences and to help with the tremendous workload.

LCSH Creation and Revision Process

The SACO program, created circa 1993,^[45] allows librarians to submit proposals for new or revised LCSH terms (as well as other LC vocabularies) to the Library of Congress. In order to submit proposals, catalogers are expected to be familiar with the Subject Headings Manual (SHM), which governs LCSH usage and formulations as well as the proposal process, required research, and criteria used to evaluate proposals.^[46] One of the primary requirements is literary warrant: proposers must demonstrate that there is a need for the new subject heading based on a work being cataloged.^[47] Beyond the work cataloged and published/reference sources, librarians can also cite user warrant, “the terminology people familiar with the topic use to describe concepts,” as justification in proposals.^[48] This can include reviews, blog posts, social media threads, LibGuides, etc.

After a proposal is submitted, LC staff schedule it to a monthly “Tentative List,” which is published to allow for public comment on proposed headings. Taking those comments and SHM instructions into account, members of LC’s Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division (PTCP) make a decision about whether to add the proposed heading to LCSH, send it back to the cataloger for revision and resubmission, or reject it. If the heading is not added, a monthly “Summary of Decisions” document details the reasons for its exclusion. While the SACO program allows external librarians to submit proposals, the Library of Congress maintains its “authority to make final decisions on headings added.”^[49]

Most proposals are routine and relatively straightforward, such as those that follow patterns—repeated formulations of similar subjects that provide a predictable search structure for library patrons (e.g., Boating with dogs already exists and the cataloger wants to propose Boating with cats). SHM “H 180” notes that patterns help achieve desired qualities for the vocabulary, including “consistency in form and structure among similar headings.”^[50] LC is also concerned with avoiding multiple subject headings that convey too closely related concepts. LCSH online training “Module 1.2” highlights both “consistency and uniqueness among subjects” as strengths of controlled library vocabularies, for instance.^[51] Proposals that don’t follow patterns therefore receive more scrutiny, to make sure they are unique, definable topics. LC makes judgment calls based on the strength of the evidence in proposals, and on SHM instructions, including the guidance in “H 204” about neutrality.

Neutrality within LC Documentation

Within its official documentation on subject headings, LC mentions neutrality sparingly. In the entirety of the SHM, the word neutral appears only once, specifically in guideline “H 204” with the recommendation that catalogers “employ neutral (i.e., unbiased) terminology.”^[52] Apart from an association with the term unbiased, neutral is not defined in “H 204” or anywhere else in the SHM. Online LCSH training, freely available from the Library of Congress website, offers similarly little on the concept of neutrality. “Module 1.4” recommends that catalogers “accept the idea that all knowledge is equal” and “remain neutral … and attempt to be as objective as possible” when describing material.^[53]

Despite the lumping together of neutral and unbiased in “H 204,” a neutrality which calls for a static ignoring of social realities and historical context does not equal an unbiased active engagement against prejudice. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary’s definitions of “neutral” and “unbiased” make this clear. “Neutral” as “indifferent” and politically nonaligned echoes OED. But the definition of “unbiased” goes even further, meaning not just free from prejudice and “favoritism” but “eminently fair”^[54]—an active and flexible balancing of interests inherently at odds with static and detached neutrality. Eliding the two concepts risks undermining the latter, and with it library ethics and values, resulting in the further entrenchment of Western, colonial, and other biases in LCSH.

The definition of neutrality that LC, and by extension LCSH, seems to favor is one of passivity. Neutrality as indifference to social realities appears, for instance, in LCSH training “Module 1.4.” The module acknowledges that library vocabularies “are culturally fixed” and “from a place; they are from a time; they do reflect a point of view.” However, rather than using that “realiz[ation]” to encourage periodic updating of outdated or potentially prejudicial content in LCSH, the module advises “accepting” that cultural fixity as immutable fact; it recommends that catalogers “remain neutral, suspend disbelief” and focus on (undefined) objectivity instead.^[55] Objectivity also appears in “H 180,” which advises catalogers: “Avoid assigning headings that … express personal value judgments regarding topics or materials. … Consider the intent of the author or publisher and, if possible, assign headings … without being judgmental.”^[56]

Here, as in “Module 1.4,” objectivity appears linked to neutrality; the implication is that a subject can only be described without bias if a cataloger is dispassionate and has no opinions on the topic. However, not all definitions of objectivity match this interpretation. Although OED defines objectivity as “detachment” and “the ability to consider or represent facts, information, etc., without being influenced by personal feelings or opinions,” Merriam-Webster’s definition is “freedom from bias” and a more actively equitable “lack of favoritism toward one side or another.”^[57]

This disparity in meanings begs the question: What does it mean to describe a topic without judgment or bias? Is objectivity erasing any uncomfortable content in a topic, even if that erasure favors a biased status quo and/or muddies a topic’s meaning? Or, rather, is it objective to label something truthfully, even if the topic raises strong feelings? As demonstrated by the revisions to Blackface discussed above, changes to the scope note and broader term in the name of objectivity did not result in a clearer or less biased heading; instead, they obfuscated the racist intent behind the phenomenon.

Similarly, despite the assertion in “H 180,” a singular focus on authorial intent does not always result in a lack of bias or judgment in subjects. As noted by literary critics such as Wimsatt and Beardsley, “placing excessive emphasis on authorial intention [leads] to fallacies of interpretation,”^[58] since readers only have access to the text in front of them; attempting to guess an author’s intent is already an act of judgment, not a discovery of objective facts. Further, if an author writes a prejudicial text, taking its content at face value risks replicating that bias through subject provision. LCSH terms such as Holocaust denial literature recognize and counter this, labeling Holocaust denial works as ones “that diminish the scale and significance of the Holocaust or assert that it did not occur.”^[59] If catalogers relied strictly on authorial intent in the name of objectivity, those works would instead get misleading subjects such as Holocaust, Jewish (1939-1945) instead of Holocaust denial literature, tacitly legitimizing bias.

Thus, the SHM’s focus on objectivity and neutrality highlights incongruities and tensions within subject guidance and LCSH vocabulary itself between indifference and self-imposed inoffensiveness on the one hand, and actively countering bias and promoting equity on the other. As will be shown below, rejections in the name of neutrality reveal that in fact the proposal process itself has never been neutral or apolitical.^[60]

Neutrality and SACO Rejections

LC’s adherence to an inflexible and indifferent definition of neutrality, critiquing proposals engaging with social and political realities as subjective and relying on value judgments, has led to the rejection of multiple headings that surface prejudice or describe the lives and experiences of marginalized peoples. Instead, rejections upholding neutrality reinforce hegemonic societal attitudes within LCSH.

