• Jump to the recording

In December of 2022, I published on our university library website a research guide consisting of a bibliography of black writers with heterodox views on a wide variety of topics. By May of 2023, five months later, I had been labeled a racist, placed on administrative leave, and targeted for firing.

The bibliography was created and compiled by folks at an organization called Free Black Thought^[1] whose mission is, in their own words, to represent the rich diversity of black thought beyond the relatively narrow spectrum of views promoted by mainstream outlets. Although their website contains a variety of resources, my librarian’s eye was immediately drawn to their bibliography, which they named the Compendium of Free Black Thought.^[2] They presented it as an open access work and encouraged folks to use it as they see fit.

What I saw was a fascinating compendium of writers, some of whom I recognized, but most of whom I was not familiar with, that I thought would be a useful resource at my library. We try to promote marginalized voices, particularly black voices, but this seemed to be a subset of those voices that we don’t often promote.

In the fall semester of 2022 I worked on converting a portion of this bibliography into a LibGuide, and by December, my work on the bibliography was mostly complete. I announced the bibliography to my library via Slack, a business communication and social media app that we use extensively. The first commenter on Slack set the tone indicating numerous concerns, including that some of the bibliography entries seem to them anti-black and some seemed outright racist. There were concerns that the bibliography did not represent our values and that it sought to undermine black activism. There were concerns that I had not consulted with anyone inside or outside of the library with expertise in Black studies. I was asked, “does the devil need more advocates?”

Over the holiday break, I received an email from a university vice provost indicating that they had received complaints about the bibliography and that they would set up a meeting with me to discuss the situation. That this had jumped from the library to the upper levels of the university administration was alarming. I felt at this point that my job was in jeopardy, so I turned my focus from my library colleagues to the administration and asked for union representation at the forthcoming meeting. At the meeting, the vice provost suggested that they were neutral in this dispute and were simply relaying the concerns of the librarians who had made the complaints. The concerns now were that the bibliography was not rigorous or academic, that I had not consulted with subject experts, that I hadn’t critically evaluated the bibliography, and that the bibliography would cause reputational harm to the library. At the end of the meeting, the vice provost said they would be in touch with next steps.

With this meeting over, I turned my attention back to my library colleagues. After consulting with my union representative, I made the decision to take down the bibliography as it simply was not worth all the trouble that it was causing. I wrote an email to my colleagues stating that I had taken down the bibliography and hoped that gesture would allow us to have a discussion. I explained my reasons for publishing the bibliography, using the Heterodox Academy principles of open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement^[3] as the context within which I valued the bibliography. I talked about my personal interest in terms of intellectual curiosity and the delight that I found in discovering certain authors. I also talked about my regrets in how all this unfolded, and my wish that I had managed constructive disagreement better.

This was not what my colleagues wanted to hear, and it made them even angrier. I was accused of inappropriately centering myself instead of my colleagues. The next day, with no warning, my colleagues from a department that shares reference desk duties with my department began boycotting their reference desk shifts, later stating that they had done so because I had not acknowledged the harm done to my colleagues, and further stating that they did not feel safe when anti-black and racist ideologies are platformed. I later learned that the library dean was aware of this action beforehand and did nothing to prevent it. Finally, I offered a brief apology to everyone, sincerely stating that I was sorry for the hurt that the bibliography had caused, that the manner that it had been introduced had been poorly managed, and that overall its publication had been a mistake. All of this I felt was true. I did not apologize for the content of the bibliography, however, because there was nothing improper about it. There was no response and the boycott continued.

At the end of January, I met with the library dean and he asked me for an update on the situation. I said I was waiting for the next steps that were promised by the vice provost. He informed me that there would be no further involvement from the administration at any level and that and that it was up to me to resolve things. I then held a meeting to update my department on the news from the dean. I let them know that after taking down the bibliography, explaining my reasoning for publishing it, and offering an apology, I was at a loss as to how to move forward.

Instead of offering help, they informed me that they would be asking the dean to replace me as department head and to disallow me from serving at the reference desk. At that, I adjourned the meeting. It must be said that although this meeting was emotionally intense, it was also calm and respectful on both sides. No voices were raised, and no harsh words were spoken. Nonetheless, a few hours later, I received a text from the union president telling me to expect an email from the library dean placing me on administrative leave. He said a number of librarians had told the dean that they were concerned for their safety. The email followed placing me on leave and banning me from the university, but it did not state for what reason. To this day I have not received a direct answer about this but have discovered that it followed from the department meeting detailed earlier.

With no explanation and no investigation, I was removed from the university for several months for being a threat to my colleagues. During this time, I had almost no contact with anyone in the library, but the attacks from my colleagues continued. They wrote a letter to me and the union leadership demanding that I step down from my position as one of the union representatives for the library. In the letter, they characterized me as, quote, “someone who espouses or condones racist and harmful views.” In short, I was branded a racist. In April, the library dean proposed that I could return to the library stripped of all librarian duties and performing instead duties of vacant staff positions and with an extreme schedule of late nights and weekends. In response, the union filed a grievance on my behalf. The grievance process forced movement from the administration and my eventual return to the library appeared likely.

With my return on the horizon, my colleagues mounted one last attack. A long letter to human resources that reframed their complaints as violations of HR conduct policies, and included a new charge: plagiarism, as well as a request that HR fire me from the university. I wrote a robust rebuttal, and HR ultimately determined that I violated no policy, no rule, no regulation or law. Administratively, I was cleared. In July, I returned to the library as a librarian, but minus my department head roles. My relationships, with a few notable exceptions, were in tatters, and the library environment was cold and unfriendly.

In the aftermath, I’ve asked myself how how this might have happened differently. With so many variables, I find it difficult to answer this question. The library administration could have chosen to mediate this dispute, but instead they fanned the flames and ultimately lost control of the situation. This was the most significant factor that prevented us from finding a way forward. That nearly all communications occurred electronically rather than in person was a significant factor impeding progress also. In particular, Slack, with its social media elements rewarded emotional responses. This isn’t a problem when the emotions are positive as they normally are, but when they’re negative, things spiral downward very quickly. And as I said to my colleagues on multiple occasions, I agree with them that consulting with others before publishing the bibliography might have changed the tenor and direction of this situation.

I have learned that constructive disagreement is hard and clearly requires more practice.

The Cost of ‘Free Black Thought’ by Randy Souther

Embed not working? Access the recording via Penn State Mediaspace.