Special Collections: Alex Champion's Hard 7

The Society of American Archivists conference, which titillates a part of my brain devoted to professional development, is just a few weeks away however I felt the familiar sensation weeks earlier than usual. The regular archival processing of the “The HistoryMakers Presents an Evening With…” special collections—a term I’ve yet to make peace with—was the cause this excitement, albeit indirectly. The entire processing project was harmed by the absence of Executive Director Julieanna Richardson and Digital Archivist Dan Johnson. The collections were very well filed, perhaps even too well, and the IMLS fellows compiled, refilled, and labeled folders according an enumerative code based on existing filing practices. This code emphasizes subject or content first and format second but the exceptions to these rules often seem arbitrary; The Fundraising series for example has significant granularity for the Sponsors subseries and covers Fundraising-Sponsors… Acceptances, Declines, Comp Tickets, Thank-Yous, and other pertinent sub-series

Chaitra and Skyla debate the virtues of placement

Problems arise between these neatly identified units because said records were maintained in subject files then stapled; frequently thank-yous for one sponsor are attached their acceptance acceptance letters or printed e-mails. Another problem is that acceptance letters frequently do not exist and sponsorship mailings must be verified against the program book. One intriguing Fundraising category is the newly enlarged Sponsor, Trade subseries; this category was originally created by Dan Johnson to differentiate big game corporate sponsorship that comped airfare, limousine service, or food and drink totaling in the thousands of dollars from the smaller fish to donated sandwiches for the volunteers. The former received a plug in the program book, naturally. It was a logical separation that is reflected in the original order. From Boston, Via iPhone, Julieanna lumped the latter into the former and, through a series of conversational e-mails, decided the folders will receive item level arrangement to separate all sponsors by donor category. We must now examine all sponsor donations at the item level and separate them based on dollar amount of donation. We have a half dozen other often contradictory instructions pertaining to item level processing. What can you expect when the first person you would consult is taking a well deserved vacation and the other works remotely from Boston as she attends a non-profit management workshop? The entire special collections project is still in its toddlerhood and was not prepared for the brunt of six recent MLS graduates to discuss the merits of every placement.  It would be unfair to complain about the sonorous Mississippi accent of my peer Amanda and the quietly pleasant tone of Cynthia but their conversations on the merits of one arrangement or another is like a conversation on a bus or a cellphone call in a restaurant. I occasionally tune it out but it’s always on the back of my mind. An entire week of such debate deadened my receptors. I needed stimulus. 

Our Wednesday meeting with Jacqui Goldsby awoke me from my processing delirium and carried me over until Friday. Although not an archivist by profession, Professor Goldsby discussed her eight year experience creating and administering the Mapping the Stacks project, which  sought to expose underdescribed manuscripts and corporate records concerning black Chicago. Funded by a Andrew W. Mellon Foundation grant, the project focused black cultural contributions of black Chicagoans from the 1930s to 1970s. Over those years, Goldsby and a team of University of Chicago Ph.D. candidates received archival training and processed and electronically encoded finding aids for over 30 archival collections on their project’s database Website; “Uncovering the Chicago Archives” or “UnCap” allows researchers to browse collection finding aids by institution or keyword search. Normally such a site would be just another research project that is created and then immediately neglected but UnCap is sustained by the University of Chicago and even gained another participating repository.

Dr. Goldsby, in her awesome glory

The passion Dr. Goldsby has for black Chicago’s history is evident. Every unique experience at the Du Sable Museum, the Vivian Harsh Collection, the Chicago Defender, and the South Side Community Art Center challenged her in new and exciting ways. The Du Sable, being a museum, did not have significant control over its manuscripts and The Chicago Defender wished to use its collection of images for licensing. The Du Sable allowed her free reign in their chaotic records but the Defender archive posed different problems. Contrary to what you might expect from an academic, Goldsby approved of their for profit goals on principle; she simply did not want her project’s mission to be undermined and obfuscated by exclusionary behavior. She repeatedly claimed, almost in frustration, that there had to be a for profit model for black archives to sustain themselves.  

 I was very impressed by her fair criticism and commentary on the project’s development. She frequently highlighted managerial topics pertaining to the administration of the project. She emphasized the importance of transparency and recognition of self interest; as an arts historian, MTS was Goldsby’s labor of love that relied on support from persons with less enthusiasm than she. The participating institutions and repositories were eager to have people make sense of their records and the Ph.D. students themselves often used the project simply to find research topics.

