We don't usually write blog posts on changes to editorial rules because those changes generally aren't all that consequential to those outside of the team. But a recent change approved during the October 2018 Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) meeting seems worth explaining.
As Alex mentioned in his write-up of EPC 141, a Dewey user from Ethiopia emailed the team earlier this year to let us know that the term "Galla" was derogatory and requested it be removed from WebDewey. Juli wrote back to clarify that Galla was used only as a Relative Index term, essentially as a cross-reference to get classifiers to the preferred term Oromo. (For those familiar with MARC coding in authority records, this would be roughly the equivalent of a 450 for an LCSH.) When Galla first appeared in DDC Edition 12 (1927), it was the term preferred by scholars, but it is now widely recognized as offensive by the Oromo people. Based on this query, the editorial team decided to review the longstanding, unwritten policy of preserving access to potentially pejorative terms for the convenience of classifiers.
The Dewey editorial rules include this guidance: "Use terminology that reflects currency, sensitivity, and international usage." Later, rules specifically about Relative Index terms advise to index terms that have literary warrant, but not to index the form if it is out-of-date. Editors would not add new terms that are outdated, but we didn't have clarity on what to do about existing headings that were now considered offensive. This new rule gives additional guidance:
4.2.1.2.1: However, do not index terms for groups of people and topics closely associated with groups of people, e.g., languages, if the terms are considered offensive by virtually all members of the affected group and if at least two authoritative sources (e.g., LCSH, Wikipedia, Britannica Online), have the disambiguation notes, see references, etc., that a cataloger would need to determine that the term has been replaced by another term.
Essentially, this means that if it's clear from other sources what an offensive term refers to, we don't have to keep that term in the DDC. This gave us the flexibility to remove the offensive term Galla from the Relative Index, which has been done.
We also needed clarity on what to do with terms that are not clearly either offensive or inoffensive. We came up with this wording:
3.3.1.1: In order to provide access, it may be necessary to include a term that is considered offensive. For example, terms considered offensive by one part of an affected group of people that are preferred by a different part of the same group may be given.
For example, I recently made updates to the schedules and tables to add a note to class interdisciplinary works on the LGBT community at 306.76 Sexual orientation, transgender identity, intersexuality and at T1--0866 People by sexual orientation. I then deliberated over whether to include the term Queer at that number, because while it is preferred by some members of the LGBT community and has considerable literary warrant, other members of the LGBT community find it offensive. With the new rule, I had a clear path forward—I would add the term as a Relative Index term to provide access.
Because of limited resources we don't have the capacity to systematically search for potentially offensive terms, but as we make our continuous revisions to the DDC we will apply the new policy. We're grateful for the question from the Dewey user in Ethiopia for providing the opportunity to refine our procedures.
Comments