“Truly, how can the ‘ability to think critically and independently,’ which that aforementioned college states as central to the liberal arts, be cultivated if we are not courageous enough to construct a critical record of student activities and student life? In this way, to lead archival projects of this nature is not to sabotage our liberal arts colleges; it’s actually an act to salvage them. It is not in spite of but because of these institutions’ published commitment to liberal arts education that we must be motivated and moved to action. We as librarians and archivists at our colleges are distinct from — not better than — but distinct from administrative offices.” (Drake)
This quote felt really personal to me as a student at a competitive liberal arts college at a time where the college itself appears to be grappling with some deeper questions about where it wants to go and how it wants to convey its own images and values. It reminded me of the Civil Discourse posts before break (unsure if y’all kept up, but they’re pretty juicy and well written, would recommend) that started with Kylie Walters’s post about the poor ethics behind the “Dare Northward” campaign. It seems to me that we owe it to ourselves as students at a [supposed] bastion of higher education/critical thinking to push back against administrative decisions if we don’t agree with them. What I found truly troubling during the beginning of December was that there were students who not only opposed the concerns of other students, but felt that they should be silent, or that it was rude for students to speak up.
I see challenge, civil discourse, and student protest/action as one of the main ways we can prepare for how we will be archived. Continuing to create records of our resistance and our feelings makes it more likely that what we do in 2017/2018 makes it into future articles/books/whatever about Colby. I really admire how much had to have been preserved on the part of student protestors for Smith’s book to be so focused on activism in a way that made it seem like it overwhelmed the campus.
Going forward in picking apart Colby’s history and role in progressive movements, I am wondering how you think this period will look to future historians studying Colby, and how it will compare to how progressive Colby seems in Smith’s book?
Hi, Al. I really enjoyed hearing what you had to say in our mini-debate today. I just wanted to let you know that I was one of the students who had a negative reaction to what Kylie wrote and that you’re more than welcome to flag me down if you ever want to talk about it in more detail.
In his keynote, Jarrett M. Drake wrote: “We as trained archivists have the capacity to chronicle change and continuity over time, and it’s crucial to do so or else our campuses will certainly repeat cycles of injustice if records of that injustice are erased or otherwise silenced; there is literally no other part of the campus better suited and trained to do this work than archivists and librarians.”
I appreciate the point that Drake makes in the above quote. I’m reminded of the cliche statement–“history repeats itself”–and think Drake presents the idea in a nuanced way by saying that it is cycles of injustice that are bound to repeat if “records of that injustice are erased or otherwise silenced.” It seems to point to the notion that archivists might often have to go against the grain when it comes to their work, as if they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle with their institution. This also fits in with the conversations we are beginning to have in class about the ethics of the archives. Say a student who was a protestor in college is trying to establish themselves in a career later on–will they want their name attached to certain actions that are particularly “out-there”? While an archivist might deem their action completely necessary to the narrative of fighting injustice at the college, the student might not feel the same way 10, 15 years later. Questions of selection feel vitally important here.
I wonder who the responsibility falls on when it comes to preventing history or injustices from repeating themselves. Is it the responsibility of those using (or likely not using) archival materials? Is it the responsibility of those putting together the archival materials? Or perhaps “responsibility” is an unfair term?
“Ali, stripped of his heavyweight boxing title and free on bail after being convicted of draft evasion did not expound on recent local crisis. Instead he preached against racially mixed marriage” (Smith, 185)
I must believe that someone as present in the national spotlight as Muhammad Ali, someone being paid to travel to rural Maine and speak to a community, has to be aware of not only the impact of their words but also the fact that their words would be recorded and archived. Like the example of FDR from last night’s reading, this is a public figure omitting momentous historical, then contemporary, realities. As a face of the counter-war movement, Ali had a real opportunity to share some of his knowledge and experiences with a community that seemed to be hungry for information and action on the subject. Instead, Ali aggravated racial tensions. Obviously, Ali could not discuss every polarizing topic of the time, but I found it interesting that he had the chance to assist in bringing a community together, and he intentionally ignored, or omitted, the subject of war, impacting the school’s community and affecting his relationship with Colby’s history and archives.
