lobbying – Issues & Advocacy

Steering Share: Vice Chair Courtney Dean

Steering Shares are an opportunity to find out more about the I&A Steering Committee. This kick-off post comes from I&A Vice Chair/Chair Elect Courtney Dean, a Project Archivist at the University of California at Los Angeles Library Special Collections.

1. WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE THING ABOUT YOUR JOB OR THE ARCHIVES PROFESSION?

In my current position at UCLA Library Special Collections, I oversee the day-to-day operations of the Center for Primary Research and Training (CFPRT), an innovative program which pairs graduate students from across campus with special collections projects in their field of expertise. I give the CFPRT scholars a crash course on archival theory, and train them in arrangement, description, and preservation best practices. Often times it’s the first interaction they’ve had with primary sources, and it’s thrilling to watch them realize their projects and hear how their experience in Special Collections directly affects their own research. Aside from the students, I love the strong community of practice among the archivists I work with. We hold informal study groups to expand our skillsets in things like RDA, XML, and born-digital archives. It’s exciting to be constantly learning and surrounded by such smart and passionate colleagues. Finally (last thing!) I’m inspired by the meaningful conversations about issues like transparency, ethics, and privilege that are happening within my unit.

2. WHAT MADE YOU WANT TO JOIN THE I&A STEERING COMMITTEE?

I’m heavily involved in a local professional organization in Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Archivists Collective (LAAC), which I co-founded with some friends of mine a few years ago, and I really enjoy directly interacting with local archivists, archives, and communities. After the recent presidential election though, I felt like I wanted to step up and do more in terms of national advocacy for things like IMLS, NEH, and NEA funding, and raising awareness about the importance of archives in general. I’ve also long admired I&A efforts to spotlight issues like neutrality, climate and environmental data, and #ArchivesSoWhite, which was another big motivating factor for my involvement. I served on one of the News Monitoring teams last year, but this is my first year on the Steering Committee.

3. WHAT IS AN ARCHIVAL ISSUE THAT MEANS A LOT TO YOU?

There are so many issues! As Rachel mentioned, a focus on digital preservation is absolutely essential. Not only does inaction put our existing collections at risk, but bigger issues of government accountability and an inclusive historical record are at stake. I come from a community-oriented service background (in my prior career I worked in community mental health) so issues of accessibility, inclusiveness, and historical silences are also of utmost importance to me. I’m heartened that the profession is finally beginning to acknowledge systemic oppressions and the implications for our collections, access and use, scholarship, collective memory, and the makeup of the field itself. Of course we still have a long, long way to go! Lastly, an issue near and dear to me is the (over)reliance on temp workers in our field. I’ll save that for another post though!

October 6, 2017November 24, 2023 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Interviews, Steering ShareTags: #ArchivesSoWhite, archival description, archival silences, archival theory, archives profession, arrangement, born-digital records, climate change, digital archives, digital preservation, environmental data, IMLS, Interviews, lobbying, memory institutions, mental health, net neutrality, precarity, professionalism, Whiteness 1 Comment

So SAA’s Going to Austin. Now What?

This post was written by Stephanie Bennett and the Issues & Advocacy Section’s Steering Committee, in light of the recent news that SAA was keeping its commitment to hold 2019’s annual meeting in Austin, Texas.

With the announcement from SAA president Tanya Zanish-Belcher that SAA’s 2019 will be in Austin, despite a Council discussion about moving it, SAA members – and all archivists and humans who move about the world – have some thinking to do. And some work to do. Some of us – though not the Californian archivists among us – will attend the meeting. The I&A Steering Committee once more poses questions that we’ve been asking amongst ourselves:

