The past month of January 2011 has brought much pressure and bad spotlight upon the archival community with the announcement of the doctoring of a Lincoln military pardon date written on April 14, 1864, having changed it to April 14, 1865, the last day Lincoln was alive. The report from the Associated Press states that "[Thomas] Lowry's purported discovery was hailed by historians when he came forward in 1998. At the time, a Civil War expert with the Archives said Lowry had made 'a unique and substantial contribution to Lincoln research and to the study of the Civil War.' The National Archives gave the document prominent display, putting it on tour along with other important Lincoln documents" (Viewed on February 2, 2011, at http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/01/archives-historian-tampered-lincoln-pardon-0). Now, eventually an archivist spotted the change and investigated the document's date, but it took far too long, and the National Archives bought into Lowry's reason for changing the date without having done a through, historical check on the letter in the first place: they believed it to be a historically-significant document and used it as an attraction. Now, I'm not blaming the National Archives for anything except jumping the gun--going against the principles all young archivists are taught in graduate school--because they are a large organization. I blame Mr. Lowry, obviously. But that's not the point.
The point is that due to this fiasco, what brought good recognition to the NA for about 12 years has now brought a questioning public who already does not understand the concept of an archives, archival principles, or preservation of records and public access to public historical records. There are calls for higher security in archives (which archives can barely afford now, for many small to medium sized institutions), only those with high "academic credentials" to be allowed access to the records (though Mr. Lowry was a highly-respected history author, and would have been trusted at any archives), and greater protection of the records from too much use (already something people don't understand when you tell them a record is being protected and can't be used--they ask, "so why have it if no one can use it"). I personally have seen worse damages caused by patrons on historical records, including one page of an 1860s marriage record book ripped out by a person wanting to frame the marriage record of their ancestors on their wall at home (despite all the other families' records that were on that page and are gone now).
This incident will bring pressure to restrict records that are needed by all researchers--college students, amateurs, etc.--in order to keep them "safe." Yet, as with the War on Terror, we trade freedoms for safety. Archival liberty has been impinged upon by a historical terrorist. I ask, though, if this historical document was not concerning an important date in Lincoln's life--if it was now "'becomes one of many pardons that Lincoln signed'" (http://washingtonexaminer.com/news/nation/2011/01/archives-historian-tampered-lincoln-pardon-0), would anyone care or have notice? Would archivists trained to notice have noticed? Would the public care anything about security at archival institutions if this was not Abraham Lincoln's legacy with which had been toyed?
The sad part is that this incident shows how poorly the archives field has done in making itself known to the public about what it does and how it manages the records placed in its trust. The incident shows that people expect absolute protection by archivists of the public's historical records, but the public doesn't understand or doesn't wish to cooperate with archivists regarding bringing no pens into archives (or bringing cell phones with cameras in, for that matter). It puts greater strain on archivists' already limited resources, and makes the profession jumping about allowing the public to see records that it might have before this Lincoln pardon incident. You might disagree with me on how archives are viewed by the public, especially after the success of major programs like the American Memory project by NARA and the Chronicling America newspaper digitization project that genealogists love so much. However, when I tell people I'm an archivist, I get blank stares until I say, "It's working in museums, historical societies, preserving historical records and papers" that people go "Oh, that's cool," recognizing the concept vaguely, but not understanding why it matters or what it entails. But now when I say "archivist," I'll get, "Have you heard about that falsified Lincoln pardon."
The author of this blog participated in a Q&A live blog session January 27, 2011, with David S. Ferriero, the current Archivist of the United States, on the Washington Post's website. Reading the questions from the general public and his answers shows me the gap between the professional understanding of archivists and the professional expectations of the public. I asked him a question that makes me nervous as a young professional interested in a profession that is a little freer than most as far as personnel oversight (it's not the FBI or the Pentagon) and demands interacting with the public constantly using original, one-of-a-kind historic records. I asked: "Q: As both a historian and a young archival professional, I am wondering how much more restriction you will see being placed upon both researchers and archivists in reading room settings? Are additional cameras and biometrics the next step in archives for security?" The reply was rather uninspiring, and bothersome to me: "A: Security is an ongoing and continually changing process as we learn more about human nature and new tools at our disposal to ensure that the records are protected. Eternal vigilance is our mantra" (the transcript for this blog session can be found at http://live.washingtonpost.com/altered-lincoln-pardon.html). "Eternal vigilance"? "Learn[ing] more about human nature"? I think after thousands of years of studying human nature, we realize that people are going to serve their own selfish ends, and don't mind destroying historic items to do so. And "eternal vigilance" didn't stop the incident from happening in 1998.
The bottom line of this whole post: without the public's knowledge about our field, how can there be in increase in funding, program involvement, public history/archives internship opportunities for completion of Masters' degrees, support for preservation of county and state records, and so forth? With my experience in a county archives setting, I can tell you one of the first things to be said in a meeting with a county board of commissioners or similar body with the county archivist is this: are you protecting your records from having things like the Lowry incident from occurring? Why should archives be funded if incidents like the Lincoln pardon are all the news stories that the public remembers about an archives? What will be the impact on donor relations after such an incident? Archivists are busy enough as is, but there needs to be much more proactive involvement of archives in communities, so when these bad incidents happen the public understands better as to how such things can occur. It will protect us from losing public support, and in turn help better protect this country's historic records. We need to take better advantage of newspapers (weekly news articles from local archives, anyone?), television, internet video broadcasting (high school A/V students shooting short videos in archives as student projects and posting on the archives' YouTube page?), and blogs. The only way to beat bad press is with your own good press, and the public's support. We need more than "Eternal vigilance."
These are just some observations. Productive dialogue is welcome.
-Matthew, the Eclectic Archivist
No comments:
Post a Comment