Tag: disability

A sensory room in the library

As the new semester gets ready to kick off, among other things, I’m getting ready for a new Project SEARCH intern. In preparation, we’re thinking about the work they might do at the library, including working on our sensory room.

Which brings me to the topic of this post: the sensory room itself. Before I get too deep into things, I want to add the disclaimer that I’ve only tangentially worked on the sensory room; it’s really my boss who’s done the bulk of the work, and all credit really should go to her. Now onto the post!

First of all, what is a sensory room? You can read the Wikipedia article on sensory rooms for yourself to learn more about some of the theory. The goals for our sensory room were to provide a place for library visitors to find stress relief, relax and work through emotions, and use items related to different sensory experiences.

To get this project going, we needed a combination of administrative buy-in, funding, and direction. Again, my supervisor was responsible for all of this while I mainly just looked on from afar. We luckily had a donor interested in funding a sensory room, so the preliminary phase of the project largely involved researching sensory rooms elsewhere to develop a plan for how ours would work. This included drawing up a set of guidelines for use of the room and a list of items to purchase.

You can find a complete list of what our sensory room includes online, but I’ll say here that it covers a wide range of items. There are different sorts of seating options, including a bean bug chair and the very popular egg chair (very similar to the Oberlin College Library womb chairs). There are also all sorts of lighting options, including a dimmer switch for the overhead lights, a light therapy lamp, and a hanging fiber optic light that changes colors. There are then all different kinds of sensory tools and toys, ranging from a weighted shoulder wrap to coloring books to a meditation tool in the shape of a sloth to a Bop It.

The room is decorated with sensory artwork—designs with different textures and colors. My boss also recently added a mosaic-like piece where visitors can follow numbers (in a paint-by-numbers style) and use different colored stickers to create a design together. We also have another space on the wall where visitors can provide feedback with sticky notes—people usually leave nice messages, which are fun to read.

As for how the room runs, we specifically have left it unlocked and without a reservation system, with the idea being that you won’t be able to predict when you’ll need a moment to regroup and therefore won’t be able to make a reservation ahead of time. The room allows for use by multiple people at a time, but there’s also the option to lock the door for thirty minutes. There are also sanitizing wipes available to sanitize anything that gets used.

In terms of maintenance, student workers or our Project SEARCH intern also sanitize high-touch items in the room. They are also responsible for completing an inventory of the room and noting down anything that’s missing or broken. In general, things going missing or breaking have been the biggest challenges we’ve had. We keep the room locked during the late-night hours to try to counteract this.

Overall, the sensory room has been a success. We’ve seen a lot of use just walking by and noting whether or not the door is closed. The feedback left by visitors has been nice to receive. We also have an online feedback form for those who don’t want to leave a sticky note. This feedback can be used to make changes to the room and to know what’s working well. Again, mostly from the sidelines, it’s been a project to get the sensory room up and running, but it has been worth it and does appear to be meeting a need.

As an aside, we also have sensory kits available for check out that work on similar principles. They include things like noise cancelling headphones, fidgets, and meditation tools. These are also inventoried and charged by student workers or interns, sometimes at the same time as they’re sanitizing and reorganizing the sensory room.

Do you have any unique or innovative spaces in your library? How were they set up? How have they been received? What challenges have you dealt with?

Tribute Post for Fobazi Ettarh

With immense sadness, the writers of ACRLog acknowledge the passing of Fobazi Ettarh, library worker and influential LIS scholar. If you are able to contribute, there is a GoFundMe established for Fobazi’s wife, Elena, to assist with the significant medical and end-of-life expenses. This post will include some reflections from ACRLog members about their interactions with Fobazi’s influential work.

The highest form of intellectual contribution a humanistic scholar can make is to provide people a way of understanding themselves and their situation in a new way; to spotlight a widespread challenge by naming it and describing its facets; to give people language to discuss it and thereby work against it to make their lives better. So many of us who read Vocational awe and librarianship: The lies we tell ourselves can remember the revelatory feeling of being seen and understood; the feeling of when you finally find that perfect word you’ve been searching for, multiplied many times over. This type of contribution is both very rare and a true gift to the field, both in an academic and practical sense, and one that extends beyond librarianship. Thank you, Fobazi! You continue to make a difference.

