[Libs-Or] About the Petition to the State Library of Oregon

Thu Feb 17 08:52:59 PST 2022

In situations like this, when a group of people tell us that things aren't fair, that they're undervalued by their colleagues and the system of which they're a part, that they are mentally and emotionally abused and tired from dealing with the inequities in the system day in and day out, that this has been going on for year, for decades, for centuries, our first response cannot be, "I don't see it" or "respectfully, I think you're wrong."

Our response must be to listen. We must listen because  the emotional toll it takes a person to try and explain, yet again, what the problem is that we don't see is crushing. We must listen because we have a lot to learn and we better learn it quickly, for every moment that goes past and this continues people are being hurt. We must listen because we haven't been listening for a long time and things are changing far too slowly.

In the beginning this cannot be a dialogue where dissenting opinions are shared and concerns are raised. We don't get it. We rarely see it. Our opinion on the matter is literally the problem because our opinion on the matter is the system, the same system that's causing all this hurt. Dissenting opinion is privilege. The privilege of not having to live with the realities of how the system treats people who are other.

Claiming that everybody should play by the same rules while knowing those rules are the system and the system is flawed is wrong. We have had centuries to try and get this right and we have failed most every time, and absolutely failed every time when we haven't sought input from those wronged.  So even, especially in this specific case, when it feels like someone might be not playing by the rules or skating on thin ice with bad optics, we absolutely have to remember that the system is deeply flawed and slanted against some people and our privileged superpower must be to say, "yes, you are hurting, this will help fix things, and the system, and all of us, will be better for it."

There is no conflict of interest or cronyism here with Marci. She volunteered and was head of the OLA EDI Antiracism Committee. The committee realized that EDIA was not something to be fixed part-time by volunteers, that this should be a full-time gig and that the person doing it should be paid for their work (just as countless institutions are realizing as new EDIA poitions are created nationwide) and the Oregon Library Association Executive Board agreed, and everyone involved knew that Marci had already "made substantial contributions to the Oregon library community," and "rightfully earned the respect that has resulted from that effort," and was a main author of the "substantive work that OLA has been doing to address EDIA issues" and should get the job, not without proper regard to her qualifications, but because of her stellar qualifications, her proven record of kicking tush on a fundamental flaw in our system.

We are the system. We must change if the system is going to change. It will feel awkward and wrong and unfair in the beginning, but if we don't let ourselves feel uncomfortable then no change is going to happen.

We are wonderful people doing wonderful work. This doesn't change that. But we have to try and be just that much more wonderful to realize our privilege and make things right.  And "try" is the right word, because it will take great effort on our part to wake up and see what is happening, and "try" is the right word because we will fail over and again before we get it right, and "try" is the right word because we must, because if we don't then nothing will change and people will keep getting hurt, and we do not want people to be hurt. So we must try.

Matthew Baiocchi
REFERENCE LIBRARIAN
__

City of Lincoln City  |  Driftwood Public Library
801 SW Hwy 101  |  PO Box 50  |  Lincoln City, OR
P: 541.996.1261  |  E: mbaiocchi at lincolncity.org<mailto:mbaiocchi at lincolncity.org>
W: Driftwoodlib.org | W: LincolnCity.org

ook

________________________________
From: Libs-Or <libs-or-bounces at omls.oregon.gov> on behalf of Penelope Hummel via Libs-Or <libs-or at omls.oregon.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:58 PM
To: libs-or at omls.oregon.gov
Subject: Re: [Libs-Or] About the Petition to the State Library of Oregon

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Since my post late Monday raising ethical concerns in light of the OLA Executive Board’s endorsement of a petition promoting its president-elect for a position at the state library, I’ve had 20 different people contact me about it privately. (It’s been a busy couple of days.)

One of them likened my original post to a public lynching.

The other 19 were from people I know well and people I don’t know at all.  They live all over the state, are early career, mid-career and retired, are managers and front-line staff.  They are your colleagues and quite possibly, your good friends. They may see some things differently than you do regardless of whether you know that about them or not.

