More than a “Slap in the Face”: ICA’s Congress in Abu Dhabi Whitewashes the UAE’s Reality

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Today’s post comes from Burkely Hermann, Metadata Librarian for the National Security Archive and current I&A Blog Coordinator. This post does not represent the views or positions of the Issues & Advocacy committee or National Security Archive. The views expressed here are the views of Mr. Hermann, and are not the views of any other individuals or organizations.

Promotional image on the official website for the ICA’s Congress, screenshotted on Aug. 15, 2023, trying to legitimize their presence in the UAE. I re-examined the page before publishing this article and the numbers were the same.

Recently, there has been a hullabaloo on social media about the location of The International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA)’s World Library and Information Congress (WLIC) in 2024. Set to occur in Dubai, the most-populous city in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and capital of the Dubai Emirate, it was panned on social media as willfully ignorant, divisive, disappointing, embarrassing, spineless, craven, shameful, disgusting, disregarding queer librarians, driven by money, and resulting in a conference attended by “mostly bigots and…centrists.” Others criticized it as undemocratic, since the IFLA’s own press release showed majority opposition among those voting on the resolution, especially those from “Europe, North America…Latin America and the Caribbean”. Some proposed that the conference could be held any other location in the region that wasn’t hostile and “outwardly dangerous…to human rights,” stated they would not join the IFLA as a result, called for a boycott on the conference, or fumed that the decision was being blamed by the IFLA on members from “Asia-Oceania, the Middle East and North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa.” It appeared there were a small number in favor, who seemed excited that IFLA’s conference was coming to their country, but it is not known how representative that is, as such individuals appear to be outliers. [1]

What is not talked about as much is the congress/conference of the International Council on Archives (ICA) in Abu Dhabi, the UAE capital, set for October 9 to October 13. Official materials call it a “unique chance” to network with fellow archivists and a place to promote the “best examples” of achievement in archival and records management. The ICA claims it will be somewhere where archivists can connect with professionals across the world to build networks to empower our “knowledge societies,” all under the “hospitality of Abu Dhabi.” Considering the response to the IFLA conference, I have to ask whether the ICA conference is, rather than being some networking opportunity, a slap in the face for queer people and unsafe for those people? It is an indication of the non-neutrality of archives and un-representative nature of the ICA? Should the conference, due to its location, be boycotted? [2] In this post, I’ll answer those questions and explain why the ICA’s reasoning is flawed, and talk about the deeper problems with this conference, which go beyond the conference taking place somewhere that is hostile to queer people.

Much of the opposition to the IFLA’s conference appeared to center around lack of rights in the UAE for queer people, more than any other reason. There was some mention of how the location went against the IFLA’s own values. Some called for a new location in a “developing country”. There are further problems with the ICA’s choice of Abu Dhabi as the conference location. It’s not the focus on climate change, sustainability, accessibility (of information), memory work, peace, and tolerance, nor even the theme of enriching “knowledge societies,” which are welcome. Rather it is that the conference is tied directly to the UAE’s government. One speaker, Abdulla Majed Al-Ali, currently Director General of the UAE’s National Library and Archives, formerly worked for Abu Dhabi’s Department of Culture and Tourism. He also worked in the country’s armed forces. Another speaker, Dr. Abdullah Al Raisi, chair of the ICA’s conference organizing committee, was formerly director general of that archives. That institution has a message from the UAE’s Vice President, Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the deputy head of state of the entire country, on its website. The archives declares that safeguarding documents is an important responsibility of a “sovereign, enlightened state,” notes the importance of improved archiving to preserve the nation’s history, and states that this archives will reinforce the concept of “institutionalization and enhance[d] national identity.” [3]

That isn’t all. The UAE’s National Library and Archives is directly involved in fostering nationalism, instilling loyalty, values, and virtues of the UAE’s founder, Zayed Bin Sultan Al Nahyan, and “enhancing national identity.” Other pages state that the archives aims to enhance civic spirit. One individual working there even did public relations for Dubai’s Crown Prince. This goes beyond the archives’ objective to preserve the country’s history, duties, and agreements/partnerships/memberships in various international organizations. The institution’s approach appears to be very nationalistic. It is reinforced in part by having the National Records & Archives Authority, which focuses on preserving the “antique history” of Oman in an effort to “build a brighter future,” as an exhibitor and even more by having the Abu Dhabi Convention and Exhibition Bureau as a conference sponsor. The latter is an issue primarily because the Bureau aims to champion the Abu Dhabi Emirate, one of the country’s seven emirates (all are in a constitutional federation), as a “dynamic global business events leader.”  [4]

Surely, like the IFLA’s executives, some from ICA will defend this location choice. They may point to exhibitors such as non-profits like Al Ghadeer Emirati Crafts, or companies like Rookie Ninja, Phase One Photo, Clarivate, and Artefactual. They might point out that the Emirates News Agency is wholeheartedly supporting the conference, note that participants would join a “global community of archivists and industry professionals,” or note that you can visit interesting local sites (there is even a special program for one’s spouse or partner). These executives could says the country as tourist-friendly and “world-renowned for its social and modern environment.” They might declare that the conference can be a great business opportunity to reach a global audience, point to the expansive program with many topics and sessions, the conference’s sub-themes, or other features.

All of this ignores the fact that FamilySearch, a genealogical arm of the Mormons, uses prison labor to index records, as I’ve previously written about on this blog is a sponsor. Xerox, EXPM, Artefactual, NVSSoft, Zeutschel, and Nirvana Travel and Tourism are sponsors as well. Also, former French President Francois Hollande is a keynote speaker. [5] On the one hand, he supported the legalization of same-sex marriage and adoption for LGBTQ+ couples, which passed the French National Assembly in 2013. On the other, he strongly supported the U.S.-backed Saudi-led military campaign in Yemen, which began in March 2015, and militarily intervened in a former French colony, Mali, from January 2013 to July 2014, obstinately to fight Islamic extremism, but also to protect “French interests” in the country, with a continued French military operation until November 2022. [6]

This conference is nothing to look forward to (as Preservica declared), praise, be grateful for, or treat it like just another conference, which was decided upon by the ICA sometime before November 2022. Is it possible to experience “Arabian hospitality” or “discover new horizons” in a country hosting this “cultural heritage” event which is strongly supported by UAE Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed al Nahyan? [7] This conference is clearly positioned to promote the UAE, whitewashing its problematic elements. The U.S. State Department’s latest human rights report, not an unbiased source by any measure, on the country, cites “credible reports” of arbitrary detention and arrest, privacy invasions, media and free expression restrictions, internet freedom limits, unfair and unfree elections, curtailed political participation, criminalization of same-sex consensual actions between adults, and prohibition on independent trade unions. This conference will, without a doubt, boost the country’s role as a regional “trade and investment hub,” support the country’s desire to attract additional foreign direct investment, and push to shift the country’s economy to a so-called “knowledge economy” in the next ten years. [8]

This screenshot from a video on the official YouTube channel for the conference (mostly has Arabic-language videos), from February 2020, shows that planning for the conference there began at that time, if not earlier than that.

Ultimately, the ICA is shilling for the government of UAE. Its assessment of the UAE is no better than the country’s self-submitted Universal Periodic Review reports to the U.N. Human Rights Council. The official site for the conference boasts that the UAE is “ideal tourist destination,” declares that women have equal rights to men, and calls for modest dressing, especially in religious areas, and recommends visitors respect the “Muslim values of the local community.” While some of this makes sense, the description misrepresents the UAE as a rosy place. It boggles the mind that any of the other 21 Arab states, or any other states in Asia, Oceania, Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, or North Africa, were not chosen as a conference location instead. [9]

There is only one response to this decision by the ICA: to boycott the conference in Abu Dhabi and encourage sponsors, like Preservica, to pull out. This call is not Arabphobic, Islamophobic, nor does it engage in what some call “homonationalism“. Many governments in the Middle East have laws infringing upon LGBTQ+ rights, either due to religious conservative governments and/or holdover laws from colonial control. In the case of the UAE, although it was under British control between 1820 to 1971, the Arab rulers were nominally independent. They could “keep the peace,” with arbitration of disputes through the British, to abstain from relations with other European countries, while the British committed to providing the rulers, and their governments, with protection against any “unprovoked foreign aggression,” but did not interfere within the countries. This ended when the United Arab Emirates was formed in December 1971, ending the unofficial British colonies in the Persian Gulf region. [10]

As such, the homophobic laws of the UAE do not have roots in colonialism, but in the country’s legislative history. They include capital punishment for male-male and female-female sexual intercourse, punishments for sex “outside marriage” and cross-dressing, while gender reassignment surgery appears to be illegal (or hard to obtain). This “conservative” and regional hub for tourism reportedly allows lesbian or gay relationships under decriminalization of cohabitation by unmarried couples, in 2021. It is not known whether this is enforced evenly or if such relationships are socially accepted by residents. Previously, it has been reported that the country’s authorities investigated a children’s magazine which depicted a “multi-coloured character” with claims that it promoted homosexuality, resulting in its retraction. The UAE also refused to air Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse (possibly because some saw Gwen Stacy as trans) in the country or films like Lightyear (for a kiss between lesbian characters). [11]

Even Arab countries like Bahrain, Djibouti, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria have better legal strictures toward queer people than UAE, even though they still are restrictive. The conference’s current location in Abu Dhabi runs afoul of the ICA’s own mission stating that archives are fundamental to “identity, democracy, accountability and good governance.” How is accountability and democracy possible when the conference is a vehicle for the country’s government to promote its interests? Will any criticism of the government be allowed? Or will it be discouraged to not annoy and anger the government? Will any topics about LGBTQ+ sessions be allowed? The IFLA said that the latter was not possible and admitted that homosexuality is not recognized by the UAE constitution “and therefore illegal.” [12] A well thought-out thread on X/Twitter by Naomi House opposing the location of the IFLA’s conference in Dubai argued that conferences need to be inclusive (already in-person conferences exclude many in the library field from participating) of all members, stated that this location has laws endangering many with “encoded legal bigotry,” and called for online conferences which are safe for all groups and members. The same logic can be applied to this ICA conference.

Considering that the ICA has invested time, and money, into this conference, its sponsors, and location, it is extremely unlikely it will be reversed. The fact that the conference is in the UAE is indicative that the values of the ICA do not matter when money, prestige, and influence win out over common sense. Whether “true universality and inclusiveness” can exist isn’t the issue, but rather that sets a bad precedent that only countries like the UAE “can afford to host.” It may hint at “institutional homophobia” of the ICA, and a stance against inclusion and diversity, all of which was said in opposition to the IFLA’s decision. Those in favor of this choice will declare that it will foster community spirit between archivists across the world, claim it will be “unforgettable,” joyful, or even say that the conference will enrich the “UAE’s society and the fields of documentation and archiving.” [13] Having the conference in the UAE will weaken any (likely underground) efforts, by those on the ground, to improve lives for LGBTQ+ people within the country, by legitimizing the country’s laws, hurting any possibility of change.

