Two Recent Debates: New Evidence Surfaces

Debate #1

Recently on the Archives & Archivists (A&A) listserv there has been much discussion about reappraisal and deaccessioning of materials. I wrote an article a few years back with Carol Ellis of the USA Archives in Mobile for Provenance about a project we worked on doing some deaccessioning and a second appraisal. But deaccessioning and second appraisals are just reappraisals of materials. Deaccessioning takes this reappraisal another step, though, by giving action to theoretical decisions.

What caught my interest tonight was a news article that came across my desktop a few minutes ago. It caught my attention because it brings to light another area of appraisal, though I'm not sure which of two it could be. The story is that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has worked out a deal with the Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the INS) to preserve and make available alien registration files from post-1944. These files, known collectively as A-files, contain a wealth of information about immigrants: birth date and place, immigration place and date, marriage scrolls, residences, and much more. They are a treasure trove for anyone with ancestors who immigrated here after World War II. Surprisingly, the files even contain records of mail order brides!

What makes the decision unique is that under federal retention guidelines, these files were slated for destruction after 75 years, or beginning this year. But NARA put a hold on the destruction and now the files will become available later this year in Kansas City and, for immigrants to California (primarily Chinese), in San Bruno, California. The files made available will be for those immigrants who were born at least 100 years ago (before 1909). In five years, another batch of files, for those immigrants born between 1909-1914) will be made available. AP Press reports say that the first batch will be over twenty million records.

Why is this important for archivists? Because it is either a first appraisal of records that have met their retention requirements under records management rules, as they pass from semi-active to inactive status, or it is a reconsideration of a previous appraisal decision, or a reappraisal. If it is the first, then this means that there are very astute people at NARA who are paying attention to the records of other government agencies. If it is the latter case, then that means that someone at NARA is forward looking and knows what will be historically valuable in the future and that person (or persons) worked hard to stop a scheduled destruction. Either way, it is a good service to the American people.


Debate #2

This also brings another recent A&A list argument to bear on discussion of this case. To wit, would a person with just a library science, business, or public administration education be able to foresee the historical importance of these records to researchers (presumably genealogists at first and then later on 20th century historians)? Is there enough emphasis in archival graduate education programs in library schools to train up-and-coming archivists about what may or may not be historically important in the future?

My take on this is mixed. For purposes of full disclosure, I am trained as both an historian (MA) and a librarian (MLIS). I learned about appraisal of materials for historical research potential in my MA program and absolutely nothing about appraisal in my MLIS program (it was very description-centered). But I honestly don't know what other programs teach in regard to appraisal and whether it is taught from an historians' viewpoint in library schools. The argument of an historical education or a library science education hinges, I believe, on the appraisal issue - can a library science graduate adequately appraise a record group or manuscript collection to see its potential use by future researchers? I don't have an answer, but this great move by NARA to keep the A-files makes me hope the history vs. library science debate continues strongly in the future. I guess one way to decide whether the reappraisal or first appraisal of this particular case by NARA archivists fits and how it fits into this debate is to find out whether the NARA archivists who made the decision were trained as historians or library scientists. That will add some much-needed fuel to the fire of one side of the argument, anyway.

Regardless, whether this was a first appraisal or a reappraisal, it was the best move by NARA that I think has been made in many, many years, though I wonder why they did not extend the 72-year rule they have for census records to the A-files? Maybe privacy concerns matter more because of the nature of the records in the A-files versus the basic information found in census records.

Sadly, though, and disappointing, is the fact that there are no records of illegal immigrants in these files. A stronger immigration policy could change that for future releases of A-files.

Let the "To Deaccession or Not" and "History vs. Library Science" debates continue, please!