Editor’s Comments about Brown Bag Lunch Article Controversy at SAA Annual Meeting: Listening and Learning

By Christopher (Cal) Lee, Editor, American Archivist

The past month has been one of intensive listening, discussion, and reflection for many people, including me and the other members of the American Archivist Editorial Board regarding the forthcoming article in volume 82, number 2 of the journal, “To Everything There Is a Season” by Frank Boles, and its selection for a Brown Bag Lunch discussion during ARCHIVES*RECORDS 2019 in Austin.

I selected the article for the brown bag event in order to further professional dialog and not to endorse a viewpoint. I have heard members of the profession who have expressed that the article dismisses their experiences and their work in making SAA and the profession more equitable and that the article should not be published at all. I have heard others who have expressed significant concerns about withdrawing the article from publication and discussion. While I have responded to many individuals who have contacted me directly, I regret that I did not more quickly issue a public statement that we were hearing and reflecting on your concerns, and taking steps to address them. I would like to convey my appreciation of the diverse and valuable perspectives shared with me.

This post is intended to provide further context. It is a personal account from my perspective as Editor. More information about the Editorial Board’s activities and plans will be shared as they develop.

Some Background

As many are aware, at its August 1 meeting during ARCHIVES*RECORDS 2019, the SAA Council voted to cancel the scheduled American Archivist brown bag lunch discussion about the Boles article during the conference. The following day, August 2, the Council issued a statement indicating, “The Council believes that giving a platform to the article noted above at this conference contradicts this effort to be inclusive.” In a later statement on August 15, the Council expressed that creating a “welcoming and safe environment . . . is of paramount concern to this Council and is at the forefront of our considerations. In cancelling the brown bag lunch discussion, we took an action that all of us felt necessary in the context of the Austin conference. We agree with many that the ideas put forward in the article warrant a vigorous professional conversation, and it was not our intent to limit that.”

Social media was the chief outlet through which individuals expressed concerns about the Boles article and the brown bag event, with posts first appearing on July 31. Several individuals also contacted me directly through my Editor email account. In addition, I had many conversations onsite at the conference. The concerns expressed included forthcoming publication of the article in the journal, selection of the article for the brown bag discussion, the RSVP item, and the timing of the event.

American Archivist Peer Review Process

As with all other articles submitted to American Archivist, Boles’s manuscript was subject to a double-blind peer review process. This means that we do not reflect the identity of authors to the reviewers, nor do we reflect the identity of the reviewers to authors. All articles submitted to the journal receive three peer reviews: one from a member of the Editorial Board and two from other members of the profession. We use a system called PeerTrack to administer this process. My predecessor, Greg Hunter, built a pool of potential reviewers by encouraging people to register with PeerTrack, and I have done the same.  We now have 240 registered reviewers.  I continue to encourage people to become a peer reviewer, so the process can best reflect the rich array of expertise and perspectives of the profession.  When creating an account, reviewers are able to indicate their areas of interest and expertise.

When the journal receives a new submission, I first examine it to be sure it is complete and that the author has not inadvertently included identifying information in the text. I then invite three reviewers based on areas of expertise/interest and work load considerations. After identifying individuals whose profile indicates a match based on the topic of the manuscript, I check to see if any of the prospects have performed a review recently. The goal is to consider the full set of prospective reviewers and not simply to return to the same ones. Reviewers have 30 days to complete their reviews.

Peer review for American Archivist is based on a rubric developed by the Editorial Board in 2012 that includes several factors such as statement of problem or purpose, relevance of the topic, importance of the topic, contribution to the literature, organization, drawing and building upon relevant literature, methodology (considered broadly in perspective pieces), discussion, conclusion and mechanics.

Once I receive the three reviews, I make a determination of “accept,” “reject,” or “revise” based on the feedback provided. The majority of submissions to American Archivist fall into the “revise” category, in which I convey comments and concerns that the authors should address in order for the manuscript to be published in the journal.

After completing the process above, I accepted Boles’s manuscript for publication in the journal. For those not familiar with journal peer review processes, it is important to point out that publication of an article is not a formal endorsement of the author’s ideas. The peer review process is not designed to determine whether articles represent the consensus of the profession, nor is it an indication that the peer reviewer or Editorial Board agree with the author. That would be impossible, given the complexity of the issues that archivists face, and the diversity of views within the profession.