Some months ago, a LinkedIn message from Sara, the Marketing Director for the conference, strangely extended a special invitation through a LinkedIn message to the National Security Archive (NSA), even though I’m not a manager there. She declared that NSA has widely recognized expertise, advancing historical research, and promoting transparency. She tried to convince me by saying that discussions at the conference would be enriched by NSA’s participation, claiming that the event would be influential, exceptional, and highly anticipated, and make history as taking place in the “Middle East for the first time ever.” [14] This marketing effort could be why a search for the words “ica abu dhabi” is dominated by tweets from the official account on X/Twitter for the conference, and very few responses from anyone else. Recent tweets make this clear. One tweet only a couple days ago from Piql claiming that the conference will be the “world’s biggest archiving event.”

All these arguments ignore the unsustainable nature of the UAE. A supermajority of the country’s energy comes from petroleum, coal, and natural gas, and only a small sliver coming from solar, wind, and biofuels, according to the International Energy Agency. The Energy Information Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Energy, adds that the country is energy-intensive since it is one of the largest petroleum producers in the world. Their assessment states that the UAE economy is fueled largely by “natural gas…petroleum and other liquids.” Hosting the conference in the UAE stands against at least four of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, [15] which the IFLA claimed they followed. It is also why some have argued that the hosting of the 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference (also known as COP-28) in the UAE from November 30 to December 12 of this year is a form of greenwashing. The country hired PR companies to promote itself as the COP-28 head, pay users to clean the Wikipedia page of the COP-28 president (Sultan Al Jaber), run promotional campaigns on social platforms, polish its “green credentials,” and preparation of a list covering “touchy and sensitive issues”. [16]

Those supporting Abu Dhabi as the conference location may echo arguments of library associations in Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, UAE, and elsewhere in the region which supported Dubai as the IFLA conference location. They supported the decision as a positive opportunity for Arab librarians and libraries, and for other reasons. As such, it makes sense there is positive sentiment by those individuals and groups toward this conference. Furthermore, there is value in standing against “historical biases towards Western countries” when choosing conference locations. [17] However, hosting the conference in the UAE makes it unlikely there would be open exchange of ideas, especially due to human rights violations, including about migrant workers and other individuals, within the country. In addition, the choice of Abu Dhabi by the ICA and Dubai by the IFLA stands against established principles of each organization. Both serve as promotional opportunities for the UAE. They whitewash the country’s reality.

The conference’s location in the UAE is interlinked with discussions about colonialism, Western imposition of values onto other parts of the world, and racism, at minimum. While archivists obviously cannot address this in one fell swoop, there is something that can be done at the present: boycotting both conferences. This should be accompanied with advocacy for a safer and more inclusive virtual/online conference. It could avoid librarians, or archivists, fighting among one other over a conference location, where nationalism comes to the fore, especially the case with the division between those opposing or supporting the IFLA conference’s location. Archivists should express these views on social media and directly to the ICA and IFLA management.

Dr Abdulla Alraisi (left), Cultural Adviser of the UAE Presidential Court and Board of Directors member and Member of the Executive Committee of the UAE National Library and Archives, and ICA President, David Fricker (right), virtually signing a memorandum for understanding for the ICA conference in July 2022. On the same webpage it is stated that the conference was rescheduled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It also claimed that the conference will have a “positive financial result for ICA’s ongoing programmes” and would provide “much-needed” financial resources for the ICA. Apart from the issue of the ICA depending on UAE oil money, one question comes to my mind from this screenshot: this signing could be virtual, why couldn’t the whole conference?

Notes

[1] See the IFLA’s press release on August 11, 2023, entitled “IFLA Governing Board decides on WLIC 2024” and tweets from Violet Fox, Annie Pho (past president of Asian Pacific American Librarians Association and Library Juice Press editor), Lauren Crossett, Valerie Hawkins, Tara Donnelly, Alex Brown, Niall O’Brien, Naomi House (see here and here), Mike Cosgrave, Liam Hogan, Siân Woolcock, Martin O’Connor, Alison Harding, Rob Bittner, Andrea Dillion, Karen Steiger, Ferran Burguillos, Franck Garot, Jamie Finch, Alan Carbery, Isalline, David Wright, Ric Paul, COBDC, Barbara Band, Peter Coles, Matthew Noe, Imogen Negomi, Richard Neil, Jo Wood, Cathal McCauley, Jo Harcus, Caroline Ball, Brendan Teeling, Lyn Robinson, Omorodion Okuonghae, Lesley Pitman, Scott Walter, Felicity Jupiler, Rob Thomson, Tarry MacDonald, CILIP Library and Information History Group, Stuart Dempster, and many others here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. For those in favor, see tweets from Adegbilero Idowu and Dr. Bashayer Alrandi (also see here).

[2] “About the ICA Congress,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “ICA CONGRESS ABU DHABI 2023,” LinkedIn, accessed Aug. 15, 2023;  and see tweets by Larry the Librarian, Louise Cooke-Escapil, Queer Library Alliance, Naomi House, Jennifer Bayjoo, and Piu Martinez, along with a tweet by ICA Congress Abu Dhabi here.

[3] See ICA tweets here, here, and here; tweets by Meg Phillips, Vice President of Programmes at ICA here and here; tweet by ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023 here and here; “Biography of Director General of the UAE National Library and Archives,” UAE National Library and Archives, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “SDAA, National Archives enhance strategic partnership,” Emirates News Agency, Oct. 20, 2020; “His Highness Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan’s Message,” UAE National Library and Archives, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; the Library Association of Ireland’s “Response to the announcement by IFLA that Dubai, United Arab Emirates will host the 2024 IFLA World Library and Information Congress” statement, BibliotequesBCN‘s thread ending here, and my conversation with Piu Martinez ending here, my mention of the conference here, and my open support of a boycott here.

[4] “Travel Information,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Chairman of the National Library and Archives’ Board of Directors Message,” UAE National Library and Archives, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Vision, Mission & Values,” UAE National Library and Archives, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “About Us,” UAE National Library and Archives, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Our Duties,” UAE National Library and Archives, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Biographies,” UAE National Library and Archives,” accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Memberships/Partnerships/Agreements,” UAE National Library and Archives,” accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Halls of the National Library and Archives,” UAE National Library and Archives,” accessed Aug. 15, 2023; tweets by ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023 here and here; “Abu Dhabi Convention and Exhibition Bureau,” Experience Abu Dhabi, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Exhibitors,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023.

[5] See tweets by ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023 here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here; posts on the ICA Congress Abu Dhabi LinkedIn page here and here; “Sponsors,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023;  “Travel Information,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Delegate Site Visit,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Spouse/Partner Program,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Exhibiting Opportunities,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Programme,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Authors and sessions chair – ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Description of sub-themes,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “ICA Congress Bursary Program,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; “Hackathon,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; tweet by UAE National Library and Archives here.

[6] “The Role Of The Colonizer: France’s Intervention In Mali,” NPR, Feb. 4, 2013; Porter, Bernard, “Mali intervention: when former imperial powers step in,” The Guardian, Jan. 13, 2013; “French Intervention in Mali: Causes and Consequences,” Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, Jan. 20, 2013; “France calls time on anti-jihadist Operation Barkhane in Sahel, ” BBC News, Nov. 9, 2022; Kane, Papa Samba. “The French colonial designs in Mali,” Al Jazeera, Aug. 22, 2019; Timothy Robbins, Hijab Shah, and Melissa Dalton, “U.S. Support for Saudi Military Operations in Yemen,” CSIS, Mar. 23, 2018; Reidel, Bruce. “A brief history of America’s troubled relationship with Yemen,” Brookings Institution, Oct. 22, 2018; “France voices support for Saudi campaign in Yemen,” France24, Dec. 4, 2015; “Pressure mounts on Western powers to halt arms sales to Saudi Arabia,” France24, Aug. 23, 2016.

[7] See “Overview of ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023; tweets by EXPM, Preservica, Nicola Laurent (here, here, and here), and others here, here, here, along with tweet by the ICA here; tweets by ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023 here and here; posts on the ICA Congress Abu Dhabi LinkedIn page here and here. The first time the #ICACongressAbuDhabi hashtag was used on X/Twitter was on November 30, 2022.

[8] “2022 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: United Arab Emirates,” Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. State Department, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “2023 Investment Climate Statements: United Arab Emirates,” Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, U.S. State Department, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “Market Overview,” International Trade Association, U.S. Department of Commerce, Jul. 26, 2022.

[9] “Results of the WLIC 2024 Advisory Referendum and Volunteer Survey,” IFLA, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “Universal Periodic Review – United Arab Emirates,” U.N. Human Rights Council, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “Travel Information,” ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023, accessed Aug. 15, 2023. As I noted back in April, late Lebanese-American scholar and journalist Jack G. Shaheen in one of his seminal works, Reel Bad Arabs, defines Arabs as the hundreds of millions of people who reside in, and the millions around the world in the diaspora, from 22 Arab states: Algeria, Bahrain, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. One of the problems with the IFLA survey is that it does not say WHY people in regions defined as “Asia-Oceania,” “Middle East and North Africa,” and “Sub-Saharan Africa” supported Dubai as the conference location.

[10] “Trucial States in 1914,” The National Archives (UK), accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “Sharjah: the Gate to Trucial States,” UNESCO, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; Rizvi, Kishwai. “Eve Arnold in the Trucial States: The United Arab Emirates before Federation,” Platform, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “United Arab Emirates,” United States. Department of State. Bureau of Public Affairs, 1985; “Secret deals ending Britain’s control in Gulf revealed,” BBC News, Aug. 30, 2022; “United Arab Emirates,” National Postal Museum, Smithsonian Institution, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “Barut, Slave Governor of Kalba,” British Library, Mar. 3, 2016. For more, see Tancred Bradshaw’s book, The End of Empire in the Gulf: From Trucial States to United Arab Emirates, and Rosemarie Said Zahlan’s book, The Origins of the United Arab Emirates: A Political and Social History of the Trucial States. On the interconnection of colonialism and homophobic laws, especially in former British colonies, see “Colonialism, homophobia and the legality of gay sex in the Commonwealth,” “From colonialism to ‘kill the gays’: The surprisingly recent roots of homophobia in Africa,” “Resisting Homophobia: The Colonial Origins of Anti-Gay Laws,” “How Britain’s colonial legacy still affects LGBT politics around the world,” and even the 2008 report from Human Rights Watch entitled “This Alien Legacy: The Origins of “Sodomy” Laws in British Colonialism.”

