Eighty years ago, two young African-American men, Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith, were lynched in the town center of Marion, Ind. The night before, on Aug. 6, 1930, they had been arrested and charged with the armed robbery and murder of a white factory worker, Claude Deeter, and the rape of his companion, Mary Ball.Drawing upon interviews with historian James Madison, Cameron, and eyewitnesses, this 13-minute entry from Radio Diaries is gripping and unforgettable. Listeners will no doubt be impressed to learn how Cameron coped with this tribulation and what he made of his life. That is as it should be. But they should also be warned: the striving to find an "uplifting" message in a tale of atrocity is the mark of a philistine. There should be nothing consoling here. All the silver linings in the world are as nothing when weighed against the alternative of never having suffered the storm clouds in the first place.
That evening, local police were unable to stop a mob of thousands from breaking into the jail with sledgehammers and crowbars to pull the young men out of their cells and lynch them.
News of the lynching spread across the world. Local photographer Lawrence Beitler took what would become the most iconic photograph of lynching in America. The photograph shows two bodies hanging from a tree surrounded by a crowd of ordinary citizens, including women and children. Thousands of copies were made and sold. The photograph helped inspire the poem and song "Strange Fruit" written by Abel Meeropol — and performed around the world by Billie Holiday.
But there was a third person, 16-year-old James Cameron, who narrowly survived the lynching. (read the rest)
Friday, August 6, 2010
6 August 1930 "Literally Waving the Bloody Shirt": from incitement to commemoration of a lynching
Far more moving and disturbing than all the Hiroshima coverage was a stunning but understated piece on NPR. It told the story behind what it calls "the most iconic photograph of lynching in America":
6 August 1945-2010 65 Years Since Hiroshima: history, memory, commemoration
The anniversary of the first use of atomic weapons is always a time for reflections of widely ranging perspectives and quality in the press.
Whether it is mainly a matter of the passing of time or the change of administrations, this was the first year that the US officially took part in the commemorations in Japan, a topic of many press reports and opinion pieces (see the list at the bottom of this post).
In other coverage, the Spiegel's contribution, "Hiroshima Fights to Keep Memory of Nuclear Attack Alive," puts forth the view that not just the outside world, but Hiroshima itself is in danger of forgetting the event, a thesis that seems at once plausible—to the extent that generations change and any event recedes from the lived past into the historical—and exaggerated. It quotes a woman whose grandmother survived the attack:
Over at Open Democracy, Daniel Bruno Sanz looks at the relation between past and present from a slightly different angle, asking how postwar apocalyptic science fiction influenced our visions of the future, and perhaps explain our fears today:
further reading:
• the 2008 post on this site
• Greg Mitchell, Special Report: "Atomic Film Coverup: Key Footage from Hiroshima Buried for Decades," The Nation, 12 August
[updated]
Whether it is mainly a matter of the passing of time or the change of administrations, this was the first year that the US officially took part in the commemorations in Japan, a topic of many press reports and opinion pieces (see the list at the bottom of this post).
In other coverage, the Spiegel's contribution, "Hiroshima Fights to Keep Memory of Nuclear Attack Alive," puts forth the view that not just the outside world, but Hiroshima itself is in danger of forgetting the event, a thesis that seems at once plausible—to the extent that generations change and any event recedes from the lived past into the historical—and exaggerated. It quotes a woman whose grandmother survived the attack:
The exhibits at the museum are very moving, and that is important to Niiyama. "We cannot forget the past," she says. "Of course we must also remember the crimes that were committed by our own military during World War II." Even 65 years after the end of the war, Japan still has a hard time coming to terms with its own history.The reporter does not challenge the latter assertion, which certainly seems at odds with my sense of the way that US history education has evolved in the last generation or two. It would at the least have been interesting to pursue the issue, given that Germany has in many ways been so frank in confronting is own wartime past.
It's a problem, however, that isn't exlusive to Japan. Niiyama learned that during a year abroad, when she studied at a college in the United States. "To me, Hiroshima's message is not an indictment, but rather a warning for peace and against the nuclear bomb," she says. "I would have really liked to have told my fellow students in the US a lot about my hometown and its history," she says. But she says people had little interest in those stories.
Niiyama said her experience was that America's telling of history comes through overblown movies like "Pearl Harbor." She says she found there was a lack of any real discussion about the dropping of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. "We will probably have to wait an eternity for an objective Hollywood film about the victims of Hiroshima," Niiyama says, sounding a little bitter.
Over at Open Democracy, Daniel Bruno Sanz looks at the relation between past and present from a slightly different angle, asking how postwar apocalyptic science fiction influenced our visions of the future, and perhaps explain our fears today:
A spectre is haunting the United States: the spectre of nuclear attack without nuclear war. Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran, Pakistan and North Korea, capable state and shadowy non-state actors contemplate flattening an American city with a device smuggled into the United States at one hundred possible ports of entry. It would have no return address. The scenarios of holocaust are many and multiply with the advance of technology and the information age. What will this lead to? (read the rest)The piece uses as its main example the film, "Five" (1951; trailer included there).
further reading:
• the 2008 post on this site
• Greg Mitchell, Special Report: "Atomic Film Coverup: Key Footage from Hiroshima Buried for Decades," The Nation, 12 August
[updated]
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Gratitude to Greenbaum: thanks for service on the Historical Commission and Jones Library Trustees
I have known Louis since my arrival in Amherst, because he was my first landlord. I wasn't sure which term to apply to him here: "retiring" does not fit, for although formally having relinquished his position as a professor of history at the University of Massachusetts, he has never ceased working, and he certainly is not shy about expressing his opinions (many can attest to that). Louis is nothing if not passionate about history. What is more, the breadth of his knowledge matches his passion. Although trained as a specialist in French history of the Ancien Régime and Revolution (he wrote a book on the former Archbishop-turned-politician Talleyrand), he was also immersed in the history of the American as well as European Enlightenment and had an additional interest in the history of medicine and education on both continents. As the owner of one of the oldest and most historic houses in Amherst and a consummate connoisseur of early American art and material culture, Louis was a formidable presence in any conversation or debate. No matter which property was under discussion at the Historical Commission, Louis always seemed to know the history of the structure, its architect, and owners. And woe to him who dared to threaten it with inappropriate modification or—God forbid—demolition. Trained in the now-lost art of formal rhetoric, Louis could launch into a peroration or jeremiad at the drop of a hat, emitting sentences so polished that they seemed to have come from the pages of a book, and so long that we sometimes feared he would collapse for lack of oxygen. But persist he did, and we were generally the better for it. His presence was a unique one.