How can we, as an organization and as individuals, support the activists of Texas?
Is it a betrayal of our personal beliefs or heteronormative myopia if we do attend, in part because we “pass” the Texas legislature’s guide of acceptable personhood?
As Eira Tansey points out, the battles between more liberal cities and restrictive, conservative legislatures are happening across the U.S.; where will our harassed queer colleagues find safe harbor?
Should we, how can we, support our professional organization(s) in the long run so that these choices between financial precarity or personal harm are no longer required? Does SAA need (as writer Paulette Perhach called it) a F*ck Off Fund?
How can we work within the profession to change foundational systems of oppression? (And all of the questions we posed previously, really)

As an institution, SAA and its component groups, including the sections, have the responsibility to be mindful of how we spend our time and money – especially in Austin. We’ve been watching and listening as Representative John Lewis models the ethics and actions of “good trouble.” At Issues & Advocacy, we are committed to spending our money at LGBTQ-owned and -friendly businesses and establishments that recognize that black lives matter. We will seek opportunities to collaborate with queer archivists to do service and/or fundraising to benefit Texan activists and organizations fighting against the state’s restrictive and occasionally unconstitutional or overturned laws. And we welcome your ideas! If there is an event or organization that you would like to see supported or a topic that you would like to be discussed but do not have the bandwidth to undertake, let us know.

That said, the Society of American Archivists, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit, is not permitted to engage in “political campaign activities“ as defined by the IRS. We are not lawyers, but we do understand that limits to SAA’s work exist, and, as a body within SAA, the limits for Issues & Advocacy’s work as well. But as individuals, we have the right to political activity and related speech. For those of us who will attend the meeting, we look forward to working in Austin, as both individuals and professional archivists.

August 28, 2017November 29, 2023 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the Issues, News from I&ATags: archives profession, Eira Tansey, Google Workspace, internet, lobbying, non-profits, SAA, short blogs 1 Comment

End of Year Steering Share: Phone Calls, Yes, Faxes, No– A Congressional Intern Gives it to Us Straight

Steering Shares are an opportunity to find out more about the I&A Steering Committee. This end-of-the-year post is from I&A Steering Committee member Daria Labinsky, Archivist at the National Archives at St. Louis.

Want to get your message heard by a member of Congress? Here’s some advice from an intern in the trenches. Let’s call her Intern X. She spends hours every week in the Washington, D.C., office of a U.S. senator, fielding the calls and mail of the American people. While honing her ability to deal with difficult customers, Intern X is also picking up pointers on what works and doesn’t work when you’re trying to influence a legislator.

Note that this is what it’s like in this office; other Congressional offices may not operate in exactly the same way.

What’s the most important thing to know? “Make sure you only contact your Congress person,” she says. “I don’t need to hear anything about (for example) Elizabeth Warren. I can’t do anything about Elizabeth Warren.” And when you call a member of Congress who doesn’t represent you, you’re making it harder for someone whom they do represent to get through on the phone.

What’s the best way to get your Congresswoman or man’s attention? Set up an appointment to meet her or him in person. Intern X’s senator hosts regular events for constituents in D.C. when the Senate is in session. There’s a section on legislators’ websites where you can schedule appointments in D.C. or in your state.

“Town Halls are not as useful as private meetings in a conference room with 10 people,” says Intern X. “Even if you can’t meet with a senator, you might be able to meet with one of their aides. Town Halls are more for just asking questions.”

Next best? “If it’s time sensitive, then call or fill out a comment form on our website,” she says.

More about phone calls. “Don’t call assuming you’re going to talk to a United States senator.” They’re seldom in their offices, and the offices get thousands of calls each week.

Voicemail is OK. Try not to get frustrated if your call goes to voicemail. “Understand that they answer to a lot of people, and if you’re getting voicemail, that probably means they’re getting a lot of calls,” Intern X says. Rest assured that those voicemails are indeed being listened to—even on days when a thousand calls come in. “Don’t assume because you’re getting voicemail, you’re being avoided.”

“The maximum number of phone lines we can have ringing is six or seven,” she says. The interns and staff listen to and document all the messages, including the hundred or so that come in overnight.