– Sam Winemiller

Fobazi, Fobazi, Fobazi: thank you. Your work resonates across librarianship and beyond. You do not simply contribute to existing conversations — you offer a research framework that gave many of us new language, new questions, and new accountability. Through your scholarship, you illuminate how systems of labor shape who is permitted to work, to belong, and to be recognized as fully human.

I am proud to be part of a field that has learned to name vocational awe as a real and impactful concept — and to take seriously the ways our profession can romanticize service, self-sacrifice, and institutional loyalty at the expense of workers’ well-being. Your work, Fobazi, exists within that critical tradition, and also pushes further. Where vocational awe asks us to interrogate the mythology of librarianship, your scholarship asks us to interrogate at what cost. You make it clear that devotion to the profession cannot substitute for justice within it. That access to work is not simply about passion or calling, but about policy, protection, and power. In doing so, you expand how we think about labor in librarianship and whose experiences expose the limits of institutional narratives about care and service.

To honor Fobazi is to refuse the comfort of vocational awe when it obscures harm. It is to remain committed to building professional cultures grounded not in myth, but in accountability, equity, and material support. Her work continues to give us tools: to ask harder questions, to examine institutional complicity, and to imagine more just systems of work and knowledge.

– Caelin Ross

I first had the pleasure to hear about Fobazi’s work as a graduate student when I was also going through mental health struggles on top of the daily work that I had while working part-time in multiple libraries. Thinking about work as a source of stress almost felt forbidden, as I should have been so grateful to even have these kinds of opportunities and chances in life. I had honestly never thought to examine how my dream job, the industry that I dreamt of working in for so long, could be the stem of where I was feeling anything remotely negative. To be seen as radical, especially in a sector stereotyped as being so traditional, is such a courageous and personal action, and the impact that it has on early-career librarians and students, thinking about entering the industry is immense. To be introduced to these kinds of concepts so early and develop workstyles, work ethics, and enter the workforce with a strong and healthy mind is something I wish for all library students to have. To be seen in the workplace, to make a difference every day, and to remain in the profession upholding values such as the ones that originally led us down this path is a gift. Thank you Fobazi for all that you have done for the profession and for the librarians all over the world, you are dearly missed. 

– Lisa Shin

Fobazi’s life and work were deeply informed by her identity as a Black, queer, disabled woman. While Fobazi is rightly appreciated for her groundbreaking scholarship in coining and developing the concept of vocational awe, I would encourage those who have found her work with vocational awe to be eye-opening to explore her work and words that more directly relate to disability, in the hopes that you’ll find them equally revelatory. A great place to start is Fobazi’s Killing Me Softly, a choose your own adventure-style text-based game, where you can explore the cumulative impacts of microaggressions and acculturative stress by playing either as a white, able-bodied gay man or a Black, straight, disabled woman. Her blog posts about coming out as disabled and intracommunity violence within the disabled community are also must-reads. 

Fobazi was outspoken about the frustrations of being disabled in a world with too few accommodations. One way to honor her life and contributions to the profession is by considering how you can more fully consider the access needs of your disabled colleagues and patrons, by taking actions such as wearing masks, providing equitable access via virtual meetings/webinars, and regularly listening to and learning from members of the disabled community.

– Violet Fox

I started graduate school in Fall 2020, and one of the very first things I read in my classes was Vocational Awe and Librarianship. The turmoil of the world at that time was absolutely leading me to place librarianship on a sacred pedestal; continuing on that path would have burnt me out quickly, because as Fobazi said, “Martyrdom is not a long-lasting career.” It also allowed me to take many steps back and look at the field critically before I well and truly entered it, learning and asking about the ways that librarianship has either failed or actively caused harm to others. I cannot overstate the impact that this article and her work as a whole has had on not only my career, but in so many library workers’ lives, and for that, thank you. When we are discussing a new program, assessing and evaluating one we already do, or generally ranting about academia as a whole, my coworkers and I are always referencing Vocational Awe. Beyond her academic work, though, this is a deep and tragic loss for those who loved her. I did not ever have the privilege of meeting or talking with Fobazi in person or online, but from all the tributes I have read over the last few weeks, knowing her was a true joy. I am so sorry to Elena, Ysabel, and everyone else in her life; this is a tremendous loss. 