Neutrality appears in several guises in proposal rejections in “Summaries of Decisions” from 2005 to 2025. The most obvious ones reference “H 204” and “neutral (i.e., unbiased) terminology,” including the 2008 rejection of Water scarcity and the 2024 rejection of White flight (discussed in more depth below).^[61] Similar rejections use words such as “judgment” (including Negative campaigning in 2013, and Zombie firms in 2023); “pejorative” (e.g., Dive bars in 2010, and Banana republics in 2015); “vulgar and offensive” (such as Vaginal fisting and Anal fisting in 2010); “subjective” (such as African American successful people in 2009); “viewpoint” (including Jim Crow laws in 2019); and “non-loaded language” (e.g., Incarceration camps in 2024).^[62]

Neutrality as non-involvement in political and social realities also appears in the rejection of proposals due to LC’s Policy, Training, and Cooperative Programs Division (PTCP)’s unwillingness to establish certain “patterns” of subject headings (i.e., set precedents for future headings of specific types). Pattern rejections often appear entirely arbitrary; that is, the rejections stated merely that PTCP did not wish to begin a pattern, and not that a proposal as formulated was missing vital elements, had no warrant, or did not conform to provisions stipulated in the SHM. Despite acknowledging in “Module 1.4” that the wrong subject heading “can make any resource in the collection ‘disappear,’”^[63] these rejected patterns render certain topics invisible and unsearchable by library patrons.

Uncreated patterns include critiques of prejudicial attitudes and behaviors, particularly by governmental bodies, such as rejections of Prison torture in 2007 or Religious profiling in law enforcement in 2024.^[64] Similarly, patterns that would have highlighted the unearned privilege and/or bigotry of certain groups remain largely unestablished, including Holocaust deniers (2016), Toxic masculinity (2020), and White privilege (rejected in 2011 and 2016, before finally being accepted as White privilege (Social structure) in 2022).^[65] The rejection of White fragility in 2020 is particularly interesting, as the rationale was that “LCSH does not include any headings that ascribe an emotion or personality trait to a specific ethnic group or race, and the meeting does not want to begin the practice.”^[66] However, LCSH has included since 2010 the heading Post-apartheid depression, meant to convey the mental health and feelings of white Afrikaners. So not all white people’s emotions appear off-limits—just ones that reveal systemic biases. PTCP also declined to create patterns naming discrimination directed at certain groups, such as Police brutality victims in 2014 and Missing and murdered Indigenous women in 2023.^[67] In the latter case, the rejection of a term meant to highlight societal neglect of the violence against Indigenous peoples means that their existence and trauma continue to be hidden in library vocabularies and catalogs.

Pattern rejections not only make prejudices invisible in library catalogs, they also underrepresent concepts that celebrate or describe the cultures and experiences of marginalized peoples. Erasures of joy can be as damaging as erasures of struggle. Aronson, Callahan, and O’Brien’s discussion of themes related to people of color in picture books, for instance, could equally apply to messages portrayed in LCSH via what topics it hides or surfaces in library catalogs: a “predominance of Oppression … at the expense of other types of portrayals can send a message that suffering and struggle are definitive of a group’s experience, or even of victimhood.”^[68] Instead, marginalized people “deserve to see themselves represented as people who lead full and dynamic lives and who are not fully defined by histories of oppression.”^[69] Unaccepted subject headings of this type include African American successful people (2009), Overweight women’s writings (2011), Gay neighborhoods and Lesbian neighborhoods (2012), Gay personals (2018), Afro-pessimism (2021), and Indigenous popular culture (2024).^[70] 

Absorbing a proposed critical term into a supposed “positive” equivalent also served to preserve an inoffensive neutrality in LCSH; this is seen in the rejection of Food deserts in 2014:

The concept of food desert has been defined in multiple ways by various governments and organizations, often in ways to suit their specific political agendas … The existing heading Food security is defined as access to safe, sufficient, and nutritious food. The existing heading is used for both the positive and negative (it has a UF [cross-reference for] Food insecurity), and the meeting feels that it adequately covers the concept of a food desert.^[71]

Similarly, LC rejected a proposal for Genocide denial in 2017 with the rationale that the “positive” heading—Genocide—was sufficient for patron access: “A heading for a concept in LCSH includes both the positive and negative aspects of that topic. A work about the denial of genocide still discusses the concept of Genocide.”^[72] Slum clearance was also rejected in 2007 in favor of the euphemistic and supposedly equivalent Urban renewal.^[73]

Sometimes rejections upholding neutrality appeared in the guise of a fear that the term might be misapplied. For instance, although LC acknowledged in its 2019 rejection of Jim Crow laws and Jim Crow (Race relations) that the headings described laws and attitudes promulgated during a specific time period—which could therefore be described in a scope note guiding subject usage—it claimed that “the meeting is also concerned that the heading would be assigned only if the phrase Jim Crow is used in the title.”^[74] In other words, the rejection prioritized avoiding possible future confusion over a definable term with ample literary and user warrant. The potential for definitional uncertainty also fueled other rejections, such as Femicide and Secret police in 2010, and Forced assimilation in 2024.^[75] To preempt said confusion in all of these cases, LC could have added scope notes defining appropriate usage. Subjects have been remediated in the past when found to be misused, via clarifying scope notes or additional term creation, as with Romance literature (now Romance-language literature) versus Love stories (now Romance fiction).^[76] Instead of denying the proposal due to a fear that a term might be misapplied, LC could have worked with the proposers to ensure the heading clearly defined the topic and, if necessary, made a public announcement with additional guidance on how to retrospectively add the term.

Overly-limiting definitions of subjects also provided reasoning for neutrality-based proposal rejections. An attempt in 2011 to add the natural language phrase Queer-bashing as a cross-reference under the then-current heading Gays–Violence against, for example, was rejected with the justification that “queer-bashing is not necessarily violent.”^[77] Intersexuality–Law and legislation, a heading reflecting ongoing debates about genital surgeries on infants and legally-recognized genders, was rejected in 2016 because “The subdivision –Law and legislation free-floats [i.e., can be used] under ‘headings for individual or types of diseases and other medical conditions, including abnormalities, functional disorders, mental disorders, manifestations of disease, and wounds and injuries’ (SHM H 1150).”^[78] The medicalizing language of the rejection reinforced the view of intersexuality as a “condition” or “disorder” needing fixing, rather than the natural human diversity of a group struggling for bodily autonomy and human rights. The rejection of Redlining in 2024 also fits this definitional pattern. Despite acknowledging that Redlining “functioned in many different financial contexts,” LC’s rejection implied that redlining’s definition was too broad, as LC preferred “the specificity of … separate headings.”^[79] This continues to fracture the topic into multiple subjects such as Discrimination in financial services, Discrimination in mortgage loans, and Discrimination in credit cards. The rejection also sidestepped notions of governmental complicity in redlining, and whitewashed the topic by making it appear less systemic in nature.