[11] “Federal Decree Law No. (15) of 2020 Amending Certain Provisions of the Federal Law No. (3) of 1987 Concerning the Penal Code,” UAE Ministry of Justice, p. 3; Torchia, Christopher. “Foreign couple arrested in UAE for unwed sex is released,” Associated Press, Mar. 10, 2017; Roberts, Rachel. “Couple arrested in the United Arab Emirates for ‘having sex outside marriage’,” The Independent, Mar. 8, 2017; Bamford, Emma. “Dubai court suspends jail term for beach sex couple,” The Independent, Nov. 26, 2008; “UAE jails Singapore pair for wearing women’s clothes,” BBC News, Aug. 24, 2017; Arafah, Adel. “Officials lambast capitals gay party youth,” Khaleej Times, Nov. 24, 2022; Boone, Jon. “What not to do in Dubai as a tourist,” The Independent, Oct. 13, 2017; Irish, John. “Dubai court hears French boy’s rape testimony,” Reuters, Nov. 7, 2007; Gardner, Frank. “Dubai closes club after gay night,” BBC News, Apr. 1, 2001; ZaZa, Bassam. “Two men jailed for consensual sex,” Gulf News, Apr. 10, 2012; Molloy, Parker Marie. “Brazilian Trans Women Detained in Dubai for ‘Imitating Women’,” The Advocate, Jan. 24, 2014; Sieczkowski, Cavan. “Gigi Gorgeous Was Allegedly Detained In Dubai Airport Because She’s Trans,” HuffPost, Aug. 10, 2016; “UAE rejects three transgender Emirati women’s bid for gender status change,” Al Arabiya News, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; Moukhallati, Dana. “New UAE law does not legalise sex change,” The National, Sept. 26, 2016; Singh, Namita. “UAE children’s magazine accused of promoting homosexuality with ‘gay issue’,” The Independent, Jun. 2022; “UAE retracts issue of children magazine after claims of ‘promoting homosexuality’,” The New Arab, Jun. 27, 2022; Hirwani, Peony. “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse banned in UAE,” The Independent, Jun. 16, 2023; Mehta, Ashish. “New UAE laws: Is it illegal to be romantically involved with a married woman?,” Khaleej Times, Dec. 12, 2021; “The cohabitation of unmarried couples was recently decriminalised in the UAE,” The Law Reporters, Nov. 6, 2021; Cornwall, Alexander. “UAE bans Disney-Pixar film over same-sex relationship characters,” Reuters, Jun. 13, 2022; Turak, Natasha. “United Arab Emirates bans Pixar’s new Buzz Lightyear movie from theaters,” CNBC, Jun. 14, 2022; Gambrell, Jon. “United Arab Emirates bans Pixar’s ‘Lightyear’ from showing,” Associated Press, Jun. 13, 2022. Interestingly, the UAE let Barbie air despite the transgender character and feminist themes, following a month-long delay.

[12] “WLIC 2024: Briefing Paper to the Advisory Referendum,” IFLA, Jul. 2023. The same document noted that the IFLA previously chose Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, a city in “a country with restrictive policies on same-sex sexual acts,” but they went through with it anyhow. They also admitted that “many LGBTQ+ potential delegates may feel unsafe or anxious” as a result of the conference location in UAE, answering the concern of one user, among others like here.

[13] See tweets by ICA Congress Abu Dhabi 2023 (see here and here), UAE National Library and Archives (see here, here, here, here, here, and here), Abu Dhabi Media Office, Andrew Asasiira, Maxwell Otte, Patrick Vanhoucke, Lesley Pitman, and CILIP Library and Information History Group; “Statement from the CILIP Library and Information History Group (LIHG) on the choice of Dubai for the 2024 IFLA World Library and Information Congress and subsequent Briefing Paper to the Advisory Referendum,” CILIP, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; “VOB staat niet achter WLIC 2024 in Dubai” [VOB is not behind WLIC 2024 in Dubai] (in Dutch), Bibliotheekblad, Aug. 11, 2023; “IFLA entscheidet: Weltkongress 2024 wird in Dubai stattfinden” [IFLA decides: World Congress 2024 will take place in Dubai] (in German), BuB, Aug. 11, 2023; Gordan, Rebecca. “Majoritet emot bibliotekskongress i Dubai – men Ifla står fast vid beslutet” [Majority against library congress in Dubai – but Ifla stands by the decision] (in Swedish), magasin K, Aug. 15, 2023; “Beslutet: Bibliotekskongressen hålls i Dubai trots kritiken” [The decision: The Library Congress is held in Dubai despite the criticism] (in Swedish), svt nyheter, Aug. 11, 2023; “Malgré l’opposition des associations, l’IFLA choisit Dubaï” [Despite association opposition, IFLA chooses Dubai] (in French), Actualitte, Aug. 14, 2023; Parker, Susan. “ARL Statement on IFLA Congress in Dubai,” Association of Research Libraries, Aug. 1, 2023.

[14] I never responded to her message, as it appeared to be spam, and may send her a message back after publishing this article.

[15] Specifically the goals “Affordable and Clean Energy”, “Decent Work and Economic Growth”, “Sustainable Cities and Communities”, “Responsible Consumption and Production”, and possibly “Climate Action”, with stated UN action toward these goals and others. The UAE claims that they are committed to ” achieve sustainable development…sustainable governance…[and] adopting consumption and production methods that enhance the quality of life of the present and future generations,” but alternate energies are not even listed on the page.

[16] Michaelson, Ruth and Patrick Greenfield, “UAE using role as Cop28 host to lobby on its climate reputation,” The Guardian, No. 26, 2022; Stockton, Nick. “Cop28 president’s team accused of Wikipedia ‘greenwashing’,” The Guardian, May 30, 2023; Carrington, Damian. “Army of fake social media accounts defend UAE presidency of climate summit,” The Guardian, Jun. 8, 2023; Hiar, Corbin and Zack Colman, “An oil state hired the biggest PR firms to buff its climate image. It didn’t help,” Politico, Jun 7. 2023; Carrington, Damian. “Leak reveals ‘touchy’ issues for UAE’s presidency of UN climate summit,” The Guardian, Aug. 1, 2023; Also see Amy Westervelt’s “So what if fossil fuel lobbyists have to declare themselves at Cop28? That won’t curb their power“.

[17] “Bestuur KVAN besluit geen afvaardiging te sturen naar congres ICA 2023 in Abu Dhabi,” [Board of KVAN decides not to send a delegation to the ICA 2023 conference in Abu Dhabi] (in Dutch), KVAN, May 5, 2023; “L’AAC comunica la decisió de no assistir al Congrés ICA Abu Dhabi 2023” [The AAC announces its decision not to attend the ICA Abu Dhabi 2023 Congress] (in Catalan), Associació de Professionals de l’Arxivística i la Gestió de Documents de Catalunya, Jul. 15, 2023; “Dubai to host IFLA WLIC 2024,” Lebanese Library Association, Jun. 23, 2023; “ALIA Statement on the IFLA World Library and Information Congress 2024,” Australian Library and Information Association, accessed Aug. 16, 2023; tweets by Saudi Library and Information Association, Emirates Libraries and Information Association, Arab Federation for Libraries and Information (also see here). The IFLA statement says Librarians Association of Malaysia (PPM) and Indian Library Association supported the location, but I cannot find a link to statements by either organization on the conference.

 

September 5, 2023September 6, 2023 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: Arab countries, archival labor, archives profession, biofuels, Britain, climate change, coal, energy consumption, environmental sustainability, FamilySearch, France, greenwashing, human rights, human rights violations, ICA, IFLA, immigration, Islam, LGBTQ+, librarianship, migrant labor, Mormons, Muslims, NARA, natural gas, Persian Gulf, petroleum, social media, solar energy, UAE, Whiteness, wind power 1 Comment

“Far-reaching impacts”: Why the closure of NARA’s Seattle facility still matters

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. The following is from Burkely Hermann, recent graduate of the University of Maryland – College Park’s graduate program in Library and Information Science, with a concentration in Archives and Digital Curation.

Back on February 18, I wrote about the closure of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)’s Seattle facility, NAS for short. Recently this issue came to the fore with the publication of an article by Megan E. Llewellyn and Sarah A. Buchanan titled “Will the Last Archivist in Seattle Please Turn Out the Lights: Value and the National Archives” in the Journal of Western Archives.

The NAS facility is key to many different communities. The official page for the facility specifically highlights information they hold about Chinese immigrants and indigenous affairs, along with land records, court records, and genealogical resources. This includes tribal and treaty records of indigenous people living in the Pacific Northwest, and original case files for Chinese immigrants in the 19th century. Volunteers have been trying to index the Chinese immigrant files and create an “extensive database of family history.” This will be interrupted if the files are moved, making the database incomplete.

The NAS facility itself has regional significance. The property the facility sits on was once the location of  a prospering farm owned by Japanese immigrant Uyeji family from 1910 to 1942. [1] These immigrants were evicted from their land during World War II and put into concentration camps, like the over 120,000 Japanese Americans. The immigrant Uyeji family never returned to their home, and the land was seized by the U.S. Navy in 1945, after it had been condemned in earlier years, in order to build a warehouse. [2] The warehouse was later converted into a facility and began to be occupied by the National Archives after 1963. This transfer of ownership intersected with the history of Seattle’s development which benefited White people above those of other races, from 1923 onward.

There is more to be considered. As Llewellyn and Buchanan argue in the Journal of Western Archives, the closure of NAS is harmful, a failure at “multiple levels of government,” and was made without considering how valuable marginalized communities in the area see the records held at the facility. [3] 58,000 cubic feet are permanent records of federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest, while 6,600 cubic feet are occupied by records from the Bureau of Indian Affairs alone. [4] Neither should be destroyed per NARA guidance. This amount of cubic feet is equivalent to about 1,871 side-by-side refrigerators or about 1,234 top-mount refrigerators. [5] No matter how the size is measured, the NAS facility is well-used, as is its digital resources, by Asian-Americans, indigenous people, and various researchers. [6] Some indigenous people even called the closure and movement of records to other locations a “paper genocide.” As Bob Ferguson, the Washington State Attorney General, stated in February, moving the records from the NAS facility, to states such as California and Missouri, contradicts the purpose of the archives and impedes efforts by local families to research their ancestors.