You need to provide some kind of identifying information–even if it’s just your ZIP Code. Intern X sometimes speaks to people who refuse to provide any identifying information. “I can’t record your comment if I don’t have a ZIP Code, because I can’t verify you’re from our state,” she says.

What about snail mail? If you want to discuss an issue that’s not time sensitive, then sending a comment by mail can be better than calling. “We can take as much mail as we get but only have so many people who can answer the phones,” she says. “And if you want your mail to make an impact, have a return address.”

What about faxing? “Faxes are useless. We get so many faxes. If you just want to comment or give an opinion, then don’t fax. We get too many, and it’s too easy for them to fall through the cracks.”

Don’t send form letters. They usually get shredded without reading. “Some offices have software that can recognize form letters,” making them easier to dispose of, she says. “Some of them are subtle, like, I read one that I didn’t know was a form letter until I read the same thing over three or four times.”

The petition-type email letters that many organizations email out—the ones where you add your name and contact information, and maybe personalize them, are OK, as long as they’re from a constituent.

Some postcards are OK. “Like, if it says, ‘Dear (Senator), I’m writing because I’m concerned about (some issue) and this is why (I feel this way)’—that’s OK.”

Don’t be mean. “Being nice on the phone never hurts,” she says. “I don’t know if it helps but there’s no downside.” She often gets calls from people thanking the senator for a specific vote, or even thanking the intern for answering the phone.

And lastly,

No cash. “Don’t mail money to the Congressional offices, because we can’t legally take it.” (Like archivists have a lot of extra cash lying around. … )

May 10, 2017June 22, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Steering ShareTags: emails, internships, lobbying Leave a comment

Announcing Advocacy Toolkit Updates

Thanks to our steering committee member Laurel Bowen, we have successfully updated the I&A Advocacy Toolkit to include several new features! We now have a section specifically dedicated to historic preservation initiatives, including archives and the physical structures that accompany them.

In addition to historical preservation resources, the new material provides substantive ideas on how to think about the value and impact of archives, ways to craft value statements about archives, and advice on how to lobby or energize the support of decision-makers and funders.

In addition to new items, broken links have been fixed and new links have been created to provide more direct connections to relevant websites and resources!

Appropriately related to the update, please check our newest Archivists on the Issues Blog Post written by Heidi Bamford of the Western New York Regional Library Council on creating a local advocacy campaign: Library Advocacy or Climbing Mount Everest: Which Would You Choose?

February 24, 2017June 22, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: News from I&ATags: Advocacy Toolkit, lobbying, preservation, short blogs Leave a comment

Great Advocates: Dr. David B. Gracy II

Back in March, we asked you to nominate “Great Advocates”–SAA members who inspire you with their advocacy efforts. Thanks to your nominations, we have a fantastic slate of Great Advocates.

You are cordially invited to join I&A’s gathering at SAA in Atlanta on Friday, August 5 from 7:30-9:00 am (it’s early, but there will be donuts and coffee!) for an engaging Q&A with leaders of advocacy efforts from SAA’s recent history, reflecting on their work and the future of advocacy within SAA.

To get everyone in the advocacy spirit in these weeks leading up to SAA, we’re publishing Q&As with each of our Great Advocates (including some who won’t be able to join us on August 5th).

To submit questions for the in-person session and follow the event, please tweet at @archivesissues using #GreatAdvocates or email archivesissues [at] gmail [dot] com.

Once they’ve all been posted, you’ll find all of the Q&As in the series here.

Great Advocates Q&A with Dr. David B. Gracy II

How would you define advocacy?

The work done (by archivists individually, by associations of archivists, and/or by others) to cultivate the environment for accomplishing the archival mission.

What was the very first lesson you learned about advocacy–either how to do it or why it’s important?

That the way the archival story is told is as important as the message. If the hearer is not engaged by the telling, likely he/she will miss the message.

