As a library leader, one of your most important jobs is to make space in your organization for the expression of minority perspectives. Of course, one complicating factor is that the term “minority perspectives” can mean so many different things. For example, it can mean:

• The viewpoints of people who are in a minority within the organization
• The viewpoints of people who represent minority groups in the larger society
• Views or opinions that are held by a minority of people in the library

Each of these dimensions of “minority”-ness can contribute to both the useful uniqueness of a person’s opinion or perspective, and to the difficulty that a person may face in expressing that opinion or perspective.

Of course, the fact that a viewpoint is in the minority does not, in itself, say anything one way or the other about the validity of that viewpoint. If you have a library employee who believes the earth is flat, that will almost certainly be a minority viewpoint in the library; does it deserve the same consideration as, say, that of a library employee who subscribes to the majority view that the earth is round? Similarly, most large organizations will contain a variety of views on topics related to the management of the organization, some of which will be held by the majority of employees and some of which will represent minority views of various kinds – all of which may conflict with each other. When deciding which viewpoint will prevail, in what ways and to what degree should the minority or majority nature of the viewpoint factor into the decision-making process?

For our purposes today, I’m going to focus on two specific dimensions of “minority”-ness and briefly consider questions that library leaders should ask themselves about making space for those perspectives: first, the social/cultural dimension, and second, the intellectual/political dimension.

On the social/cultural dimension: we have long known that there are multiple important reasons for fostering ethnic, racial, and cultural diversity in our organizations. One reason is that members of various minority groups have experienced a range of discrimination and oppression throughout our history, resulting not only in harms that can be partially remediated by intentional efforts at inclusion, but also in the exclusion of valuable perspectives on issues important to library services and collections: without the perspectives that arise from Black people’s experiences, for example, the library collection is less likely to represent the realities of those experiences effectively; without the perspectives that arise from neurodivergent people’s experiences, our services may not provide well for unique needs of neurodivergent people. All of these factors suggest an organizational imperative to make space in our policy discussions, leadership cohorts, and program initiatives for the voices of people from underrepresented groups – all while recognizing the legal and policy limitations within which we may have to work while doing so. A wise library leader will be constantly monitoring the cultural and ethnic makeup of her organization and asking herself what its implications are: is there an appropriate diversity of voices and experience at the table in light of what the library hopes to accomplish? Is anyone either inside or outside the organization experiencing a remediable disadvantage due to their race, gender, religion, or other demographic characteristic? 

If someone in the library has a view that differs from the majority view, is there a safe way for that person to express it – not without risk of disagreement, but with the expectation that she will be listened to and her perspective respectfully considered?

On the intellectual/political dimension: Every library organization has a majority culture – or, in many cases, multiple majority cultures. There will not only be (in most cases) majorities that follow ethnic, racial, age, and gender lines, but also majorities that follow ideological and political ones. Just as someone who is the only woman in a room full of men, or the only person of color in a room full of Anglo-European people, may feel inhibited in speaking up in a meeting, so might someone who senses that her opinion on the topic at hand is a minority view and who expects that expressing it will be costly for her – socially, professionally, or both. A wise library leader will be constantly monitoring the ideological diversity of his organization and asking himself what its implications are: is there such a strong unity of social or political viewpoint within the organization that other legitimate perspectives are being crowded out or dismissed out of hand? If someone in the library has a view that differs from the majority view, is there a safe way for that person to express it – not without risk of disagreement, but with the expectation that she will be listened to and her perspective respectfully considered?

These issues are neither simple nor easy. Making space for people of different backgrounds and characteristics may create uncomfortable social dynamics both for them and for others, and may require the leader to deal with difficult questions about equity, justice, and principle; making space for differences of opinion and viewpoint will almost certainly lead to some degree of conflict and may raise difficult questions about the appropriate boundaries of thought and inquiry (are there any views against which the library will take an organizational stand? Must every opinion be treated with equal respect, no matter how outlandish it is, or how offensive to the majority of library employees and patrons?). But this difficult work is the work of leadership. Leaders who decline to engage in it are not doing their jobs, and are giving neither their employees nor their patrons the support they need in order to thrive in their work.

Takeaways and Action Items

• Every library organization contains different kinds of minority groups. Each offers distinctive perspectives that may be important to the health of the library, and wise leaders will look for ways to include those perspectives in the work of the organization.
• As you look around your organization, ask yourself questions like:
  • Are different minority groups represented both in the organization and in leadership? If not, what perspectives are missing from our discussions?
  • Does our organization have a clear ideological culture? If so, are we appropriately welcoming of heterodox viewpoints? 
  • What needs to change in our organization to ensure that all employees understand that they belong, and to ensure that the diverse perspectives contained in our organization have an appropriate platform for expression and consideration?