There are other problems with the closure. Llewellyn and Buchanan pointed out, for one, the errors in the Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB)’s assessment to close the facility, noting the significant level of foot traffic, the lack of public hearings on the closure, and NARA management agreeing with the decision to close. [7] There is also  concern that not all the records held at the NAS facility could be digitized. Some news outlets, like MyNorthwest, have rightly pointed out that large items like bound books and maps might not be “properly scanned” or digitized at all. Llewellyn and Buchanan further note the involved process of digitization, and extra costs researchers will have to pay if the records from the NAS facility are moved. [8]

Readers may be asking what can be done about the closure. Now is not the time to sit back and let the Washington State government to the heavy lifting, nor the Seattle media. In the latter case, the Seattle Times opined against the decision to close the NAS facility. In the case of Washington State, Ferguson, mentioned earlier, proposed a compromise to keep the regional facility of NARA in Washington State, worrying, like others, of the prospect of losing access to “over a century of history.” But his noble efforts have been for naught. The closure is on track, with NARA justifying it based on experience with the COVID-19 pandemic, saying the agency will be “less location dependent” in the future, with users accessing resources remotely rather than in-person. On the legal front, in August, Ferguson filed federal Freedom of Information Act lawsuits for public records against NARA, the Office of Management & Budget (OMB), and the General Services Administration (GSA). He also requested documents from the PBRB the same month. He stated that NARA and OMB failed to respond to requests he made in early February, while the GSA has not sent records it promised in the summer of this year. The PBRB, on the other hand, wanted taxpayers to pay about $65,000 to redact information from documents even though no sensitive information is present, as stated in various articles in the Seattle Times, HeraldNet, and Seattle Weekly. These efforts will likely go forward as Ferguson won the race to be the Attorney General of Washington State against Republican challenger Matt Larkin.

In the short-term, readers should email the OMB Director Russell Vought at Russell.t.vought@omb.eop.gov, the GSA Administrator Emily Murphy at emily.murphy@gsa.gov, Archivist David Ferriero at David.Ferriero@nara.gov, and the PBRB at fastainfo@pbrb.gov, opposing the closure of the NAS facility. Currently, the NAS facility has not been listed by the GSA for sale, whether on its database of real property or its database displaying federal properties being auctioned off. While COVID-19 makes the push for more remote learning attractive, it is still possible and vital to open in-person facilities, in line with existing rules and regulations to ensure the safety of the staff and patrons at specific facilities. In the long-term, if the NAS facility is closed, it could put other NARA facilities in jeopardy, as Llewellyn and Buchanan point out. [9] At the same time, archivists should advocate for a “massive investment in time, money, and planning” to digitize more of NARA’s holdings, as the aforementioned scholars argue for, [10] with not even 1% digitized at the present! Whether the facility is closed or not, there are dark times ahead for NARA, as less government spending may be on the horizon, unless the proposed budget for NARA is approved by the House of Representatives and Senate.

Notes

[1] Llewellyn, Megan E., and Sarah A. Buchanan, “Will the Last Archivist in Seattle Please Turn Out the Lights: Value and the National Archives and the National Archives,” Journal of Western Archives 11, no. 1 (October 12, 2020): 7, https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=westernarchives.  

[2] Llewellyn and Buchanan, 7-9.

[3] Ibid, 3-4.

[4] Ibid, 4-5.

[5] Karie Lapham Fay, “Dimensions of a Standard Size Refrigerator,” SFGate, December 17, 2018, https://homeguides.sfgate.com/dimensions-standard-size-refrigerator-82262.html. I used the largest size of a side-by-side refrigerator (31 cubic feet) and largest size of a top-mount refrigerator is 47 cubic feet when using the highest numbers in Fay’s article.

[6] Llewellyn and Buchanan,  5-6.

[7] Ibid, 11-17.

[8] Ibid, 17-19.

[9] Ibid, 24-25.

[10] Ibid, 21.

November 18, 2020December 5, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: archives closure, databases, digitization, federal records, genealogy, government archives, immigration, maps, NARA, National Archives at Seattle, patrons, records management, U.S. history, volunteering, Whiteness 2 Comments

Archivists on the Issues: Archives and the Rural-Urban Divide

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. The following post is from Bradley J. Wiles, a PhD student in Information Studies at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, School of Information Studies. 

In recent years, the fate of rural American communities has been prominently featured in national press coverage and soul-searching public discourse about the United States’ changing social, economic, and demographic realities. Rural communities, we have often heard, have failed to adapt to the new global economy and suffer from irreversible brain drain; they are close-minded, cultural wastelands characterized by aging populations and despair-induced morbidity; the biggest incentive they offer to would-be transplants is cheap property and good but under sourced school systems. Urban and suburban communities, by contrast, are growing steadily and have been for decades. They possess in abundance the desirable quality-of-life amenities and economic opportunities that rural communities lack, and examples abound of renewal and persistence in large cities previously written off by critics of contemporary urban policy. The biggest losers in this comprehensive demographic and economic reshuffling appear to be remote agricultural communities. Although this narrative is generally supported by the available evidence, the factors driving rural decline are complicated and often the narrative fails to capture this complexity.

So much of the recent decline narrative about rural America is related to demographic and economic trends extending from the Farm Crisis of the 1980s. Numerous writings have detailed the collusion between government, food conglomerates, and the financial sector to push maximum production and corporate models of efficiency throughout the entire American agricultural system. Unfortunately, these efforts brought about a perfect storm of conditions that resulted in massive bankruptcies and property foreclosures, rural suicide levels higher than in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the decimation of the family farm system that had been a cornerstone of rural life for over a century. Although the rural-to-urban population shift was well underway by the 1980s, this trend accelerated in all subsequent economic downturns and became virtually irreversible in the wake of the Great Recession. Similarly, rural poverty has equaled or exceeded that of urban areas for decades, and the recovery from the Great Recession has mostly bypassed rural communities, especially those in remote and sparsely populated areas. Recent reference statistics from the United States Department of Agriculture on rural recovery show that the urban-rural poverty gap has widened since the end of the recession, with employment in rural areas still not up to pre-recession levels and overall income growing at a much slower rate than non-rural locations. Additionally, the majority of remote agricultural and micropolitan areas have lost significant population since 2010, a reality that is increasingly both the cause and result of widespread economic woes.

Some recent analyses suggest that the rural population decline is a relative measure that is more reflective of the changing designations of areas and communities from rural to suburban or urban. Indeed, in some areas with remarkable geographical features or that are accessible to urban amenities, rural areas have experienced a net population growth. However, remote rural areas have experienced a near fatal combination of declining in-migration, increasing out-migration, and lower natural replacement levels related to resident fertility and aging. Lower fertility rates and higher average ages exacerbate resource-depleted remote rural areas that already have trouble attracting adequate health care services, funding public works, and providing other basic needs for its residents. Because of larger economic trends that afford more opportunities in cities and suburbs, young people who grow up in rural communities are less likely to move back once they have left. Those who never leave or who do return often find themselves in settings that are ill-prepared to nurture families, develop human capital, and take advantage of the experience and skills that these people bring to the community.

Despite the overarching demographic and socioeconomic trends, rural residents are generally optimistic about their lives and futures in their communities. According to recent surveys conducted by the Harvard Opinion Research Program, the majority of rural Americans hold negative views about their local economy and a large portion experience financial insecurity, but they also feel engaged in their communities and are hopeful that most issues can be corrected in the near future. The surveys identify a host of problems related to employment, housing, substance abuse, health care, and social isolation but respondents generally expressed appreciation for the safety and quality of life in their communities. Of course, the relative level of satisfaction likely has as much to do with the racial, cultural, and economic background of the survey’s respondents. The study reported more difficulties from members of racial or ethnic minority groups and people with disabilities living in these communities, including a significant discrepancy between how minorities and non-minorities view discrimination and general treatment of non-majority residents.

This blinkered view of rural America–both from its residents and from those observing at a distance–is likely what makes the real problems of decline seem so intractable. Certainly it contributes to the variance of the narrative based on where it is coming from. What emerges from countless books, reports, policy papers, articles, opinion pieces, and blog entries is subject to interpretation through a variety of political, social, and cultural filters. On the one hand, it is easy to believe that rural America is doomed, especially the really hard-hit areas that cannot seem to catch a break. On the other hand, there are many indications of resilience and a willingness of these communities to adjust, adapt, and fight on despite the odds. For many people, both urban and rural, geography is destiny and the ability to stay, leave, or return is largely a matter of relative means and privilege. The affective impact of the narrative often becomes one of cautionary wistfulness: what do we lose as a country when such a significant part of it is clearly threatened by trends we understand but appear to have no power to control?  How bad does it have to get before we muster the political will for substantive collective action to fix things? With few exceptions, the consensus around the narrative seems to be that rural America is worth saving, but there is little agreement about how this might be accomplished without further enabling the urbanization trends that harm remote rural areas in the first place.

Robert Wuthnow described how the rural experience manifests in a patchwork of moral communities throughout the country centered around education, faith, and work, and embodied in the disappearing rural institutions of the schoolhouse, church, and farmstead.^[1] These moral communities are bound by common experience and values developed across generations, which helps them weather disruptions and adapt to change. However, the ability of communities to exist in the relative autonomy and independence of previous eras is rapidly disintegrating and many of the resulting changes are unwelcome. A recurring theme throughout rural American  history–in areas entirely settled by outsiders–is the resistance to newcomers. Although the demographic composition of rural communities varies throughout the United States, with the exception of Native American reservations and other anomalous communities, rural residents tend to be white and of European descent, with increasing numbers of people from Latin America settling into these areas on a temporary or permanent basis. This growing diversity in rural America represents one of the clearest links between the urban and rural cultural dichotomy, which, in combination with language and other cultural differences, engenders a potent strain of identity-based resentment among the majority population. Ugly and violent distortions of traditional white masculinity have been present for decades in rural America, but its recent outward activity is mostly relegated to the political fringes.

However, American history is full of examples of community identity being tied to and expressed through political activity, and as the real or perceived impact of decline advances, a more rigid political landscape across rural America appears to be developing. According to Jon Lauck, the 2016 election offered evidence of a growing rural identity or consciousness that seeks less to highlight issues important to its communities, than to cast themselves in opposition to the interests in Washington D.C., New York City, Hollywood, and other urban areas that have appeared to ignore their plight and assist their demise.^[2] This seems to be driven by a last-stand mentality, a final striking out against the enemies of a way of life that was at one time the defining model of the American experiment. Thus, the decline narrative finds rural communities looking backward and preoccupied with capturing the essence, if not the substance, of lifeways that have passed. The prospect of actual annihilation increasingly overshadows the symbolic annihilation or misrepresentation that these communities have always experienced to some degree, if not to the exaggerated extent that some political opportunists claim. To many communities and their inhabitants, the current moment represents a historical tipping point, made more real by the ongoing upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic, the overdue reckoning on racial justice, the possibility of a long recession, and the certainty of a contentious national election.

So what does this mean for archives and archivists? In researching her memoir of growing up poor in rural Kansas, Sarah Smarsh refers to the difficulty of locating adequate resources “to piece together a family history from the ill-documented chaos that poverty begets.”^[3] Smarsh’s account spans the Farm Crisis years to present day and surfaces important issues around the lack of understanding of marginal communities that seem, on the surface, to be adequately represented in the public consciousness. However, the representation of the rural poor–regardless of what other intersectional identity categories they embody–in archives and other collecting institutions is equally problematic. Memory and cultural institutions have long documented agriculture, agribusiness, small towns, and rural life to some degree, but this tends to focus on official records and notable or powerful residents who are almost always men. As such, the stories of working poor, women, minority groups, immigrants, non-mainstream subcultures, and others lacking political, social, and economic capital are typically lost through neglect, hostility, or indifference. Anne Effland attributes this lack of historical understanding to the limited scope given to the domain of what we consider to be rural, which is undoubtedly reflected in the documentation of rural communities.^[4] Certainly nowadays “rural” no longer equates strictly to “farming,” and it has not for some time now. Understanding the complex identities and issues associated with the decline of rural communities requires archival efforts that acknowledge the political, demographic, and socioeconomic variation in and among those communities.