Describe your most memorable experiences with advocating for archivists and archives.

(1) Creating, generating support for, and pursuing the Archives and Society initiative as the theme of my SAA presidency to empower archivists in advocating on behalf of (a) the archival service to society, (b) the integrity of archival professionals and the archival profession, and (c) their own archival situations.

(2) Engaging the Texas State Historical Association—the leadership and members individually—to realize that support of archives in Texas is fundamental work of historians to meet the historians’ obligation to ensure that subsequent generations of historians have at least as robust an archival resource from which to work as was passed to them.

If you could encourage archivists to do just one thing to help advocate for the archival profession, what would that one thing be?

See advocating archives as a fun activity in and of itself. Defined as work done to cultivate the environment for accomplishing the archival mission, advocacy does not inherently require a specific goal and subsequent judgment as to the goal’s achievement. When person A sees the archivist having fun about the work of contributing to the social fabric, person A is positioned to reconsider stereotypes of the archival enterprise and even become an advocate too.

What strategies and skills would you recommend archivists use when they are advocating for something in their local context (for example, for additional funding or personnel, policy changes, etc.)?

(1) Do your research on the audience that is the object of your advocacy. Know matters important to the audience to which you can relate archives. Learn their vocabulary to position you to speak about archives in terms that can resonate as fully as possible.

(2) Be yourself, which will convey your pleasure in and commitment to archives.

(3) Listen to yourself advocating for archives so as to be continually modifying your message to make it the most pertinent and moving possible for the person(s) in front of you and through that person(s) to every decision maker to whom the person in front of you has to advocate on your behalf.

What is an archives issue that means a lot to you and requires advocacy?

Support of the archival service to society.

What motivates you to continue when the going gets rough?

Unswerving commitment to the value of the archival service to society, and to managing archives as the pillar of civilization that they are.

July 20, 2016June 22, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: News from I&ATags: archives profession, Great Advocates, lobbying, professionalism, SAA Leave a comment

Great Advocates: Christine George

Back in March, we asked you to nominate “Great Advocates”–SAA members who inspire you with their advocacy efforts. Thanks to your nominations, we have a fantastic slate of Great Advocates.

To get everyone in the advocacy spirit in these weeks leading up to SAA, we’re publishing Q&As with each of our Great Advocates (including some who won’t be able to join us on August 5th).

To submit questions for the in-person session and follow the event, please tweet at @archivesissues using #GreatAdvocates or email archivesissues [at] gmail [dot] com.

Once they’ve all been posted, you’ll find all of the Q&As in the series here.

GREAT ADVOCATES Q&A WITH CHRISTINE GEORGE

How would you define advocacy?

I see advocacy as action, a continual push forward. It’s bringing attention to something—an issue, a person, an organization—and making your position heard.

What was the very first lesson you learned about advocacy–either how to do it or why it’s important?

Not only do words matter, but how you present them matters too. In elementary school, I had a teacher who would have us write position pieces. She would walk around the classroom, read part of the composition and then ask the dreaded questions: “So what? Why should I care?” She expected her students to be able to vocalize what was written. Some of us were better at speaking and others at writing. It’s important to build up your skills to be able to advocate both in writing and verbally. Later, law school really drove that lesson home.

Describe your most memorable experiences with advocating for archivists and archives.

I’d have to say, the work I did to bring attention to the Belfast Project and archival privilege was pretty memorable. It was a learning experience of all the different avenues of advocacy that are available to an individual. I presented at local, regional, and national conferences. I wrote a thesis, articles, and blog posts. I even looked into writing an amicus brief, in case the US Supreme Court decided to hear the case. It’s also the reason I got involved with the Issues & Advocacy Roundtable.

If you could encourage archivists to do just one thing to help advocate for the archival profession, what would that one thing be?

No matter how annoying it may be, no matter how many times you have to do it, always, always explain to people what you do, and, if you can fit it in, why what you do is important. Don’t say we’re just like librarians. The more people who are exposed to what it is that archivists do, the less time we’ll have to spend covering that when advocating for something in the future.

