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

[Stephanie Chase]

I feel like there are few times when I know as little about what I am doing
as when I try to remember how to respond to Libs-Or messages that come in
the digest, so I'll ask for forgiveness as I likely start a new thread ;)

As a  member of the Oregon library community, I proudly signed the petition
to the SLO, because I *trust* the expertise of my colleagues. I trust in
the hard work done in partnership, and I trust the conversations that were
had with the State Library and OLA before this petition was put forward to
the library community. I am so thankful for the work Marci, the OLA EDIAC
members, and colleagues across the state are doing, and continue to do, to
lead the movement to replace outdated and oppressive structures.

In every single project I have worked on in the past two years as a
consultant, the organizations I was working with recognized how crucial it
is to make a clear and meaningful investment in equity work, and that such
an investment is long, long overdue. As the lead consultant working on the
State Library's LSTA evaluation, this is true of our State Library as well,
as our Acting State Librarian shared in her message:

"Currently we are reviewing our Library Services and Technology Act
(LSTA) 2018-22
Five-Year Plan
<http://ola.memberclicks.net/message2/link/23c0d134-6c83-41f5-b199-a55d718d19e5/2>,
which is how we heard so much feedback to prioritize EDIA. Thank you to
everyone who participated in that process. The LSTA Five-Year
Plan guides us on allocating the $2.5 million we receive annually
in federal LSTA funds, and where staff in our Library Support & Development
Services division
<http://ola.memberclicks.net/message2/link/23c0d134-6c83-41f5-b199-a55d718d19e5/3>
 focus their time.

Over the next few months, we’ll be writing the new 2023-27 Five-Year
Plan based on the feedback we’ve heard, including through this
petition. We feel confident saying now that EDIA will be an important part
of our new plan, particularly considering its complete
absence from the current plan. The new plan will be finalized by the end of
June 2022 and implemented starting in July 2023."

We must move forward together, in solidarity, and we need to do so by
trusting the experts we are fortunate to work with and the voices of our
colleagues who call on us to take action — and, as others have mentioned,
with those of us in positions of privilege to be continuously committed to
learning, and learning from our mistakes.

Stephanie Chase
Executive Director, Libraries of Eastern Oregon
Founding Principal, Constructive Disruption

>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2022 10:33:48 -0800
> From: Steve Silver <stevesilver673 at gmail.com>
> To: Meredith Farkas <meredith.farkas at pcc.edu>
> Cc: thall at ala.org, "libs-or at omls.oregon.gov"
>         <libs-or at omls.oregon.gov>, "REFORMANet at googlegroups.com"
>         <REFORMANet at googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Libs-Or] About the Petition to the State Library of
>         Oregon
> Message-ID:
>         <CAGUZvy-qrn=c8NcOGVkc9GmK-9hFK9=
> HG8dJm5fdOv3rr3PHow at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Apologies for being late to this conversation (crazy week and just now
> getting to some of my emails). Meredith and Matthew have wonderfully
> expressed why this petition and work deserve our support. Kate, your
> articulate perspective on the OLA board dynamics that led to the petition
> is immensely helpful. Penny, your willingness to be a respectful voice
> raising questions about process that I had not originally considered, while
> still supporting the intent of the petition, is appreciated. Nancy, your
> explanation of the State Library's engagement with this topic, and
> procedures they are/will be required to follow, is a helpful addition to
> this conversation. Many thanks go to the OLA board for wrestling with this
> topic in good faith and with intention. And of course, much thanks to Marci
> for her leadership in this area, even while carrying the extra emotional
> and cognitive labor we as a profession and society far too often tacitly
> (or explicitly) expect from our BIPOC colleagues.
>
> I think we can all agree that change is needed. At least I hope we can all
> agree on that point. Librarianship remains more white than the US
> population and has seen little to no improvement despite efforts and
> rhetoric dedicated to improving representation of BIPOC. What we have been
> trying to do has not been effective. New approaches are needed. Change by
> definition means disrupting the status quo. Disruption and change are messy
> and uncomfortable. If it were clean and easy we likely would have
> accomplished it by now. Missteps by all involved will inevitably happen as
> we struggle together to forge a new and better path. In my opinion, those
> missteps and my discomfort pale in comparison to the systematic injustice
> and harm we as a profession and society continue to inflict on our BIPOC
> colleagues, potential colleagues, and communities. Policies, procedures,
> and ethics exist for good reason and ought not to be lightly abandoned or
> ignored. But dismantling white supremacy in our profession requires
> dismantling policies, procedures, and even ethics that are doing harm
> rather than their intended good. If we are smart we will learn from our
> missteps, but not let them derail us from the critically important,
> difficult, messy work of dismantling white supremacy within our profession.
> This old, white, hetero, male fully supports this work being done by the
> OLA board, the EDI Anti-Racism committee, the State Library, and especially
> Marci and our other BIPOC colleagues, despite whatever mistakes will be
> made along the way. I continue to learn, grow, and make mistakes. May we
> all do the same.
>
> Steve Silver
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/libs-or/attachments/20220218/f4ae4a40/attachment.html>