But even with the archives profession turning more toward community focused approaches to research and practice, rural communities have been largely absent from the disciplinary literature. Searches for articles in all major archival studies publication databases turned up scant reportage on documenting rural communities, subjects, issues, or historical trends, even in the region-specific journals. This sentiment was captured in a panel session called “Documenting Flyover Land” for the Midwest Archives Conference annual meeting in 2018, which sought to highlight specific archival projects related to the rural Midwest. In the introduction to the session, panel chair Christina Hansen spoke about the urban bubble that even most Midwesterners live in suddenly bursting after the 2016 election results.^[5] What was described by many pundits and politicos (and certainly many liberal-learning archivists) as the horrific outcome of resentment-based politics only partially reflected the reality; it also signalled something deeper about rural America and its desire to make its voice heard. It should also have signaled to archivists that the call for a truly representative record and profession is disingenuous if the rural perspective continues to be pushed aside in our work and discussions. The response from archivists is yet to be determined.

Fostering a sense of place, representation, and belonging may not be enough to reverse decades of unfavorable trends, but memory institutions have a distinct role to play in how rural communities conceive of themselves in various regional, national, and global contexts. As such, these institutions have an opportunity to exert an affective and intellectual influence on their communities, grounded in shared history and experience, as its members look toward their uncertain individual and collective futures. By helping communities understand, document, and celebrate their past, archives and other memory institutions can serve as change agents that provide reassurance of a community’s role in its own destiny. By providing an outlet to and for information, education, and culture they can help these communities articulate their stories and values, and help ease the transition to different modes of living. And another big transition is already underway, whether or not anyone involved is ready.

^[1] Wuthnow, R. (2018). The left behind: Decline and rage in rural America. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.

^[2] Lauck, J. K. (2017). Trump and the Midwest: The 2016 presidential election and the avenues of Midwestern historiography. Studies In Midwestern History, 3(1), 1-24.

^[3] Smarsh, S. (2018). Heartland: A memoir of working hard and being broke in the richest country on earth. New York: Scribner.

^[4] Effland, A. B. W. (2000). When rural does not equal agricultural. Agricultural History, 74(2), 489-501.

^[5] Hansen, C., Anderson, M., Beckey, J., Chumachenko, V., & Dunn, R. (2018, March). Documenting flyover land. In C. Hansen (Chair), Blurring boundaries, crossing lines: The 2018 Midwest Archives Conference annual meeting. Panel session conducted at the meeting of the Midwest Archives Conference, Chicago, Illinois.

July 20, 2020December 5, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: archives profession, COVID-19, databases, disabilities, discrimination, genealogy, immigration, Indigenous people, job security, Latino people, memory institutions, statistics, U.S. history, urban areas, Whiteness 1 Comment

Steering Shares: A Piece of Professional Literature that Impacted Me

Steering Shares are an opportunity to find out more about the I&A Steering Committee. This post comes courtesy of committee member Genna Duplisea, archivist and special collections librarian at Salve Regina University.

On a class message board during library school, I once remarked that Howard Zinn’s “Secrecy, Archives, and the Public Interest” (https://minds.wisconsin.edu/handle/1793/44118) was a “mic drop.” I felt his call to action across the decades. Working full-time while taking two summer classes had accelerated the pace of my life and my studies past thoughtfulness, but reading Zinn’s concise connection between archives, power, and justice reminded me why I had chosen to train as an archivist. This piece made clear the importance of “the relation between professing one’s craft and professing one’s humanity” (14). Returning to this speech almost eight years after I first read it, in one of the greatest times of societal, political, and public health upheaval I have experienced, I was stunned by how apropos his words continue to be.

Zinn’s essay, published in The Midwestern Archivist in 1977, draws on an address he gave at the 1970 SAA Annual Meeting called “The Activist Archivist” (https://americanarchivist.org/doi/pdf/10.17723/aarc.34.1.23527290p7mx1w33) He argues that insistence of neutrality as a value of professionalism causes a separation between work and belief and an assumption that the work of archivists is not inherently political (17). Archivists have made progress in embracing the understanding that archives are not neutral, though it is not a universally-held tenet. The maintenance of neutrality “leaves very little time or energy to worry about whether the [information] machine is designed for war or peace, for social need or individual profits, to help us or to poison us” (16).

In recent years, we have seen attempts to erase archival information in support of crimes against humanity and environmental degradation. The routine destruction of ICE records or the removal of Web information on climate change left over from a previous administration could be standard archival practices. However, if we keep our values separate from our assessment of these practices, our will will tend “to maintain the existing social order by perpetuating its values, by legitimizing its priorities, by justifying its wars, perpetuating its prejudices, contributing to its xenophobia, and apologizing for its class order” (18). Such controversies are not quibbles about efficient procedures; they are moves of powerful apparatuses with bearing on people’s lives.

During this pandemic, we all must pause; as Arundhati Roy writes in her recent essay, “The pandemic is a portal,” (https://www.ft.com/content/10d8f5e8-74eb-11ea-95fe-fcd274e920ca)  this rupture forces “humans to break with the past and imagine their world anew.”  We have an opportunity to ask whether the work of archivists resists or endorses harmful narratives, such as American exceptionalism, disease as a third-world problem, immigrants as dangerous, poverty as a just product of meritocracy, or science as suspect. We do not have to look for egregious prejudice to see the impact of archival information and practices on people’s lives.

Zinn remarks that problems in the United States are not problems of excess, but of normalcy; how prescient was his observation that “our economic problem is not a depression but the normal functioning of the economy, dominated by corporate power and profit” (19). We see the coronavirus rip apart people’s lives and livelihoods, and lay bare societal problems and structural inequalities. How do we make sure that we document these phenomena equitably, inclusively, and with careful attention to our own influence?

I take Zinn’s words as an argument not to return to “normal” after the pandemic, and Roy argues that nothing would be worse. The disruption of operations is an opportunity to decide how we want to remake our work. Zinn notes several biases in archives — the wealthy and powerful over the marginalized, the domination of the written word, past over present, preservation over documentation, among others — that are still challenges today. How do we want to contend with these biases in the future? To what, and to whom, do we want to give our attention? Archivists have roles to play in guiding for more equitable and activist documentation and access to information. Each of us will have to decide what that means, and I encourage everyone to take this strange time to meditate on how we can further humanize our work.

April 20, 2020June 24, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Steering ShareTags: archives profession, biases, class oppression, climate change, corporate power, environmental degradation, erasure, immigration, library school, professionalism, record destruction, SAA 1 Comment

Archivists on the Issues: More than a warehouse: why the closure of Seattle’s National Archives facility matters

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. The following is from Burkely Hermann, recent graduate of the University of Maryland – College Park’s graduate program in Library and Information Science, with a concentration in Archives and Digital Curation.

On January 26, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approved the sale of the 157,000 square foot National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Seattle facility, which holds permanent federal records for Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. This decision raises the question: which is more important, access to historic records or selling a public facility in a high-value real estate market? There has been fierce opposition from historical societies in Alaska and Seattle, historical researchers, genealogical groups, indigenous leaders, university professors, archivists, and historians. They were joined by a bipartisan group of eight Alaskan state legislators and 16 Congress members. The latter, comprising Washingtonian, Alaskan, Idahoan, and Montanan politicians, was also bipartisan. Washington Governor Jay Inslee also opposed the decision, as did Washington’s Secretary of State Kim Wyman. Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is considering suing the federal government over the closure. He reportedly submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the five-person Public Buildings Reform Board (PBRB), OMB, NARA, and the General Services Administration (GSA) regarding the closure. The Washington State Archives even created a page about the topic.

History Associates Incorporated, which cautioned their clients to plan ahead for the facility’s closure, noted the process would take 18 months. They also included the estimate from Susan Karren, NARA’s Seattle director that only “.001% of the facility’s 56,000 cubic feet of records are digitized and available online,” and stated that permanent records may be inaccessible when transferred between facilities. According to NARA, no actions are being taken imminently which affect users of the facility, and NARA has requested to stay in the facility for three years following the sale. With such hullabaloo on this topic, one question is relevant: why does this closure matter to us, as fellow archivists?

NARA’s Seattle facility in Sand Point is more than a “giant U.S. government warehouse” or “excess property” as described in bureaucratic language. This facility holds records on indigenous people in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. It also holds: Chinese Exclusion Act case files which have been diligently indexed by local volunteers for the past 28 years; Forest Service teletypes about the Mount St. Helens explosion in 1980; federal case records from the early 1900s; and other important local documents. Such records make the NARA facility part of the “historical ecosystem” in the Northwestern United States, providing the public “direct access to government documents, from genealogical records to court files.” These aspects make the facility a “high value” federal property (or “asset”) which has a “deferred maintenance backlog of $2.5 million.” Additionally, no public PBRB meeting transcripts showed discussion of the closure. In one meeting, “warehouse[s]” used by NARA for “long-term storage” was touched on and at another there was a passing mention of Seattle.

Some may point to existing digitization efforts. Sure, some of Alaska’s records have been digitized, but record series are often digitized by FamilySearch and the project is only five years old. For instance, some records relating to Alaska have been digitized like crew lists, immigrant lists, draft cards, and naturalization records, as is the case with Washington and Idaho. But these are primarily 20th century records, with very few 19th century records. The letter from congress members criticizing the decision also called this out, stating that “NARA’s partnership with FamilySearch to digitize records has…not resulted in actual access to records that have been prioritized by stakeholders,” a unique and rare criticism of the NARA-FamilySearch partnership. The limitations of existing digitization undermines NARA’s reasoning that some of their “popular records” are already digitized or available online, asserting that public access to their archival records will stay in place.

Access to “archived knowledge” is vital and inherent to archival ethics. Moving records away from those who can use it, dividing it between two existing facilities in Riverside, California, and Kansas City, Missouri, is an act of cruel inaccessibility. Furthermore, splitting the records between two locations, regardless of the reason, leads to a strain on those facilities, which need additional storage space. NARA itself admits that the closure will negatively affect those who use the facility. They pledge to engage with researchers in a “smooth” transition when the facility is shuttered, even though this change will undoubtedly disadvantage various stakeholders, whether state archivists, government employees, scientists, students, or others. In a recent invitation-only meeting, they showed their commitment to the closure of the facility, pledging to work with indigenous groups.