Question: A little bit of an off-topic question, but I found myself wondering the conditions needed for such change and small scale, however significant, actions to be taken? I validate that Colby was a much smaller school at the time, and these civil disobediences were more prominent in the community, also the issues they were facing are absolutely more significant than fighting the new off-campus policy, for example. However, attention spans of political issues have shortened immensely and we are so saturated with information that it seems like fewer people get involved in activism and movements lose steam quick.
Quote: “It seems that the archives and, more likely, the chance for activists to document the history of the change-making in which they were involved, may be the best link a University has with activist students” (Whitledge).
Comment: I found this quote really interesting in light of the discussion we had today in class about Noa, Zack, and Lauren’s blog-posts regarding whether archivists are influenced by the institutions who fund them. I think archivists certainly have the power to forge important and meaningful connections with student activists. However, due to the often antagonistic relationship between protesters and the administration, I would imagine that many archives are silent on issues of student activism due to the influence the administration wields over them. This demonstrates why archivist independence is important.
Question: To what degree does Colby document student activism?
Quote:
“I argue that institutional archives at liberal arts colleges should document student protests and activism…because doing so aligns the archive with the explicit function of the liberal arts college within a democratic society…” (Drake).
In this speech Drake is ultimately arguing that archiving student activism is essential to studying the history of the specified college. Recording this activism is essential because it not only has the possibility to impact the college’s history, but it also demonstrates the ultimate idea of a liberal arts college which is to encourage the democratic participation of its students. By ignoring these records, the archivists are missing a significant amount of historical reasoning behind the past of the university. In the instance of the firing of the University of Missouri president, an archivist would be able to see that the president had gotten fired but would have no background information. They would need an archive regarding the post questioning an extremely racist costume at a football game. Only then would they understand the true gravity behind the situation and have a better understanding of the historical reasoning.
Question:
Drake argues that student dissent should be documented, but to what extent does this go? Should only the protests that had an impact be included? Or should every protest, no matter the size or the outcome, be included in a college’s archives? And by recording the feelings of these (possibly few) student activists, does this result in a contorted view of the climate of the entire campus in this time period?
“Do you know who is a major financial investor in the companies that own and manage many of these private prisons? Liberal arts colleges with endowments that skyrocket into the tens of millions and even billions. These esteemed institutions of higher learning financial business with the companies responsible for massive human rights violations right here on American soil. You liberal arts college is doing that. And students at your liberal arts college are challenging that, and they’re creating volumes and volumes of archival records about their resistance to it.” paragraph 30, Drake
Drake writes in his speech that one of the reasons that elite liberal art schools are explicitly racist is due to their donation basis being of perhaps immoral institutions, like the many unjust private prisons in the U.S. While the author describes many prejudiced issues committed by liberal art schools, this one point is not as clear. Drake goes on to say that these donations help educate students whose belief system do not align with the institutions that source the donated money. Acknowledging this discrepancy, should liberal art schools reject the money? Should student sentiment be involved in deciding fiscal matters? Is receiving money from these corrupt corporations truly immoral?
I think you pose a really important question: is receiving money from corrupt corporations truly immoral? This is so hard to grapple with. I’d like to think that it’s made better if we’re doing something profoundly good with the money, like sending thoughtful, engaged students out into the world to improve it in some way. In some sense I think this was something that parts of the student body struggled with in December on the civil discourse: how do you take advantage/benefit from donations from people whose views/values don’t match your own? And while I’m not sure we’ll ever find any answers, I think this is a place where archival documentation is important. If we’re ever going to get closer to finding an answer, we’ve got to have documentation of the conversations people have been having throughout the years.
