March 27, 2017

Library of Congress Drops Illegal Alien Subject Heading, Provokes Backlash Legislation

Update: On June 10 the House voted 237–170 to order LC to continue using the term “illegal alien,” in order to duplicate the language of federal laws written by Congress.

 

Update: The Library of Congress has posted a survey where the public can share their views on the proposed changes, and will accept comments through July 20.

library-congress-logoThanks to the joint efforts of a student group and university librarians at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, with a push from the American Library Association (ALA), the Library of Congress (LC) announced on March 22 that it would remove the term “Illegal alien” from the LC Subject Heading (LCSH) system, replacing it with “Noncitizen” and, to describe the act of residing without authorization, “Unauthorized immigration.” Per LC’s executive summary, the proposed change will be posted on a “Tentative List” for comments “not earlier than May, 2016.” Ultimately the heading “Illegal aliens” will become a “former heading” reference, cross-referenced with the new terminology; other headings that include the phrase will also be revised or canceled. This decision currently stands despite recent backlash: members of the U.S. House of Representatives have voted to attach language to a funding bill which would require LC to switch back to the original term, but the bill is not yet law.

The replacement of the subject heading was the culmination of a two-year grassroots process that began when Melissa Padilla, class of 2016, first noticed what she felt were inappropriate search terms while researching a paper on undocumented students at Dartmouth’s Baker-Berry Library in 2013. While working with research and instruction services librarian Jill Baron, Padilla told LJ, she realized that nearly every article or book she looked at was categorized with the subject heading “Illegal aliens.”

This had particular resonance for Padilla, a Latin American studies and film major who had been undocumented herself until enrolling at Dartmouth. “It was very bizarre to see these incorrect words being used to refer to people in my community,” she told LJ.

According to the Executive Summary of the statement LC would submit as part of its eventual announcement, “Aliens” is one of the oldest of its subject headings, having appeared in the first edition of Subject Headings Used in the Dictionary Catalogues of the Library of Congress, published in sections between 1910 and 1914. In the current LCSH system the term is defined as “persons who are not citizens of the country in which they reside.” The summary also noted that “The heading has been somewhat problematic over time because the word aliens has several dictionary definitions, one of which corresponds to the LCSH scope note and another that means beings from another planet.” To clarify this, the heading “Aliens, illegal” was established in 1980, and revised to “Illegal aliens” in 1993. (The heading “Extraterrestrial beings” was added to LCSH in 2007 to more effectively cover the second definition.)

ALL COFIRED UP

Padilla brought up the issue at a meeting of the Coalition for Immigration Reform, Equality, and DREAMers (CoFIRED), a nonpartisan student organization dedicated to advancing the rights of undocumented students at Dartmouth, which had just been created that month. “I brought it up with my friends, not really as a thing…to pursue but more of a rant,” Padilla said. “But after talking about it with the board members, it quickly became something that we rallied around, and we thought it would be a great project for CoFIRED to take on.”

The group approached several Dartmouth librarians, who agreed to meet with CoFIRED representatives to talk about the issue. Their answer, said Padilla, was daunting: the subject headings were part of the national Library of Congress cataloging system, and could not be changed within the Dartmouth library. Library staff did point out, however, that other LC subject headings had been changed over time—predominantly terms now perceived as racially insensitive, or the change from “Insane” to “Mentally ill”—and they offering to work with the student group to put together a proposal asking LC to change the offensive terms. “In other words,” explained cataloging and metadata services librarian John DeSantis, who was present at the meeting, “go right to the source.”

The librarians’ enthusiasm “initially shocked us,” Padilla recalled. “We were not expecting that alliance at all.” However, the Dartmouth librarians were well-positioned to help; the Baker-Berry Library is a member of LC’s Subject Authority Cooperative Program, which enables member institutions to submit subject heading and classification number proposals. Baron, DeSantis, and research and instruction services librarian Amy Witzel proposed that the students gather documentation to prove that “Illegal aliens” is not a preferred term, and to find evidence that better terms—such as “Undocumented immigrant,” which was their initial suggestion for a replacement—were in common use. At that point news organizations such as the Associated Press, USA Today, ABC, the Chicago Tribune, and the LA Times had already committed not to use the term “Illegal” to describe an individual.