– Emily Zerrenner

I was gutted to hear the news of Fobazi Ettarh’s passing earlier this year. Like many of us I first became aware of Fobazi and her work on social media in the mid-2010s, when the website formerly known as Twitter was in what I’ll always think of as its librarian and higher education heyday. Her foundational article on vocational awe remains a piece that I return to again and again, and I was so lucky to have the opportunity to see her invited presentation at the ACRL 2019 conference, too. As I was educating myself about antiracism within and beyond the workplace, as well as critical librarianship, following Fobazi and her work was one of the ways I learned the most. And I’m so grateful for what I have learned by listening to Fobazi as she shared her lived experience at the intersection of multiple marginalized identities. 

As a white able-bodied person I know that it is not the responsibility of folks of color to teach me about racism, nor disabled folks to teach me about ableism. Thank you, Fobazi, for sharing your experience and your research with us for so many years, you are already missed by so many.

– Maura Smale

Past ACRLog posts that directly reference Ettarh’s work: 

Integrating interns with disabilities at the library

For the past three years, Michigan State University Libraries has participated as a job site in Spartan Project SEARCH, an MSU-based iteration of the larger Project SEARCH program. Project SEARCH is a transition program for young adults with developmental disabilities in which participants, often recent high school graduates, learn job skills such as how to write a resume while also working half days in various job settings. At MSU, participants work everywhere from the dining halls to the library, learning how jobs work and how they like different job environments.

Spartan Project SEARCH began at MSU in 2016 and the Libraries’ Accessibility unit started participating in Fall 2022. Since then, we have hosted two interns per year, one in the fall and one in the spring. The interns’ rotations in the library typically last about 10 weeks.

When we first began the program, we started small, with interns only coming in a few days per week, but more recent interns have spent four days a week at the library. This would not have been possible without the participation of several units around the Libraries. Usually, our interns spend between one hour and two hours working for one unit before moving to another, allowing them to work on a variety of tasks in a single day.

Currently, interns work on resetting furniture, scanning books for controlled digital lending, collecting books for reshelving, and checking in returned books. They also have the opportunity to assist with smaller projects as they arise, including installing exhibits and participating in user experience testing. Interns also tour other units in the library, such as Cataloging or Maps, so that they can see the breadth of work happening in the library.

Overall, participating in Project SEARCH has been extremely rewarding, but we have learned some things along the way. First, we would not have been a successful program site if the interns worked in only one unit. Having multiple host units allows for interns to learn an array of different skills and experience different kinds of work and work environments. It also helps to fill out their schedule and provides some flexibility as we respond to interns’ interests and needs.

Each intern is different, and though we’ve now developed a process that generally works, we’ve found flexibility to be key in making the experience useful for the intern. We train interns extensively on their tasks, with the goal of them completing their work independently. We do, however, always have someone scheduled to check in with the intern or to provide extra support and training time if they need it. Some interns feel more comfortable shadowing for a longer period of time, others work well when we double check their work with them, and occasionally some just want a bit of company during their shift. Again, responding to interns’ needs and requests has helped to make the training process and transition to independent work run smoothly. Depending on interns’ interests and abilities, we’ve also added or modified work for them.

Providing the interns with routine and consistency also helps to set expectations and keep the internship running smoothly. At the beginning of each new internship, we create a schedule that stays roughly the same, with work in specific units happening at the same time each week, along with some free slots to add in tours. We print a full schedule each week for the interns to reference and take home if they want. This helps interns to anticipate what’s coming up, know where they should be, and know who they should expect to see.

Finally, establishing methods of finding and asking for help has been critical both in the early stages of an internship and later on when interns are working independently. We of course make sure interns know where to find our offices, but because we are so often moving around the building or in meetings, we also give interns our phone numbers and encourage them to text us if there’s a problem. Because there are two of us managing the interns, group messages have been particularly helpful.

Project SEARCH has sites throughout the US and internationally, but it isn’t everywhere. If you’re interested in participating in a similar program in your library, I encourage you to look into similar alternatives as well. Project SEARCH, for example, collaborates with Michigan Rehabilitation Services, and there are likely other similar programs in your state. We’ve found Project SEARCH to certainly be a commitment of time and resources, but also completely worthwhile and a way to make a direct impact in the community.

If your library participates in a similar program or if you’re interested in starting something like this, I’d love to chat more in the comments.