“The explicit function of the liberal arts — our raison d’être — might simply be to prepare the ‘demos’ for democracy. From its origins in Ancient Greece to its formation in the British colonies of North America, the liberal arts as a concept is fundamentally concerned with fostering free minds to take active and informed roles within the citizenry of a nation or state.” (Drake)
I think this is a very interesting point of view of what a liberal arts education means. I have to say I’ve never really thought about the purpose of a liberal arts education in this way, but I really like it. After reflecting on the quotation it makes a lot of sense, because at a liberal arts school you take a well rounded sampling of classes. Hopefully that well rounded class schedule then prepares you to be a good democratic citizen.
Traditionally I have always thought of a liberal arts education as a way to become a well rounded person , for just the pure purpose of being a well rounded person. Additionally, a liberal arts education might make someone more competitive when it comes to the job market, who knows tho. However, this civic oriented definition really strikes a chord with me because it means that our education at a liberal arts college is more than just for ourselves, it also means that our education comes with a promise. That promise is that with the knowledge learned you then have take it an apply it help society flourish.
Question- Does a liberal arts education/ school have to be political?
Hi Zack, I thought your question was really interesting. I’ve actually been wondering about the power of education a lot, particularly with our position at Colby and the position that Colby claims for itself as a prestigious school. I wonder how institutions, or any educator even, can teach without inherent politics.
The idea of the political within education is something I’ve spent a lot of time considering, particularly as someone who wants to teach history in the future. The notion of institutions of learning (high schools/colleges/universities/what have you) can be completely apolitical doesn’t feel possible to me. After all, institutions are largely the individuals who are currently involved at that institution, as well as that institutions history. And as we can attest neither individuals nor history is apolitical.
We have citizenship education at every level of our public school system, and usually not in a veiled manner. Think back to each civics class you may have taken if you ever attended a US public school. The usual story we’re told, directly or not, is that we need active citizens and good capitalists in order for the US to flourish. The more I learn about the teaching of history in US the more I find those ideals being passed along. And the social reproduction of our countries ideals doesn’t just stop after high school. In my understanding, liberal arts experiences often follow suit, recreating existing divides and continuing the teaching of the “demos”.
Although this falls outside the realm of this class, I am particularly interested in the role of the individual educator in the teaching of history. How do you avoid bias in your teaching? Can or should you? Are there circumstances in which neutrality is harmful?
Quote: “…the implicit function of liberal arts colleges may be to replicate systems and structures of social inequality and exclusion…” (Drake, On Archivy, 11th paragraph)
Comment: The idea that Drake brings up about liberal arts colleges only continuing the hierarchies in society is deeply troubling and, unfortunately, I am not sure that oppressive systematism in education is confined to liberal arts colleges but is pervasive throughout school systems, elementary through college. There are fascinating parallels between education and history: both must make decisions about what is important, what should be focused on, and what should be passed down, and both influence society in ways beyond their immediate and assumed domains (beyond the domain, beyond the archive). Education I think also shares the same issue of reputation that historians and archivists have: education is often given the association of pure interest, inquiry that is made for the sheer human joy of investigation, but while that may be so for individuals
Question: Is it possible for pure interest in education to exist? By pure interest I mean interest that is not sponsored by material benefit.
This I think returns to the question that has come up several times in the past few days: the, “what now?” In the same article, Drake answers: “We should use our collecting policies and engagement strategies to disrupt that implicit function of entrenching social inequality on grounds that are at once moral, professional, and educational.”
“Truly, how can the “ability to think critically and independently,” which that aforementioned college states as central to the liberal arts, be cultivated if we are not courageous enough to construct a critical record of student activities and student life?” (Drake)
There are a couple of things I want to note about this particular segment of Drake’s speech, which I found to be generally convincing. First, I find it interesting how Drake’s argument is essentially taking the positivist talking point that protests and social events have intrinsic value as historical events, and then uses a much more constructivist methodology to justify his request for better archival preservation. Second, though I did say that I was convinced by Drake’s argument, I noticed a couple of flaws in his proposal. First, entrusting institutions themselves to properly store, use, and publicize materials that document discontent within these same institutions is a lot like entrusting the glue factory with your prizewinning horse. Second, it’s my concern that a focus on archiving student protests has a tendency to propagate other narratives of silence. The student activism that Drake talks about preserving via the archive generally epitomizes the *loudest* issues, not necessarily the most important or the most consequential.
