Print

Print


Thank you for this. I very much hope it galvanizes a strong response. 

All best,

Michelle

Sent from my iPhone

On May 23, 2017, at 6:34 PM, Bethany Nowviskie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear colleagues —  

Today, the White House submitted a proposed federal budget for FY 2018, arguing to Congress that support by specific agencies for libraries and museums, arts programs, humanities research, scholarly work on international and peace studies, and educational and cultural heritage institutions to meant “serve and strengthen our Republic” (as stated in NEH's mission) or (as at the IMLS) to "deliver valuable services that make it possible for communities and individuals to thrive” do not reflect what the Administration views as “core Federal responsibilities.” 

Where it does not zero out programs, the Trump budget therefore proposes only meagre funding necessary to effect an “orderly shutdown” of agencies crucial to DLF member institutions, individuals in our community, and the broader publics we serve. 

For my part, I find suggestions to reduce spending on research and historic preservation and wholly eliminate programs like the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS), the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Fulbright-Hays Program, various Regional Commissions, and the U.S. Institute of Peace not only short-sighted and unnecessary to the creation of a balanced budget — but frankly contemptuous of goals of social uplift and care for fellow human beings, deepened understanding among nations and peoples, and cultivation of an informed and empowered American populace that I believe are broadly supported by DLF practitioners. 

Private funding cannot fully underwrite the public good. 

I issued the statement appended below — endorsed by CLIR/DLF colleagues and DLF Advisory Committee members — when the blueprint for this budget was released in March. We continue to encourage our community members to consider the issues and make use of us, and of the resources referenced there.

In addition, you may find the following nonpartisan resources helpful:
It is important to remember that the proposed Administration budget is just that — a proposal, and that we have seen strong bipartisan support in both the House and Senate in recent months for the essential work of cultural heritage and research and educational agencies, and by extension, for the work of DLFers everywhere. 

But local advocacy matters. Make your voices heard. 

Sincerely,
Bethany 

Bethany Nowviskie
Director of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) at CLIR
Research Associate Professor of Digital Humanities, UVa 
diglib.org | clir.org | ndsa.org | nowviskie.org | she/her/hers 


On Mar 16, 2017, at 11:19 AM, Bethany Nowviskie <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear friends,

Last night, the Trump administration released its new budget blueprint, an advisory document that proposes increases in spending to military programs and national security, coupled with major decreases to—or the complete elimination of—many programs supporting scientific data and research, human health, and environmental safety; social uplift, education, and protection for the poor; international diplomacy, cooperation, and aid; and the arts, culture, history, and museum and library services. The House and Senate will now begin offering their own budget resolutions, and a long process of negotiation—informed by the will of the people, as expressed to our elected representatives—will ultimately result in Appropriations committee legislation setting funding levels for agencies and offices germane to the goals of the Digital Library Federation and its mission to “advance research, learning, social justice, and the public good.”

These include—among many others—agencies and offices whose federal budgets the Trump administration proposes to eliminate entirely: the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which supports NPR and PBS), the National Endowment for the Arts, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the US Institute of Peace, the Appalachian Regional Commission—and of course the IMLS, the Institute of Museum and Library Services. IMLS not only supports academic library and information science R&D programs that contribute to the development of a coherent and utterly necessary national digital platform; it also supports public programming and education in our nation’s 123,000 libraries and 35,000 museums—themselves vulnerable to future budget cuts. Future reductions may also be proposed to the budgets of the National Archives, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Institution and other federally-funded keepers of records, culture, and national memory.

Program officers and staff of public service organizations like these are prohibited by the federal Hatch Act of 1939 from engaging in some forms of political activity, thus curtailing their ability to advocate fully for the agencies to which they have devoted so much, while serving as agency representatives. The DLF community must represent them, and—in our support for the myriad ways these agencies serve us—we raise our voices to represent the communities and publics we serve together. 

Last month, in a national climate of growing division and rising fear, the DLF and its parent organization, CLIR, offered a statement outlining our community’s enduring values and our own “Deepening Resolve.” I spend my every day in awe of the imagination, drive, compassion, and expertise of DLF practitioners. I know the people who make up our working groups and who staff our member institutions are resolute in their understanding of the power of digital libraries to serve—as we put it in the statement—”individuals and institutions that are both stalwart and vulnerable, people living now and generations yet to come.” The DLF community strives to build usable, welcoming, and respectful knowledge representation systems that embody “our shared, core values of enlightened liberalism and scientific understanding,” help us understand the past and imagine better futures, and advance “our mission to create just, equitable, and sustained global cultures of accessible information.”

These are lofty goals. Like all things, they [log in to unmask]" style="text-decoration: none; outline: none 0px; color: rgb(44, 53, 171);" class="">start in the local, the embodied, the world near to you.

Regardless of your party affiliation or political creed (and in the understanding that diversity of thought is among our community’s great strengths)—if you share my concern about aspects of the current administration’s budget proposal and vision for libraries, research data, and cultural heritage in the digital age, I urge you to contact your representatives and make your views known. Finally, I remind you that the DLF has very consciously redoubled its efforts to function as a flexible, pragmatic, and supportive framework for grassroots efforts of all kinds, relevant to our field. DLF members and non-members alike are invited to use us as a platform for effective community organizing. We are here for you, and for the futures you want to build.

—Bethany (writing quickly and alone; Team CLIR/DLF and DLF Advisory Committee endorsements, additions, or productive dissent may yet come)

This statement is posted online: https://www.diglib.org/archives/13694/  

Bethany Nowviskie
Director of the Digital Library Federation (DLF) at CLIR
Research Associate Professor of Digital Humanities, UVa 
diglib.org | clir.org | ndsa.org | nowviskie.org | she/her/hers