Purported limitations of the vocabulary also served as justification for rejecting proposals and upholding LCSH neutrality. For instance, Butch/femme (Gender identity) was deemed “too narrow and specialized for a general vocabulary such as LCSH” in 2011 (though Butch and femme (Lesbian culture) was later approved in 2012)^[80]—this, despite the copious presence of narrow terms in LCSH about other topics, such as Madagascar hissing cockroaches as pets, Photography of albatrosses, Church work with cowgirls and Zariski surfaces. Anal fisting and Vaginal fisting were rejected with the same rationale in 2010 (in addition to the “vulgar and offensive” argument described above).^[81] Two rejections utilizing the same reasoning raise the question of whether queer cultures and identities were evaluated using particularly stringent criteria. As one librarian noted in the RADCAT mailing list after the rejection of Butch/femme (Gender identity):

This is especially baffling given that Bears (Gay culture) has been a valid subject heading for years, and both concepts have about the same amount of literary warrant. For those of you keeping track at home, this isn’t the first example of this rejection. During The Great Fisting Debacle of 2010 … the Anal fisting and Vaginal fisting proposals were shot down using the same language. I haven’t seen PSD [the prior name for PTCP] rejecting scientific or technical heading proposals as too specialized, which makes me wonder if it’s only gender & sexuality-related headings that receive this type of scrutiny.^[82]

Troublingly, rejections for queer identities have continued since LC resumed processing tentative lists in January 2025, particularly for queer youth proposals. The rejection of Sexual minority high school students, for instance, indicates potential deference to current governmental queerphobia, particularly since the phrase “At this time” prefaces the justification: “At this time, it is not desirable to qualify headings for this age group by gender identity or expression/sexual orientation.” LC’s suggestion that instead “[t]erms from other subject vocabularies such as Homosaurus may be used instead of, or in conjunction with, existing LCSH headings to express the topic” suggests that there is no place for queer youth identity headings within LCSH.^[83]

Finally, proposals were rejected in favor of maintaining pre-existing biases in LCSH–the cultural fixity mentioned in LCSH training “Module 1.4.”^[84] For instance, a 2015 rejection of a change proposal related to Indigenous peoples–South Africa highlighted in its rationale the scope note for Indigenous peoples defining them entirely in relation to colonial power: “Here are entered works on the aboriginal inhabitants either of colonial areas or of modern states where the aboriginal peoples are not in control of the government.”^[85] Sometimes, even the longevity of a term within LCSH was treated as sufficient reason to reject proposals meant to update outdated and inequitable terms, as with the 2020 rejection of a proposed change from Juvenile delinquents to Juvenile prisoners: “The existing heading Juvenile delinquents has been used for this concept for many years. At this point, it would be practically impossible to examine the entire file so the new heading could be applied accurately. The heading Juvenile delinquents should be assigned instead.”^[86] This hesitance to tackle large projects because of the labor required for bibliographic file maintenance perpetuates the tendentious language present in LCSH and reinforces the view that the proposal process is itself not neutral.

Case Study: White Flight

In 2024, the African American Subject Funnel Project submitted a subject proposal for White flight. The proposal cited Kruse’s book White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism to demonstrate literary warrant. It additionally cited three reference sources—Encyclopedia of African-American Politics, The New Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, and Wikipedia—in order to define the term and demonstrate that it is commonly used by scholars and the public.

• [Proposed Heading]: White flight
• [Variant Term]: White exodus
• [Broader Term]: Migration, Internal
• [Broader Term]: Race relations
• [Broader Term]: White people–Migrations
• [Related Term]: Segregation
• [Source]: Kruse, K.M. White flight, ©2005: summary (In this reappraisal of racial politics in modern America, Kevin Kruse explains the causes and consequences of “white flight” in Atlanta and elsewhere) page 5 (In 1963 alone, there were 52 cases of “racial transition,” incidents in which whites fled from neighborhoods as blacks bought homes there; a steady stream of white flight had been underway for nearly a decade)
• [Source]: Encyclopedia of African-American politics, 2021 (“White flight” is the term used to refer to the tendency of whites to flee areas and institutions once the percentage of blacks reaches a certain level)
• [Source]: The new encyclopedia of southern culture, 2010 (The term “white flight” refers to the spatial migration of white city dwellers to the suburbs that took place throughout the United States after World War II. One of the most powerful and transformative social movements of the 20th century, white flight significantly affected the class and racial composition of cities and metropolitan areas and the distribution of a conservative postwar political ideology)
• [Source]: Wikipedia, 16 Oct. 2023 (White flight or white exodus is the sudden or gradual large-scale migration of white people from areas becoming more racially or ethnoculturally diverse. Starting in the 1950s and 1960s, the terms became popular in the United States; examples in Africa, Europe, and Oceania as well as the United States)

However, LC rejected White flight with the following rationale: “LCSH does not currently have an established pattern that combines the topic of migration with the social reasoning for that migration. The meeting was concerned that introducing such a pattern, particularly in this case, would contradict the practice in LCSH of preferring neutral, unbiased terminology as stated in SHM H 204 sec. 2.”^[87]

After this Summary of Decisions was issued, librarians on the SACOLIST mailing list publicly disagreed with the rejection and pointed out the flaws in LC’s argument. One poster highlighted the fact that the term was in common use and searched for by library patrons; they also noted another heading already in LCSH that fit the pattern PTCP claimed didn’t exist:

According to H 204 Section 2, the proposed heading should “reflect the terminology commonly used to refer to the concept,” which I believe is the case with this term. Additionally, the same section of H 204 asks, “Will the proposed revision enhance access to library resources? Would library users find it easier to discover resources of interest to them if the proposed change were to be approved?” Again, if this phrase is commonly used by patrons, it would make sense to add it to our catalogs … You wrote that “LCSH does not currently have an established pattern that combines the topic of migration with the social reasoning for that migration.” Could someone explain why Great Migration, ca. 1914-ca. 1970 doesn’t fit this pattern? Is it because of the date range and that this is a specific event?^[88]

Another librarian emphasized the ongoing importance of white flight, the prevalence of literature discussing it, and the unequal treatment of headings describing different groups in LCSH:

The differences between these proposals from my perspective seems to be that one describes African Americans and the other describes White people, and White flight is an ongoing concept rather than a single historical event. I hope PTCP reconsiders this decision, because the effects of White flight and the practices surrounding it shape racial inequality in the United States and in many other countries in the world. Many works describe White flight and its consequences … and users are familiar with the term and want to find works about it.^[89]

Finally, a respondent noted yet another term matching the supposedly non-existent pattern: “The existing heading Amenity migration would also appear to provide a pattern combining the topic of migration with the social reasoning for that migration.”^[90]

Despite these arguments, LC did not respond to the mailing list discussion nor change its decision. As White flight had literary warrant, was amply supported by reference sources, and was a concept that could not be accurately conveyed using already existent subject headings, why was PTCP concerned about neutrality “particularly in this case”? Even governmental entities as varied as the Supreme Court, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the National Register of Historic Places, and LC itself use the term white flight. The rejection’s insistence on the need for uninvolved neutrality therefore seemed inconsistent with the widespread acceptance of the term.