Special thanks to Heidi Schroeder, who initiated the Project SEARCH program in the MSU Libraries and works with me on supervising our interns. This article in the Libraries’ newsletter has more information on MSU Libraries’ participation in Project SEARCH.

Open Letter to CRL from the academic wing of #CripLib

Editor’s note: We welcome a guest blog post from the academic librarians of #CripLib, which focuses on the intersection of disability and library work.

Note: The focus is on our concerns about the quality of the article and the editorial process that led to it being published as research – NOT on the author as a person.

In Brief

The authors of this letter are writing in regard to “Respecting Privacy of Thought in DEI Training,” an article published in the May 2025 issue of College & Research Libraries (CRL).

How did such an intellectually dishonest, poorly argued editorial get published in College & Research Libraries, a highly-regarded library journal? We will identify some of the most obvious problems within the text–problems that any competent editorial team should have addressed before publication. As part of this, we also ask: why did the editorial team not support this author in refining her argument before publishing it? Or alternatively, why did the editorial team not reject this article?

Full version

Reason for writing this letter

Despite approaching the article with curiosity, we quickly identified several issues which caused us considerable concern:

  • The author neglects to engage with other scholarly critiques of DEI in library literature.
  • The political bias is hidden.  
  • The author appears to misunderstand or shallowly understand several of the cited sources.
  • Citations are spotty – while some arguments provide adequate citation, other arguments lack evidence.

We are members of what are often referred to as marginalized populations–we all have different disabilities, and many of us are also LGBTQ+ and/or BIPOC, etc. We have been dismayed by the recent dismantling of DEI initiatives, which is operating hand-in-hand with the dismantling of our civil rights. We are also very open to critiques of DEI programs – we and people like us have often been at the forefront of critiques about DEI programs in libraries, expressing concerns about tokenism, lack of follow-through, ineffective “one shot” style training models, prioritizing white feelings over the material conditions of Black and Indigenous people or people of color, to name a few (see References). 

However, none of the many articles written by librarians articulating critiques of DEI initiatives are engaged in this article. Instead, the author focuses on engaging with a frankly odd mix of Wikipedia articles, shallowly analyzed law review articles and political theory books, and right-wing blog posts and media. We recognize that several of these right-wing media sources identify as libertarian and that Anglo-American style libertarianism often refers to itself as non-partisan, but that doesn’t mean it lacks an ideology (tone marker: neutral valence, see Roberts, 2025). Meanwhile, accusations of library DEI initiatives being “politically partisan” are made a few times, without evidence. (Note: no definition is provided for “politically partisan,” so we are working on the assumption that it refers to allegiance to a political party.) 

Frankly, we are concerned by the use of recent far-right talking points to argue against DEI initiatives in libraries without an honest acknowledgement of the political stance the author is taking. To be clear, we are not objecting to the author having a political stance, we are objecting to hiding it. Among those of us drafting this letter, we do not share the same political beliefs about everything, we just share the expectation of honesty and academic integrity, so we can actually work through those disagreements in a productive and respectful way.

Even with the current work being done to dismantle DEI, civil rights, and higher education at the direction of one political party, we would also be among the first to question political partisanship in libraries. That is because none of the dominant political parties in English-speaking North America reliably support us (see Anyangwe and Okoh, 2023; Dhenin, 2025 for two recent examples of bipartisan legislation that causes active harm to disabled and other marginalized peoples). 

However, whatever our feelings are about the author’s conclusions, what we’re really dismayed by is its failure to honestly engage with legitimate critiques of DEI initiatives in libraries. There are some elements of the piece that we may have agreed on, if they’d been presented with more academic rigor.

That leads us to wonder: How did such an intellectually dishonest, poorly argued editorial get published in College & Research Libraries, a highly-regarded library journal? We will identify some of the most obvious problems within the text – problems that any competent editorial team should have addressed before publication. As part of this, we also ask: why did the editorial team not support this author in refining her argument before publishing it? Or alternatively, why did the editorial team not reject this article? 

Problems identified within the text

Because the errors in argumentation and the questionable citations are so rampant within this article, we are puzzled by its publication. 