We on the Historical Commission offered our informal oral but heartfelt thanks to Louis on the occasion of his last participation in our group. Somehow, though, it never occurred to us to go as far as the Library trustees. Chair Pat Holland (also a historian by training, I might add) penned a flowery tribute in the form of a formal resolution. Because it must be seen in its full context and and typographical garb in order to be properly appreciated, I'll simply link to the relevant number of the Trustee minutes and allow you to savor it for yourselves.
What both groups were saying, in their own distinctive ways, was: un grand merci!
Amherst Museums Win Awards
In a press release dated May 10, NEMA announced
Amherst Museums Win Coveted Publication Awards
(Arlington, MA) — The New England Museum Association (NEMA) today announced that two Amherst museums have won First Place in its 2010 Publication Award Competition. The Amherst Historical Society and Museum won the "Books, under $ 10" category for its entry entitled, Amherst A to Z, 1759-2009. The University Gallery at the UMass Fine Arts Center won the "Posters" category for its entry entitled, Warhol poster.
"This award puts the Amherst History Museum, and the University Gallery in very good company at the top ranks of our region's institutions," said NEMA Executive Director Dan Yaeger in announcing the honor. "Graphic communication is vital to connecting a museum with its community, so their success with publications reflects their success in overall operations as well."
The competition this year was especially intense, Yaeger said, with 241 publications from 78 museums entered in 19 different categories. Competition winners will be recognized and exhibited at the 92nd Annual Amherst A to Z NEMA Conference in Springfield, Massachusetts, November 3-5, 2010. . . .
Amherst A to Z: Amherst, Massachusetts 1759-2009 was the brainchild of then-Historical Society President Betty Sharpe, who conceived of it as both a contribution to the town's 250th anniversary celebrations and a fundraiser for the museum. Having come up with the idea, she also volunteered to write the book. She conducted extensive research, involving artifacts as well as documents, and in addition consulted with numerous residents about both choice of topics and details. The topics are eclectic in the best sense—surprisingly and instructively diverse rather than merely subjective. To be sure, we learn about famous residents, from Emily Dickinson to Noah Webster, and the expected sites such as Town Hall or events such as the Hurricane of '38, but also about much else: the "Baby Book" kept as a record of deliveries by an early 19th-century physician; the "Cambodian Community" of new Americans here, the "Love Notes" charitable fundraiser of the Amherst Club, the "Renaissance Center" at the University of Massachusetts, the "Tiffany and LaFarge" windows in the Unitarian Universalist Meetinghouse, "Community-Supported Agriculture," the "Zion Chapel" (now Goodwin Memorial AME Zion Church) and the "Zip Code"—01002—one of the lowest in the nation.
Debbie Sachs Gabor served as the editor, and Mary Zyskowski (www.designmz.com) did the design work.
Amherst A to Z has been selling briskly in local bookstores, especially in the fall and spring, when college students and their parents come and go, often seeking information or souvenirs involving the town. It is available directly from the Museum.
Both the University Gallery and Amherst History Museum are members of Museums10, the consortium of sister organizations in the Upper Pioneer Valley. Periodically, the group coordinates exhibits around a common theme. In fall of 2007, it was Books (partial coverage here). In 2010, it will be food: "Table for 10 The Art, History and Science of Food."
Related articles by Zemanta
Monday, August 2, 2010
New Book on Weimar Cinema
THE MANY FACES OF WEIMAR CINEMA: Rediscovering Germany’s Filmic Legacy (Camden House, June 2010)The individual essays span a broad range of topics (the publisher's website provides a list). What I like about this work is that it embodies some of the principles of cultural history in the classic sense as well as insights from the new cultural studies. There has traditionally been a certain tension between the notion of studying and teaching "the best that has been thought and said in the world" (Matthew Arnold) versus what was typical. The emphasis periodically shifts in one direction or the other, but this should not be a matter of "an either-or choice." (1, 2) Each can be valid in its way, and we simply need to make clear what we are doing. To call attention to the films treated here does not necessarily mean that they were "better" than "Caligari" or "Metropolis"—or worse, for that matter. And in some cases, it really is a matter of apples and oranges; a hygiene film is not a drama, though we may fruitfully compare, say, the representation of gender and sexuality across genres. Rather, examining these films in this manner tells us something important about production, viewership, the market, technique, and aesthetics in that day.
EDITED BY CHRISTIAN ROGOWSKI
Traditionally, Weimar cinema has been equated with the work of a handful of auteurist filmmakers and a limited number of canonical films. Often a single, limited phenomenon, “expressionist film,” has been taken as synonymous with the cinema of the entire period. But in recent decades, such reductive assessments have been challenged by developments in film theory and archival research that highlight the tremendous richness and diversity of Weimar cinema. This widening of focus has brought attention to issues such as film as commodity; questions of technology and genre; transnational collaborations and national identity; effects of changes in socioeconomics and gender roles on film spectatorship; and connections between film and other arts and media. Such shifts have been accompanied by archival research that has made a cornucopia of new information available, now augmented by the increased availability of films from the period on DVD. This wealth of new source material calls for a re-evaluation of Weimar cinema that considers the legacies of lesser-known directors and producers, popular genres, experiments of the artistic avant-garde, and nonfiction films, all of which are aspects attended to by the essays in this volume.
