It’s January, so it must mean a new post by Digital Preservation is People. Whatever shape this project eventually takes, there is a commitment to keep communicating the important things that are happening in our community.
Today, we’re talking gate-keeping. Or, how your ideas on what makes a good leader is entirely a construct.
Background
The way the news surrounding the Society of American Archivists (SAA) vice-president election reached me was first via:
- Courtney Chartier’s blog: here.
- Ruth Kitchin Tillman’s blog: here.
- Archives for Black Lives in Philadelphia: here
Which already cover the issue in huge and important detail.
The summary is that 52 members of the SAA have petitioned to place a new nomination on the ballot for Vice President/President elect position.
The only context provided (if you go looking for it) is as follows:
unsatisfied with the lack of a choice of two candidates with significant organizational experience posed by the slate recently put forward for the office of SAA vice-president/president-elect … I feel strongly that SAA members need a choice of candidates who have deep, varied experience working for our profession within our national organization, and multi-faceted connections to the concerns of SAA’s leadership.”
You can see that on Twitter: here.
Why is this a problem?
By-laws aside, 52 signers decided to subvert an open-ballot, open to an entire organization to have their say, and put their weight behind someone they considered credible.
52 signers sought an end-around of the current Chair of the Nominating Committee - Lae’l Hughes-Watkins who wanted to achieve the following:
I think it will be critical to put a slate of candidates together that will have a strong portfolio of success in making room for historically underrepresented identities in leadership positions, who advocate for success of these communities and are willing to call out and address discriminatory practices within the profession and in spaces supposedly designed to nurture and support emerging leaders and change agents.
We know you (the 52 signers) felt the nominees didn’t bring enough “varied” experience, and felt they didn’t bring multi-faceted connections to the concerns of the SAA’s leadership (whatever that means?!).
It is near-impossible to see why:
- The nominees apparently didn’t bring enough varied leadership experience from within and outside the SAA.
- The complexities of the role could not be learned in a year in a VP position with the mentor-ship of the current president.
- Leadership should look a certain way that is not congruent with what the nominees offer.
- A candidate not chosen by the elected nomination committee better serves SAA’s needs.
Leadership in our community
Leadership in our community – ultimately, the entire GLAM sector is the strength, sympathy, and empathy of each of our members. It relies on individuals of all backgrounds to push back, and upwards, and to call out the behaviors of those with leadership in their title. To call out the behaviors of organizations that have leadership in their mandate and are failing to demonstrate that. That is what we mean by ‘leadership by nature’. Often, processes and procedures can help us but this time they are failing a group of good people.
The SAA community, and existing leadership (by virtue of position, or nature) have spoken and are looking to support Lae’l Hughes-Watkins call.
They have setup the #52Fund to support QTBIPOC, BIPOC, LGBTQ+, and disabled memory workers’ participation in official professional channels, like renewing SAA memberships and attending SAA’s annual meeting.
Please read about the mission and consider the ways that you can participate, donate, or support the cause.
More on this issue can be learned by following the hash-tag #thatdarnedpetition on Twitter.
Disclaimer: Though the author of this post is not a member of the SAA, their colleagues and many future-leaders are.
Take it easy,
Digital Preservation is People
at 14:16