The article includes a lot of references. We wonder if that was required for it to be called research rather than a letter to the editor? In any case, it has resulted in a long list of cherry-picked, manipulatively quoted sources that support what the author wants to say. This piece does not demonstrate any honest engagement in ongoing conversations in the field or even the arguments made in the cited works.

Similarly, the author demonstrates limited understanding of the academic texts referenced. Some of the references are to right-wing blog posts. Note that we’re not condemning the use of blog posts or popular press books across the board, what we’re critical about here is the relative lack of academic citations and the lack of disclosure about the political biases of the rest of the sources that were used. When talking about DEI initiatives at a time when the US federal government is actively dismantling them, while simultaneously engaging in anti-Black, anti-immigrant, openly eugenicist, and anti-LGBTQ+ initiatives, this matters. The author does not clearly identify the partisan nature of many of her non-academic sources–partisan as in partial to an approach that is generally viewed in the US as right-leaning, is often critical of social justice causes, and in some cases openly advocates for the right to discriminate (e.g., Levy, 2016).

Here are a few sections that we have selected to highlight, just for demonstration. This is not an exhaustive exploration of all the weaknesses of this article.

Does not engage with other scholarly critiques of DEI in library literature

Tracking attendance at trainings is one new data point, especially where participation is required or assessed in performance reviews.110 DEI action plans, rubrics, “temperature checks,”  climate surveys, equity audits, assessments of impacts, and so on, in aggregate contribute to  shifting the library’s culture away from the academic and toward the bureaucratic.111 The message they send to the library workers is that their own independent thoughts and autonomy  in their jobs is secondary to data-collection tasks. 

One example of decentralized, bottom-up control is known in the organizational management literature as “concertive control.” Under concertive control, organizations employ  cross-functional and self-organizing teams.112 Library DEI trainings, while potentially administratively sponsored, are often delegated to a team that is responsible for their content and that  may also conduct the trainings. Library administrators will naturally delegate DEI training  to those who are motivated and well-versed in the ideas. These trainings, and the teams that  lead them, are a mechanism for non-hierarchical, concertive control over employees. Teams  that do not have authority over library policy may be given wide latitude to develop trainings,  especially when they can be based on profession-wide guidelines…. (p. 442)

The author has not engaged with any of the many and varied library articles about managerialism, workplace climate, library assessment, etc. The implication of this section appears to be that library administrators should not delegate DEI trainings, in fact should not be using concertive control to delegate anything, because to do so means they lose all responsibility and control. If this is indeed what readers are supposed to take from this section, we would have liked a clearer articulation of — everything, frankly. If the author is not arguing that library administrators should not delegate work, that raises even more questions. Also, again, if the author had wanted to build on arguments made previously by other librarians critiquing various management tendencies, we think that would have enhanced and clarified her argument. 

Does not disclose political bias

While this sort of statement is not required, it matters for this discussion because we are talking about issues where people hold a wide range of conflicting values and beliefs, and the argument is presented as if it is coming from some sort of objective place. 

Pretending that you can talk about race and racism from a place absent ideology is weird. But if you take the perspective of someone who doesn’t want to think or learn about racism, it starts making more sense. 

The author praises the 2012 Diversity Standards for demonstrating “non-ideological language” while criticising the narrower focus of the 2022 Cultural Proficiencies for Racial Equity (p. 439). Shortly afterwards she claims that “…. imperialism and colonialism, mass incarceration, disparities in  access to healthcare, the achievement gap in education, and disparate outcomes for “BIPOC  populations.”95 None of these topics has more than an indirect link to library work.” (p. 440) There is plenty of evidence out there identifying how each of these points connect to each other (see References). A good place to start looking is within the Cultural Proficiencies. This section provides one of many examples of the author pushing back specifically on training that requires attendees to learn about racism. We can’t help reach the conclusion that this is not an absence of ideology, this is a refusal to acknowledge one’s own.

Misunderstand or shallowly understood source material

Much of the article centers on the idea of privacy of thought, the author’s definition of which is:

Privacy of thought is an instinctively understood concept because everyone experiences it every  day. Most would consider being forced to share private thoughts an invasion of privacy. In  this way, the idea that privacy of thought should be considered a human right feels intuitively correct. How this intuition is reflected in society via laws and culture, however, is inseparable from the influence of Enlightenment ideas about how we understand individual liberty…. (p. 432)

The author then goes on to use various references to argue that freedom of thought is a universal value, followed by a reference to cognitive liberty. We assume that the author has done the internal work of synthesizing these concepts, and that’s why they’re presented in conflated form. However, that work is not replicated on page, so we as readers are confused about why these different terms are treated as interchangeable. 