The students “did a beautiful job of the documentation,” DeSantis told LJ, working throughout the rest of the school year to compile information from media sources, government websites, reference material, online sources, databases, and indexes—“from linguistics to sociology, ethnographic work, personal narratives, books, films, anything we could think of,” said Padilla. In summer 2014, DeSantis submitted a formal request to LC. The proposal pointed out, in part, that “Illegal alien” is a “dehumanizing, inaccurate, offensive, and inflammatory term,” and requested that LC replace “Illegal alien” with “Undocumented immigrant.”

In February 2015, after consulting with staff members including the Law (Cataloging) Section and the Law Library of Congress, LC responded to the proposal in a public memo stating that it would not change the wording because, it explained, the phrase “Undocumented immigrant” is not directly synonymous with “Illegal alien,” and not all undocumented people are or intend to be immigrants. In addition, the memo continued, authoritative sources for legal terminology—including Black’s Law Dictionary, the most widely used law dictionary in the United States—use “Illegal aliens” as their established term.

ALA COUNCIL STEPS IN

“I thought, ‘Oh no—well, that’s the end of it,’ ” said DeSantis. “But it turned out not to be the end of it, because of the initiative of one of my colleagues within ALA who took an interest in this topic and decided to work through the system to bring it back to the attention of the Library of Congress.” DeSantis’s colleague, Tina Gross, associate professor and catalog librarian at St. Cloud State University, MN, galvanized various divisions and affiliates of ALA, including the subject analysis committee, social responsibilities round table, and REFORMA (the National Association to Promote Library and Information Services to Latinos and the Spanish Speaking). Together, they formulated a resolution asking LC to reconsider the original request. At the same time, Twitter campaigns were launched using the hashtags #DropTheIWord (by the racial justice initiative Race Forward) and #NoHumanBeingIsIllegal.

In mid-January 2016, at the ALA Midwinter Meeting in Boston, ALA Council passed the resolution calling on LC to change the subject heading to “Undocumented Immigrants.” LC still saw the substitution as problematic, but agreed to convene a formal stakeholder meeting to examine the problem.

Representatives from the Law (Cataloging) Section, the Law Library of Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Cooperative and Instructional Programs Division, and the Policy and Standards Division met with Beacher Wiggins, LC’s director for acquisitions and bibliographic access, on February 19. Instead of “Undocumented immigrants,” the participants determined that the “Aliens” heading would be revised to “Noncitizens,” and for “Illegal aliens,” the heading used would be “Unauthorized immigration.”

“This was a huge surprise, and a delightful surprise,” said DeSantis. “The students were thrilled beyond belief that they had actually initiated something and saw it go all the way through to the Federal government.”

ROAD MAP, INTERRUPTED

According to LC director of communications Gayle Osterberg, revising and adjusting subject headings is an ongoing process, and LC catalogers add nearly 5,000 new subject headings to the LC reference base every year. “We’re constantly reviewing subject headings as language changes,” Osterberg explained “to make sure that we’re keeping current with the language that researchers are using.”

The process can take two to six months depending on the number of items that would need to be change, and the old headings are cross-referenced rather than deleted entirely. Therefore, noted Osterberg, “as unlikely as it may seem, someone could still search for ‘electronic calculating machines’ and be directed to the [current] heading ‘Computers.’” She added, “The point of this whole system is to help people find things. So you’re looking for language that is what the average researcher might think to search for, and then if the basic heading is different it would refer them to that. The point is to give them a road map to get to the materials that they need.”

However, not everyone wants that map to reach its destination. In April conservative Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee introduced a provision calling for the term’s reinstatement into the report accompanying a bill for FY17 funding for legislative branch agencies such as LC.