CONTRIBUTORS: Ofer Ashkenazi, Jaimey Fisher, Veronika Fuechtner, Joseph Garncarz, Barbara Hales, Anjeana Hans, Richard W. McCormick, Nancy P. Nenno, Elizabeth Otto, Mihaela Petrescu, Theodore F. Rippey, Christian Rogowski, Jill Smith, Philipp Stiasny, Chris Wahl, Cynthia Walk, Valerie Weinstein, Joel Westerdale.
CHRISTIAN ROGOWSKI is Professor of German at Amherst College.
To take the case of German literature rather than film, a generation of new scholars in the 1970s delved into quotidian and prosaic texts, reportage, and political poetry, thus greatly expanding our view of the literary landscape. Rare is the terrain containing only an Olympus surrounded by flat desert. At the same time, another stream of critical theory, represented by the great Marxist critic Georg Lukács (d. 1971), certainly no stranger to the political, continued to insist on the uniqueness of the aesthetic as a category. Both undertakings were salutary, and in recent decades, the results have begun to converge. Whether we retain, discard, or revise the canon, a study such as this one provides insights into why that canon was formed in the first place, and what assumptions—historically contingent and often unarticulated, as well—went into its formation. In so doing, it should in turn help us to make more explicit the assumptions about our own cultural and aesthetic choices.
30 July 1863 Abraham Lincoln's Rules of Engagement
I was interested to note that several lists of historical anniversaries chose, among Civil War events for this date, not the well-known Union defeats at the Battle of Richmond and Second Bull Run in 1862, and rather, a military-political decision of the following year.
Both HistoryOrb and POTUS satellite radio chose to mention Abraham Lincoln's so-called "eye for an eye" order. When the Confederate States began maltreating captured African-Americans from the Union Army—enslaving or even executing them—Lincoln responded with his General Order No. 252:
HarpWeek explains, inter alia:
It is therefore interesting to consider, too, the biblical phrase, "an eye for an eye" (literally: an eye under an eye) which, as I often have to point out to students and others (sometimes: ministers), has long been misused to imply instinctive and primitive vengeance or "tit for tat" response. Derived from several scriptural passages, it in fact is nothing of the sort. Rather, this so-called lex talionis, or law of retaliation (sorry, nothing to do with bloody talons or claws), represented a step up in the scale of moral sensitivity, in three regards. First, it stood for the principle that the crime must fit and not exceed the punishment. Second, it was never intended to be taken literally, much less, applied in that manner. it was therefore a symbolic representation of the demand for appropriate monetary compensation. (1, 2) Third, as my old friend and medievalist colleague Richard Landes points out, even in this latter regard it was distinctive and unusually advanced in its day in that it was truly egalitarian. Unlike other ancient and even medieval codes of justice (remember that paragraph on the weregild or wergeld from your high school or college history textbooks?), it provided for equal compensation for all, regardless of social class. Understood in that context, then, the phrase as applied to Lincoln's order at least reflects the principle of equality that, in the mind of Douglass, it was intended to enforce.
Impossible, for better or worse, to imagine any leader of a major country publicly issuing such an order nowadays, even apart from the fact that Lincoln was acting before all the major international agreements codified and strengthened the customary laws of war (for example, the first Hague Convention dates from 1899, and the first Geneva Convention, on the wounded and the sick, from 1864).
Consider, too, these passages from Francis Lieber's pathbreaking "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," issued as Lincoln's Order No. 100, 24 April 1863:
Consider again these lines from Lieber:
I am left with the question: to what extent have we really advanced? As so often, the dilemmas of Lincoln and his age seem very close to our own.
Both HistoryOrb and POTUS satellite radio chose to mention Abraham Lincoln's so-called "eye for an eye" order. When the Confederate States began maltreating captured African-Americans from the Union Army—enslaving or even executing them—Lincoln responded with his General Order No. 252:
"It is the duty of every Government to give protection to its citizens, of whatever class, color or condition, and especially to those who are duly organized as soldiers in the public service. The law of nations, and the usages and customs of war, as carried on by civilized powers, permit no distinction as to color in the treatment of prisoners of war as public enemies. To sell or enslave any captured person on account of his color, and for no offense against the laws of war, is a relapse into barbarism, and a crime against the civilization of the age."On August 15, Harpers published the following cartoon:
"The Government of the United States will give the same protection to all its soldiers, and if the enemy shall sell or enslave any one because of his color, the offense shall be punished by retaliation upon the enemy's prisoners in our possession. It is therefore ordered, that for every soldier of the United States killed in violation of the law, a Rebel soldier shall be executed, and for every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a Rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at such labor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war."
HarpWeek explains, inter alia:
Lincoln's retaliatory order was difficult to put into practice. After a massacre of black soldiers at Fort Pillow (April 12, 1864), the president and his military advisors decided to punish the Confederates directly responsible, should they be captured, rather than to randomly execute a corresponding number of Confederate prisoners of war. Field commanders near Richmond, Virginia, and Charleston, South Carolina carried out the Union’s only official retaliations. When Confederates forced captured black soldiers to build fortifications in the line of fire, the Union officers made an equal number of Confederate prisoners perform similar work. Thereafter, the Confederates stopped the practice.What the Harper's website does not mention is that Lincoln came to his policy only after a period of inaction. Abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who viewed black recruitment in the northern war effort as a touchstone of equality, was dismayed that the government was slow in instituting it and even then, did not give the soldiers full equal rights. Concerning the southern threat of retribution, David Blight (now of Yale, formerly our colleague at Amherst College) explains:
The Confederacy’s refusal to acknowledge captured black servicemen as legitimate prisoners of war halted prisoner-of-war exchanges in the summer of 1863. By the end of the year, the Confederacy was willing to discuss returning black soldiers who upon enlistment had been legally free as the Confederacy defined it (i.e., not under the Emancipation Proclamation). That position was not sufficient for top Union officials--President Lincoln, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, and General Ulysses S. Grant--who remained steadfastly committed to ensuring the equal treatment of Union prisoners of war. Davis and Confederate officials finally relented in January 1865, agreeing to exchange all prisoners. A few thousand prisoners of war, including freed slaves, were exchanged by the Confederacy and Union until the end of the war in April.