I’ll absolutely concede that the civil rights and social justice protests used in Drake’s speech were almost certainly both the most important and most consequential issues at hand. But on-campus issues that tend to be more lingering and silent than demonstrable (substance abuse, sexual assault, mental health, etc…) would inevitably be subjugated by archivists simply because they don’t produce the same amount of documentation (or even ephemera) as other issues. Constructing an archive of “loud” issues will serve to amplify them (which is not a bad thing), which in turn will serve to drown out the ones that are already quiet (which is a bad thing).
Question: How would a university responsibly go about archiving discontent in a manner that doesn’t entrust important documents to the university itself AND doesn’t reinforce the silence of other struggles?
“I will argue that actually the explicit function of the liberal arts college commands institutional archivists to collect and preserve records that highlight the conflicting nature of the liberal arts’ implicit function.”
In many of our past readings, we have discussed the biased nature that appears to come hand-in-hand in the process of archiving. If an individual archivist does not have a bias in what does or does not make it to the final resting place for informational documents, then often-times the institution they work for does. However, more and more schools have delved into their own history, unearthing information that may tarnish the legacies of some individuals within the school’s history. Yet, this ugly process is a necessary one. The truth must be known and celebrated individuals cannot always hide the atrocities they have committed of a lifetime.
Question: Do other institutions other than colleges/universities engage in this self-critique type research? Or is everyone too afraid of their own past?
“Should institutional archives of liberal arts colleges document student protests and activism that critique or otherwise implicate the college, and if so, why?” (Drake).
This is one of Drake’s fundamental and opening questions in his piece. I agree with Drake when he states “the documentation of dissent delivered a dialogue”. I want to push us to think about student dissent outside of the US as well. Student activism is not solely an American pastime. Student protests held a large role in the push against the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile and the Dirty War in Argentina during the 1970s and 80s. The history of student protests, particularly in these two countries seems (from my understanding) to be a point of pride, particularly of people on the left. And that is felt today in those countries. Last year, thousands of high school students in Argentina held “take overs” of their schools, demanding more student rights. In Chile, demonstrations have continued for the past five years nearly monthly without fail to push for free high education, as their neighbor to the east has achieved. These protests, led by university and high school students alike, often turn violent, due to what is understood to be a minority of more extreme individuals and the impending police reaction. Student walk-outs in both countries has not been uncommon in the last few years (I witnessed one in Santiago this fall, for example). But student activism is undeniably present in these locations. It is felt in every high school and university and on street corners and in main plazas.
Students around the globe are often not given enough credit in history for being the first to change the tide within the country, written off as being too radical, too politically correct. And yet every generation has had student activism that has become historic. I understand that international student activism is not Drake’s focus (nor the focus of our other readings). How do other countries preserve this activism, especially if it is a point of pride for so many? What can we take from that?
Quote: “Even so, it may take time – nearly five decades for the No-Class-ers – before activist alumni are ready to share their stories and part with their records.” (Whitledge)
Comment: I think this is a really interesting point that touches on some of the privacy issues we discussed in class the other day. I bet archiving activism must be difficult, especially when there are worries about personal consequences for the activists from releasing private information to the archive if its open to the public. I can imagine that under a government that is less free in respects to access to information and right to protest, documenting activism could be extremely hard as there could be extreme personal consequences to being publicly revealed as an activist. This might result in a lot of secrecy in activist groups and the loss of a lot of valuable information that could be archived but wouldn’t because of as Thomas describes it “oppression as a cause of silence”.
Question: How could archivists work around this problem of secrecy and preserve valuable, sensitive information about activism?