Brown Bag Lunch Discussions, RSVPs, and Scheduling

Many people have asked about how an article is selected for the brown bag lunch. The purpose of the brown bag discussions is to allow members of the profession to preview and discuss one article from the forthcoming issue of the journal (in this case, volume 82, number 2) before it goes to press. The selection of the article has always been by the Editor (not the Annual Meeting Program Committee), who has traditionally tried to identify an article on large social/professional issues that the profession faces. Below is a list of the previous selections:

As I have expressed since taking the position of Editor in 2018, I believe that it is vital for our journal to reflect the profession’s wider dialog around inclusion, diversity, and social justice. The Boles piece was the only one in the forthcoming issue of the journal directly on this topic, and I selected it in order to provide one venue for discussing the place, importance, and meaning of social justice as it relates to archives, archivists and records.  The goal of the brown bag has always been to provide a venue for dialog; it is not intended to endorse or advocate for any specific positions taken by the author.  However, I recognize that this may sound like an artificial distinction to those who are troubled by SAA providing a visible platform for discussing the piece.

There was the usual advance notice provided by SAA for the brown bag event. On June 19, SAA added an item to the ARCHIVES*RECORDS 2019 schedule about the brown bag selection. SAA also included information about the event in In the Loop beginning with the July 17 issue. As in previous years, the initial announcements did not yet include a link to the piece because the publisher, Allen Press, was still in the process of generating the page proof.

Questions were raised regarding the RSVP for participation in the event. As in previous years, this is a standard protocol used by SAA. Though it did not this year, some previous brown bag announcements have indicated “pre-registration required” or “limited enrollment.” The announcement has always included an RSVP for two reasons. First, the production of the page proof in time for the brown bag is always tight, and we did not know if we would be able to post it online when we announced the event, so we wanted a way to alert people of its availability. Second, we also wanted to know approximately how many people would attend and plan for logistics such as whether everyone would fit in the room. This has never precluded others from showing up at that time, but as with many other aspects of the Annual Meeting, having people sign up helps with planning. Luckily, Allen Press was able to generate the preprint quickly, and we added a link to the document from the online schedule on July 10 and added it to the In the Loop announcements on July 31.

Several people brought to our attention that the brown bag discussion was scheduled at the same time as an Annual Meeting forum about transgender identity organized by the SAA Diversity Committee. This was very unfortunate, but completely unintentional. There are numerous events happening and many moving parts to the Annual Meeting. The Annual Meeting planners do their best to balance the schedule, but there are always regrettable conflicts.

Listening and Planning Next Steps

The Editorial Board has been engaging in numerous activities related to the controversy raised by the Boles preprint. The most important of these activities has been doing a great deal of listening, both during and after the Annual Meeting, to the diverse and valuable perspectives shared. Our ultimate priority is to ensure that American Archivist is a venue that is welcoming and reflects a diversity of viewpoints.

The controversy was a major focus of discussion at our Editorial Board meeting in Austin on August 2. We also held a conference call on August 26, and with the approval of Council, we will be holding an in-person meeting in Chicago on October 27–29. Topics for discussion include (but are not limited to) engagement with the profession around issues raised by the Boles article, enhancing guidance for and feedback to peer reviewers, author and editorial guidelines, and processes for planning future brown bag events.

Aside from issues of process, many people have raised important critiques about the content of the Boles article. In order to give voice to these perspectives, we will be delaying publication of volume 82, number 2 so that we can also include those voices together with the Boles article, as supported by the Council. I have also been informed of concerns about specific inaccuracies and misattributions in the article. I have conveyed those concerns to the author so that he can address them.  In order to minimize the impact on the other twenty seven authors of articles and book reviews in the forthcoming issue, we are pursuing early online publication of those contributions.

American Archivist serves as one of many forums that SAA offers for engagement around vital issues, including social justice. I hope that members of the profession express their views through those forums, including American Archivist. While we have asked several archivists to respond to Boles’s article, the Board welcomes contributions from anyone, now and in the future. Contributions can take the form of articles, which are subject to the peer review process, or letters to the editor. As reflected in the editorial policy, the journal has a long-standing tradition of receiving and publishing letters to the editor “commenting on recently published articles or other topics of interest to the profession.” There will always be an open invitation to engage with the literature.  For those who would like to submit letters to be included in volume 82, number 2, I would ask you to please do so by October 31.

The archival profession faces many large societal issues.  Archivists and archival scholars have raised vital issues for the profession to address in order to best document and contribute positively to the vast array of communities that we serve. It is my hope that our journal will reflect this discussion. I am grateful for the opportunity to continue to learn and grow with you.