The Union government’s apparent lack of response to this harsh treatment angered Douglass even further. In two editorials written sometime in late July, he viciously attacked Lincoln’s silence on Confederate killings of black prisoners, as well as threats of their enslavement. ‘The slaughter of blacks taken as captives,’ wrote an outraged Douglass, ‘seems to affect him [Lincoln] as little as the slaughter of beeves for the use of his army.' Douglass wanted an eye for an eye—one southerner put to death for every black soldier killed as a prisoner of war. Lincoln, like most northern leaders, had little stomach for this kind of retaliation, Douglass suggested, but these threats did not go unanswered. Two weeks after the assault on Fort Wagner in South Carolina (which occurred on July 18, 1863), where many black soldiers of the 54th Massachusetts were slain or captured, Lincoln issued his retaliatory order.Be that as it may, I've always regarded the order as one of the most fascinating documents of the era, worthy to stand beside the far better-known Emancipation Proclamation as a milestone in the movement toward racial equality. It is a severe and imposing milestone, to be sure. Indeed, it reminds one of Robespierre’s belief that "justice, prompt, severe, inflexible" was the order of the day in times of revolution and civil war. (incidentally, Lincoln's opponents sometimes compared him to Robespierre.) But at a time when even the 179,000 black Union soldiers were denied equal pay as well as the right to become officers, the order put into practice the principle of full equality by stating that the lives of blacks and whites were of the same value and it demanded that the Confederacy, too, acknowledge this—or pay the price.
It is therefore interesting to consider, too, the biblical phrase, "an eye for an eye" (literally: an eye under an eye) which, as I often have to point out to students and others (sometimes: ministers), has long been misused to imply instinctive and primitive vengeance or "tit for tat" response. Derived from several scriptural passages, it in fact is nothing of the sort. Rather, this so-called lex talionis, or law of retaliation (sorry, nothing to do with bloody talons or claws), represented a step up in the scale of moral sensitivity, in three regards. First, it stood for the principle that the crime must fit and not exceed the punishment. Second, it was never intended to be taken literally, much less, applied in that manner. it was therefore a symbolic representation of the demand for appropriate monetary compensation. (1, 2) Third, as my old friend and medievalist colleague Richard Landes points out, even in this latter regard it was distinctive and unusually advanced in its day in that it was truly egalitarian. Unlike other ancient and even medieval codes of justice (remember that paragraph on the weregild or wergeld from your high school or college history textbooks?), it provided for equal compensation for all, regardless of social class. Understood in that context, then, the phrase as applied to Lincoln's order at least reflects the principle of equality that, in the mind of Douglass, it was intended to enforce.
Impossible, for better or worse, to imagine any leader of a major country publicly issuing such an order nowadays, even apart from the fact that Lincoln was acting before all the major international agreements codified and strengthened the customary laws of war (for example, the first Hague Convention dates from 1899, and the first Geneva Convention, on the wounded and the sick, from 1864).
Consider, too, these passages from Francis Lieber's pathbreaking "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," issued as Lincoln's Order No. 100, 24 April 1863:
Art. 27.
The law of war can no more wholly dispense with retaliation than can the law of nations, of which it is a branch. Yet civilized nations acknowledge retaliation as the sternest feature of war. A reckless enemy often leaves to his opponent no other means of securing himself against the repetition of barbarous outrage
Art. 28.
Retaliation will, therefore, never be resorted to as a measure of mere revenge, but only as a means of protective retribution, and moreover, cautiously and unavoidably; that is to say, retaliation shall only be resorted to after careful inquiry into the real occurrence, and the character of the misdeeds that may demand retribution.
Unjust or inconsiderate retaliation removes the belligerents farther and farther from the mitigating rules of regular war, and by rapid steps leads them nearer to the internecine wars of savages.
Art. 29.
Modern times are distinguished from earlier ages by the existence, at one and the same time, of many nations and great governments related to one another in close intercourse.
Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace.
The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.
Art. 30.Here we see the jurist and philosopher wrestling with the twin facts that humanity imposes new demands upon the makers of war even as war, though seen as exceptional and undesirable, has begun to become total war. In the words of Roza Pati, "this Lieber Code would come to constitute the roots of what was later called humanitarian law," for example with regard to humane treatment of prisoners.
Ever since the formation and coexistence of modern nations, and ever since wars have become great national wars, war has come to be acknowledged not to be its own end, but the means to obtain great ends of state, or to consist in defense against wrong; and no conventional restriction of the modes adopted to injure the enemy is any longer admitted; but the law of war imposes many limitations and restrictions on principles of justice, faith, and honor.
Consider again these lines from Lieber:
Peace is their normal condition; war is the exception. The ultimate object of all modern war is a renewed state of peace.Almost impossible to imagine any major leader nowadays making that latter statement, either, but it brings home the paradox. Today, we seem to face the prospect of endless low-intensity warfare. New forms of war and new rules of engagement lead to new dilemmas concerning the conduct and ends of war, and the rights of soldier and civilian alike.