The PBRB’s executive director Adam Bodner claimed that the closure of the facility was a decision by NARA staff. If true, this would put them at odds with users and stakeholders who want the facility to remain open. On pages A-68 to A-71 of their report, the PBRB concluded that NARA wanted to move to a more modern facility and that the 10 acres the facility sat on would be great for residential housing, apparently worth tens of millions of dollars as one article claimed. The PBRB also stated that NARA could only fulfill its storage needs at another facility because the current facility does not meet NARA’s “long-term storage needs.” In the process, some records will be moved to a temporary facility. Reportedly, NARA justified the closure by the fact that the facility is the third-least visited NARA site in the country and has “high operating costs.” Such arguments don’t consider the fact that the 73-year-old building could be retrofitted for the agency’s needs or records could be moved closer rather than split between two locations. This closure also stands against NARA’s stated goal that public access is part of its core mission and violates the Society of American Archivists’ Code of Ethics, stating that archivists “promote and provide the widest accessibility of materials.”

In coming days, NARA will be submitting a Report of Excess to the GSA, headed by Administrator Emily Murphy, which will collaborate with the PBRB and OMB to help “offload” properties like this facility. As such, to speak out against the closure, you could email Emily Murphy at emily.murphy@gsa.gov, the GSA’s Deputy Administrator at Allison Brigati at allison.brigati@gsa.gov, call 1-844-GSA-4111 or contact the GSA’s Office of Real Property Utilization and Disposal at 202-501-0084 and at realestate.buildingdisposal@gsa.gov. Alternatively, you could contact the OMB’s Russell Vought at Russell.t.vought@omb.eop.gov or Archivist David Ferriero at David.Ferriero@nara.gov.

February 18, 2020September 3, 2023 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: accessibility, archives closure, digital access, FamilySearch, federal records, genealogy, government archives, immigration, intellectual access, Mormons, NARA, National Archives at Seattle, patrons, physical access, record storage, SAA Code of Ethics, volunteering 8 Comments

Archivists on the Issues: Restrictions and the Case of the University of Michigan

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Today’s post comes from Steering Committee member Samantha Brown, an Assistant Archivist at the New-York Historical Society.

As archivists, we are constantly weighing the rights of record creators and donors against the needs of researchers. Sometimes balancing these differing needs can lead to a struggle that puts archives and libraries in the middle. We can find an example of this in a recent news story involving the University of Michigan’s Bentley Historical Library.

The Bentley Historical Library’s story begins with the John Tanton Papers. The finding aid for the collection describes Dr. Tanton as an environmental, population control, and immigration reform advocate who has held leadership positions with the Sierra Club, Michigan Natural Areas Council, Wilderness and Natural Areas Advisory Board, Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore Advisory Commission, Little Traverse Conservancy, and the Environmental Fund [1]. What makes him a controversial figure was his work with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and NumbersUSA. While working with these organization, Dr. Tanton worked to reduce both legal and illegal immigration and opposed bilingualism in public schools and government agencies [2,3]. In addition to this work, Dr. Tanton also created a publishing company called The Social Contract Press which notably published The Turner Diaries which was a race war fantasy novel that is seen as a key work for members of the American white supremacist movement [2].  

Part of what makes this collection newsworthy is the fact that half of the collection is sealed. While boxes 1 through 14 are open to researchers without any special restrictions, boxes 15 through 25 are sealed until April 6, 2035 [3]. This presents a problem for Hassan Ahmad, a Virginia-based immigration attorney, who is trying to gain access to the whole collection. Mr. Ahmed believes that the collection could contain materials that show the relationship between anti-immigration groups and white nationalists as well as the influence that some of groups that Dr. Tanton has worked with are having on the White House [4]. The link between Dr. Tanton and the White House may very well exist. President Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, transition aid Lou Barletta, policy adviser Julie Kirchner, and immigration advisor Kris Kobach all have ties to FAIR, an organization that Dr. Tanton founded and was a chairman of [1,4].

Believing that the sealed parts of the collection could hold important information and should be part of the public debate, Mr. Ahmed filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the University of Michigan in December 2016 but the request was denied as was the request to appeal the decision [3,5]. Both the original request and the appeal were denied on the basis of Dr. Tanton’s donor agreement with the library [3]. After being denied his FOIA request, Mr. Ahmed sued the University of Michigan to gain access to the restricted parts of the collection [3]. When the case was brought before a judge, the University of Michigan filed for a motion to dismiss the lawsuit based on the fact that parts of the collection were sealed due to the collection’s donor agreement [5]. While information about the donor agreement was disclosed in court, information about the donor agreement was not included in the collections finding aid [1,5]. The judge, Stephen Borello, ruled that since the collection was a private donation and not being used for a public purpose, the University of Michigan could not be compelled to open the collection [3]. Mr. Ahmed proceeded to appeal this ruling as well and is arguing that the university can’t use donor agreements to keep documents sealed. As of right now, he is scheduled to appear in court again in late September or early October when a ruling on his appeal will be made [3].

If Mr. Ahmed wins his appeal, the results could have a massive impact on archives and researchers. Without the ability to guarantee that parts of a collection can remain restricted, archivists may not be able to persuade people to donate or house their collections in an archive which will make it harder for the materials to be preserved and accessed. Access doesn’t just mean that someone can use the materials for their research but also that they can find the materials. A private person may have a collection that is helpful to someone’s research but a person looking for those materials may never be able to find it if an archive can’t create a way for those materials to be found. The work of archivists to arrange and describe collections plays a crucial role in a collection’s findability. If donors are too worried about giving their materials to archives because archivists can’t provide the donors with any guarantees then researchers lose out as well.

While this case holds risks for archives and archivists, it also teaches us something as well. Finding Aids need to be more than just a list of items and folder titles, they need to give researchers a preview of what the collection holds. One of the reasons that Mr. Ahmed wants to access the restricted materials is because he doesn’t know what is there. The finding aid’s description for the restricted materials only includes series and subseries titles with very little other information. If there was a way to know what could be found in the unrestricted  parts of the collection as compared to the restricted parts and what differentiated those parts of the collection then maybe there could be a way to work with Mr. Ahmed so that he could find what he is looking for in a different way. Other members of the organizations that Mr. Ahmed is interested in may have unrestricted collections at other institutions. Otis L. Graham Jr., another founding member of FAIR, for example, has some his collections housed at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The best result for both the researcher and archive, in my opinion, would be to find a way to help the researcher with their request without breaking the donor agreement. If this isn’t possible then I wonder why a box and folder list is even provided for the restricted materials. Why tell people that you have something if you’re unwilling to tell them about it? Without more information in the finding aid or speaking to the staff at the Bentley Historical Library and investigating their policies around arrangement and description, it’s difficult to know why the collection has been handled in this particular way. For now, we, as archivists, can look at this situation and use it to change how we both deal with collections and researchers.

 

Works Cited

1. John Tanton Papers Finding Aid. University of Michigan, Bentley Historical Library, 14 Jun 2013, https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-861056?view=text
2. “John Tanton” Southern Poverty Law Center, www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/john-tanton
3. Peet, Lisa. “Attorney Sues for Access to Tanton Papers in Closed Archive.” Library Journal, 18 Sept. 2018, https://www.libraryjournal.com/?detailStory=180918-Tanton-Papers
4. Frazen, Rachel. “Why Is the University of Michigan Fighting to Keep an Anti-Immigration Leader’s Papers Secret?” The Daily Beast, 3 Sept. 2018, https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-is-university-of-michigan-fighting-to-keep-anti-immigration-leaders-papers-secret
5. Warikoo, Niraj. “University of Michigan Oct.  Blocks Release of Hot-Button Records of Anti-Immigrant Leader.” Detroit Free Press, 28 Oct. 2017, https://www.freep.com/story/news/2017/10/17/university-michigan-blocks-release-anti-immigrant-records/732133001/

 

September 24, 2018December 5, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: archival description, arrangement, classified records, court cases, declassification, digital access, donors, FOIA, immigration, immigration policy, intellectual access, physical access, record restrictions, U.S. history, White supremacy, Whiteness 4 Comments

Legis* Research Team: Updates Regarding Legislation and Legislator Actions

The Legis* Research Team monitors the intersection of archives issues and legislative resources and concerns, legislative bills, and individual legislators. This post, part of our Research Post series, was written by Katharina Hering, Mark Prindiville, Ashley Levine, and Lindsay Hiltunen.

In the past several months, I have focused on monitoring opposition against the Immigration and Custom’s Enforcement’s (ICE) “Visa Lifecycle Vetting Initiative” (VLVI), formerly called the “Extreme Vetting Initiative” (EVI) in and outside of Congress. On April 5, 2018, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), Ranking Member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Rep. Filemon Vela (D-TX), Ranking Member of the Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, and Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Ranking Member of the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Subcommittee, sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen urging her to halt the VLVI. “The Trump Administration’s extreme vetting initiative must be stopped.  Not only will it be ineffective and inaccurate, but will certainly be discriminatory and unjustly target certain communities. ICE’s intention to build a program with unknown limits to search social media platforms demonstrates a disregard for privacy, due process, and the rights to free speech and free association. This initiative will undoubtedly chill free speech online.” In March 2018, citing concerns raised by the Brennan Center for Justice and other civil liberties and civil rights organizations about the Extreme Vetting Initiative, the Congressional Black Caucus, via letter, requested that DHS suspends all activities related to the VLVI.

Among the groups opposing the VLVI were the Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York (ART) and the Concerned Archivists Alliance.

Several civil rights, civil liberties and privacy rights organizations provide regular updates on the opposition against the VLVI, including the Center for Democracy and Technology, National Immigration Law Center, Georgetown’s Center for Privacy and Technology, and the Brennan Center for Justice, among others.

— Katharina Hering

Senator Gary Peters of Michigan voted in favor of banking deregulation on March 6, 2018, as well as his fellow Michigander, Sen. Debbie Stabenow, and 14 other Democratic Senators. Coincidentally, both Peters and Stabenow have history with banking lobbyists, as campaign and leadership PAC donations from securities and investments have been found via OpenSecrets.org. Peters has received $726,879, while Stabenow has obtained $587,939, ironically including corporate/PAC donations into the realm of the gender wage gap issue.
— Mark Prindiville

In following the activities of the TV, radio, and internet news program, Democracy Now!, the legislator, Tom Cotton (R-AR), and the legislation, H.R. 3923:  Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2017 (Sponsored by Adams Smith, D-WA), failures of government accountability in documenting abuse of undocumented persons by government agencies (e.g. U.S. Immigrations Customs Enforcement, a.k.a. ICE) amid simultaneous efforts to bolster aggressive immigration enforcement policies, are increasingly apparent.