Guest Post: Terry Baxter, Multnomah County (OR) Archives

“Our ancestors are rooting for us.”
We Survived, Climbing PoeTree

Two of the most important things to human beings are justice and love. Neither can be fully defined, especially in the scope of this post. I look at love as the understanding that because we humans are interconnected, we act with empathy and compassion toward others, realizing that furthering their desires is important to the realization of our own. Justice comes in many flavors. My focus here is social justice, which can be defined as promoting fair and equitable relationships between individuals and their society, especially considering how privileges, opportunities, and wealth ought to be distributed among individuals. Love and justice bind us to each other with compassionate, fair, and just connections.

These bonds are not constrained by time. The seventh generation principle codified in the Great Law of Peace has been both commercialized and romanticized. Vine Deloria Jr. commented that we are actually the seventh generation, with the responsibility to bridge the worlds of our great-grandparents, grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Rather than peering 200 years into the future, we bring forward the earliest memories of people we actually know and transfer them to descendants we will hopefully meet in the future.

Bridging the temporal spans between generations is what archives and archivists have always done.  I have to believe that our ancestors left us their stories to tell us what they felt important – why they did things and what meaning their actions would take in our lives. We have to be able to move our ancestors’ lives and visions forward to our descendants and one important way is to create archives. Archives are needed because very little that is important is achieved in a human lifespan – often not even in a multigenerational lifespan. We archivists purposefully both choose whose voices and what things they said or did to include in archives. Some would argue that you can’t preserve all the stories. While that may be true in an absolute sense, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t work with as many people doing archivesque work as we can find to try to preserve and transmit as many distinct voices as possible.

The creation of archives (or story, or memory, or community) is an act of love, a way of saying:  Elders, you did this and it will matter to you, Offspring. Archivists commit to being the connective link, not just among those on the earth today, but among all people. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin stated in Toward the Future that, “Love is the only force which can make things one without destroying them. … Some day, after mastering the winds, the waves, the tides and gravity, we shall harness for God the energies of love, and then, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire.” In Salvation: Black People and Love, bell hooks noted that, “Love is profoundly political. Our deepest revolution will come when we understand this truth.” Archivists are at the core of this revolution—finding stories, preserving them, sharing them. We don’t do this just for evidential or informational value. We do it to connect our species—past, present, and future—to each other in common humanity.

So what about justice, comrades?

We’ve all read the old saw “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.” In Theodore Parker’s original abolitionist sermon, the first clause reads: “I do not pretend to understand the moral universe, the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways.”  On our own, we humans can see only a few decades, maybe a century if we’re lucky. If we rely only on our own eyes to see justice, we often can’t see any bend at all, in fact maybe even a bend away from justice. Archives document that long arc, across generations, and present it for all to see. Using archives is an act of justice; a way of saying that we see you, we see your mistakes, we understand how and why you erred, we know more now and we can repair them to make us whole.

This repair requires the inclusion of voices that have traditionally been ignored an equitable footing. The Protocols for Native American Archival Materials is a useful model for seeing archives as underpinning socially just actions. It requires people to approach each other with open hearts and mutual respect, to make decisions based on shared and equal power (as much as possible), and to find solutions that are acceptable to all parties. Archives are key sources in reparative work like truth commissions, treaty negotiations, reparations efforts, and a variety of other community healing efforts based in the representation of all affected voices through time.

Lae’l Hughes-Watkins concludes in Moving Toward a More Reparative Archives“that engaging in social justice through reparative archival work in the form of the diversification of archives, advocacy/promotion, and then utilization within an academic archive has set a process in motion that has shown early signs of creating feelings of inclusivity within the archival space.”

Archives are relational through time. They bind us, for good and for bad, to our human relatives both in the past and in the future. Our ancestors are rooting for us. They have clamored to have all of their stories heard. Fought for a deeper and more truthful narrative of us humans. Archivists uncover those stories, add them to the sum of human understanding, and move them forward through time. Why? So that our great-grandchildren will know that their ancestors are rooting for them, too.

Terry Baxter has been an archivist for 33 years, currently at Multnomah County and the Oregon Country Fair. He lives in northeast Portland with two Jewells.

The Art of Gathering

Priya Parker, author of The Art of Gathering: How We Meet and Why It Matters (Riverhead Books, 2018) and founder of Thrive Labs, “helps activists, elected officials, corporate executives, educators, and philanthropists create transformative gatherings.” I’ve been making my way through her book for several months now, egged on by the notion of a “transformative gathering”—especially for a conference whose theme is “Transformative!”—and heartened that so much of what we’ve discussed and implemented aligns with her wisdom.