Instead, the neutrality justification appears to be a smokescreen to cover up discomfort with a term that called out white racism; mandating neutrality in this case meant privileging being inoffensive to white people over acknowledging a widely accepted critique of systemic racism. Patton notes in her Substack post “White People Hate Being Called ‘White People’” that whiteness functions in part by invisibility, a “retreat into universalism where whiteness can dissolve back into ‘humanity’ and avoid accountability.”^[91] Rejecting the proposal may have been a neutral decision (i.e., deliberately unobjectionable and indifferent to political and social realities), but it was certainly not unbiased (i.e., free from favoritism). Instead, it conceptually reinforced the false position of whiteness described by Patton as “the default, neutral, objective, and moral”^[92]—thus undermining equity in LCSH and making works on this important topic invisible and unsearchable in library catalogs.

Discussion

Chiu, Ettarh, and Ferretti describe the futility of relying on neutrality to further social justice within librarianship and its vocabularies:

When the profession discusses neutrality, we believe that the profession actually seeks equity. However, neutrality will not yield equitable results and will always fall short because it relies on equity already existing in society. This is not the condition of our current society, nor is it true for the profession. Therefore, neutrality will actually work toward reinforcing bias and racism.^[93]

The rejection of White flight illustrates this point aptly. Justifying the rejection by invoking neutrality means that practically speaking being neutral equates to whitewashing the ongoing phenomenon, by pretending that the movement of white people in the United States is entirely benign, divorced from racism, and not worth library or library user attention. What are the long-term consequences of privileging neutrality, as opposed to equity, in the subject approval process? Neutrality as political isolationism and mandated inoffensiveness leads, as seen in the rejections from 2005 through 2024, to suppressing political and social critiques, hiding prejudice, and rendering the lived experiences of marginalized groups invisible.

It is unfortunately far too easy to weaponize a neutrality that gives equal weight to what groups such as racists and antisemites intend when evaluating proposals. A SHM instruction created in late 2024, “H 1922,” further embeds this weaponization within subject guidance. “H 1922” defines “offensive words” as “derogatory terms that insult, disparage, offend, or denigrate people according to their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender identity, sexuality, occupation, social views, political views, etc.”^[94] By including political and social views in the definition, LC inaccurately equates groups espousing opinions about how people should behave in society with demographic groups who have historically been marginalized merely for existing. This leaves LCSH vulnerable to political actors disingenuously claiming “offense” to silence critiques or establish prejudicial terms within the vocabulary. A recent example of this was the proposal to change Trans-exclusionary radical feminism into Gender-critical feminism, the obfuscatory label preferred by the transphobic group, by claiming that trans-exclusionary radical feminism was a slur.^[95] (LC ultimately rejected the proposal, thanks in large part to “community activism” and mobilization opposing the change.^[96] LC specifically mentioned library community input as the rationale for the rejection: “When this tentative list was published in November 2024, PTCP received over 300 email comments demanding rejection of this proposal.”^[97])

There is ample evidence from the recent past and present of this weaponization of offense being used to undermine progress toward equity in the United States. The Trump administration’s proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education (2025) exemplifies the dangers of privileging neutrality over equity. The Compact demands “institutional neutrality,” requiring that universities and their employees “abstain from actions or speech relating to societal and political events except in cases in which external events have a direct impact upon the university.” Those agreeing to this isolationist neutrality, in the meantime, would also agree to erase trans, non-binary, and intersex students, faculty, and staff, and to police and punish speech deemed offensive to conservatives. Notably, the Compact requires that admissions be based on “objective” criteria—except for explicitly-allowed faith, “sex-based,” and anti-immigrant biases.^[98]

Mandated neutrality within “H 204” risks reifying the same prejudices within library vocabularies. This can be seen in LC’s recent alteration of Mexico, Gulf of to America, Gulf of, and Denali, Mount (Alaska) to McKinley, Mount (Alaska).^[99] Critical cataloger Berman describes the former change as “linguistic imperialism,” and the latter as an “affront to Alaska’s indigenous population.”^[100] The latter change is particularly damaging, given the simultaneous effort by LC to remediate LCSH related to Indigenous peoples, and might undermine confidence in the project. In both cases, a neutral approach—remaining uninvolved in political and social events—led to an undue “deference to chauvinistic, ethnocentric, and unjustified authority.”^[101] Whether LC realistically could have resisted altering these headings is a counterfactual hypothetical. Its actions must be judged by the effects of these revisions within library catalogs and for library patrons. By clinging to the illusion of neutrality, and capitulating to the whims of a racist and colonialist regime, LC undermined the profession’s stated values and harmed the larger library community.

Recommendations

What philosophical approach can LC take in lieu of neutrality, to bring the SACO process more in concert with library ideals of equity and egalitarianism? We recommend that LC employ a values-driven approach to vocabulary construction and maintenance. Explicitly stated library values—particularly around social justice and social responsibility—benefit all users, both marginalized peoples and the “mainstream.” Further, the PCC Policy Committee, of which LC is a permanent member, has already committed to the PCC Guiding Principles for Metadata, which acknowledge that “the standards and controlled vocabularies we use and their application are biased,” and advocates for “incorporating DEI principles in all aspects of cataloging work.”^[102] Below, we suggest a number of changes LC could enact to make LCSH and the proposal process more equitable.