Also, nowhere in this section is an acknowledgment that the Farhany discussion about cognitive liberty is specifically in reference to tort law, the legal doctrine of avoidable consequences, and emotional distress injuries. This is a really different context than workplace DEI training. We recognize that a link could be made here, but the author did not actually make it – for us this raises the question about whether the author read and understood the source material. This is a rich enough area for investigation that she could have made a whole paper focused on this idea. Instead, the paper immediately moves on to mostly unsubstantiated claims about DEI trainings (almost exclusively focused on critiquing anti-racism trainings), with yet more under-explained theoretical frames added to the discussion. And as we observed earlier, there are articles published by librarians on these issues, none of which are engaged here.

When talking about a self-assessment conducted as part of a racial equity training, the author notes that: 

“Even if your employer does not see your responses, these ninety-six questions are presumptuous and invasive. Asking about a person’s  thoughts in this way violates privacy of thought…” (p. 435).

Is learning something new or considering new approaches an invasive violation of privacy? It seems absurd on its face. Is having to think about challenging things – not having to publicly disclose your thoughts, just having to think about them – a violation of privacy? What are the boundaries of this argument – is it only when people are expected to work towards ending racism that it becomes a violation? This is a really strange argument that none of us understand. There may be a sensible rationale behind this argument, but it needed to be explained within the article before publication.

Also the source referenced in the above excerpt was a right-wing/libertarian blog post, rather than a direct reference to the assessment tool itself or a first-hand account. It’s unclear whether the library worker quoted within that blog post had actually taken the assessment. It is possible that this blog post was writing about one employee who just didn’t like how the Inclusive Excellence frameworks were implemented at UVA. In other words, the author’s argument here relies on unclear secondhand information provided by one person. 

This section included a side point that “(Suggesting a redirection  back to race and racism here implies that other marginalized groups are not appropriate DEI topics.)” – but all the citations in this section are to anti-racism trainings. Asking people to stay on topic seems like a reasonable request for a training session. Even if one wants to make this point about DEI trainings in general, which some have (see References), to once again make the focus of the argument a pushback against anti-racism training is noticeable. Again, why did the editorial team not catch this? Spotting this problem does not even require anyone to dig into citations, it’s self-evident just from reading the text itself.

Next steps

We are asking for a public statement from the CRL board articulating how they will rectify this situation and make improvements to prevent a recurrence. 

Problems identified:

  • The author neglects to engage with other scholarly critiques of DEI in library literature. There have been innumerable articles, books, and presentations that talk about DEI in relation to the concerns brought up in this article (e.g., assessment of DEI programs, managerialism, the tensions between intellectual freedom and social justice) but none of that body of research was used here.
  • Instead the author uses sources that broadly fall under the spectrum of political theory that, as demonstrated in the text, appear to be misunderstood or shallowly understood. 
  • The citations provided are plentiful but poor in quality, including more wikipedia articles than library research articles. While some arguments provide adequate citation, other arguments lack evidence.
  • We all have biases. Pretending that we or the systems we work with don’t operate in biased ways does not erase those biases, it just prevents those biases from being acknowledged or addressed. This article talks about DEI in libraries while pretending at objectivity in its framing, but the arguments presented and the citations referenced demonstrate a clearly biased point of view that is never acknowledged. 

Because of the degree and pervasiveness of the problems we identified as well as the potential negative impacts on the field if this article is taken at face value, we are asking CRL to retract this article. We would also like an explanation: how did this make it through editorial review? Is there a peer review process at CRL? Are you having subject experts conduct peer review? Are you outsourcing peer or editorial review to artificial intelligence?