The more vigorously wars are pursued, the better it is for humanity. Sharp wars are brief.
I am left with the question: to what extent have we really advanced? As so often, the dilemmas of Lincoln and his age seem very close to our own.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Library Crisis Hits the Press and the Blogosphere
The looming controversy over the Jones Library that I recently mentioned has now reached the press and the rest of the blogosphere. Meetings of the Jones Library trustees on Thursday afternoon and evening attracted unusual public attention and at least two newspaper articles that I've seen.
As Diane Lederman of the Republican reports, the 4:00 meeting drew an uncharacteristically large turnout for what would otherwise have been a rather arcane and mundane matter:
Writing in the Gazette, Scott Merzbach summarized the concerns of dissenting trustee Chris Hoffmann:
One Town Meeting member noted a paradox: the interviews with employees were said to have taken place in open meetings—so that a newspaper reporter (or blogger) could in theory have recorded and published the entire discussion verbatim—and yet the subcommittee refused to release even the summaries of the interviews on grounds of confidentiality: was this correct? The affirmation by the subcommittee met with derisive laughter. Several employees, whose complaints had already led to letters of protest by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), revealed that they had been refused the right to see notes or transcripts of their own interviews. When asked why they would need to do so, they explained that it was because they were not confident their remarks would be cited accurately or in the spirit in which they had been made. The subcommittee pointed out that all commentary in the evaluation would be without attribution and that confidentiality was in any case a requirement here. Some members of the public again reacted with laughter. The conversation continued for a while longer in this vein, and then the trustees turned to their regular business, from the need for a long-range capital plan to the desirability of staff name tags. (Director Bonnie Isman arrived only after this point.)
Further developments
Local blogger Larry Kelley picked up the story on his widely read "Only in the Republic of Amherst" and in addition posted Chris Hoffmann's document (see my previous post) in its entirety.
As a result of the controversy over the review of Library Director Isman, the Select Board has already received one inquiry regarding the recall process for elected officials. The answer we gave is that we have none. (The proposed Charters that failed to secure public approval in recent years included such measures, but the current Town Government Act [p. 77] does not.)
Underlying Issues and Implications
These issues surrounding the relationship between the trustee subcommiteee and Director Bonnie Isman are of interest to me not only because of my involvement with books and libraries in professional and personal life, or because they implicitly affect all of us who live here, but also for more abstract reasons. I have served or continue to serve on the boards of several small non-profits and work with directors of such groups. I am also acting co-chair of a presidential Governance Task Force at Hampshire College, and as a result have been reviewing all our governance documents and procedures as well as reading the literature put out by the Association of Governing Boards. I have therefore been thinking a lot about authority, democracy, procedures, transparency, fairness, and the like.
It is frequently the case that there is, at best, confusion, and at worst, conflict, over the nature and boundaries of the "governing" versus "managing" functions of museums, libraries, and similar non-profit organizations. In academe and citizen government, the problems are somewhat different but nonetheless related: there, an ethos of participatory democracy sometimes leads to confusion or disagreement between administrators and other groups over the meaning of "shared governance." Admittedly, conflicts are most likely when individuals are ill-informed or show insufficient respect for boundaries, but even under the best of circumstances, problems can arise because of the need to reconcile several essential but at times competing interests: participation vs. efficiency, confidentiality vs. accountability, and so forth.
Even the standard job performance review common to all these organizations has become increasingly controversial. I recently shared with Task Force colleagues an interview with UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert, who provocatively argues that annual performance reviews should be abolished. "'First, they're dishonest and fraudulent. And second, they're just plain bad management,' he says." You really need to read it for yourself, but in essence, he argues that, although some form of assessment is essential, our standard "periodic reviews create circumstances that help neither the employee nor the company to improve." "[W]hile the alleged purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better, the real purpose is intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and domination in relationships." (As I said, it's controversial.)
I know that I'll continue to think a lot about these issues in the coming weeks because, as chance would have it, the Select Board has begun the annual process of reviewing the Town Manager's job performance, in which I will be taking part for the first time. An article in the current Bulletin describes the overall process and requirements of confidentiality, identifies some representative goals, and explains how the public can participate. Perhaps the coincidence of these two reviews will provide a salutary opportunity for all of us to consider the principles and mechanisms of such processes and how they can best serve the needs of the employees in question and the town as a whole.
One may dare to hope that the evolving Library controversy will turn out to be ultimately instructive rather than purely destructive. We all have too much at stake.
Media coverage:
• Diane Lederman, "Controversy surrounds evaluation of director of Amherst's Jones Library," Springfield Republican, 29 July
• Scott Merzbach, "Amherst librarian's review spurs dustup for trustees," Daily Hampshire Gazette, 30 July
[note: subscriber wall may limit access]
[Sat.: updated links]
As Diane Lederman of the Republican reports, the 4:00 meeting drew an uncharacteristically large turnout for what would otherwise have been a rather arcane and mundane matter:
A Select Board member [NB: not I] who attended the meeting called the process “bizarre.”Lederman goes on to cite various citizens who questioned the handling of the matter, including longtime former trustee Nancy Gregg, who said that the evaluation process had in the past been handled more expeditiously and without contention. This year, according to Lederman, the subcommittee "has met dozens of times" since January, "sometimes twice a week." The subcommittee insists that it is simply attempting to be methodical and bring new rigor to the task.
Former trustees, the president of the Jones Library Friends and other residents turned out to hear the evaluation of Bonnie J. Isman, who has been at the library for more than 30 years.
But trustee Carol J. Gray, a member of the three-member evaluation sub-committee, said the meeting with Isman needed to be held in closed session because they were talking about the process of the evaluation and not the evaluation itself. The subcommittee did not even allow other trustees to remain in the room.
