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

[Taylor Worley]

Penny and Colleagues,

This weekend, I spoke with one of Emporia State University's collection
development classes. It was a wonderful experience for me, and hopefully
not too overwhelming for the students as I can be rather...boisterous?
Aggressive? Exuberant? Pick an adjective; they are all accurate. One thing
we talked about a great deal is how systemic and structural racism impacts
our roles as collection development librarians, as well as regional
differences which impact collection development, etc. I explained that,
having grown up in Southeast Missouri, racism looks different there than it
does here in the Willamette Valley. I repeated at least three times a
variation of, "[this opinion] is easier for me to express because I am
white. A BIPOC collection development librarian may tell you something
quite different." Racism in the PNW may be stealthier, but it is as
insidious here as it is "back home." It is because of this insidious
nature, I believe, that even the smallest acts of anti-racism seem
revolutionary, jarring, and uncomfortable.

We cannot take back things which have been said, however I would like to
point out a spot in which things could have gone much differently for this
discussion, in hopes of remembering it for the future. In
EDI/DEI/Anti-racism trainings/discussions, the concept of "calling out" vs.
"calling in" is a consistent topic. "Calling out" is when my friend and I
were sitting around a table with some other folks and I used a term with a
racist history. She stopped me and said, "did you know?..." I felt awful
for five minutes, but everyone at the table learned something valuable.
"Calling in" is when the State Library Youth Services Consultant (shoutout
to Katie Anderson) sent me a private email in my first year here in Oregon
after I used a term on this very listserv inappropriately. She kindly said,
"In the future, I wouldn't use that term to describe xyz because..."  I
felt terribly guilty, but again I learned. There are reasons to use both
approaches and the effectiveness of either depends on relationships, the
scenario, and much more.

Going back to the petition, I think the concern was initially a "call in"
moment instead of a "call out" moment. If you had reached out directly to
the folks with whom (or about which information) you had concerns - in this
case the OLA board - I am certain that quick conversation could have
cleared things up quite easily. (e.g. Is the petition advocating for a
specific person to be placed in a specific role, or is it advocating for
that person's expertise to be used in creating the new position? Would it
be possible to provide clarifying language in the petition?) I
*absolutely *believe
we must be able to question and discuss sensitive topics, but before
publicly questioning the moral compass of the board and the quality of
their work - which I have to believe you knew would spark vicious
communications - a little foundational work could have gone a long way.

As I'm sure we all understand, this conversation has moved far past a
logistical question of whether or not the petition was a conflict of
interest. In re-reading these threads, it doesn't seem to have ever
genuinely been about that. I can only speak for myself, but it is this
underlying feeling - that this conversation was never *really *about the
petition -  that is so unsettling. I cannot speak to intent, but the impact
has been clear. I would ask that anyone who finds themselves uncomfortable
with these conversations revisit Me & White Supremacy
<https://www.worldcat.org/title/me-and-white-supremacy/oclc/1295275383&referer=brief_results>
(Layla F. Saad) and White Fragility
<https://www.worldcat.org/title/white-fragility/oclc/1050314654&referer=brief_results>
(Robin DiAngelo). I'm overdue for a reread, myself, and can highly
recommend the audiobooks.

Finally, I have tried to not repeat what our colleagues have already said,
though it was very tempting. I considered rephrasing already-made points in
"softer" language to see if perhaps they would be more readily accepted,
but that isn't fair to the folks who shared them. In the event that you
find yourself giving this particular email more space and consideration
than others, ask yourself why, and start your work there.

Sincerely,


*Taylor Worley (she/her)                                                 *Youth
Services Librarian
Springfield Public Library
225 5th Street
Springfield, OR 97422
660.988.4289 (cell)
541.726.2243 (office)
taylorlgkw at gmail.com (personal)
tworley at springfield-or.gov (work)



On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 11:40 AM Star Khan via Libs-Or <
libs-or at omls.oregon.gov> wrote:

> Ms. Hummel,
>
>   You state, “...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.”
>
> No other way?  Really?
>
> You could have come to the Board at any time with your concerns.  For
> someone who takes seriously “the gravity of causing harm and emotional
> distress to others, particularly those that are subject to racism and other
> structural inequities,” it surprises me that you chose an approach that is
> quite the opposite of what you claim to believe.  But no, instead of trying
> to speak to the Board privately as to not cause harm to your BIPOC
> colleagues, you chose to publicly blast us in a negative light instead.
>
> From your very first response to the petition you stated:
>
> “I have to wonder whether some of those within OLA who endorsed this
> petition had mixed feelings about the part that recommends a particular
> person for the SOL position, but did not feel they could speak up because
> they feared being condemned as non-allies.”
>
> You literally said other members of the Board were afraid to speak up for
> fear of being condemned.  And you didn’t have to come out and say who they
> were afraid of.  The insinuation was there.  Instead of raising an innocent
> concern, you started the conversation off by tarnishing any BIPOC
> involvement in this initiative.
>
> I have to ask myself….was this your intent from the get-go? To portray
> BIPOC as aggressive, manipulative, and as having an agenda?  Or were you
> truly oblivious to the damage you were about to do to the reputations of
> the BIPOC Board members and to other BIPOC library workers around the
> state?  Even if you didn’t have the foresight to see the harm you were
> about to cause your colleagues of color(which is part of the problem), did
> you stop to think how this would reflect on your other colleagues?  Did you
> ever stop to think of anything other than the fact that YOU felt wrong
> about it?
>
> And please don’t cry out about censorship because it has been suggested
> that you should have contacted the Board first instead of posting
> publicly.  No one is saying you shouldn’t have raised your concerns.  But
> given the sensitive and controversial nature of this matter, and seeing how
> you say you don’t want to cause any harm, a more appropriate approach would
> have been to go to the Board first.  Had you done that and been dismissed
> or not felt heard, then by all means–raise your voice.  That’s the approach
> that I would have taken had I found myself in a situation where I felt like
> I wasn’t being heard.
>
> I really hope you take this opportunity to reflect on your actions, to
> think about the damage you have caused, and to really learn what it means
> to be an ally so that you can better support your colleagues of color in
> the future.
>
>
>
>
> Star Khan
>
> Outreach Services Coordinator- Coordinadora de Servicios de Alcance
> Past President REFORMA Oregon 2019-2020
> Pronouns: She/Her/Ella
>
> __
>
>
>
> City of Lincoln City  *|*  Driftwood Public Library
>
> 801 SW Hwy 101 * |*  PO Box 50  *| * Lincoln City, OR
>
> *P:* 541.996.1255  *|*  *E**:* skhan at lincolncity.org
>
> *W: *Driftwoodlib.org
>
> *Una vez que aprendas a leer, serás libre para siempre.*
> *When you learn to read, you become free forever.*
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Penelope Hummel via Libs-Or <libs-or at omls.oregon.gov>
> Date: Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 8:06 AM
> Subject: [Libs-Or] Responding to recent discussion of OLA's EDIA petition
> To: LIBS-OR at omls.oregon.gov <libs-or at omls.oregon.gov>
>
>
> 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/20220221/9f126f5f/attachment.html>