HR 4926, also known as the Stopping Partisan Policy at the Library of Congress Act, directs the Library of Congress to retain the headings “Aliens” and “Illegal aliens,” as well as related headings. Its sponsor, Rep. Diane Black (R-TN), cited the subject heading revision as “needless policy change” that would ultimately cost taxpayers money in a statement on her website. “By trading common-sense language for sanitized political-speak,” Black wrote, “they are caving to the whims of left-wing special interests and attempting to mask the grave threat that illegal immigration poses to our economy, our national security, and our sovereignty.”

Black added, “Hopefully this bill will give Washington the push needed to stop thinking up the most politically correct ways to describe illegal immigration and start thinking about solutions to address it.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL23), the Ranking Member of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee, countered that LC should be able to make taxonomic decisions outside of the political arena. Wasserman Schultz countered with an amendment to the report, requesting that the subject heading changes stand. This was supported by the full Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Nita Lowey (D-NY17) and other members of the minority, as well as by a joint letter, entered into the record, by the chairs of the Hispanic, Black, and Asian Pacific American Caucuses of Congress. However, the amendment failed narrowly in a 24–25 House panel vote on May 17.

Although the Senate’s version is not expected to include similar language, and it remains unclear whether the appropriations bill will make its way through Congress before it adjourns at year’s end, the provision is still a matter of concern for many stakeholders. “It’s just mind-boggling that they would try to politicize this issue,” DeSantis told LJ. “I can only think that would not have happened if it were not an election year…. [O]f course, it’s not just about this heading.”

In addition, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Rep. John Culberson (R-TX), and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) sent a two-page letter on May 16 to acting Librarian of Congress David Mao criticizing LC’s “misguided decision” and urging it to revoke the changes.

GRASSROOTS CIVIC CHANGE

Regardless of the bill’s ultimate fate, the work accomplished by the Dartmouth students sets a powerful precedent for instituting civic change at a grassroots level. “It’s not unusual for people to submit changes to the LCSH,” noted DeSantis. “But usually it’s done at librarians’ initiative, that they’ve discovered that [a term is] problematic in some way for their cataloging process and they need it changed. The fact that this originated with a student group, and that they were able to make this connection with the library, and that we had the connection with the LC, that’s what’s really unusual about the whole thing, the way it originated.”

He added, “What’s really nice is that they were so engaged…. This is something they’re going to remember as they go forward in their lives and when they reflect back on their time here in university, this will be an important memory for them.”

Padilla agreed. “For me, the change had a lot of meaning for my time as a student and what it means for me to be seen as an equal and not be seen as an other, or as less than. I’ve gotten to see how changing the place I work impacts communities [elsewhere]…. A change in the Library of Congress [represents] a change within academia, but also translates into the real world.”

This article has been edited to reflect the fact that REFORMA is an affiliate of ALA, not a division.

Lisa Peet About Lisa Peet

Lisa Peet is Associate Editor, News for Library Journal.

Share
Start Planning the Library of the Future
Coding Program WorkshopHosted by Library Journal in partnership with Columbus Metropolitan Library on—in its newly renovated Main Library—our May 5 installment of this day-long library building and design event will bring you the latest trends in library design.

Comments

  1. Bookworm says:

    Sadly, I think the LoC’s change was concerned more with making a political statement instead of what worked best. Noncitizen is an extremely poor choice of replacement. There are many people here who are noncitizens and here legally. This was a poor choice of replacement.

    • I think you misread the article, what LoC is changing is the following: “Aliens” heading would be revised to “Noncitizens,” and for “Illegal aliens,” the heading used would be “Unauthorized immigration.”

      Therefore Noncitizen doesn’t refers to illegal immigrants and indeed a noncitizen can be legal or illegal. I think that term is better that “aliens” since most people associated aliens with extraterrestrials these days, especially after the movie Alien came out way back in 1979.