But she has also expanded my way of thinking about SAA conferences with her concept of generous authority:  “A gathering run on generous authority is run with a strong, confident hand, but it is run selflessly, for the sake of others…. When I tell you to host with generous authority, I’m not telling you to domineer. I’m saying to find the courage to be authoritative in the service of three goals”—protect your guests, equalize your guests, and connect your guests. 

See my column in the March/April issue of Archival Outlook (page 24) for many of the steps we’re taking to ensure that those goals are met at ARCHIVES*RECORDS 2019 in Austin. 

In addition, we’re plunging into live streaming in an attempt to connect with those who aren’t able to attend the Austin meeting, whether due to travel bans (as for California state employees) or other constraints (usually financial) that affect folks around the country. Our grand experiment this year is to live stream 18 education sessions and the two plenaries so that non-attendees may participate in real time with the conference. Why 18 sessions? Because live streaming is (still) really expensive (at $5,500 per room per day), and we decided to capture the two sessions across nine time slots that the Program Committee thinks will attract the most attendees. The sessions will not be interactive virtually; we encourage you to use Twitter to share thoughts and ask questions. (Use #SAA19 plus the session number, such as #101. We’ve asked the session chairs to designate someone in the live-streamed sessions who will follow Twitter and pose questions to the speakers.)

We’ll be packaging the live-stream option with on-demand (after-the-fact) access to the live-streamed videos plus audio recordings and dynamic screen (slide) capture of all education sessions and (for the first time) SAA section meetings. There are many technical details to be worked out, but watch the SAA and conference websites for announcements about the package. It will be available to non-attendee members for around $99—and to all conference registrants as part of their registration fee.

Never ones to let grass grow under our feet, watch the SAA website for the Call for Proposals for “Creating Our Future”—the next big gathering of CoSA and SAA at our 2020 Joint Annual Meeting in Chicago.

Only Paid Internships to Be Posted to the SAA Career Center

During their discussion of SAA’s Strategic Plan at the November 2019 meeting, the SAA Council determined that the organization would no longer allow unpaid internships to be posted in the SAA Career Center’s Internship Directory. The following changes have been made to the website to make this decision clear to both internship seekers and posters: 

  • The tab listing internship opportunities in the Career Center is now labeled “Paid Internships;”
  • The language on that page now states: “SAA strongly encourages employers to value archival graduate students’ skills by providing monetary compensation for their work commensurate with the qualifications required for the position. If monetary compensation is not indicated in the internship description, the position will not be posted to this directory;”
  • The “Create a New Job” form now states, under the “Level” field: “All internship positions must be paid/offer a monetary stipend. If monetary compensation is not indicated, the position will not be posted to the directory;” and
  • SAA staff are now moderating all submissions to ensure that only paid internship opportunities are listed on the job board. 

The decision to allow only paid internships on the SAA Career Center aligns with SAA’s Strategic Plan and its goal to advocate for archives and archivists. Specifically, it addresses our stated desires to “provide leadership in promoting the value of archives and archivists to institutions, communities, and society” and to “educate and influence decisions makers in any setting about the importance of archives and archivists.”

Archival labor is valuable, and individuals performing this work should be compensated accordingly. Paid internships are important for diversifying our field and recognizing the value of our profession. We urge all prospective internship supervisors to advocate for funding to support the work of their interns. 

SAA Update: Advocating for Archivist Pay

The Society of American Archivists is committed to advocacy on behalf of our members. In our Strategic Plan, the goal of “Enhancing Professional Growth” is focused on archivists having access to the professional community and resources they need to be successful and effective in their careers. Fair wages and equitable salaries are part of this work and we want to share the results of our ongoing discussions and future activities of SAA in support of this issue.

  • Professional support at the Annual Meeting
    • Salary Forum: hear a panel of experts participate in an open discussion about salaries in the archival profession and explore potential solutions, including those that place responsibility on institutions and administrations.
    • Onsite Career Center: from mock interviews to tips on salary negotiation, seek out mentors who can help you navigate the job market and your professional growth.
  • Mentoring Program
    • Meet and connect with a mentor who will listen and provide guidance on negotiating and advocating for better pay.
  • Job Postings in the SAA Online Career Center
    • We strongly recommend salary information be included in all job ad postings.
    • “Research Salaries” button on all job ads can help with regional salary range information, even if a job does not include a salary range.
  • A*CENSUS II
    • An updated data set will illustrate salary ranges per state and by region, helping archivists stay abreast of current salaries across the U.S.