“Truly, how can the ‘ability to think critically and independently,’ which that aforementioned college states as central to the liberal arts, be cultivated if we are not courageous enough to construct a critical record of student activities and student life? In this way, to lead archival projects of this nature is not to sabotage our liberal arts colleges; it’s actually an act to salvage them. It is not in spite of but because of these institutions’ published commitment to liberal arts education that we must be motivated and moved to action. We as librarians and archivists at our colleges are distinct from — not better than — but distinct from administrative offices.” (Drake)
This quote felt really personal to me as a student at a competitive liberal arts college at a time where the college itself appears to be grappling with some deeper questions about where it wants to go and how it wants to convey its own images and values. It reminded me of the Civil Discourse posts before break (unsure if y’all kept up, but they’re pretty juicy and well written, would recommend) that started with Kylie Walters’s post about the poor ethics behind the “Dare Northward” campaign. It seems to me that we owe it to ourselves as students at a [supposed] bastion of higher education/critical thinking to push back against administrative decisions if we don’t agree with them. What I found truly troubling during the beginning of December was that there were students who not only opposed the concerns of other students, but felt that they should be silent, or that it was rude for students to speak up.
I see challenge, civil discourse, and student protest/action as one of the main ways we can prepare for how we will be archived. Continuing to create records of our resistance and our feelings makes it more likely that what we do in 2017/2018 makes it into future articles/books/whatever about Colby. I really admire how much had to have been preserved on the part of student protestors for Smith’s book to be so focused on activism in a way that made it seem like it overwhelmed the campus.
Going forward in picking apart Colby’s history and role in progressive movements, I am wondering how you think this period will look to future historians studying Colby, and how it will compare to how progressive Colby seems in Smith’s book?
(also if you haven’t read the Civil Discourse posts, I would really recommend them!
Kylie Walters’s: http://www.colby.edu/now/2017/12/07/daring-northward-global-capital-and-the-neoliberal-ego-of-the-college/
Kylie wrote the first piece but all the ones that come after are worth reading as well!)
Hi, Al. I really enjoyed hearing what you had to say in our mini-debate today. I just wanted to let you know that I was one of the students who had a negative reaction to what Kylie wrote and that you’re more than welcome to flag me down if you ever want to talk about it in more detail.
-Jonathan
In his keynote, Jarrett M. Drake wrote: “We as trained archivists have the capacity to chronicle change and continuity over time, and it’s crucial to do so or else our campuses will certainly repeat cycles of injustice if records of that injustice are erased or otherwise silenced; there is literally no other part of the campus better suited and trained to do this work than archivists and librarians.”
I appreciate the point that Drake makes in the above quote. I’m reminded of the cliche statement–“history repeats itself”–and think Drake presents the idea in a nuanced way by saying that it is cycles of injustice that are bound to repeat if “records of that injustice are erased or otherwise silenced.” It seems to point to the notion that archivists might often have to go against the grain when it comes to their work, as if they’re constantly fighting an uphill battle with their institution. This also fits in with the conversations we are beginning to have in class about the ethics of the archives. Say a student who was a protestor in college is trying to establish themselves in a career later on–will they want their name attached to certain actions that are particularly “out-there”? While an archivist might deem their action completely necessary to the narrative of fighting injustice at the college, the student might not feel the same way 10, 15 years later. Questions of selection feel vitally important here.
I wonder who the responsibility falls on when it comes to preventing history or injustices from repeating themselves. Is it the responsibility of those using (or likely not using) archival materials? Is it the responsibility of those putting together the archival materials? Or perhaps “responsibility” is an unfair term?
“Ali, stripped of his heavyweight boxing title and free on bail after being convicted of draft evasion did not expound on recent local crisis. Instead he preached against racially mixed marriage” (Smith, 185)
I must believe that someone as present in the national spotlight as Muhammad Ali, someone being paid to travel to rural Maine and speak to a community, has to be aware of not only the impact of their words but also the fact that their words would be recorded and archived. Like the example of FDR from last night’s reading, this is a public figure omitting momentous historical, then contemporary, realities. As a face of the counter-war movement, Ali had a real opportunity to share some of his knowledge and experiences with a community that seemed to be hungry for information and action on the subject. Instead, Ali aggravated racial tensions. Obviously, Ali could not discuss every polarizing topic of the time, but I found it interesting that he had the chance to assist in bringing a community together, and he intentionally ignored, or omitted, the subject of war, impacting the school’s community and affecting his relationship with Colby’s history and archives.