In backing away from neutrality as a guiding principle, philosophical approaches that have been suggested in critiques of traditional practice deserve consideration. In her chapter in Questioning Library Neutrality, Iverson proposes that librarians adopt feminist philosopher Haraway’s approach to objectivity: “Haraway explains that what we have accepted as ‘objectivity’ claims to be a vision of the world from everywhere at once … We can not see from all perspectives at once, we each have our own particular views that are shaped by our own identities, cultures, experiences, and locations.”^[103] Instead of claiming to possess “infinite vision,” Iverson recommends that we adopt Haraway’s recognition of “situated knowledge.”^[104]

Watson argues that instead of literary or bibliographic warrant (cataloging a book in hand, asking what subject headings are needed to convey its content), critical catalogers “operate from a position of catalogic warrant, reading the terms and hierarchies of cataloging and classification systems with a critical eye, reflecting on the potential benefit or harm of each term on marginalized users, groups, or the GLAMS [galleries, libraries, archives, and museums] community as a whole.”^[105] In other words, librarians should focus on the subject heading system in its entirety, asking what revisions and additions are needed. In some ways, by collaborating with SACO funnels on large-scale projects to create and revise related groups of subject headings, LC has already moved away from strict adherence to an interpretation of literary warrant that considers the only valid reason to propose a subject heading having a book in hand that requires it. This shift should be continued and expanded.

As for concrete actions, we advise that LC restore its open monthly subject editorial meetings where proposals are discussed, and to expand points of communication with external libraries. This would allow a more diverse range of librarians to participate in the SACO process and provide valuable input during decision-making. Other benefits of monthly meetings have been noted by SACO librarians in an open letter to PTCP: they helped to demystify “the SACO process” for the newly-involved; and allowed librarians to contribute to “lively conversations on a broad range of options, and the opportunity to shape the vocabularies we all use, from proposing single headings to creating special lists to debating new guidelines for topical subdivisions.”^[106]

Building off of this, we suggest creating an external advisory group for LCSH, similar to the ones for LCDGT and LCGFT, to get input from a broader range of users on proposal vetting and vocabulary maintenance. Further, we urge LC to allow greater decision-making power for external librarians in all advisory groups. This would help LC vocabularies better reflect the resources in the Library of Congress collections and the needs of thousands of libraries of different types around the world, and improve accountability for decisions made regarding proposals. It would also help to better insulate library vocabularies from the governmental interference noted above, by making a broad range of institutions responsible for their creation and maintenance.

Within such bodies, we recommend that LC follow guidance from the SAC Working Group on External Review of LC Vocabularies, by including members from groups being described in those vocabularies, subject matter experts, and international representatives. Furthermore, membership should not include “[r]epresentatives from groups or organizations that purport to speak for marginalized communities, but who exclude the voices of members of the marginalized community,” or “[r]esearchers or representatives from groups or organizations where the experts cause harm to members of marginalized communities.”^[107] The inclusion of representative groups aligns with the PCC Guiding Principles for Metadata and follows the principles put forth in the Cataloguing Code of Ethics.

In vetting SACO proposals, “LC should prioritize sources from the peoples and communities described, privileging those sources over traditionally ‘authoritative’ sources, including literary warrant,” to ensure that the terminology used “reflect[s] a more inclusive and culturally relevant understanding of the language associated with these groups and their heritage and history.”^[108] The creation of a position within LC focused on remediating metadata related to Indigenous peoples was a good first step in this direction; and we strongly encourage LC to both continue and expand this practice.

Finally, we suggest revisions to various LC documents and SHM instruction sheets. References to neutrality should be removed from “H 204” and “Module 1.4,” in favor of a focus on active equity in subject assignment and proposals. Examples of unbiased terminology, created in concert with advisory groups described above, reflecting a variety of situations, and periodically updated, would help create a shared understanding between librarians proposing headings and those evaluating them for inclusion in LCSH. “H 180” and “Module 1.4” should also be edited, in the sections advising catalogers to remain objective and not “express personal value judgments.”^[109] All cataloging relies on judgment, and judgment is not always synonymous with bias or divorced from facts. A more useful focus here, as in a revised “H 204,” would be on the active equity present in Merriam-Webster’s definition of objectivity; catalogers should employ “catalogic warrant” and evaluate the “potential benefit or harm”^[110] of subjects, particularly when assigning headings to prejudicial works. Finally, in order to protect against weaponized “offense,” we also recommend that “social views” and “political views” be removed from “H 1922.” These alterations would bring the SHM and LCSH training more in line with LCDGT guidance, which foregrounds cataloging ethics. “L 400,” for instance, notes that “naming demographic groups and identifying individuals as members of those groups must be done with accuracy and respect,” and highlights the importance of self-identification when assigning headings.^[111]

We cannot make recommendations on this topic without addressing the current political climate. Because LC’s catalog migration put most SACO work on hold during 2025,^[112] the effect of the Trump administration’s anti-DEI policies on LCSH remains uncertain. However, United States history is rife with periods of political repression. Waiting until relative calm to advocate for equity has not been, historically, how equity was advanced; and it will not serve library patrons or the broader community in the present moment.

Conclusion

LCSH began over a century ago as a subject cataloging tool for the Library of Congress, and has since evolved into a vocabulary serving thousands of libraries around the world. Despite the broad and diverse user base, LC has remained the sole arbiter of which proposals are accepted into LCSH and what form the headings take. During the last two decades it has rejected a number of subject proposals due to a preference for purported neutrality and objectivity, in various guises. Yet, as a profession, librarianship claims to prioritize social responsibility. Social justice and equity are incompatible with an indifferent and purposefully inoffensive neutrality that allows harmful, colonialist, and racist headings in LCSH, and keeps out headings describing prejudice, or about the lived experiences of marginalized peoples.

Olson describes LCSH as “a Third Space between documents being represented and users retrieving them,” since “LCSH constructs the meanings of documents for users.”^[113] These meanings impact how users view materials, and whether they can locate them in library catalogs. And it is within this space that LC’s commitment to neutrality fails both users and the ideals of librarianship around social responsibility. However, “because the Third Space is one of ambivalence, it is one with potential for change.”^[114] By focusing on library values rather than neutrality within the subject creation and approval process, LCSH could develop into a vocabulary that constructs truly equitable and inclusive meanings for users and librarians alike.

Acknowledgements

Thank you to our publishing editor, Jess Schomberg, and the editorial board for their flexibility, guidance, and expertise throughout the publication process. Thank you to K.R. Roberto, Margaret Breidenbaugh, Crystal Yragui, and Matthew Haugen, who allowed us to quote them within this article. We would also like to thank our reviewers, Jamie Carlstone and Ian Beilin, and other readers who gave valuable feedback: Adam Schiff, Rebecca Albitz, Chereeka Garner, Rebecca Nowicki, Naomi Reeve, Simone Clunie, Violet Fox, and Stephanie Willen Brown.

---

^[1] Robert Jensen. “The Myth of the Neutral Professional,” in Questioning Library Neutrality, ed. Alison Lewis (Library Juice Press, 2008), 91.