Writing in the Gazette, Scott Merzbach summarized the concerns of dissenting trustee Chris Hoffmann:
"The damage this power struggle has caused to staff morale, and the damage to our ability to serve our patrons, continues to mount," Hoffmann wrote. "And now a person's reputation and career are in danger of being destroyed."Lederman's account adds:
He argues that a performance evaluation should be positive, citing accomplishments of the director, while also containing constructive advice when there is criticism.
"The written evaluation of a director is supposed to be the formal record of an ongoing, collaborative process of feedback and suggestions," Hoffman [sic] wrote. "It is not supposed to be an ambush sprung after seven months of planning."
In an e-mail, Hoffman [sic] said Gray told him that “once the director read everything they were planning to put into their report she was hoping that, given her (Isman’s) age, the Director will prefer to retire quietly rather than take on the members of the Committee and dispute its report.”I was not able to attend the afternoon meeting—ironically or appropriately enough, because I was enrolled in an intensive two-day workshop on book conservation techniques for librarians and binders (more on that later, on the book blog)—but when I learned of the 7:30 session upon my return, I headed downtown to the community room of the Police Room, where an audience at least as large as the previous one had gathered. Members of the public repeatedly pressed the subcommittee on the issue of openness. In response to persistent questions, trustee Carol Gray, with equal persistence, defended the need for executive session on the grounds of confidentiality pertaining to personnel issues, as confirmed by Town Counsel.
He said Gray had researched Isman’s contract, town personnel policies, and Isman’s employment history, and estimated the amount of pension Isman could receive for retiring at various dates. “Based on this, Trustee Gray thought she could make Director Isman announce her retirement before the end of the year.”
One Town Meeting member noted a paradox: the interviews with employees were said to have taken place in open meetings—so that a newspaper reporter (or blogger) could in theory have recorded and published the entire discussion verbatim—and yet the subcommittee refused to release even the summaries of the interviews on grounds of confidentiality: was this correct? The affirmation by the subcommittee met with derisive laughter. Several employees, whose complaints had already led to letters of protest by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), revealed that they had been refused the right to see notes or transcripts of their own interviews. When asked why they would need to do so, they explained that it was because they were not confident their remarks would be cited accurately or in the spirit in which they had been made. The subcommittee pointed out that all commentary in the evaluation would be without attribution and that confidentiality was in any case a requirement here. Some members of the public again reacted with laughter. The conversation continued for a while longer in this vein, and then the trustees turned to their regular business, from the need for a long-range capital plan to the desirability of staff name tags. (Director Bonnie Isman arrived only after this point.)
Further developments
Local blogger Larry Kelley picked up the story on his widely read "Only in the Republic of Amherst" and in addition posted Chris Hoffmann's document (see my previous post) in its entirety.
As a result of the controversy over the review of Library Director Isman, the Select Board has already received one inquiry regarding the recall process for elected officials. The answer we gave is that we have none. (The proposed Charters that failed to secure public approval in recent years included such measures, but the current Town Government Act [p. 77] does not.)
Underlying Issues and Implications
These issues surrounding the relationship between the trustee subcommiteee and Director Bonnie Isman are of interest to me not only because of my involvement with books and libraries in professional and personal life, or because they implicitly affect all of us who live here, but also for more abstract reasons. I have served or continue to serve on the boards of several small non-profits and work with directors of such groups. I am also acting co-chair of a presidential Governance Task Force at Hampshire College, and as a result have been reviewing all our governance documents and procedures as well as reading the literature put out by the Association of Governing Boards. I have therefore been thinking a lot about authority, democracy, procedures, transparency, fairness, and the like.
It is frequently the case that there is, at best, confusion, and at worst, conflict, over the nature and boundaries of the "governing" versus "managing" functions of museums, libraries, and similar non-profit organizations. In academe and citizen government, the problems are somewhat different but nonetheless related: there, an ethos of participatory democracy sometimes leads to confusion or disagreement between administrators and other groups over the meaning of "shared governance." Admittedly, conflicts are most likely when individuals are ill-informed or show insufficient respect for boundaries, but even under the best of circumstances, problems can arise because of the need to reconcile several essential but at times competing interests: participation vs. efficiency, confidentiality vs. accountability, and so forth.
Even the standard job performance review common to all these organizations has become increasingly controversial. I recently shared with Task Force colleagues an interview with UCLA business professor Samuel Culbert, who provocatively argues that annual performance reviews should be abolished. "'First, they're dishonest and fraudulent. And second, they're just plain bad management,' he says." You really need to read it for yourself, but in essence, he argues that, although some form of assessment is essential, our standard "periodic reviews create circumstances that help neither the employee nor the company to improve." "[W]hile the alleged purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better, the real purpose is intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and domination in relationships." (As I said, it's controversial.)
I know that I'll continue to think a lot about these issues in the coming weeks because, as chance would have it, the Select Board has begun the annual process of reviewing the Town Manager's job performance, in which I will be taking part for the first time. An article in the current Bulletin describes the overall process and requirements of confidentiality, identifies some representative goals, and explains how the public can participate. Perhaps the coincidence of these two reviews will provide a salutary opportunity for all of us to consider the principles and mechanisms of such processes and how they can best serve the needs of the employees in question and the town as a whole.
One may dare to hope that the evolving Library controversy will turn out to be ultimately instructive rather than purely destructive. We all have too much at stake.
Media coverage:
• Diane Lederman, "Controversy surrounds evaluation of director of Amherst's Jones Library," Springfield Republican, 29 July
• Scott Merzbach, "Amherst librarian's review spurs dustup for trustees," Daily Hampshire Gazette, 30 July
[note: subscriber wall may limit access]
[Sat.: updated links]
Friday, July 30, 2010
Looming Library Crisis in Amherst
As the proverbial wisdom has it, it takes longer to write a good short piece than a long one. Unfortunately, in attempting to cover a breaking story, one is often in a hurry. And long ones at least have the advantage of being better able to incorporate complexity and nuance. The reactions of several friends (all of different political persuasions, I might add) indicated that portions of a post on the breaking news about a crisis at the Jones Library yesterday had been misunderstood.