Question: A little bit of an off-topic question, but I found myself wondering the conditions needed for such change and small scale, however significant, actions to be taken? I validate that Colby was a much smaller school at the time, and these civil disobediences were more prominent in the community, also the issues they were facing are absolutely more significant than fighting the new off-campus policy, for example. However, attention spans of political issues have shortened immensely and we are so saturated with information that it seems like fewer people get involved in activism and movements lose steam quick.
Quote: “It seems that the archives and, more likely, the chance for activists to document the history of the change-making in which they were involved, may be the best link a University has with activist students” (Whitledge).
Comment: I found this quote really interesting in light of the discussion we had today in class about Noa, Zack, and Lauren’s blog-posts regarding whether archivists are influenced by the institutions who fund them. I think archivists certainly have the power to forge important and meaningful connections with student activists. However, due to the often antagonistic relationship between protesters and the administration, I would imagine that many archives are silent on issues of student activism due to the influence the administration wields over them. This demonstrates why archivist independence is important.
Question: To what degree does Colby document student activism?
Quote:
“I argue that institutional archives at liberal arts colleges should document student protests and activism…because doing so aligns the archive with the explicit function of the liberal arts college within a democratic society…” (Drake).
In this speech Drake is ultimately arguing that archiving student activism is essential to studying the history of the specified college. Recording this activism is essential because it not only has the possibility to impact the college’s history, but it also demonstrates the ultimate idea of a liberal arts college which is to encourage the democratic participation of its students. By ignoring these records, the archivists are missing a significant amount of historical reasoning behind the past of the university. In the instance of the firing of the University of Missouri president, an archivist would be able to see that the president had gotten fired but would have no background information. They would need an archive regarding the post questioning an extremely racist costume at a football game. Only then would they understand the true gravity behind the situation and have a better understanding of the historical reasoning.
Question:
Drake argues that student dissent should be documented, but to what extent does this go? Should only the protests that had an impact be included? Or should every protest, no matter the size or the outcome, be included in a college’s archives? And by recording the feelings of these (possibly few) student activists, does this result in a contorted view of the climate of the entire campus in this time period?
“Do you know who is a major financial investor in the companies that own and manage many of these private prisons? Liberal arts colleges with endowments that skyrocket into the tens of millions and even billions. These esteemed institutions of higher learning financial business with the companies responsible for massive human rights violations right here on American soil. You liberal arts college is doing that. And students at your liberal arts college are challenging that, and they’re creating volumes and volumes of archival records about their resistance to it.” paragraph 30, Drake
Drake writes in his speech that one of the reasons that elite liberal art schools are explicitly racist is due to their donation basis being of perhaps immoral institutions, like the many unjust private prisons in the U.S. While the author describes many prejudiced issues committed by liberal art schools, this one point is not as clear. Drake goes on to say that these donations help educate students whose belief system do not align with the institutions that source the donated money. Acknowledging this discrepancy, should liberal art schools reject the money? Should student sentiment be involved in deciding fiscal matters? Is receiving money from these corrupt corporations truly immoral?
I think you pose a really important question: is receiving money from corrupt corporations truly immoral? This is so hard to grapple with. I’d like to think that it’s made better if we’re doing something profoundly good with the money, like sending thoughtful, engaged students out into the world to improve it in some way. In some sense I think this was something that parts of the student body struggled with in December on the civil discourse: how do you take advantage/benefit from donations from people whose views/values don’t match your own? And while I’m not sure we’ll ever find any answers, I think this is a place where archival documentation is important. If we’re ever going to get closer to finding an answer, we’ve got to have documentation of the conversations people have been having throughout the years.