Dr. Goldsby from a different perspective

Goldsby’s acceptance of these frank admissions and was startling to say the least. Throughout our four hour session she emphasized the importance of the The HistoryMakers IMLS fellowship in training, mentoring, and placing talented archivists interested in black collections; she was like our Julieanna Richardson in archivist form. She recoiled at the memories of poorly described, deteriorating, but culturally valuable materials in a manner I’ve only seen archives students perform. She took their poor condition almost as a personal affront! Like Julieanna Richardson, Professor Goldsby did not need to be an archivist to understand the tragedy of this destruction-by-negligence.    

 It was a very exciting session that carried me over throughout the week. It gave me high hopes of completing a project that I could present to SAA 2013. My initial feelers do not bode well for the outcome but I will keep trying until all options and cajoling are exhausted.

Evaluations: Alex Champion's Week 3

Monday: Foray into processing THM's programming archives

The IMLS Fellows did not have any field trips this week. We had our typical lectures from Dr. “call me Mr.” Reed on black history and archives from Cecelia Salvatore of Dominican but we mainly caught up on HistoryMaker interview evaluations.

I’m starting to wonder at what point residents become Chicagoans. My best answer so far is when cross streets are less for navigation but more of a short-hand clueing others into your mentality. My latest oral history interview is for Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett circa 2006. Speaking of community redevelopment in north Kenwood, she remarked that she grew up one block from my sublet and “always remembered looking south.” Why was there an “invisible line” at 47^th Street and what could the city of Chicago do to make other people transcend that line, too?

Community was important to all of the HistoryMakers I evaluated this week. A Milwaukee publisher closed her interview with mournful words on the state of investment by local businesses who do not advertise,  allow paper racks in their stores, nor sponsor kids to camp; corporations like Miller and the community Perkins franchisees “get it” whereas small-time convenience stores saw no obligation to invest in the community from which they take so much. As we would hope from a presidential adviser, Ms. Jarrett saw the big picture of community development. She was very frank that some social policies of the 1960s—like aid to single mothers on the condition they never marry and high-rise housing projects like the one named after her grandfather Robert Taylor—contributed to poverty and high black male incarceration. She claimed community input inevitably improved redevelopment projects but I suspect that was partly because its members chafe less if they felt they had a say in the inevitable. Still, mixed income development is a bold idea.

Another HistoryMaker talked about community but in a different sense. He spoke glowingly about his time at Central State University in Wilberforce, Ohio and the lifelong friends he made there; he spoke about minority owned businesses and black entrepreneurs taking the initiative and advocating for themselves; he also spoke about the value of funding scholarships and sitting on education boards.

Looking back at all of my HistoryMakers I realized a pattern: They valued education because their parents stressed it; whether their father worked in a steel mill his entire adult life or the HistoryMaker was raised in a middle class family where even homemakers had a college education, education was stressed above all else. Typical to my sense of humor, I asked a fellow Fellow if they had evaluated any HistoryMakers whose parents told them education was a pointless exercise. It turned out the answer was no! 

Chiming in, officemate Ashley Howard took a break from her lesson planning and assumed a teacher-like tone of condescension. “And what does that tell you about how these people were able to achieve?” My hand rose and waved furiously as I shouted “ooh, ooh, Ms. Howard I know!” Ashley dutifully called on me but my answer was cautious. “Um…” I began, “because these people had parents who were supportive of them going to college, and, um…” my eyes searched her face to see if I was on the right track, “[often] paid for them, they were more likely to achieve good things?” Ashley praised me for my answer. “And class,” she spoke to our office mates who may or may not have been listening, “wouldn’t it also mean that if your family didn’t have money and didn’t value education that you would less likely achieve?”

“No!” I said disingenuously, breaking my character. I told her about an argument I had with a friend’s father many years ago about economic mobility and starting gate equality. After minutes of unproductive discussion, I posed what I thought to be an iron clad scenario that would make him admit he was wrong: Twins separated at birth and given to families on the opposite end of the economic spectrum. One gets a nanny, prep-school, and legacy enrollment with business connections upon graduation while the other is a latchkey kid, goes to a 35 student-per- room public school, and gets an Associate’s degree in business administration. Assuming they are just as intelligent and have the same degree of ambition, who will do better economically? My friend’s father insisted they would be equal. I called him a social Darwinist—a charge he denied. I suspect the amount of brain power necessary to sustain that degree of cognitive dissonance could power a small city.

Ashley’s response was probably the best response to that story to date: “Well then why doesn’t he send his kids to Compton schools?”

Indeed. Many of the HistoryMakers bemoaned their poor ambition. Valerie Jarrett admitted attending law school simply because she could think of nothing better to do. Because she had financially and emotionally supportive parents she bided her time long enough to find a place she could make a difference.