    • Bookworm says:

      The wording says it wants to replace Illegal aliens with Noncitizens and Unauthorized immigration. Though, when I went into the LoC survey, it seems like what they’re proposing is to replace one subject heading with two, so they have to be used in conjunction to illustrate the point. Which is still a poor idea in my opinion.

  2. A big thank you to all involved. The terminology, illegal aliens, has troubled me since the 1980s when I worked with Central American refugees fleeing torture. They were not documented but also were not illegal. Words do matter! Grateful and proud to be a librarian today!

  3. I disagree with MAV, above. If they were here as immigrants, legally, then they should not be labeled as illegal immigrants. But the two words imply that someone is here illegally and that they are an immigrant. Clearly understood. I have known several immigrants to the US who were here legally, held green cards and some applied for and were granted citizenship after a few years and some are still not citizens and do not choose to be so…but they are legal immigrants.
    This is a way of rounding out the fact that the person being referred to is not breaking any laws, and is entitled to rights and privileges granted to citizens. If it allows them to vote, get welfare, food stamps, and a job without green cards we are undermining our own civilization and we will pay for it in the end. We will also pay for it along the way.

  4. I think LOC is trying to be politically correct in changing the terminology. Yes the cross references will work, but who is really going to come in to a library and search for “noncitizens” or “Unauthorized immigration”.

  5. Aaron Kuperman says:

    The LC management misspoke in saying the proposal was designed to appease the Dartmouth students/ALA committee who had wanted a term such as “Undocumented immigrants” (which implies that illegal aliens have nothing wrong with them other than improper documentation). Actually the LC proposal, coming from the law catalogers, was designed to preempt the “PC” crowd by substituting the neutral word “noncitizen” for the confusing term “alien” (a term well established in legalese that many people confuse with non-human extraterrestrials), and adding a neutral term for “Unauthorized immigration”. Both the “blue” and “red” versions of political correctness assume that “alienage” has to do with immigration, and while most illegal aliens in the USA are trying to immigrate, in other countries the typical illegal alien is a non-immigrant temporary worker or a native born stateless person (in countries in which citizenship is based on ancestry rather than place of birth), not to mention that aliens include international tourists and foreign students (many of which overstay visas, which renders them as illegal aliens). In fact few books are written about “illegal aliens” since usually they are on something much more specific, e.g. unauthorized immigrants, and most bibliographic records with the heading are for this reason, incorrectly cataloged since they violate the LCSH principle of specificity. A heading “Unauthorized immigration–Law and legislation–United States–Criminal provisions” will probably be used for books on what Americans call “illegal aliens”, though for non-criminal discussions the books are best described with a heading for immigration (since if isn’t a discussion of criminal provisions, it is just a discussion of what is and is not legal, which is what all law books discuss).

  6. The Old Doc says:

    I will offer my opinion on the topic, understanding that we may disagree, which is fine with me. I seek to explain my position, not to change yours.

    It seems to me that there are two issues, 1) and 2) below, that underlie the library’s decision and the objection to it. And it seems to me useful to discuss them separately.

    But first, I know that hispanic activists have made the accusation that people who seek to deal with, or even to discuss border security issues are somehow racists. That accusation has been echoed by middle-easterners and muslims. I regard those accusations as absurd misdirections, and would not discuss them without first hearing a reasonable argument that racism in this case has anything whatever to do with management of national boundaries. Without which shouting “racism” is merely nasty name-calling and not worthy of a response.

    1) Sovereignty: Of the two relevant issues, the first is national sovereignty, an established principle since the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648. Analogous to the principle of personal sovereignty over one’s house and land, and the right to grant or deny ingress to anyone who seeks entry, national sovereignty established the same power for nation-states. This is a hugely important, and I think still vital principle which is, in my view beyond question. No individual or nation can be criticized for seeking to exercise the power sovereignty confers.

    In this world, no one, NO ONE, has a right to enter the home, property or nation belonging to others without permission, and there neither a legal or moral obligation of any owner to grant entry to any person(s), nor any obligation even to explain the reasons why access is denied.