“The explicit function of the liberal arts — our raison d’être — might simply be to prepare the ‘demos’ for democracy. From its origins in Ancient Greece to its formation in the British colonies of North America, the liberal arts as a concept is fundamentally concerned with fostering free minds to take active and informed roles within the citizenry of a nation or state.” (Drake)
I think this is a very interesting point of view of what a liberal arts education means. I have to say I’ve never really thought about the purpose of a liberal arts education in this way, but I really like it. After reflecting on the quotation it makes a lot of sense, because at a liberal arts school you take a well rounded sampling of classes. Hopefully that well rounded class schedule then prepares you to be a good democratic citizen.
Traditionally I have always thought of a liberal arts education as a way to become a well rounded person , for just the pure purpose of being a well rounded person. Additionally, a liberal arts education might make someone more competitive when it comes to the job market, who knows tho. However, this civic oriented definition really strikes a chord with me because it means that our education at a liberal arts college is more than just for ourselves, it also means that our education comes with a promise. That promise is that with the knowledge learned you then have take it an apply it help society flourish.
Question- Does a liberal arts education/ school have to be political?
Hi Zack, I thought your question was really interesting. I’ve actually been wondering about the power of education a lot, particularly with our position at Colby and the position that Colby claims for itself as a prestigious school. I wonder how institutions, or any educator even, can teach without inherent politics.
The idea of the political within education is something I’ve spent a lot of time considering, particularly as someone who wants to teach history in the future. The notion of institutions of learning (high schools/colleges/universities/what have you) can be completely apolitical doesn’t feel possible to me. After all, institutions are largely the individuals who are currently involved at that institution, as well as that institutions history. And as we can attest neither individuals nor history is apolitical.
We have citizenship education at every level of our public school system, and usually not in a veiled manner. Think back to each civics class you may have taken if you ever attended a US public school. The usual story we’re told, directly or not, is that we need active citizens and good capitalists in order for the US to flourish. The more I learn about the teaching of history in US the more I find those ideals being passed along. And the social reproduction of our countries ideals doesn’t just stop after high school. In my understanding, liberal arts experiences often follow suit, recreating existing divides and continuing the teaching of the “demos”.
Although this falls outside the realm of this class, I am particularly interested in the role of the individual educator in the teaching of history. How do you avoid bias in your teaching? Can or should you? Are there circumstances in which neutrality is harmful?
Quote: “…the implicit function of liberal arts colleges may be to replicate systems and structures of social inequality and exclusion…” (Drake, On Archivy, 11th paragraph)
Comment: The idea that Drake brings up about liberal arts colleges only continuing the hierarchies in society is deeply troubling and, unfortunately, I am not sure that oppressive systematism in education is confined to liberal arts colleges but is pervasive throughout school systems, elementary through college. There are fascinating parallels between education and history: both must make decisions about what is important, what should be focused on, and what should be passed down, and both influence society in ways beyond their immediate and assumed domains (beyond the domain, beyond the archive). Education I think also shares the same issue of reputation that historians and archivists have: education is often given the association of pure interest, inquiry that is made for the sheer human joy of investigation, but while that may be so for individuals
Question: Is it possible for pure interest in education to exist? By pure interest I mean interest that is not sponsored by material benefit.
This I think returns to the question that has come up several times in the past few days: the, “what now?” In the same article, Drake answers: “We should use our collecting policies and engagement strategies to disrupt that implicit function of entrenching social inequality on grounds that are at once moral, professional, and educational.”
“Truly, how can the “ability to think critically and independently,” which that aforementioned college states as central to the liberal arts, be cultivated if we are not courageous enough to construct a critical record of student activities and student life?” (Drake)
There are a couple of things I want to note about this particular segment of Drake’s speech, which I found to be generally convincing. First, I find it interesting how Drake’s argument is essentially taking the positivist talking point that protests and social events have intrinsic value as historical events, and then uses a much more constructivist methodology to justify his request for better archival preservation. Second, though I did say that I was convinced by Drake’s argument, I noticed a couple of flaws in his proposal. First, entrusting institutions themselves to properly store, use, and publicize materials that document discontent within these same institutions is a lot like entrusting the glue factory with your prizewinning horse. Second, it’s my concern that a focus on archiving student protests has a tendency to propagate other narratives of silence. The student activism that Drake talks about preserving via the archive generally epitomizes the *loudest* issues, not necessarily the most important or the most consequential.