^[2] Library of Congress, “H 204: Evaluating Subject Proposals,” in Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual, Aug. 2025 rev. (Library of Congress, 2025), 2, https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0204.pdf (original: https://web.archive.org/web/20180524054119/https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0204.pdf) 

^[3] Throughout this article, authorized subject headings (i.e., those that exist currently in LCSH) are presented in bold font; while rejected proposed headings appear in italics. For consistency, subject headings within quotations will follow the same formatting, regardless of the formatting used in the original quotation.

^[4] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 10” (Library of Congress, 2013), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-131021.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 02 (2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2402.pdf.

^[5] Post-coordination is the practice of using multiple, separate LCSH terms in combination to convey a single concept.

^[6] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 4” (Library of Congress, 2008), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/cpsoed-080123.html.

^[7] See the manuals for Genre/Form Terms, Demographic Group Terms, and Children’s Subject Headings, for instance.

^[8] Gina Schlesselman-Tarango, “How Cute!: Race, Gender, and Neutrality in Libraries,” Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research 12, no. 1 (Aug. 2017): 10, https://doi.org/10.21083/partnership.v12i1.3850.

^[9] Maura Seale, “Compliant Trust: The Public Good and Democracy in the ALA’s ‘Core Values of Librarianship,’” Library Trends 64, no. 3 (2016): 589, https://doi.org/10.1353/lib.2016.0003.

^[10] American Library Association Working Group on Intellectual Freedom and Social Justice, “Final Report from the Intellectual Freedom and Social Justice Working Group” (EBD #10.0, American Library Association, 2022), 10, https://www.ala.org/sites/default/files/aboutala/content/governance/ExecutiveBoard/20222023Docs/ebd%2010.0%20IF_SJ%20Final%20Report%207.12.2022.pdf.

^[11] International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions, “IFLA Code of Ethics for Librarians and other Information Workers,” 4, https://www.ifla.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/assets/faife/publications/IFLA%20Code%20of%20Ethics%20-%20Long_0.pdf.

^[12] National Information Standards Organization, Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies, ANSI/NISO Z39.19-2005 (R2010) (National Information Standards Organization, 2010), 30, https://groups.niso.org/higherlogic/ws/public/download/12591/z39-19-2005r2010.pdf.

^[13] National Information Standards Organization, Guidelines, 44.

^[14] Oxford English Dictionary, “Neutral,” https://www.oed.com/dictionary/neutral_n?tab=meaning_and_use#34680278 and “Unbiased,” https://www.oed.com/dictionary/unbiased_adj?tab=meaning_and_use#17025200.

^[15] Dani Scott and Laura Saunders, “Neutrality in Public Libraries: How Are We Defining One of Our Core Values?,” Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 53, no. 1 (2020): 153, https://doi.org/10.1177/0961000620935501.

^[16] Scott and Saunders, “Neutrality in Public Libraries,” 158.

^[17] “Are Libraries Neutral? Highlights from the Midwinter President’s Program,” American Libraries, June 1, 2018. https://americanlibrariesmagazine.org/2018/06/01/are-libraries-neutral/

^[18] Michael Dudley, “Library Neutrality and Pluralism: A Manifesto,” Heterodoxy in the Stacks, Aug. 8, 2023 https://hxlibraries.substack.com/p/library-neutrality-and-pluralism.

^[19] Mark Rosenzweig. “Politics and Anti-Politics in Librarianship,” in Questioning Library Neutrality, ed. Alison Lewis (Library Juice Press, 2008), 5-6.

^[20] Stephen Macdonald and Briony Birdi, “The Concept of Neutrality: A New Approach,” Journal of Documentation 76, no. 1 (2020): 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2019-0102.

^[21] Jaeger-McEnroe, “Conflicts of Neutrality,” 3.

^[22] Jaeger-McEnroe, “Conflicts of Neutrality,” 6.

^[23] Jaeger-McEnroe, “Conflicts of Neutrality,” 9.

^[24] Steve Joyce, “A Few Gates Redux: An Examination of the Social Responsibilities Debate in the Early 1970s and 1990s,” in Questioning Library Neutrality, ed. Alison Lewis (Library Juice Press, 2008), 33-65.

^[25] “ALA Code of Ethics,” American Library Association, updated June 29, 2021, https://www.ala.org/tools/ethics

^[26] “Resolution to Condemn White Supremacy and Fascism as Antithetical to Library Work,” American Library Association, Jan. 25, 2021, https://tinyurl.com/yr4z9e8x

^[27] Scott and Saunders, “Neutrality in Public Libraries,” 153.

^[28] “Are Libraries Neutral?”

^[29]Canadian Federation of Library Associations / Fédération canadienne des associations de bibliothèques, “CFLA-FCAB Code of Ethics,”updated Aug. 27, 2018, https://cfla-fcab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Code-of-ethics.pdf.

^[30] Jaeger-McEnroe, “Conflicts of Neutrality,” 5.

^[31] Jaeger-McEnroe, “Conflicts of Neutrality,” 5, 6.

^[32] Anita Brooks Kirkland, “Library Neutrality as Radical Practice,” Synergy v. 19, no. 2 (Sept. 2021) https://www.slav.vic.edu.au/index.php/Synergy/article/view/536.

^[33] Nicole Pagowsky and Niamh Wallace, “Black Lives Matter!: Shedding Library Neutrality Rhetoric for Social Justice,” College & Research Libraries News 76, no. 4 (2015): 198. https://crln.acrl.org/index.php/crlnews/article/view/9293/10374.

^[34] Cataloging Ethics Steering Committee, “Cataloguing Code of Ethics,” January 2021,  http://hdl.handle.net/11213/16716.

^[35] Subject Analysis Committee Working Group on the LCSH “Illegal aliens,” “Report from the SAC Working Group on the LCSH ‘Illegal aliens,'” July 13, 2016, https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/9261.

^[36] Jill E. Baron, Violet B. Fox, and Tina Gross, “Did Libraries ‘Change the Subject’? What Happened, What Didn’t, and What’s Ahead,” in Inclusive Cataloging: Histories, Context, and Reparative Approaches, eds. Billey Albina, Rebecca Uhl, and Elizabeth Nelson (ALA Editions, 2024), 53; Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 11 (November 12, 2021)” (Library of Congress, 2021), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2111b.html.

^[37] Baron et al., “Did Libraries ‘Change the Subject?,’” 54.

^[38] Michelle Cronquist and Staci Ross, “Black Subject Headings in LCSH: Successes and Challenges of the African American Subject Funnel Project,” Reference and User Services Association, July 7, 2021, virtual. https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/41826

^[39] Cronquist and Ross, “Black Subject Headings in LCSH.”

