[Libs-Or] Responding to recent discussion of OLA's EDIA petition

[Penelope Hummel]

As one of the people who has ended up in the center of the controversy over the OLA-endorsed petition to create an EDIA-focused position at the state library, it has been illuminating to read the perspectives offered by numerous members of the Oregon library community in the last few days.  

My original post was in response to a message Marci Ramiro Jenkins posted in response to questions she was obviously already fielding with respect to the appropriateness of being highlighted in the petition as the ideal candidate for the SLO EDIA position.  Since I believe that there is an additional related and important issue (conflict of interest because she is a member of the OLA board), I responded to her post. Apart from expressing a differing perspective on the issue that she originally raised, I also asked whether it was possible to critique any aspect of an EDIA initiative without being perceived as problematic/not an ally.  


To summarize the many responses to this question that have been posted on libs-or since then, the answer is a resounding no.  As one person wrote quite succinctly, “dissenting opinion is privilege.” If this is the case, I realize now there is no way that I could have approached this topic without being judged as problematic.  So, for me to address the comments that reflect a misinterpretation of my words (i.e., that I said that the OLA board was overtly strong-armed into endorsing the petition) , or where I was told I didn’t approach things the right way (“you should have talked to the OLA board instead of posting on libs-or”), seems rather pointless, because it seems that the only way I could have avoided censure would have been to remain silent. Since I do not find this unspoken rule of discourse to be in alignment with the philosophical underpinnings of our profession (sharing information, valuing diverse points of view and protecting intellectual freedom), I stand by what I’ve posted on libs-or.

That said, the most significant argument made in favor of it never being acceptable to critique an EDIA initiative was that doing so is harmful to BIPOC colleagues, who have put a great amount of emotional labor into such efforts and feel that their lived experience is being called into question when any such critique happens. It is significant both because so many people made it (including, most importantly, several BIPOC colleagues) and because of the gravity of causing harm and emotional distress to others, particularly those that are subject to racism and other structural inequities. I take that seriously and am saddened that there appears to be no way I could have raised what I feel is an important issue without such distress being an apparent result. I believe we would do well as a community to explore how we might balance the obvious tension between the values of ensuring space for open discussion and sensitivity to the needs of particular participants. At the same time, I think there is a cost to favoring one exclusively over the other, including the loss of input that could potentially make an endeavor stronger. 

In that light, I would like to address one comment to the OLA board with respect to the anonymous and unsolicited feedback on the EDIA petition that I shared. In the posts that followed, there seemed to be a tendency to dismiss them as clueless in their whiteness (although one identified themselves to me as BIPOC), exaggerating the negative consequences they would experience should they be open about what they think, and in general worth ignoring just because they didn’t say what they said publicly. I would just remind you that many (if not most) of them are OLA members, all of them are members of the Oregon library community (the constituency that OLA serves), and in all likelihood, there are others who also see things the way they do. If OLA’s goal is success in its EDIA efforts, you would do well to pay attention to the feedback you’re receiving from all your stakeholders, including your critics. I may have been the only critic who spoke up in this forum, but many others watched what happened when I did, and are drawing their own conclusions about the extent to which the OLA board represents them or is open to differing points of view.  


Finally, since my original concern was about conflict of interest, I am providing a link on this topic to the OLA board and anyone else who is interested:  https://blueavocado.org/leadership-and-management/nonprofit-conflict-of-interest-a-3-dimensional-view/  Unlike what many seem to have assumed in this discussion, the impact of conflict of interest policy and practice is not to maintain white privilege; rather, it is to protect the integrity and reputations of a nonprofit and its board members, a benefit to all who are involved. As the article states, “A potential for conflict of interest is said to exist when a person can gain a financial benefit through ‘insider’ connections.”  If OLA does not already have a formal conflict of interest policy, this is a gap that should be addressed as it is considered an important component to maintaining nonprofit status in the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service.  Here is more information direct from the IRS on this topic:  https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/form-1023-purpose-of-conflict-of-interest-policy

 

At this point, I think I have contributed what I can to this conversation, although of course others may continue on as they so choose.  Best wishes to all.  


 

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/20220221/911c90ed/attachment.html>