For those attending the 2019 Annual Meeting, join the SAA Council on Sunday, August 4, 12:00 pm – 1:15 pm, in Austin for an Open Forum on Archivist Salaries. This forum will serve as a space for members to discuss the initiatives listed above as well as brainstorm additional ways that SAA can continue to advocate for archivist salaries. Mark your online schedule!

A Difficult Decision

by Michelle Light, SAA Vice President / President-Elect

Dear Members of the Society of American Archivists,

Recently I accepted an incredible opportunity to serve as the Director of the Special Collections Directorate at the Library of Congress beginning May 28, 2019. I’ll lead seven organizational units responsible for the Library’s unparalleled collections of unique or rare, unpublished and published items: the Geography and Map Division, Manuscript Division, Music Division, Prints and Photographs Division, Rare Book and Special Collections Division, and the American Folklife Center, including the Veterans History Project. The Library’s most recent user-centered strategic plan for 2019-2023 lays out an exciting roadmap for engaging more users, and its digital strategy describes plans for growing its online collections, strengthening its digital stewardship, supporting evolving forms of research, and connecting with more users online. I look forward to helping the Library “throw open the treasure chest.”

To best serve the Library and the Society of American Archivists (SAA), however, I must unfortunately resign from serving as SAA Vice President / President-Elect on May 15. Holding prominent leadership roles at both the Library and SAA could create conflicts of interest and confusion as to the capacity in which I am acting at any given time. I especially would not want people to think that I might be using my position as SAA President to influence Congress. The Library is a legislative agency that includes the Copyright Office and the Congressional Research Service, which provides nonpartisan services to the Congress. As a high-level member of Library management, I could not participate in SAA’s growing advocacy on a variety of public policy or copyright matters. Frequent and high-profile recusals, even if effective, would weaken the role of SAA President.

Advocacy on behalf of archives and archivists is core to SAA’s mission. SAA’s public policy agenda and position statements reveal how SAA takes a stand on a variety of governmental issues. SAA advocates for public policies that ensure that archival records are preserved and made accessible as a foundation for our democracy and cultural heritage. As SAA’s public policy agenda explains, “SAA is committed to supporting policies that will ensure the protection of privacy and individual rights; ensure the transparency and accountability of government at all levels; guarantee the administrative continuity necessary for good governance; make accessible evidence of the diverse and complex elements of the human experience; and preserve historical documentation for future generations.” In the past few years, for example, SAA has advocated for funding for federal grant programs for archives, made statements about improving the transparency of government and strengthening federal records programs, and commented on several aspects of copyright law and the functions of the Copyright Office. I recently participated in the first Archives on the Hill event, co-sponsored by SAA, CoSA, NAGARA, and RAAC, during which we visited members of Congress to advocate for funding for NHPRC, IMLS, and NEH, and to educate them about the importance of electronic records preservation. I am proud of the work of SAA’s Committee on Public Policy and the Intellectual Property Working Group to surface issues of concern for SAA action, and I believe their ongoing efforts are important for the profession.

SAA deserves an engaged president who will lead the organization in accomplishing its mission and goals in all areas, especially in strengthening its role in advocacy for archives and archivists. As a member of the SAA Council, I have served with several federal employees who were very careful to recuse themselves from any action having to do with the federal government. They were models for how to navigate the sometimes muddy waters of conflict of interest. Nonetheless, their positions in their agencies were different than mine, and I am mindful of the weight of authority and responsibility of my new position. For those who know how much I value SAA and all the ways in which it has supported my professional growth and development during the past two decades, you might fathom how painful it is for me to relinquish this incredible honor to serve and lead this organization. I plan to remain active in SAA in other ways in the future; I am co-authoring the next edition of Selecting and Appraising Archives and Manuscripts with Margery Sly, and I hope to volunteer again to advance SAA’s research and educational missions.

In order to ensure a smooth transition, the SAA Council has appointed Meredith Evans to complete my full term.

Thank you for your understanding. In my future role at the Library, I will strive to make a transformative impact on the stewardship of our nation’s cultural heritage, an impact that I hope you may someday appreciate. I regret that I had to make this choice, but as archivists it is imperative that we behave ethically and transparently to maintain the public’s trust in our essential services to society. SAA has several initiatives in store for the next three years that will strengthen archivists’ abilities to advocate for their value to their institutions and communities, and I’m confident that through the dedication of SAA leadership, staff, and members, SAA will continue to support your professional needs and aspirations.

