In 2012, more than a decade after the original Association of College and Research Libraries (ACRL) Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education (hereafter the Standards) were institutionalized as the goal of academic library instruction, the Information Literacy Competency Standards Review Task Force convened by ACRL recommended in a memo that the Standards "should not be approved as they exist but should be extensively revised" (ACRL, 2012, p. 1). More recent models of information literacy informed this decision, as well as "changes in technology, scholarly communication, and the information life cycle" (p. 2). It is clear, the memo asserted, that "the scope of literacy is changing and we must respond" (p. 4). Maura Seale writes that as a critic of the original Standards, she was pleased to hear that they would be revisited and revamped. She takes the position that the 1999 document conceptualized information literacy as universalizing and apolitical, reiterated dominant discourses around the information society, and elided inequities in information access and creation. Seale argues that the individual standards, indicators, and outcomes failed to articulate the processes that lead to information literacy, relied on conventional notions of objectivity and authority, ignored the politics of knowledge production, and represented the information landscape as natural and inevitable. While the revised Standards have not yet been published, two documents that hint at the shape of the revised Standards have been released: the aforementioned memo submitted by the Task Force to the ACRL Information Literacy Standards Committee (ACRL, 2012; hereafter "memo"), and more recently, "A Prospectus for Revision," submitted by the co-chairs of the Task Force (ACRL, 2013). Seale takes the position that while these changes are certainly welcome, she is also troubled by what these documents reveal. This article presents a discussion of those concerns.