Evidently, I tried to cover too much ground in too short a space, which, among other things, seems to have blurred for them the distinction between my views and views of others that I was summarizing. And trying to inject a note of humorous relief, e.g. by drawing the title from an innocuous recent satirical piece that used the word, “three-headed shitstorm,” led some to think I was calling names, which I most assuredly was not. It was simply that the slang term, “shitstorm,” seemed applicable to the topic:
They are few and simple:
(1) The heart of the piece was news of a crisis at the Jones Library:
(2) I moreover made no personal accusations against any of the trustees. My only collision with the individuals in question occurred well over a year ago, in the context of a dispute between the Historical Commission and the trustee leadership over Community Preservation Act (CPA) appropriations. The Historical Commission stands by its account of those events, which are a matter of public record. It is also water under the bridge, because we moved on. Indeed, I have worked amicably with the Trustee leadership in several capacities before and even since that time. This spring, for example, both the Historical Commission and Select Board gladly and successfully supported additional CPA appropriations for the Library. That, too, is a matter of public record.
I referred to the incident in question, along with others, only in order to make a larger point: (a) Even as the trustees have laudably tried to serve as tireless boosters of the Library, they have also found themselves embroiled in controversies that detracted from their core mission and tarnished their reputation with a growing portion of the public. (b) Those controversies often involved conflicts over jurisdiction with other Town bodies or with other individuals and groups within the Library and thus furnish some of the essential background to the current controversy. That was a simple description of the history.
If my reading of those events was a distraction from the important issue at hand, then I am happy to omit it and refer readers directly to the relevant press reports (below).
(3) I concluded that it was dismaying to see a beloved institution torn apart and its dedicated Director treated in what seems a very shabby manner.
I stand by that, too.
I will simply add: few things would make me happier than for my fears to be proven wrong.
Press coverage of the Library:
• Bonnie Isman utilized as expert respondent in Marylaine Block, The Thriving Library: Successful Strategies for Challenging Times (Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2007)
• Bonnie Isman cited in Roger Mummert, "In the Valley of the Literate," New York Times, 16 Nov. 2007
• Diane Lederman, "Historical funds OK for library," Springfield Republican, 1 April 2009
• Diane Lederman "Library budget tops plan limit," Springfield Republican, 10 June 2009
• Diane Lederman, "Amherst's Jones Library Trustees to seek state waiver on funding level," Springfield Republican, 25 June 2009
• Scott Merzbach, "Library trustees eye investment shuffle," Amherst Bulletin, 17 July 2009
• Diane Lederman, "Jones Library backing sought," Springfield Republican, 22 July 2009
• Scott Merzbach, "Town Meeting OKs reduced schools' budgets," Amherst Bulletin, 26 June 2009
• Scott Merzbach, "Suggestions sought for bequest: Jones Library, Friends invite ideas," Amherst Bulletin, 29 April 2010
• Nick Grabbe and Scott Merzbach, "Jones seeks comments on library issues," Amherst Bulletin, 2 July 2010
[updated links]
Evidently, I tried to cover too much ground in too short a space, which, among other things, seems to have blurred for them the distinction between my views and views of others that I was summarizing. And trying to inject a note of humorous relief, e.g. by drawing the title from an innocuous recent satirical piece that used the word, “three-headed shitstorm,” led some to think I was calling names, which I most assuredly was not. It was simply that the slang term, “shitstorm,” seemed applicable to the topic:
• “A course of action that would appear to lead to a good outcome, but when undertaken, leads to a situation that is utterly out of control beyond human comprehension”Obviously, the last thing I want to do is to complicate that already “extremely bad situation,” so I am perfectly happy to take down the original post and replace it with one with a less flamboyant title, if that allows me to make my points more clearly here.
• A screw-up of epic proportions
• “An extremely bad situation”
They are few and simple:
(1) The heart of the piece was news of a crisis at the Jones Library:
Town officials and the press tonight received a devastating 22-page report from trustee Chris Hoffmann, detailing—painfully and painstakingly—his concerns over improprieties in the performance review of Director Bonnie Isman, and in the general behavior of the three trustees on the Evaluation Committee: Carol Gray, Pat Holland, and Sarah McKee.Because the document was sent to the Jones Library Trustees, the Town Manager, the Town Clerk, the Assistant Town Manager and Finance Director, and the Select Board, it immediately became part of the public record. It was in addition sent to representatives of the press. Its content will be in all the papers soon. My post was advance reporting of important news, plain and simple.
Here are some highlights of the most egregious charges:
• failure to follow proper procedures in dealing with both the Director and the other trustees in the course of the review process
• attempting to coerce employees into giving negative evaluations of the Director
• misrepresenting what employees actually said in the interviews
• more generally, interfering in labor relations issues that are the preserve of Town Hall and not the trustees
• as a result, incurring two formal complaints from the Library employees' labor union
• finally, and most ominously, a heavy-handed attempt to force to the Director—whom peers regard as one of the best in the Commonwealth—to retire precipitously at the end of this year
(2) I moreover made no personal accusations against any of the trustees. My only collision with the individuals in question occurred well over a year ago, in the context of a dispute between the Historical Commission and the trustee leadership over Community Preservation Act (CPA) appropriations. The Historical Commission stands by its account of those events, which are a matter of public record. It is also water under the bridge, because we moved on. Indeed, I have worked amicably with the Trustee leadership in several capacities before and even since that time. This spring, for example, both the Historical Commission and Select Board gladly and successfully supported additional CPA appropriations for the Library. That, too, is a matter of public record.