Respectfully,

Michelle Light

Enforcing SAA’s Code of Conduct

By Nancy Beaumont, SAA Executive Director

Like many professional associations, SAA has a Code of Conduct that applies to all SAA-sponsored events, online spaces, and formal mentoring relationships.

Development of a Code was proposed by SAA members Rebecca Goldman and Mark Matienzo in January 2014. Council members Terry Baxter and Lisa Mangiafico were appointed to work with Goldman, Matienzo, and me to prepare a draft for Council discussion. From the May 2014 discussion document:

“The ability of SAA members to participate fully in the various events and forums that SAA hosts is a key component in the Society’s diversity and inclusion efforts. Members who feel unwelcome, unsafe, constrained, or silenced are not able to participate fully….

“The proposed policy is not intended to solve all problems nor will it guarantee a harassment-free environment…. What it does attempt to do is let our members know that SAA is creating a culture of concern, a place where members can participate freely in professional and social interaction knowing that harassment is not part of that culture and will be opposed by all members of the SAA community….”

Following a member comment period, the Council revised the document to address a major consideration:  Who would enforce it? The 477-word Code of Conduct that was approved in July 2014 refers to the Executive Director seven times. The rationale for this decision was simple:  The Executive Director, as the chief staff officer, provides continuity over time, has a broad reach to confer with others, and presumably has (i.e., had better have!) the administrative “chops” to be able and willing to enforce the Code:  To investigate, determine a course of action, and deliver a direct message to a Code violator.

The Code provides simple instructions for reaching me to report a Code violation—and it provides recourse if my action is deemed inappropriate:  “Persons who have been expelled or denied access may appeal to the SAA Executive Committee.”

Beyond my Council-directed assignment, it is critically important to me—professionally and personally—that SAA provides an environment that is welcoming to individuals and that does not “constrain scholarly or professional presentation, discourse, or debate, as long as these exchanges are conducted in a respectful manner.”

In my 15-year tenure with SAA, I have addressed inappropriate behaviors a handful of times.  In some cases, the right action was clear:

  • When an SAA staff member complained to me about improper comments made to her by an SAA leader, I addressed the complaint directly with the leader and was assured that there would be no further incidents. There weren’t.
  • When an anti-transgender and gender nonconforming flyer appeared in our registration area at the 2016 Annual Meeting, I worked with the hotel to review security videotapes and interview hotel staff to try to determine who had committed this despicable act. (Unfortunately we never learned who did it.) The Council took up the issue on site at the conference and soon thereafter issued a powerful statement about the incident.

In other cases—particularly those involving interaction on an SAA discussion list or during a conference session—the appropriate action has been less clear. Why? Because one important purpose of those tools is to provide a place for professional discourse and debate. The challenge comes with determining whether “these exchanges are conducted in a respectful manner.” This can be a gray area, and the process is made more challenging when I’m not told immediately so that I can gather perspectives on site.

At the 2018 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, an audience member in an education session asked a question that at least several audience members thought was transphobic. I learned of the incident at the Saturday morning Council meeting, when a Council member brought it forward as something that she had heard about from others. SAA President Meredith Evans and I agreed to investigate.

During the following week:  I contacted the commenter by phone to discuss the incident and we subsequently had two email exchanges. Meredith spoke with both the session speaker and the commenter. I obtained the audio recording from our provider and Meredith and I listened to the session.  We agreed that the commenter had not intended to offend (although we understand that that is often the case!). And we agreed (as did the presenter) that beyond his attention-grabbing language, his question, in context, had merit. According to both, the presenter and commenter had an engaging professional exchange after the session ended.

Going forward, SAA will provide online training for conference speakers and course instructors about a host of issues, including slide design, time management, and how to handle challenging questions or disruptions during a session. The Code of Conduct will be even more visible throughout future conferences and events.

Please read SAA’s Code of Conduct.  If you experience or witness harassment in any SAA “space” and would prefer not to address it directly, please take your concerns and complaints not to Twitter, but to me. Reach me at nbeaumont@archivists.org or 866-722-7858, ext. 12.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[1] https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-code-of-conduct

[2] https://www2.archivists.org/sites/all/files/0514-VI-A-CodeofConduct.pdf

[3] https://www2.archivists.org/news/2016/message-from-the-saa-council-2016-annual-meeting-incident