Get yourself a few people who can provide feedback. I have a group of friends in archives, libraries, and outside the information profession all together that I will use as sounding boards. If I’m writing something, I asked them to read it over to see how it works with people who know archives and those who don’t. I’ll talk it out with them, have them ask me questions, to refine what I’ll say and anticipate potential questions. Preparing this this before has helped me make my message clearer and concise. Particularly when speaking, it makes me feel more confident in the message I’m delivering.

What is an archives issue that means a lot to you and requires advocacy?

Archival privilege. I don’t know if it’s something that will ever actually come to exist, but I think it’s an important conversation archivists and those in related fields need to have. How can we, in good conscience, take in collections that could be used against the donors? History may be written by the winners, but all should be represented in the historical record. If we cannot collect materials from controversial or dissident groups, we will be doing a great disservice to future generations.

What motivates you to continue when the going gets rough?

In the musical 1776, Stephen Hopkins, representative from Rhode Island, has this line, “…in all my years I ain’t never heard, seen nor smelled an issue that was so dangerous it couldn’t be talked about. Hell yeah! I’m for debating anything.” Perhaps it’s a byproduct of law school or being raised by lawyers, but I never think that there is going to be absolute agreement. There will always be an opposing side or a Devil’s Advocate or someone who is just contrary. Debate and discussion make things better. Not agreeing with someone’s idea isn’t a bad thing. It’s an opportunity to dialogue, reevaluate, and, hopefully, come up with something better. However not everyone subscribes to that view, and I can say from personal experience that being on the receiving end of some nasty anonymous trolling is upsetting. It’s hard to get past it, but I try to remind myself that just because some don’t want to hear what I have to say doesn’t mean I should be silent.

July 19, 2016June 22, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: News from I&ATags: archives profession, court cases, donors, Great Advocates, lobbying, popular culture, professionalism, SAA 1 Comment

One Year, Nine Months, and Fourteen Days Raising Archival Awareness, and Counting

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Below is a post from Sami Norling who is the incoming chair of SAA’s Committee on Public Awareness. If you have an issue you would like to write about for this blog series or a previous post that you would like to respond to, please email archivesissues@gmail.com.

It has been one year, nine months, and fourteen days since the Society of American Archivists’ Committee on Public Awareness (COPA) met for the first time and began to tackle our duties and responsibilities as set by SAA Council. The full description of COPA can be found here but, in short, we are tasked with identifying key audiences that SAA should target its advocacy efforts toward, and to help the SAA Council shape the form, content, and messages presented in those efforts. While there is some overlap between COPA and the more established Committee on Advocacy and Public Policy (CAPP) and the Issues and Advocacy Roundtable they both tend to focus more on opportunities for SAA to shape public policy (legislation) that affects archivists and our profession, institutions, and stakeholders. COPA’s brand of “advocacy” focuses on how we, as individuals and through our professional society, can promote awareness of archivists, archival work, and archives to various audiences.

The Committee on Public Awareness is a direct product of SAA’s Strategic Plan for 2014-2018, which places advocacy and raising public awareness as priority No. 1.

The Strategic Plan outlines four ways in which SAA will work to reach this goal–three of which relate directly to the work that COPA has been asked to complete:

1.1. Provide leadership in promoting the value of archives and archivists to institutions, communities, and society.

1.2. Educate and influence decision makers about the importance of archives and archivists.

1.4. Strengthen the ability of those who manage and use archival material to articulate the value of archives.

I entered into this committee appointment (my first within SAA) fully expecting that the process of developing awareness resources, messages, and/or campaigns would be lengthier than I could imagine, with some very difficult and even unpleasant parts, but I have to admit that I wasn’t expecting the intense groundwork that would have to be laid at that first meeting before we could proceed with any actual planning–groundwork that required us to face head-on some difficult questions about the work that we do and the issues that we all encounter as members of a profession with a surprisingly low level of public visibility. By the end of that first meeting, we had come to terms with the fact that while we do a (relatively) good job at communicating with other archivists about the work that we do, the roles we play professionally, and even a bit about the value of archives and archivists, as a profession we have been unsuccessful at effectively communicating this to non-archivists. The good news is that we DO belong to an inherently interesting and important profession (and that’s not just something we tell ourselves as we work through grad school or the tedious parts of daily archives work, all while facing poor employment prospects and practices).