^[40] Cronquist and Ross, “Black Subject Headings in LCSH.”

^[41] Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 06 (June 18, 2021)” (Library of Congress, 2021), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2106.html. Note the headings for Japanese Americans, Japanese Canadians, and Aleuts were originally submitted as –Forced removal and incarceration matching preferred usage, but LC changed them all to –Forced removal and internment.

^[42] Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 08 (August 12, 2022)” (Library of Congress, 2022), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2208.html; Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 08 LCSH 2 (August 18, 2023)” (Library of Congress, 2023), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2308a.html; Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 04 (Apr. 21, 2023)” (Library of Congress 2023),https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2304.html; Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 03 LCSH 2 (March 15, 2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2403a.html.

^[43] For more information about Congressional actions related to the attempt to change Illegal aliens, see: SAC Working Group on Alternatives to LCSH “Illegal aliens,” “Report of the SAC Working Group on Alternatives to LCSH ‘Illegal aliens’” (American Library Association, 2020), http://hdl.handle.net/11213/14582.

^[44] Tina Gross, “Search Terms up for Debate: The Politics and Purpose of Library Subject Headings,” Perspectives on History 60, no. 3 (2022), https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/search-terms-up-for-debate-the-politics-and-purpose-of-library-subject-headings-march-2022/.

^[45] Michael Colby, “SACO: Past, Present, and Future,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 58, no. 3-4 (2020): 287, https://doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2019.1706679.

^[46] Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual, Aug. 2025 rev. (Library of Congress, 2025), https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/freeshm.html.

^[47] Library of Congress, “Module 1.5: Introduction to LCSH,” in Library of Congress Subject Headings: Online Training (Library of Congress, 2016), 8, https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcsh/PDF%20scripts/1-5%20Intro%20To%20LCSH.pdf.

^[48] Rich Gazan, “Cataloging for the 21st Century Course 3: Controlled Vocabulary & Thesaurus Design Trainee’s Manual” in Library of Congress Cataloger’s Learning Workshop (Library of Congress, n.d.), 2-2,

https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/courses/thesaurus/pdf/cont-vocab-thes-trnee-manual.pdf

^[49] Library of Congress, “H 204,” 3.

^[50] Library of Congress, “H 180: Assigning and Constructing Subject Headings,” in Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual, Feb. 2016 rev. (Library of Congress, 2016), 8, https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0180.pdf.

^[51] Library of Congress, “Module 1.2: Why Do We Use Controlled Vocabulary?,” in Library of Congress Subject Headings: Online Training (Library of Congress, 2016), 7, https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcsh/PDF%20scripts/1-2-WhyCV.pdf.

^[52] Library of Congress, “H 204,” 2.

^[53] Library of Congress, “Module 1.4: How Do We Determine Aboutness?,” in Library of Congress Subject Headings: Online Training (Library of Congress, 2016), 3, https://www.loc.gov/catworkshop/lcsh/PDF%20scripts/1-4-Aboutness.pdf.

^[54] Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Neutral,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/neutral and “Unbiased,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unbiased.

^[55] Library of Congress, “Module 1.4,” 3.

^[56] Library of Congress, “H 180: Assigning and Constructing Subject Headings,” in Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual, Feb. 2016. (Library of Congress, 2016), 7, https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H0180.pdf 

^[57] Oxford English Dictionary, “Objectivity,” https://www.oed.com/dictionary/objectivity_n?tab=meaning_and_use#34080200; Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Objectivity,” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objectivity.

^[58] Michael R. Griffiths, “Roland Barthes Declared the ‘Death of the Author’, but Postcolonial Critics have Begged to Differ,” The Conversation, July 2, 2025, https://theconversation.com/roland-barthes-declared-the-death-of-the-author-but-postcolonial-critics-have-begged-to-differ-256093.

^[59] Library of Congress Subject Headings, “Holocaust denial literature,” https://lccn.loc.gov/sh96009503.

^[60] Anastasia Chiu, Fobazi M. Ettarh, and Jennifer A. Ferretti, “Not the Shark, but the Water: How Neutrality and Vocational Awe Intertwine to Uphold White Supremacy,” in Knowledge Justice: Disrupting Library and Information Studies through Critical Race Theory, eds. Sofia Y. Leung, Jorge R. López-McKnight (MIT Press, 2021), 65.

^[61] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 4,” 2008; Library of Congress, “LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 02 (2024).”

^[62] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 10” (Library of Congress, 2013), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-131021.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 05 (2023)” (Library of Congress, 2023), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2305.pdf; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 46” (Library of Congress, 2010), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-101117.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 4” (Library of Congress, 2015), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-150420.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 27” (Library of Congress, 2010), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-100707.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 36” (Library of Congress, 2009), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-090909.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 1911” (Library of Congress, 2019), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-191118.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 2111” (Library of Congress, 2018), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-211115.html.

^[63] Library of Congress, “Module 1.4,” 3.

^[64] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 46” (Library of Congress, 2007), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/cpsoed-071114.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 6 (2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2406.pdf.

^[65] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 04” (Library of Congress, 2016), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-160418.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 2006” (Library of Congress, 2020), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-200615.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 23” (Library of Congress, 2011), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-110815.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 10” (Library of Congress, 2016), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-161017.html; Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 06 (June 17, 2022)” (Library of Congress, 2022), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2206.html.

^[66] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 2006” (Library of Congress, 2020), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-200615.html.

^[67] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 10” (Library of Congress, 2014), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-141020.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 07 (2023)” (Library of Congress, 2020), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2307.pdf.

^[68] Krista Maywalt Aronson, Brenna D. Callahan, and Anne Sibley O’Brien, “Messages Matter: Investigating the Thematic Content of Picture Books Portraying Underrepresented Racial and Cultural Groups,” Sociological Forum 33, no. 1 (2018): 179, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26625904.

^[69] Lisely Laboy, Rachael Elrod, Krista Aronson, and Brittany Kester, “Room for Improvement: Picture Books Featuring BIPOC Characters, 2015–2020,” Publishing Research Quarterly 39 (2023): 58, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-022-09929-7.

^[70] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 36,” 2009; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 21” (Library of Congress, 2011), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-110620.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 02” (Library of Congress, 2012), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-120221.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 06” (Library of Congress, 2018), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-180618.html; Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 2111,” 2021; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH List Number 11c (2024) (2024) and LCC List Number 10 & 11 (2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2412g.pdf.

^[71] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 07” (Library of Congress, 2014), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-140721.html.

