Fans of the classic, North Carolina-set sitcom, The Andy Griffith Show, immediately recognize the exclamation “Surprise, surprise, surprise!” The character Gomer Pyle frequently and humorously utters this expression. Many may echo Pyle’s words when confronted with the social-justice focus of a group of professionals often overlooked in academia. Archivists contribute significantly to academic work while also advancing controversial moral philosophy.
Archivists serve academics and other researchers by doing two things. First, they preserve rare or unique material of enduring historical value. Second, they make these sources discoverable and available for researcher use. Preservation and access are the core functions.
This work sounds inherently apolitical. It should be. Yet, archivists increasingly promote a radical concept of justice.
Two examples from North Carolina reveal the role justice plays in educating archivists. UNC-Chapel Hill offers one of the premier programs in library science. This program includes a concentration in archives, which describes archival work as “shaping memory, advancing justice, and ensuring access in a digital age.”
UNC-Greensboro likewise centers justice in its master of library and information science program (which also includes an archives track). The first learning outcome listed on its information page is to “Connect people to information and information technology, particularly to promote a just and equitable society.”
UNC alumni, legislators, and the North Carolina public may scratch their heads and wonder why archivists must “advance justice” or “promote a just society.” The public deserves to know, and will soon know through the public release of course syllabi, what type of justice UNC instructors advance in the classroom.
North Carolinians deserve clear answers to why justice is a core pursuit of publicly funded archival programs. The Martin Center’s Jovan Tripkovic noted, “Treating syllabi as public records doesn’t undermine academic freedom—it strengthens it. It shows the public that good teaching and honest, transparent educators have nothing to hide.” North Carolinians deserve clear answers to why justice is a core pursuit of publicly funded archival programs.
Until the release of relevant syllabi provides greater clarity, the archival literature reveals the type of “justice” that archivists in general pursue. Influential organizations such as the American Library Association publish books like From Interrogation to Integration: Centering Social Justice in Special Collections, Archives, and Preservation. Indeed, this volume represents the justice that archival educators and practitioners promote.
The first two sentences of From Interrogation to Integration reveal a radical idea of justice: “Since the earliest special collections and archives, these institutions have memorialized the lives of people in power. White supremacy is thus built into the very foundation of our profession, which by default then served as a tool to preserve the status quo and perpetuate systemic oppression.” Clearly, a left-wing, Critical perspective defines justice.
This approach to justice violates true justice and harms archival work. True justice is not focused on collective oppression. It does not seek to divide based on race, gender, or other attributes. The classical conception of justice is suum cuique or “to each his own.” Unfortunately, “social justice” advocates reject one’s individual merits as the central criterion when enacting justice.
This faux justice hinders proper archival practice. This faux justice hinders proper archival practice. The profession must reevaluate its education, direction, and philosophical emphases. The schools that train archivists, such as those in the UNC system, should not produce “righteous” crusaders. They ought to prepare students to do the practical work of archives.
Rather than center justice, archivists must concentrate on the core elements of their work. They should, for example, learn to preserve vellum manuscripts, digitize VHS tapes, and create finding aids to foster access. Proper archival training hones such skills. Pursuing a heady conception of justice diverts archivists from their appropriate pursuits.
Eminent North Carolinian Andy Griffith once said of his acting, “Anytime I try to play anything that doesn’t come natural, I’m just plain bad.” Archivists who center radical justice in their work are just plain bad moral philosophers. They are also distracted archival practitioners. Archivists succeed when they focus on what comes naturally in the profession: practicing proper preservation and ensuring access. A neutral approach to practical work is the prescription for this politicized profession.
Jonathan Lawler is the Archivist and Digital Collections Manager at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and is a Hazlitt Fellow with the Foundation for Economic Education.
Author
Jonathan Lawler
