Collection name review process

The UC Berkeley Library seeks to provide a safe, secure, respectful, and productive environment for activities associated with research, teaching, and learning. Simultaneously, we strive to provide equitable access to a diverse set of collections and services for Library users. 

Should a member of the campus community have concerns or questions about a collection name, the Library has developed the collection name review process. This process will allow the Library to gain further understanding in order to make recommendations about a potential removal, revision, or renaming of a collection. The process applies to all campus libraries that comprise the University Library and report to the university librarian.

How to submit a proposal

The requester for renaming a collection should first submit a written proposal to the Library. Please use the information below as a guide in making your submission.  

The proposal should include:

  • Requester name(s), contact information, and affiliation with UC Berkeley (student, faculty, alumni, researcher, community member, etc.)
  • Identification of the collection (call number, url, title, or location of materials)
  • Reason or rationale for the review of the name of collection
  • Supporting materials to document the wrongdoings, injustice, or harm associated with the existing name
  • Additional stakeholders who should be consulted outside the Library (please submit any recommendations)

Please submit your proposal via email to library-name-reviews@berkeley.edu. 

Review process

1. Preliminary review team

  • Once a proposal is received, a member of the Library Cabinet (either the associate university librarian for special collections or the associate university librarian for scholarly resources) will convene the preliminary review team. The preliminary review team is composed of a Cabinet member, a Library Equity and Inclusion Committee representative, and a Library Roundtable member. This team will do an initial review and assessment to ensure the proposal includes all areas requested above. 
    • If the preliminary review team determines that the proposal is incomplete, it will be returned to the submitter with the option to resubmit. 
    • If the preliminary review team determines that the proposal is complete, they will reach out to the relevant stakeholders and form the Collection Name Review (CNR) Committee.
  • The preliminary review team will let the submitter know if the proposal needs more details or if the proposal will move on to the committee. 
  • Proposals that move from preliminary review team to the committee will be posted on this webpage and be tracked for historical record keeping. 

2. Collection Name Review Committee

  • The Collection Name Review (CNR) Committee will be convened to gather additional information, seek community feedback, and develop a recommendation. Information could include: research on the collection; background information on the issue; any relevant information regarding acquisition, provenance, bibliographic/archival description, library/archival standards, donor information, and/or the validity/extent of harm; and any other information that might inform a decision-making process. 
  • The committee will review the proposal and incorporate the additional research and stakeholder input. The committee will endeavor to ensure that different perspectives are given respectful consideration in the review of findings. 
  • The committee will make its recommendations and submit them to the Library Cabinet for review. 
  • The Library recognizes that this process is complex and will take time to do properly. The committee will be asked to provide recommendations within three to six months, depending on the complexity of the proposal. The Library will provide updates if a specific request requires additional time.  

3. Library Cabinet

  • Library Cabinet will receive the recommendations from the CNR Committee. 
    • Options for response:
      • It could ask the CNR Committee for additional information or consideration.
      • It could forward the recommendation to the university librarian.
  • The university librarian will finalize the decision, unless the decision needs to move to higher level authority. 

4. Communication and implementation

  • The decision will be communicated to: 
    • The submitter who initiated the proposal. This might include an in-person meeting to describe the process and the decision made, and address any additional questions. Members of CNR Committee might attend.
    • The CNR Committee members, appropriate Library and campus stakeholders, and any other relevant community members. 
  • The decision will be reflected on the Library webpage about the collections.
  • The Library will implement the decision(s). The implementation could include changes to metadata (including collection title), records, contextualization, documentation on a website or plaque, and/or educational tools or sessions.

Note

If a particular collection has been reviewed previously, the Library will share the previous assessment and rationale, and ask the submitter to highlight the changes that might merit reconsideration.

Principles

At the UC Berkeley Library, we uphold UC Berkeley’s principles of community. We also seek to embody the Library’s values, which guide our behaviors and actions: Collaboration and community, equity and inclusion, learning and growth, and openness and transparency.

In deciding whether to remove, revise, or rename a collection, the committee should be guided by these principles:

  • Professional bibliographic and archival description standards (such as Describing Archives: A Content Standard (DACS), Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials, RDA: Resource Description and Access).
  • Evolving guidelines and standards around ethical and inclusive description (such as Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia Anti-Racist Description Resources, Protocols for Native American Archival Materials, Traditional Knowledge Labels, Metadata Best Practices for Trans and Gender Diverse Resources, Harvard Guidelines for Inclusive and Conscientious Description.)
  • An understanding of the process used to apply the original name to the collection. (Was the naming descriptive, following archival/bibliographic standards? Was the collection name honorific? What did the Library intend when it originally assigned the name of the collection?)
  • An understanding of the prime legacy of the person/organization for whom the collection is named. (What do scholars substantially agree to be the person’s/organization’s prime legacies? Does the evidentiary record show that the person’s prime legacies included conduct that violates or contradicts UC Berkeley’s mission, values, and principles of community?)
  • An understanding of the harm of the name. (What was the severity of the harm or violative conduct of the name of the collection? What are the consequences of such harm? And how is it balanced against other dimensions of the person’s life or the organization’s work? Does the evidentiary record show that the person/organization meaningfully acknowledged or repaired that conduct?) 
  • An understanding of the nature and scope of the moral injury that might be sustained by keeping the name of the person/organization on the collection.
  • A consideration of whether substantive reparation or reckoning for the moral injury could be achieved by means other than removing the name.
  • A consideration of the impacts — positive or negative — of removing the name of a collection. (Are there constraints that impact the Library’s ability to change the name, such as a gift or sale agreement, reflection of provenance, costs, etc.?)

Contact

library-name-reviews@berkeley.edu

Current proposals under review

Proposal to Rename the Asami Collection at the East Asian Library (opens Google Doc)