I’ll absolutely concede that the civil rights and social justice protests used in Drake’s speech were almost certainly both the most important and most consequential issues at hand. But on-campus issues that tend to be more lingering and silent than demonstrable (substance abuse, sexual assault, mental health, etc…) would inevitably be subjugated by archivists simply because they don’t produce the same amount of documentation (or even ephemera) as other issues. Constructing an archive of “loud” issues will serve to amplify them (which is not a bad thing), which in turn will serve to drown out the ones that are already quiet (which is a bad thing).
Question: How would a university responsibly go about archiving discontent in a manner that doesn’t entrust important documents to the university itself AND doesn’t reinforce the silence of other struggles?
“I will argue that actually the explicit function of the liberal arts college commands institutional archivists to collect and preserve records that highlight the conflicting nature of the liberal arts’ implicit function.”
In many of our past readings, we have discussed the biased nature that appears to come hand-in-hand in the process of archiving. If an individual archivist does not have a bias in what does or does not make it to the final resting place for informational documents, then often-times the institution they work for does. However, more and more schools have delved into their own history, unearthing information that may tarnish the legacies of some individuals within the school’s history. Yet, this ugly process is a necessary one. The truth must be known and celebrated individuals cannot always hide the atrocities they have committed of a lifetime.
Question: Do other institutions other than colleges/universities engage in this self-critique type research? Or is everyone too afraid of their own past?
“Should institutional archives of liberal arts colleges document student protests and activism that critique or otherwise implicate the college, and if so, why?” (Drake).
This is one of Drake’s fundamental and opening questions in his piece. I agree with Drake when he states “the documentation of dissent delivered a dialogue”. I want to push us to think about student dissent outside of the US as well. Student activism is not solely an American pastime. Student protests held a large role in the push against the dictatorship of Pinochet in Chile and the Dirty War in Argentina during the 1970s and 80s. The history of student protests, particularly in these two countries seems (from my understanding) to be a point of pride, particularly of people on the left. And that is felt today in those countries. Last year, thousands of high school students in Argentina held “take overs” of their schools, demanding more student rights. In Chile, demonstrations have continued for the past five years nearly monthly without fail to push for free high education, as their neighbor to the east has achieved. These protests, led by university and high school students alike, often turn violent, due to what is understood to be a minority of more extreme individuals and the impending police reaction. Student walk-outs in both countries has not been uncommon in the last few years (I witnessed one in Santiago this fall, for example). But student activism is undeniably present in these locations. It is felt in every high school and university and on street corners and in main plazas.
Students around the globe are often not given enough credit in history for being the first to change the tide within the country, written off as being too radical, too politically correct. And yet every generation has had student activism that has become historic. I understand that international student activism is not Drake’s focus (nor the focus of our other readings). How do other countries preserve this activism, especially if it is a point of pride for so many? What can we take from that?
Quote: “Even so, it may take time – nearly five decades for the No-Class-ers – before activist alumni are ready to share their stories and part with their records.” (Whitledge)
Comment: I think this is a really interesting point that touches on some of the privacy issues we discussed in class the other day. I bet archiving activism must be difficult, especially when there are worries about personal consequences for the activists from releasing private information to the archive if its open to the public. I can imagine that under a government that is less free in respects to access to information and right to protest, documenting activism could be extremely hard as there could be extreme personal consequences to being publicly revealed as an activist. This might result in a lot of secrecy in activist groups and the loss of a lot of valuable information that could be archived but wouldn’t because of as Thomas describes it “oppression as a cause of silence”.
Question: How could archivists work around this problem of secrecy and preserve valuable, sensitive information about activism?