The Democracy Now! website dedicates a section entirely to reporting on immigration issues in the United States. Articles bearing headlines like, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement to Allow Jailing of Pregnant Women,” to, “Immigration Activists Fight to End ICE Arrests at Courthouses,” and, “17 States Sue Trump Administration over Census Citizenship Question,” highlight the current administration’s efforts to crackdown on immigration from non-European (i.e. non-white) nations, and terrorize undocumented people within the U.S. These reports underscore concrete steps taken by ICE to simultaneously increase surveillance of immigrant communities (through data gathering mechanisms, such as the “Visa Lifecycle Vetting” initiative), and double-down on aggressive detainment activities (raids on courthouses, communities, and sanctuary cities). ICE activities are shrouded in secrecy, while ICE leadership neglects to adequately explain its extralegal actions.

Tom Cotton’s legislative activities mirror those of the administration in which he serves. For example, last year Senator Cotton sponsored S. 354: RAISE Act, which aims to limit illegal immigration by significantly reducing several provisions of U.S. policy that encourage legal immigration. S. 354 would end the Diversity Visa Program, a State Department initiative that grants an additional 50,000 legal permanent resident visas each year from countries with low rates of U.S. immigration. This bill also aims to reduce the number of family-sponsored immigrants, as well as cap number of refugees around the world offered U.S. permanent residency to 50,000. Tom Cotton also sponsored S. 1720: RAISE Act, a bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish a skills-based immigration points system.

Meanwhile, since its introduction in October 2017, H.R. 3923:  Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2017, has seen no action made in the House. This bill aims to provide standards for facilities where undocumented persons in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE) are detained. Since ICE’s inception in 2003, and up to 2015, 150 individuals died in the agency’s custody. Furthermore, the immigration detainee watchdog group, Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC), highlighted 14,693 reported incidents of sexual and physical abuse in ICE detention centers from 2010 to 2016, with just about 1 percent of these reports actually resulting in investigations. ICE has even reversed its policy of not detaining pregnant women, as reports of multiple confirmed miscarriages and  inadequate medical care in ICE detention facilities have come to light. This new policy follows President Trump’s Muslim Ban, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” from January 2017, which has led to increased interior enforcement across the country.

— Ashley Levine

The most active monitoring I have been doing lately stems from the National Coalition for History. An active advocate for many important policy issues that impact archives, libraries, and other cultural heritage institutions, the National Coalition for History has been doing a lot of work to keep the issue of Humanities funding in the forefront. Member organizations represent thousands of historians, genealogists, archivists, teachers, students, and other stakeholders, so they are keeping current on issues that impact those professions and the communities served. Active social media campaigns have been highlighting some of these efforts, as well as collaboration with other non-profit educational organizations to encourage face-to-face and other modes of history-related advocacy. Current goals and accomplishments that impact the archives profession include working to prevent the elimination of the National Historical Publications and Records Commission, an important source of funding for archives across the country, and leading the effort to pass the Presidential & Federal Records Reform Act. The National History Coalition has an active social media presence, so be sure to check them out on Facebook and Twitter, or historycoalition.org, to get a sense of current advocacy work and major accomplishments.

— Lindsay Hiltunen

May 8, 2018June 23, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Research PostTags: archives profession, Concerned Archivists Alliance, detention and arrest, federal records, gender oppression, gender pay gap, GLAM institutions, immigration, immigration policy, legislation, Muslim ban, National Coalition of History, news media, presidential records, Research Teams, undocumented immigrants, Whiteness Leave a comment

Legis* Research Team: Goals and Preliminary Findings

The Legis* Research Team monitors the intersection of archives issues and legislative resources and concerns, legislative bills, and individual legislators. This post, part of our Research Post series, was written by Rachel Mandell, Mark Prindiville, Ashley Levine, Dina Mazina, and Laurel Bowen.

Who is the Legis* Research Team?

Team coordinator: Rachel Mandell, USC Digital Library and I&A Chair

Team members: Laurel Bowen, Georgia State University; Katharina Hering, Georgetown Law Library; Lindsay Hiltunen, Michigan Technological University; Ashley Levine, Artifex Press; Dina Mazina, US Senate Committee on Finance; andMark Prindiville, Walter P. Reuther Library

What does the Legis* Research Team do?

The Backstory: For those of you who are familiar with the Issues and Advocacy Legislator Research Team of the past, the current configuration is somewhat different. We are taking a different approach and consider this very much a beta structure or a work in progress, if you will. We decided that a revamp was necessary because as we began to reflect on our goals for this team,  I&A vice-chair, Courtney Dean, and I realized that the information collected by Legislator Research Teams in the past have had no direct uses or action items associated with the data. This year, we hope to change that!
Goals: In recent months, we have been in conversation with the Committee on Public Policy (CoPP) about working towards the goal of contacting legislators and potentially engaging in on the ground advocacy work at SAA 2018 in Washington, D.C.. Towards that end, and also towards the end of collecting data for a purpose, we would like the Legislator/Legislative Research Team to try something different.

What does the Legis* Research Team do?

The Task: Legis*: Choose and Monitor (yes, that is a Boolean search/truncation joke)

Everyone on the current team has chosen up to 3 items to monitor. The idea is to explore topics of interest and, in doing so, see more clear goals/uses emerge from the data. The categories are legislation, legislators, and legislative resources. We will cover topics and people qho have influence and affect archives, funding, social justice, data security and surveillance, labor, etc. No topic is too small or too big; given the rather limited time commitment for this research team, extensive research is not expected. Instead, we seek to have and share a general overview of what’s happening in legislative branches, what resources are out there, what legislation is being discussed, and who is taking the lead on such legislation.

What’s included in your research?

So far the topics chosen are as follows:

Legislation:

• H.R. 2884: Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically for Engagement Act of 2017
• H.R. 3923: Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2017
• H.R. 4382: Free Flow of Information Act of 2017
• H.R. 4271: To blog the implementation of certain presidential actions that restrict individuals from certain countries from entering the United States.
• H.R. 4081: Consumer Privacy Protection Act of 2017

Legislators:

• Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
• Hank Johnson (D-GA)
• Gary Peters (D-MI)
• Joe Crowley (D-NY)
• Michael Turner (R-OH)
• Darrell Issa (R-CA)
• Mike Quigley (D-IL)
• Tom Cotton (R-AR)
• Jamie Raskin (D- MD)
• David Cicilline (D-RI)

Resources:

• National Coalition for History, Congressional History Caucus
• The Hill
• National Archives Center for Legislative Archives
• Democracy Now!
• Congress.gov
• Senate Committees
• Senate Legislation and Records
• Congressional Transparency Caucus
• Data Transparency Coalition

This year promises to be an interesting year in our legislative branch of government and the I&A Legis* Team will be there to monitor. We look forward to reporting back with with more information as the year progresses!

Preliminary update from Mark Prindiville: 

The Hill

• Founded in 1994, due to the success of Roll Call, a newspaper and website that reports on legislative and political maneuverings in the Capitol.
• Can be argued that The Hill is the American equivalent to the United Kingdom’s BBC News or The Guardian.
• The Hill also operates through its website and has six blogs dealing with politics and legislation.
• Has a surprisingly adamant social media presence, though it does not seem to have the same positive feedback in regards to its phone/tablet application.
  • If one follows The Hill on sites like Facebook, they post stories and breaking news at an astounding rate.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich)

• Born December 1, 1958. Served on the Rochester Hills City Council from 1991-1993. Member of MI Senate from 1995-2002. Commissioner of Michigan Lottery from 2003-2007. Member of U.S. House of Representatives (MI-9) from 2009-2013, and again (MI-14) from 2013-2015. Elected to US Senate in 2015, succeeding Carl Levin.
• Voted for the Recovery Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (not passed), the Paycheck Fairness Act (not passed), the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the DREAM Act
• As of 2010, has a “D” rating from the NRA; 2016’s Orlando shooting prompted Peters to participate in the Chris Murphy gun control filibuster
• In 2017, voted “Yea” on allowing Ajit Pai to become Chairman of FCC; however, Sen. Peters has come out against the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality, including voting in favor to overrule the FCC repeal, along with fellow Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow

Preliminary update from Ashley Levine:

I have elected to monitor three resources to explore how the American media and government document the undocumented, respectively. These include the TV, radio, and internet news program Democracy Now!; legislator Tom Cotton (R-AR); and House bill H.R. 3923, Dignity for Detained Immigrants Act of 2017.

My preliminary findings suggest failures of government accountability in documenting abuse of undocumented persons by government agencies, e.g. U.S. Immigrations Customs Enforcement (ICE), amid simultaneous efforts to bolster aggressive immigration enforcement policies. I aim to unpack the meaning of “government transparency” related to policy affecting undocumented persons, and simultaneously assess the effectiveness of the media in presenting truthful, documentary evidence on immigration matters.

Preliminary update from Dina Mazina:

I’ll be following issues of government transparency, specifically the Congressional Transparency Caucus and their two chairmen, Mike Quigley (D-IL)  and Darrell Issa (R-CA).

In December, Rep. Quigley introduced the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act, which would establish a central repository accessible to congressional staffs and the general public of federal agency non-confidential published reports. Recently, the bill passed out of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. A companion bill is being led in the Senate by Senators Portman and Klobuchar.

Preliminary update from Laurel Bowen: 

I’m monitoring Michael Turner (R-OH), Joe Crowley (D-NY), and my own representative Hank Johnson (D-GA).  I’m familiar with Michael Turner as a successful advocate of legislation that promotes historic preservation, a field that often employs archivists.  I’ll be interested to find out if Joe Crowley and Hank Johnson, both representing urban areas, are advocates for cultural activities (libraries, archives, museums).  

In researching via Congress.gov I discovered (accidently) that Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has introduced H.R. 1376, the Electronic Message Preservation Act of 2017, which requires the U.S. Archivist to promulgate regulations governing federal agency preservation of electronic messages.

February 12, 2018June 24, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Research PostTags: archival labor, born-digital records, Congressional History Caucus, COPP, data analysis, data mining, data security, federal records, government archives, gun violence, guns, immigration, immigration policy, legislation, NARA, National Coalition of History, net neutrality, news media, preservation, Research Teams, social justice, social media, surveillance, transparency, undocumented immigrants, urban areas Leave a comment

Archivists on the Issues: Reflections on Privilege in the Archives

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Today’s post comes from a new regular writer for I&A’s blog, Summer Espinoza. Summer is the Digital Archivist at California State University, Dominguez Hills.

In Fall 2016, Michelle Caswell’s “Archives, Records, and Memory” class at the UCLA Graduate School of Information Studies collectively created the content for the poster “Identifying & Dismantling White Supremacy in Archives”(Caswell, Brilmyer, 2016).  The poster lists five areas to identify and take corrective action towards disassembling the power-structure of white supremacy.  The sections of the poster, identified as an “Incomplete List of White Privileges in Archives and Action Items for Dismantling Them” include appraisal, description, access/use, professional life, and education.  Each section lists privilege and possible actions to create a counteraction.  As an example, in the description section, one privilege is listed as “materials are described using my native language” and actions to counter this as a privilege are “Hire multilingual people as archivists and translators and translate finding aids into appropriate languages” and “Encourage, value, and give credit for language courses in MLIS programs and as continuing education” (Caswell, 2016).  In a related article, “Teaching to Dismantle White Supremacy in Archives,” Caswell reflects on her experiences and consequential action to bring the conversation into her class as teaching faculty in a national political climate in which her colleagues and students expressed to her fear and anxiety about their rights as residents of the United States (Caswell, 2017).