During that first committee meeting, we came to the conclusion that the audience that we would focus our efforts on would be professional archivists. At first, it may seem like an odd choice of target audience considering that our ultimate goal is to raise overall public understanding and awareness of the value of archivists and archives (after all, professional archivists likely already have a pretty good understanding of archival work and its value). However, we came to the realization that even though archivists have this understanding, many archivists may not have the ability or resources to effectively convey this message to their stakeholders, users, or communities, let alone the general public. By focusing on professional archivists in our efforts—providing resources, sharing ideas and examples, and creating a community of practice for successful, innovative outreach—we would build the capacity of thousands of archivists around the country to convey the value of archivists and archives to a potentially infinite number of audiences—something that we could never hope to do as a ten-person committee.

In the one year, nine months, and fourteen days since the first COPA meeting came to an end, work has been completed in fits and starts, with some notable highlights:

Promoting Kathleen Roe’s “Year of Living Dangerously for Archives” calls to action
The first #AskAnArchivist Day was held on October 29, 2014
- 2,000+ participants and 6,000+ tweets (after only six weeks from idea to event!)
Launch of the “Archives Change Lives” campaign at the 2015 annual meeting, complete with promotional video (with archivists as target audience)
Second annual #AskAnArchivist Day held on October 1, 2014
- 2,800+ participants and 7,500+ tweets (and a much more concerted promotion effort)
Launch of ArchivesAWARE! blog in February 2016
Launch of SAA’s new website on March 30, 2016, with a new emphasis on advocacy and awareness with some content aggregated by COPA members

These last two developments are particularly notable in that they reflect COPA’s growing capacity for sustained activity and productivity—something that many new committees struggle with in their early stages. At this time, the ArchivesAWARE! blog is the primary focus of COPA’s work. First conceived as a venue for taking static lists of advocacy/awareness resources and tools—like those listed on the new SAA advocacy pages—and breathing life into them by providing context and showing practical applications, the blog has become much more than that. With explorations into archival outreach theory, interviews with and articles from archivists who are actively creating and implementing innovative outreach projects/programs, an original comic answering the ubiquitous question: “What is an archivist?,” and so much more, ArchivesAWARE! is starting to become a vital community of practice for archival outreach.

As the blog continues to evolve, there is much to look forward to, with many opportunities for archivists to share the work that they are doing to raise awareness, not only of their collections, but of the valuable work that archivists do and the impact this has on their communities. The editors are always eager to hear from archivists with projects, programs, and thoughts to share. To read more about the submission process and editorial guidelines, visit the About page, or e-mail your ideas to archivesaware@archivists.org!

Sami Norling is the Archivist at the Indianapolis Museum of Art and incoming Chair of the Committee on Public Awareness.

April 28, 2016June 24, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: archival theory, archives profession, awareness, COPA, legislation, lobbying, outreach, patrons, professionalism, SAA, social media Leave a comment

Steering Share: Sarah Quigley

Steering Shares are an opportunity to find out more about the I&A Steering Committee. This post is from immediate past Chair and Steering Committee member Sarah Quigley.

How did you get involved in archives?

