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

[PLD Chair]

When I read your initial email, Penny, I was troubled by your assertion
that either the OLA Executive Board does not understand the concept of
"conflict of interest and general appropriateness" or individual board
members were somehow coerced or shamed into supporting the petition.



As a board member, I was in that meeting, and I was part of the unanimous
support for this petition. We all agreed -- no coercion or shaming involved
-- that it is time for our State Library to support our shared EDI and
anti-racism values with capacity and funding. We also agreed that Marci
Ramiro-Jenkins has done and continues to do exemplary work in moving EDI
and anti-racism work forward for OLA, sharing her expertise and experience
through unpaid labor that we all benefit from. Why wouldn't we want Marci
to be considered eligible for a paid position that she has already been
doing so well for free?



I was also troubled by you sharing anonymous comments in support of your
own position without considering how these comments would impact Marci and
our other BIPOC colleagues who have been expected to engage with EDI and
anti-racism work simply by virtue of existing, while white colleagues can
opt out. I would urge you to examine the weaponizing of "silenced and
unwelcome" voices to garner sympathy while you have a platform and
privilege.



If we only think about solutions in terms of what has been done before, we
will only get the same results. And some of us have heard loud and clear
that not only are these same results unacceptable, they are actively
harming our BIPOC colleagues. This is not okay. Change will be disruptive
and it will be uncomfortable, but it is necessary, and it is urgent.

Halsted Bernard (she/her)
Oregon Library Association
Public Library Division Chair, 2021-2022
pld at olaweb.org


On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 9:58 PM Penelope Hummel via Libs-Or <
libs-or at omls.oregon.gov> wrote:

> 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/20220217/87e71188/attachment.html>