Almost all stated that they did not feel safe publicly disclosing what they had to say to me.  So, with their permission, I am sharing some representative comments anonymously.  My focus here is not to rehash points I’ve already made about the EDIA petition, but rather to raise the issue of how we (as the Oregon library community) hold respectful space for each other to express dissenting points of view.  As you encounter the recurring themes in these comments, I hope you will ask yourself:  how are we doing on that?
_________________________________________________________________________

I feel silenced and unwelcome in this discussion given the language and the tactics that are being used.  I appreciate you speaking up and asking good questions because I obviously cannot. Libraries have an opportunity to provide a place where civil discourse can happen, a place where false dichotomies and polarization are discouraged.   There’s a real need for that in the world right now. The dialogue needs to be constructive.
__________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for speaking up about this. I am sorry to see, once again, anyone offering up constructive criticism of anything being done by anyone having to do with EDIA efforts is being labeled as, “those who would keep whiteness in control of everything”. Unfortunately, this always turns personal and misses the point.

Your assessment of the issue of conflict of interest was spot on, as well as your assessment of how things may have gone with the executive board. I have spoken with several colleagues today that saw it that way as well. But we fear speaking up publicly about it because of how we’ve seen things pan out in the past. I am still relatively early in my library career and don’t feel I can speak up in good faith without it being seen as a personal attack that leads to potential retaliation.
__________________________________________________________________________

Thank you so much for this statement. This is exactly how I felt when I read the petition, which I did not sign for this very reason. I am concerned that this will be noted by some and hurt my standing within the OLA ranks.
__________________________________________________________________________

 I share the same concerns as you, regarding the appropriateness of the petition and the conflict of interest, but I do not feel like that I can step forward. So I appreciate you giving voice to the potential ethical issues with the petition.
 _________________________________________________________________________

What you did is very brave and currently I am not brave enough to stand with you publicly and I am ashamed of that. While it may sound extreme, I am afraid of losing my ability to keep my job, or get another library job, if I speak up.
__________________________________________________________________________

I felt compelled to write and just let you know I appreciate what you shared on libs-or about “groupthink” and concerns about conflict of interest regarding the EDIA petition. I, too, have been concerned about both of these things, both in this instance and many others.

I do feel like we (the collective ‘we’ of OLA) have been demonstrating some concerning behavior where if an idea/request/thought/initiative is presented under the lens of EDIA, it appears through repeated examples that they are accepted, cart blanche, without active discourse of clear critical thought.  I personally do feel unsafe bringing up dissenting opinions for the exact fear that was just enacted on you, which is public ridicule and criticism, immediately casting one out as not being an “ally” or supporting the needs and advances of our EDIA directives.
 __________________________________________________________________________

I have concerns with the EDI Toolkit distributed, was it vetted by an HR attorney of reasonable experience? If not, I would consider it slanted advice, I don’t need the grief in my life to ask that question at this point. I am glad you made the points you did today. I was not surprised to see the responses that came.
___________________________________________________________________________

My colleague and I discussed this and we do not believe commenting on the forum would accomplish much of anything other than creating trouble for us and possibly destroying our respective careers.  I read the petition and was dismayed at its divisive language and also that the author of the petition was being promoted as the perfect person to fulfill the new prospective job position, especially in light of her current position of being an incoming OLA president.  Like you, I felt this to be a conflict of interest. I would like to see the petition worded differently and the conflict of interest in naming Marci Ramiro Jenkins specifically for it be taken out in order to garner my support.  If I state this however then I’m labeled instantly as a racist so I won’t say anything. I appreciate that you took the leadership to address what you saw as problems with the petition in a way that I’d not be surprised was similar to the way a number of us saw it.  However open discussion and diversity of opinions no longer seems to be allowed, not even in the library world.
__________________________________________________________________________

I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your posts to Libs-Or concerning the petition. I don't feel capable of navigating the hazardous trail of this discussion openly but have shared your concerns with this process. You have eloquently addressed them in a respectful way, which I so appreciate.  Like so many librarians I know and respect, I want to see BIPOC rise in the profession. I see this issue making it more difficult to navigate, especially after reading the September statement by WOC-LIB. Carry on and know how much you are appreciated for your ability to speak out. I am not alone in knowing that you are doing so with the best interest in the advancement of all libraries and librarians.
__________________________________________________________________________

Penny Hummel
PENNY HUMMEL CONSULTING
penny at pennyhummel.com | 503.890.0494 | www.pennyhummel.com

Ensuring that libraries survive and thrive in challenging times
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20220217/171a2a8d/attachment.html>