I referred to the incident in question, along with others, only in order to make a larger point: (a) Even as the trustees have laudably tried to serve as tireless boosters of the Library, they have also found themselves embroiled in controversies that detracted from their core mission and tarnished their reputation with a growing portion of the public. (b) Those controversies often involved conflicts over jurisdiction with other Town bodies or with other individuals and groups within the Library and thus furnish some of the essential background to the current controversy. That was a simple description of the history.
If my reading of those events was a distraction from the important issue at hand, then I am happy to omit it and refer readers directly to the relevant press reports (below).
(3) I concluded that it was dismaying to see a beloved institution torn apart and its dedicated Director treated in what seems a very shabby manner.
I stand by that, too.
I will simply add: few things would make me happier than for my fears to be proven wrong.
Press coverage of the Library:
• Bonnie Isman utilized as expert respondent in Marylaine Block, The Thriving Library: Successful Strategies for Challenging Times (Medford, NJ: Information Today, 2007)
• Bonnie Isman cited in Roger Mummert, "In the Valley of the Literate," New York Times, 16 Nov. 2007
• Diane Lederman, "Historical funds OK for library," Springfield Republican, 1 April 2009
• Diane Lederman "Library budget tops plan limit," Springfield Republican, 10 June 2009
• Diane Lederman, "Amherst's Jones Library Trustees to seek state waiver on funding level," Springfield Republican, 25 June 2009
• Scott Merzbach, "Library trustees eye investment shuffle," Amherst Bulletin, 17 July 2009
• Diane Lederman, "Jones Library backing sought," Springfield Republican, 22 July 2009
• Scott Merzbach, "Town Meeting OKs reduced schools' budgets," Amherst Bulletin, 26 June 2009
• Scott Merzbach, "Suggestions sought for bequest: Jones Library, Friends invite ideas," Amherst Bulletin, 29 April 2010
• Nick Grabbe and Scott Merzbach, "Jones seeks comments on library issues," Amherst Bulletin, 2 July 2010
[updated links]
Thursday, July 29, 2010
"Three-Headed Shitstorm" on the Horizon: Library Scandal and Outrage in Amherst
Friday evening update:
Little did I think when I put up a short piece here Thursday morning that it might cause offense. Nonetheless, several high-minded friends and acquaintances told me that they found the title and tone too flippant or disrespectful.
It was helpful to receive their feedback and learn that some passages, however intended, might have been misinterpreted. As the great German dramatist and radical political activist Georg Büchner (1813-37) said—and I wholeheartedly agree with his entire statement—"to insult someone is cruelty."
Because I have no desire for distractions such as these to get in they way of serious (in the proper sense) consideration of the major issue in question, I took down the original post and restated the points more simply here. They remain the same, for the background facts, the new information conveyed, and the opinions of others there described have not changed.
Little did I think when I put up a short piece here Thursday morning that it might cause offense. Nonetheless, several high-minded friends and acquaintances told me that they found the title and tone too flippant or disrespectful.
It was helpful to receive their feedback and learn that some passages, however intended, might have been misinterpreted. As the great German dramatist and radical political activist Georg Büchner (1813-37) said—and I wholeheartedly agree with his entire statement—"to insult someone is cruelty."
Because I have no desire for distractions such as these to get in they way of serious (in the proper sense) consideration of the major issue in question, I took down the original post and restated the points more simply here. They remain the same, for the background facts, the new information conveyed, and the opinions of others there described have not changed.
Coming Attractions: Amherst College Proposes to Demolish Historic Fence
The Historical Commission has received a request from Amherst College (the property owner) to demolish the historic fence of the Greek Revival house at 74 College Street.
The house was the home of Edward Hitchcock, Jr. (1828-1911). An early graduate of Amherst College, he returned here after receiving a Harvard MD to take charge of the first Department of Physical Education and Hygiene in the United States. He is particularly known for his work in comparative anatomy and anthropometric measurement. He was, however, involved in a broad range of College and civic life, and his "Memorabilia Collection" of Amherst College materials was the origin of today's Archives and Special Collections.
He was the son of Edward Hitchcock (1793-1864) and Orra White Hitchcock (1798-1863). Edward Hitchcock was professor of both theology and natural science at Amherst College, as well as its President. He is known in particular for his pioneering work in geology and paleontology. The greatest discoverer of dinosaur footprints (preserved in the Amherst College Museum of Natural History), he struggled to reconcile the emerging geological and fossil record with his religious beliefs. Orra Hitchcock, an educator and a scholar in her own right, was moreover an accomplished artist, who also furnished illustrations for many of his works.
The reason given for the demolition request is that:
Because the demolition delay bylaw is our only tool for the enforcement of preservation needs, and because the public is generally not acquainted with the principles and processes, I'm planning to do a little piece on several cases (once all are completed of course). Often, the choices are difficult ones, so the purpose of the piece will be to explain the perspectives of both applicants and preservationists and how we attempt to reconcile them.
The reason given for the demolition request is that:
"The fence is falling apart and its necessary removal will be part of clearing away material and plantings that have come to obscure the house."Any proposed demolition of a historic structure (historic, in professional and governmental preservation terms, is defined as at least 50 years old) has to come before the Historical Commission for review. Our first step is to decide whether a hearing is merited. Then the actual hearing eventuates in one of several possibilities ranging from outright granting of the demolition request to imposition of a one-year delay, and various intermediate courses of action such as permitting demolition with conditions attached.
Because the demolition delay bylaw is our only tool for the enforcement of preservation needs, and because the public is generally not acquainted with the principles and processes, I'm planning to do a little piece on several cases (once all are completed of course). Often, the choices are difficult ones, so the purpose of the piece will be to explain the perspectives of both applicants and preservationists and how we attempt to reconcile them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)