References

Anyangwe, D. and Okoh, C. (2023). The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act: A dangerous new chapter in the war on Black youth. The Center for Law and Social Policy. https://www.clasp.org/publications/report/brief/the-bipartisan-safer-communities-act-a-dangerous-new-chapter-in-the-war-on-black-youth/ 

Courtland, S.D., Gaus, G. and Schmidtz, D. (2022). Liberalism. In Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ 

Dhenin, M. (2025, May 9). Escalating anti-homeless policies fall hardest on disabled people in the US. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/escalating-anti-homeless-policies-fall-hardest-on-disabled-people-in-the-us/ 

Joint ALA/ARL Building Cultural Proficiencies for Racial Equity Framework Task Force. (2022). Cultural proficiencies for racial equity: A framework [White paper]. ALA. https://www.ala.org/pla/initiatives/edi/racialequityframework 

Levy, R.A. (2016). Libertarianism and the right to discriminate. CATO Institute Policy Report. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/march/april-2016/libertarianism-right-discriminate# 

Roberts, W.C. (2025). Ideology. In Zalta & Nodelman (Eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2025 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ideology/#ValIde 

(see References) note: We had originally referenced the work of respected librarian-scholars who’ve published research in this area. However, because we value them so much, and because we recognize the risk of speaking out publicly like this, we decided not to publish their names. Those new to this sort of work may not know the history of librarians doing DEI work being targeted by harassment campaigns and death threats – especially women of color – but those of us who have been around for a few decades don’t want to see that happen again.

Bringing Disability to the Forefront

It’s been a busy semester at the reference desk. Amidst the busyness, I was elated to see that some of my coworkers created a display of books relating to chronic illness and disability. I was even more thrilled to see that students were often stopping by to look at the display, telling their friends about it, and checking out some of the books that were featured. 

March is Disability Awareness Month, and my library makes sure to create displays and programming relating to chronic illness and disability throughout the month. But with more and more people, including college students, becoming disabled due to Long Covid, it is more important than ever that we consider the needs of disabled students year-round. It is also more important than ever that we as academic librarians highlight books by chronically ill and disabled authors throughout the year, and not dismiss displays and programming as options that solely serve the needs of school and public libraries.

Chronic illness and disability are personal to me, as someone who is disabled because of chronic illness, and whose disability is considered invisible. Some days are better than others, which means I use a mobility aid on some days, but not others. It is often said that disability is the only group that anyone can become a member of at any time. 

Katie Quirin Manwiller, who has written two previous posts on Conferencing while Chronically Ill and The Inaccessibility of ACRL 2021, recently presented on Reasonable Accommodations from the Employee Perspective for the Pennsylvania Library Association 2022 Conference. Her research cited 26% of Americans living with disability prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as 1 in 5 adults who will experience Long Covid. 

However, we never know truly how many of our students, faculty, or staff are living with either chronic illness, disability, or both. There is still significant stigma attached to either, leaving many people to decide not to disclose. Also, no one is under any obligation to disclose to us, as librarians. We should make an effort to prove that we are capable of meeting the needs of disabled students without requiring them to disclose personal information they might not feel comfortable sharing. 

What does this look like in practice? On my end, it looks like:

  • Continuing the practice of masking. While there is no longer a mask mandate on my campus, I and many others on staff have continued masking. Working at a busy reference desk, I feel more comfortable interacting with people while wearing a mask, and I’ve found that many students have appreciated that we are still masking, and are also choosing to wear a mask themselves.
  • Staying up-to-date on the evolving language of disability. Language is constantly evolving. Not all websites have caught onto the fact that disabled people have reclaimed Identity-First Language, as opposed to People-First Language, and often refer to themselves as disabled not as a person with a disability. I’ve found that the best way to stay current on disability language is to follow disabled people on Twitter. Even lurking will allow you to gain a better understanding of issues facing disabled people, which undoubtedly includes many of your students.
  • Promoting materials by and about disabled people. The display at my library includes a combination of memoirs by disabled writers, sociology books on the history of disability, and even ready-reference on disability history. There are also plenty of electronic resources that contain information on disability history, which I’ve been working to familiarize myself with over the past couple of months. This is a work in progress for me; keeping in mind that resources can and will become out-of-date. 
  • Being mindful of library space. I’m always conscious about how my library physically meets, and doesn’t meet, the needs of disabled students. In practice, this looks like ensuring that aisles are kept wide and clear for users with mobility aids and offering study areas with varying amounts of light in order to accommodate students with sensitivity to light and/or sound. However, being mindful, for me, also means continually learning and keeping in mind that there is always room for improvement. 

With this in mind: How have you met the needs of disabled students, and how should libraries improve going forward?