Though the poster may have come out of a class exercise, it exudes a sense of professional activism.  It provides rules to live by, goals in daily archival work and easily accessible and relevant issues in archival work.  My own professional experiences have made me stop and reflect on the privileges from which I have benefited.

I am a project archivist at California State University, Dominguez Hills (CSUDH), where the student population is less than 10% white; the largest populations are Latinx (69%) and Black (14%) per CSUDH Institutional Research, 2016.  The campus also has a large population of undocumented students, also known as “Dreamers.”  At the time of my arrival in Spring 2017, the campus Dreamer Success Center provided ally workshops, informational talks about the challenges of being an undocumented student, and discussions about the threatening nature of the United States’ current political climate.

In an admittedly naive attempt to create a professional space for allyship, I began to investigate the possibility of implementing an oral history project for Dreamers’ narratives, to be accessioned into the University Archives, unaware that this posed a potential risk not to myself but to contributors.  After some initial research and conversations with collaborators, and after wrestling with the responsibilities and possible consequences, I was directed by a concerned party to locate news about a Boston College Irish Republican Army (IRA) oral history collection and the 2016 government-ordered release of restricted content recorded in 2001.

Today, I reflect on my role as an archivist of color at a public university, how I found fear in my position, and the real implications of this particular attempt at inclusivity in the archives without a clear sense of action and acumen in the profession.  The fear I felt was the ease with which the information could be abused, as was the case with the aforementioned IRA oral history collection.

Previously, I experienced this same fear at a community-based private non-profit cultural archive.  In this instance, the emotion was based in possible consequences of increased access and deviation from a “normative narrative” of heroism and reverence.  There were potential tangible consequences to the fiscal health of the organization per se if increased access to content were viewed as the “airing the dirty laundry.”

These two experiences led me to cautious action moving towards inclusivity.  Why?  Chris Taylor’s article (2017), “Getting our House in Order: Moving from Diversity to Inclusion” creates a conversation on the impact of our training, our worldviews and experiences, and how our personal worldview is projected in our professional work (p. 23).  My own professional training and education is far from adequate to effectively maneuver in this conversation that is not yet rooted in any wide-scale and sustained conversations or representation by any governing organization or collective in the field of archives. In both of the aforementioned cases, I recognize a gnawing inadequacy of my professional-self.

With a movement towards dismantling supremacy in archives, there will be challenges and fear of change, and hesitation of being seen as a change-maker.  What is the professional and personal impact of these actions?  How does one engage with the political implications of disrupting an architecture, and what tools can I equip myself with that will diminish negative professional self-doubt, fear of consequences of change, and foster empowerment.  How do we complete the list of white privilege and structural oppression?  What can be built in its place and what authority does such new inclusive structure have?  Will/can archivists dismantle white supremacy in the archives alone, and should we do so, alone?

Archivists, contributors, users, are faced with personal and professional risks and consequences in an emotionally and politically charged topic that systematically misrepresented, and excluded communities of color.  My sense of fear is based in real daily experiences, not as case-studies or theoretical conversation.  Perhaps others feel fear, confusion, hesitation, exhaustion and other emotions that can deflate professional duty, and create a roadblock for future attempts to build a truly inclusive archive.

Sources

• Caswell, Michelle (2017).  Teaching to Dismantle White Supremacy in Archives. Library Quarterly: Information, Community, Policy, 87(3) 223-235. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu.libproxy.csudh.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/692299
• Caswell, Michelle & Brilmyer, Gracen (2016).  Identifying & Dismantling White Supremacy in Archives: An Incomplete List of White Privileges in Archives and Action Items for Dismantling Them.  http://www.gracenbrilmyer.com/dismantling_whiteSupremacy_archives3.pdf
• Taylor, Chris (2017). Getting Our House in Order: Moving from Diversity to Inclusion. The American Archivist, 80(1), 19-29.

February 9, 2018June 24, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: appraisal, archival description, archives profession, community archives, immigration, inclusion, Latino people, memory institutions, non-profits, oral history, patrons, professionalism, racial diversity, racial oppression, selection, undocumented immigrants, White privilege, White supremacy, Whiteness Leave a comment

Hamilton Gets the Jameson

Once upon a time, back in February, the I&A Steering Committee was brainstorming potential nominees for the J. Franklin Jameson Archival Advocacy Award. Ideas were being tossed around and then there was one, a name. Alexander Hamilton, or, more specifically, the musical, Hamilton. One by one, we all began to agree. More than a few of us were fans of the hit musical, and none could deny the attention that it, and its source material, brought to archives. Steering Committee member Jeremy Brett drafted the application (portions of it are reproduced below) and we sent it off.

Over the course of the next several months, Hamilton and Lin-Manual Miranda won award after award. You can imagine our delight when we found out that another award could be added to the list. If you didn’t read this week’s “In the Loop,” spoiler alert: Lin-Manuel Miranda and Ron Chernow won the 2016 Jameson Archival Advocacy Award!

Many thanks to the J. Franklin Jameson Archival Advocacy Award Committee for all of their work. No word yet on whether the winners will be in Atlanta to accept the award, but one can hope.

How does the nominee meet the criteria of the award?

Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hit musical (and national cultural phenomenon) Hamilton, which debuted off-Broadway in January 2015 and moved to Broadway in August 2015 in response to a wave of critical and popular acclaim, is a powerful example of the emotional impact that history can have on people’s hearts and minds when presented in an original and creative form. It also wonderfully proves the power of story and of individual historical personalities, as the narrative of one man’s life (Alexander Hamilton) evolves from archival evidence gathered through primary sources into a unified biographical study and then into a dynamic artistic production that unites the social and political concerns of the 18^th century with those of the 21^st. The story of the musical’s very creation is one that demonstrates such power: Miranda came upon Ron Chernow’s lauded biography Alexander Hamilton at an airport in 2008, looking for reading material for his vacation. He was immediately captivated by the drama inherent in Hamilton’s rise from poor orphaned immigrant to powerful politician and one of the major figures of America’s Founding Generation, as well as by the direct and readable prose and expert use of primary sources that made Chernow’s book a bestseller. Miranda instantly saw the potential in Hamilton’s story as a chance to tell our national history through a contemporary musical lens, and with Chernow’s biography as his inspiration went on to create a vibrant, deep and intensely clever musical with a powerful union of hip-hop, Latin-flavored, and traditional musical stylings. It is particularly notable in that the major roles, including Hamilton, Aaron Burr, George Washington, Angelica Schuyler Church, Thomas Jefferson, the Marquis De Lafayette and James Madison, are all played by actors of color – this choice on Miranda’s part not only reinforces the traditional image of America as a refuge for immigrants and minorities but causes its audience to question the ongoing cultural dominance of American history by whites.

The continuing popularity of Hamilton, and the renewed interest in the book that inspired it have sparked among a wide variety of people a new fascination with Hamilton’s life, his times, and those of the people around him. Because of the musical, new generations of students are learning about Hamilton and his inspirational immigrant’s story. As Newsweek’s Zach Schonfeld says, “This show has done more than any work of pop culture to bring Alexander Hamilton out of the ivory tower and into the popular consciousness.”

The Jameson Award is designed to honor those who most effectively promote greater public awareness, appreciation, or support of archival activities or programs. The phenomenon that Hamilton has become affirms that there is a real public hunger for history and a fascination for the primary materials that document it. (Miranda certainly, in the course of writing the show, made great and profitable use of the writings of Hamilton and Aaron Burr, among others.) The Atlantic’s Edward Delman notes that “now, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton has the opportunity to change the way people consider one of the Founding Fathers and the era he lived in.” The combination of Miranda’s artistic brilliance and Chernow’s sterling historical scholarship has made for a powerful tool that educators, students, and the general public have used and will continue to use in gaining a better understanding of early American history and, by extension, the letters and other primary documentation that chronicle it. The New York Public Library, for example, has recently embarked on a project to digitize much of its holdings relating to Hamilton and other historical figures featured in the show and make those images publicly available, in response to the show’s popularity.

The Issues & Advocacy Roundtable Steering Committee wholeheartedly nominates the team of Lin-Manuel Miranda and Ron Chernow to receive the 2016 J. Franklin Jameson Archival Advocacy Award, as champions of and advocates for the power of history and archives to inspire and educate us. We hope that the Jameson Award Committee will consider this in making its decision, and will not, in fact, throw away its shot at finding the best possible recipient for this year’s award.

What are the outstanding characteristics of the nominee?

Lin-Manuel Miranda is a brilliant composer and lyricist whose 2008 musical In The Heights won four Tony Awards (including Best Musical, and, for Miranda himself, Best Original Score) as well as a 2009 Grammy for Best Musical Show Album and a nomination for the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Drama. The musical, like Hamilton, was marked by its fusion of hip-hop and Latin musical style. He is also the co-composer and co-lyricist for the 2011 musical Bring It On, which was nominated for 2 Tonys and 5 Drama Desk Awards.

Miranda is particularly noted for his combinations of musical and lyrical styles drawn from a number of American cultural communities, including his own Puerto Rican ethnic background. His works have received multiple awards in addition to those above; perhaps most notably, he was awarded a coveted 2015 MacArthur Genius Grant. It is also worth noting that Miranda and Ron Chernow received the 2015 History Makers Award from the New-York Historical Society, signifying an acknowledgment within the historical community of the importance of their work in raising historical consciousness.

Ron Chernow is a noted historian and biographer. His biography Alexander Hamilton (2004), regarded by many now as the standard one-volume biography of the man, won the 2004 George Washington Book Prize (from Washington College’s C.V. Starr Center for the Study of the American Experience, which also awarded Lin-Manuel Miranda a Special Achievement Award in 2015) and was nominated for the 2004 National Book Critics Circle Award. His 2011 work Washington: A Life won the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for Biography. He has also written works on the history of the J.P. Morgan financial empire, on the Warburg family, and on John D. Rockefeller, Sr. In 2011 Gordon Wood dubbed Chernow “an outstanding member of the new breed of popular historians who dominate narrative history-writing in the United States today”, taking note that “his ability to master the secondary sources as well as the primary materials is the secret of his remarkable success as a biographer.”

Supporting Documents

• Newsweek article, 2/9/2016, discussing popularity of Hamilton in teaching history to students
• The Atlantic article “How Lin-Manuel Miranda Shapes History”, 8/29/2015
• Blog post from the New York Public Library, connecting Hamilton to its Hamilton archives, 8/7/2015

June 10, 2016June 22, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: News from I&ATags: candidates, grants, immigration, news media, popular culture, SAA, U.S. history, Whiteness Leave a comment