Like many of us, I was a history major in college. I never really saw myself as a tenure-track professor, though, and I always imagined I’d work in public history. When I started library school, I wasn’t sure exactly where I would end up. I took classes in Museum Studies, librarianship, and the Archival Enterprise, as we called it at the University of Texas. I was lucky to have David B. Gracy, II as my advisor and mentor, and as anyone who’s met him can attest, resisting his passion for the field is impossible. I caught archives fever from him and took a part time job preparing the papers of Judge Jack Pope for acquisition by Abilene Christian University. That project was the first time I fully understood that being an archivist is being a storyteller. You have all the pieces of a life in front of you, and it’s your job to reassemble them into something that faithfully represents the creator and their work. That felt important.

Why did you get involved with the Issues & Advocacy Roundtable?

It was impressed upon me from the very beginning of my career that being silent in this profession is dangerous. Too few people understand our mission and our value, and our position is often too precarious. A fundamental aspect of our jobs is to advocate for ourselves, our repositories, our collections, and our profession. But more often than not we learn how to do that on the fly, when crises arise, or when fires need to be put out. The Issues and Advocacy Roundtable brings people together so we can learn from and support one another before and during times of crisis.

What is an archives issue that means a lot to you?

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about social justice and archives and I’m paying close attention to the conversations that are happening around this issue. Not just documenting social justice movements, which is certainly a pressing issue these days, but also how we ensure that our profession is justice-centered and that our collections are representative. If we’re doing our jobs right, we’re casting wide nets for staff and collections but it can be difficult to overcome our own biases. I’m proud of my colleagues who are calling out privilege in the profession and encouraging us to be conscious practitioners of justice in our work.

How would you define advocacy?

Advocacy is political, whether it’s in the literal sphere of public politics or within the confines of an individual institution. Advocacy is the active and organized support of a cause or issue with a specific, concrete outcome in mind. It can take a lot of forms, but generally centers around persuading people in power to support your cause via legislation or funding.

April 13, 2016November 24, 2023 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Interviews, Steering ShareTags: acquisition, archives profession, biases, budgeting, disaster preparedness, fires, Interviews, legislation, librarianship, library school, lobbying, precarity, professionalism, public history, social justice Leave a comment

A Case of Conscience

Archivists on the Issues is a forum for archivists to discuss the issues we are facing today. Below is a post from Jeremy Brett addressing the issue of discriminatory legislation and SAA annual meetings. At the end of this post, please take a moment to partake in an I&A Poll on the issue. If you have an issue you would like to write about for this blog series or a previous post that you would like to respond to, please email archivesissues@gmail.com.

We’ve all seen the recent uptick across the nation in nauseatingly unjust legislation laughingly designed to protect “religious freedom” and “public safety” but which is clearly motivated to sanction prejudice against the LGBT community. The legislature of North Carolina just passed, and Governor Pat McCrory signed, a new law blocking transgender individuals from using public restrooms that match their gender identity and stops cities from passing anti-discrimination ordinances to protect gay and transgender people. The Georgia legislature just passed a law that would have allowed pastors to refuse to perform gay marriages and allow churches and faith-based groups, on the basis of religious belief, to refuse to hire or provide services to gays. The bill was vetoed by Governor Nathan Deal as discriminatory, and was met before the veto with a hail of protests from both LGBT groups and major corporations. Similar bills have been proposed over the last several years. In 2015 the Human Rights Campaign noted that more than 85 anti-LGBT bills had been filed in 28 states, though fortunately most of these have failed to pass or have been challenged in court.

Of course, such legislation is repugnant – or it should be – to any thinking human being who possesses any discernable degree of compassion or common sense. However, the question before us now is, what can we as a professional association do to challenge or protest these kinds of laws? This question loomed large recently because it did appear that the law in Georgia would pass, and that would leave SAA in a position where we would have to hold our 2016 Annual Meeting (site: Atlanta) in a state actively and vocally hostile to LGBT individuals. SAA members would be obliged to spend money in the economy of a state that would have enshrined fear and prejudice and ignorance into law. Fortunately, Governor Deal’s veto prevented this. However, I consider this sort of situation unjust and a violation of personal conscience.