    2) Euphemism: Even when there is no law or moral precept to support what some people wish for, they often invoke the vacuous slogans of “Political Correctness”, and the avoidance of bruised sensibilities to support their otherwise insupportable arguments

    euphemism …noun…..a mild or indirect word or expression substituted for one considered to be too harsh or blunt when referring to something unpleasant or embarrassing.

    It is my understanding that the Obama Department of Justice has decided to change the term “burglar” to the less hurtful, “undocumented occupant”, and that a “home invader” will hereafter be known as an “undocumented house guest”. Drug smugglers will now be called “undocumented pharmacists”.

    But if you look at the definition of alien, on its face it is not unsavory or hurtful.

    alien |ˈālēən|
    adjective… belonging to a foreign country or nation.

    It is merely because the aliens (and we are all aliens when we travel abroad) who have entered this country illegally have earned disfavor for abusing our hospitality that others now wish to avoid the label, “Illegal Alien”, no matter how accurate and neutral that term may be.

    Use of some new euphemism serves only the agenda of those who wish to convince us that there is nothing wrong with entering our country without permission, and that we somehow have a moral obligation to accept any who wish to do so or have done so in the past.

    I am certainly willing to listen to any reasonable arguments as to why that should be so, but those are never forthcoming, largely because they are impossible. Instead that point of view is supported only by blame-the-victim (the sovereignty) innuendo and name-calling.

    To me, the argument that someone wants to live here because of the implied defense that our immigration laws don’t matter or mean anything, is self defeating. A person who does not respect our sovereignty is woefully ignorant of our history and culture and cannot honestly take the oath of citizenship, which says:

    “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

  7. Cathy Holtz says:

    Regarding “Library of Congress Drops Illegal Alien Subject Heading, Provokes Backlash Legislation”
    The USA Library of Congress should have never removed the term “illegal alien” from the LCSH system. This is a form of removing Freedom of Speech from the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.! I want to declare that the future President remove The Civil Rights Act to claim my country’s Freedom of Speech as guaranteed me, a USA Citizen, via my State and the USA.

  8. J.B. Stewart says:

    Given the current congressional leadership and given this is a major election year, LC management is more than a bit politically tone deaf to bring this to the forefront now. Little harm would have been done by delaying it until post November elections.

  9. Janice Grover-Roosa says:

    Whether or not you agree with the exact terminology proposed, the House just voted to force LC to use a term “they” wanted for “their” own reasons. Subject headings are used to organize information, not to make a political point. LC’s proposal was, as usual, based on a lot of research on the current use of the term and their adjustments were in response to said research. Hello!? the House shouldn’t be in charge of the language used to organize information because the house is not staffed and informed by information professionals, LC is.

    • anonymous coward says:

      “Subject headings are used to organize information, not to make a political point”

      Exactly. But if you don’t think LC was using them to make a political point, I think you’ve misunderstood what was happening.

  10. Fred McKinney says:

    I work as a reference librarian and I disagree with this re-classification. If someone from another country wants to move here, I have no problem with that — provided that they go through the proper legal channels in order to do so. But to me, it’s another matter entirely if they move here and make no attempt to legally become citizens or assimilate into our culture. In other words, illegal aliens are just that — they’re here ILLEGALLY, and need to either take steps to make their residency here legal or else go back to where they came from.

Comment Policy:
  1. Be respectful, and do not attack the author, people mentioned in the article, or other commenters. Take on the idea, not the messenger.
  2. Don't use obscene, profane, or vulgar language.
  3. Stay on point. Comments that stray from the topic at hand may be deleted.
  4. Comments may be republished in print, online, or other forms of media, per our Terms of Use.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through (though some comments with links to multiple URLs are held for spam-check moderation by the system). If you see something objectionable, please let us know. Once a comment has been flagged, a staff member will investigate.

We accept clean XHTML in comments, but don't overdo it and please limit the number of links submitted in your comment. For more info, see the full Terms of Use.

Speak Your Mind

*