^[72] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 09” (Library of Congress, 2017), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-170918.html. LC did establish a new heading for Denialism at that time; however, per the rejection, “To bring out the denialism aspect of events or topics, the heading may be post-coordinated with headings for the events or topics. The existing subject headings Holocaust denial and Holodomor denial, which are related to specific events, were added by exception as narrower terms of the new heading Denialism. Additional narrower terms will not be added to Denialism.”

^[73] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 23” (Library of Congress, 2007), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/cpsoed-070606.html.

^[74] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 1911,” 2019.

^[75] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 49” (Library of Congress, 2010), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-101208.html; Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, “LCSH/LCC Quarterly Editorial Meeting List 2409” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2409.pdf.

^[76] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 5” (Library of Congress, 2015), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-150518.html.

^[77] The heading is now Gay people–Violence against.Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 27” (Library of Congress, 2011), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-111219.html.

^[78] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 04,” 2016.

^[79] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH Number 11 and LCC Number 11b (2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2411.pdf.

^[80] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 27,” 2011; Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Monthly List 12 LCSH (December 17, 2012)” (Library of Congress, 2012), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/1212.html.

^[81] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 27,” 2010.

^[82] K.R. Roberto, “LCSH Proposals: Is this a Trend?” Jan. 17, 2012, RADCAT mailing list archives.

^[83] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 12 (2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2412.pdf.

^[84] Library of Congress, “Module 1.4,” 3.

^[85] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 12” (Library of Congress, 2015), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-151212.html. A 2016 rejection of Dadaist literature, Romanian (French) also highlighted colonialist content in LCSH, noting that “Headings for national literatures qualified by language are generally established for the language(s) of the colonial power that used to control the territory.” See: Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 04,” 2016.

^[86] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 2003” (Library of Congress, 2020), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/psd-200316.html.

^[87] Library of Congress, “Editorial Meeting Number 02 (2024).”

^[88] Margaret Breidenbaugh, “Re: Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 02, February 16, 2024,” SACOLIST Mailing List Archives, Library of Congress, May 29, 2024, https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=SACOLIST;eb3d8761.2405&S=.

^[89] Crystal Yragui, “Re: Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 02, February 16, 2024,” SACOLIST Mailing List Archives, Library of Congress, May 30, 2024, https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=2405&L=SACOLIST&D=0&P=1800917.

^[90] Matthew Haugen, “Re: Summary of Decisions, Editorial Meeting Number 02, February 16, 2024,” SACOLIST Mailing List Archives, Library of Congress, May 29, 2024, https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=2405&L=SACOLIST&D=0&P=1796174.

^[91] Stacey Patton, “White People Hate Being Called ‘White People,’” Substack, Oct. 23, 2025, https://drstaceypatton1865.substack.com/p/white-people-hate-being-called-white.

^[92] Stacey Patton, “White People.”

^[93] Chiu, Ettarh, and Ferretti, “Not the Shark,” 56-57.

^[94] Library of Congress, “H 1922: Offensive Words” in Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual, Sep. 2024 (Library of Congress, 2024), 2, https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeSHM/H1922.pdf. 

^[95] Library of Congress, “Tentative Monthly List 12 LCSH (December 20, 2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://classweb.org/tentative-subjects/2412.html

^[96] Brianna Michael, “LCSH, Transparency, and the Impact of Collective Action,” TCB: Technical Services in Religion & Theology 33, no. 2 (2025): 1. https://doi.org/10.31046/h01fq272.

^[97] Library of Congress, “Summary of Decisions, LCSH/LCC Editorial Meeting Number 12 (2024)” (Library of Congress, 2024), https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/saco/cpsoed/ptcp-2412.pdf.

^[98] U.S. Department of Education, Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education (Draft Memorandum, Oct. 2025), 4, 5, 2, 1, 9, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Compact-for-Academic-Excellence-in-Higher-Education-10.1.pdf.

^[99] Library of Congress, “Library of Congress Subject Headings Approved Monthly List 12 LCSH 2” (Library of Congress, 2025), https://classweb.org/approved-subjects/2412a.html. For more information, including the fast-tracked nature of the changes, see Violet Fox, “Anticipatory Obedience at the Library of Congress,” ACRLog (blog), Mar. 28, 2025, https://acrlog.org/2025/03/28/anticipatory-obedience-at-the-library-of-congress/

^[100] Sanford Berman, “ALA at 150: An Interview with (and by) Sanford Berman,” by Jenna Freedman. Lower East Side Librarian, Nov. 30, 2025 https://lowereastsidelibrarian.info/interviews/sandy-2025 

^[101] Berman, “ALA at 150.”

^[102] Program for Cooperative Cataloging, “Program for Cooperative Cataloging Guiding Principles for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Metadata Creation,” approved Jan. 19, 2023 https://www.loc.gov/aba/pcc/resources/DEI-guiding-principles-for-metadata-creation.pdf

^[103] Sandy Iverson, “Librarianship and Resistance,” in Questioning Library Neutrality, ed. Alison Lewis (Library Juice Press, 2008), 26.

^[104] Iverson, “Librarianship and Resistance,” 26.

^[105] B. M. Watson, “Expanding the Margins in the History of Sexuality & Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums & Special Collections (GLAMS)” PhD diss. (University of British Columbia, 2025), 270.

^[106] Violet Fox, et al. to Policy, Training and Cooperative Programs Division, Library of Congress, June 30, 2024, “Editorial Meetings Decision,” https://cataloginglab.org/editorial-meetings-decision/. 

^[107] Subject Analysis Committee Working Group on External Review of LC Vocabularies, Report of the SAC Working Group on External Review of Library of Congress Vocabularies, February 2023, 8-9, https://alair.ala.org/handle/11213/20012.

^[108] Working Group on External Review of LC Vocabularies, “Report,” 8.

^[109] Library of Congress, “H 180”, 7.

^[110] Watson, “Expanding the Margins,” 270.

^[111] Library of Congress, “L 400: Ethics and Demographic Group Terms” in Library of Congress Demographic Group Terms Manual,Mar. 2025 (Library of Congress, 2025), 1, https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCDGT/L400.pdf.

^[112] Cataloging Policy and Standards, “Announcement from the Library of Congress (April 7, 2025),” SACOLIST Mailing List Archives, Library of Congress, April 7, 2025, https://listserv.loc.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A2=SACOLIST;61e18f28.2504&S=

^[113] Hope Olson, “Difference, Culture and Change: The Untapped Potential of LCSH,” Cataloging & Classification Quarterly 29, no. 1–2 (2000), 54 https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v29n01_04.

^[114] Olson, “Difference, Culture and Change,” 66.