We are archivists. We are information professionals and we are custodians of history. As such, we are agents of preserving and transmitting knowledge for the good of society, and I do not believe that we should be compromising that responsibility by providing money to governments and public officials who do not have society’s best interests at heart. Nor as a professional organization should we be tacitly granting second-class citizenship to our LGBT members, which we would be doing by giving our dollars and our time to a state or municipality that choses to wage war against a minority group. I think that one of the most effective things we can do is to cease holding Annual Meetings or any other significant SAA-sponsored activity in any state or municipality that enacts this kind of hateful legislation.

Of course there are objections that can be raised to this proposal.

Contracts for Annual Meeting sites are negotiated years in advance, and it is difficult to not only break these contracts but to locate a new and appropriate venue in a reasonable amount of time.

True enough, but I would argue that, going forward, SAA could insist on a ‘conscience clause’ in its contracts with venues that would allow for us to break the contract should the host state or municipality enact noxious legislation. In addition, host selectors should be required to research potential sites for future meetings to see whether these kinds of laws are present and being enforced.

I would also note that, yes, it’s not easy to turn on a dime and find a new venue on short notice, but it does and can happen. In 2011 the American Sociological Association (a group bigger than we are, by the way) was scheduled to have its Annual Meeting (held in August) in Chicago, but a short nine months before the meeting, the ASA decided to cancel its contracts because of a protracted labor dispute between Chicago hotels and the hotel workers’ union. Within one month they had negotiated a contract and moved the conference venue to Las Vegas, with minimal disruption.

Conference venues are selected to ensure a variety of locations in order that more members, some of whom may have trouble attending far-distant events, may be able to attend.

That’s a fair point, and I realize that this could prove a hardship to members living in places like North Carolina or other states where these kinds of laws have been passed. I live in Texas, and am perfectly aware that there are reasonable objections to holding events in my own state and if SAA were to stop having events here it would make it more expensive and difficult for me to attend them elsewhere. But I believe that we owe it to ourselves and citizens and to our colleagues who are LGBT (or any other persecuted group) and are affected by these kinds of laws to take a stand and to make sacrifices when necessary. Perhaps this kind of policy I propose could motivate SAA to develop more effective ways for members to attend and participate in SAA events remotely, and make physical attendance less necessary.

Yes, this policy would mean a (hopefully temporary) end to holding our Annual Meetings in certain states, and as a result we would be favoring others. To which I say: Exactly. States with progressive legislation or that have the moral courage to stand against prejudice and injustice should be rewarded with our commerce; those who give in to hate and fear should be punished by the withdrawal from them of our dollars and our attention.

“But where will this end? I can find objectionable laws in probably every state. Why should certain laws be declared more evil than others? Where do we draw the line? And who are we to judge?”

I know there are people reading this that are thinking this very thing. And I confess that I’m not sure: this is a question that would benefit from consulting the membership at large. But I am optimistic that we can establish a baseline of common human decency where we can all agree that certain laws are unquestionably terrible and unworthy of a thinking society and our American ideals. Let’s have this debate, and at the end of it all, let’s stand up for what’s right and not support hate and fear and downright evil merely out of economic and logistical expedience.

Jeremy Brett is the Curator of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Collection at the Cushing Memorial Library & Archives at Texas A&M University. He is a past Chair and current Steering Committee member of the Issues & Advocacy Roundtable.

Now we’d like to know what you think. Please take a moment and go to our I&A Poll on Discriminatory Legislation and Annual Meetings. The poll will remain open until 5pm PST Friday, April 8.

April 5, 2016June 23, 2022 by issuesandadvocacy Categories: Archivists on the IssuesTags: archival labor, archives profession, biases, corporate power, discrimination, Google Workspace, legislation, LGBTQ+, lobbying, professionalism, SAA, unionization 1 Comment