The word “archivist” likely conjures images of a meek librarian surrounded by dusty shelves, old boxes, and brittle paper. Alternatively, conflation with “archeologist” might summon mental replays of Raiders of the Lost Ark. But archivists are not a fedora-wearing, pistol-packing, whip-wielding bunch. While lacking pistols or whips, however, archivists surprisingly accept and promote dangerous and intolerant collectivist ideology—some to the point of condoning violence. As a professional community, archivists should turn from this path and embrace Mises’s insights into peaceful social cooperation and tolerance.
What do archivists do that is so important? Archivists preserve and make accessible primary source material from which we learn about the past. They are stewards of history. Herein lies their importance and herein lies their danger when captured by harmful ideology.
Over the past few years, the national professional organization for archivists in the United States, the Society of American Archivists (SAA), has uncritically embraced a conception of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) that is hostile to dissenting voices. Through loaded phrases like “radical empathy,” “freeing the oppressed,” and “anti-racism,” the organization pushes an inherently divisive, un-nuanced, and unjust worldview. The roots of this ideology are deeply imbedded in Marxian thought. Mises, however, offers a proven prescription to counteract the ideology infecting the profession.
The Prognosis: Radical Intolerance
The infection began to spread quickly from 2020. The “SAA Council Statement on Black Lives and Archives” reveals the archivists’ contribution to the moral panic of that summer. SAA next encouraged member conformity through DEI events and electing ideologically cookie-cutter candidates to leadership positions. From January 2021, candidates proved their DEI bona fides through required 400–1,000 word diversity statements. Candidates’ confessed their sin (“Are you aware of your own implicit biases?”), professed fealty to DEI ideology in the workplace (“How do you reflect DEI in your work?”), and proselytize DEI in all areas of society (“What are your specific plans and strategies for using the position you are applying for to advance DEI within your SAA unit, SAA as a whole, and beyond the organization?”).
In November 2023, by referendum, a new coercive tool was added to ensure DEI adherence. A section of SAA’s constitution and bylaws was added that SAA council members may involuntarily terminate a society member who violates the “SAA Statement on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” or the “Code of Conduct.” However, 2024 brought the clearest evidence of the SAA’s ideological capture.
In July 2024, SAA published an ideologically puritanical essay in the profession’s flagship journal—The American Archivist. This essay (a presidential address nonetheless) is the culmination of years of increasing ideological uniformity. Terry Baxter’s presidential address presents a self-admittedly radical perspective on archivists’ moral duty to fight “oppression,” including that it was supposedly fomented by capitalism. His meandering piece reveals an emotionally-driven zeal for his worldview and an equally passionate hostility toward alternate viewpoints.
Baxter’s address exposes SAA’s prioritization of collectivist radicalism over professionalism. In the address he freely and pridefully declares no desire to be professional. Rather, his piece, (which incidentally refers to archivists as “comrades” half a dozen times) expostulates the importance of coercing society toward an ill-defined concept of “justice” and “freedom.” “Freedom” is “universal liberation” which will not be accomplished until every “human being. on this planet is free. Every one.” That is quite a collectivist goal that leads to quite a lot of anger because it is unobtainable.
In trying to achieve the unachievable, Baxter calls on archivists to enact justice peacefully or violently, if needed. He writes, “Loving oppressors doesn’t mean calling for cheap ‘nonviolence’ that only serves to preserve the current power structure. It means engaging in purposeful acts of resistance, peaceful if possible but not if necessary, dedicating yourself to the work of advocacy and solidarity...” (emphasis added).
Baxter also employs language—and incorporates artwork—to advocate burning down the system. The leader of an organization that exists to preserve history encourages the pursuit of “universal liberation” through violent means if deemed necessary. Archivists must reject such collectivist moral imperatives and intolerance. They should rather promote toleration and peaceful cooperation as the social context in which to pursue their stewardship of rare books, manuscripts, and archival records.
The Prescription: Misesian Peace and Tolerance
Mises observed that “only tolerance can create and preserve the condition of social peace…” Tolerance is essentially the mature willingness to let others live in ways of which you do not approve. Mises recognized a connection between “freedom” and toleration writing, “a free man must be able to endure it when his fellow men act and live otherwise than he considers proper.” Enduring is an appropriate term. Tolerating contrary worldviews is not easy or comfortable. Yet, it leads to peaceful relationships in a variety of contexts—including within professional organizations.
Baxter’s perfectionist pursuit of “freedom” for the “oppressed” does not allow for enduring differences but rather forces others to submit to the righteous crusade. Mises pointed out that the “quasi-theological character” of collectivist ideology leads to the assertion, “We are right because an inner voice tells us that we are right and you are wrong.” Mises connected this quasi-theology with collectivism’s willingness to pursue violent means to achieve perfectionist, or “right,” ends. Intolerance, wedded to collectivist ideology, is unfortunately what characterizes the literature and culture of archival science.
Such a culture impacts not only the small community of archivists. Social, cultural, political, and economic narratives are constructed from archival records. Therefore, the profession’s capture by an intolerant, functionally-religious, ideology does not engender confidence in the historical record.
Mises understood the importance of archives: “Because history is not a useless pastime but a study of the utmost practical importance, people have been eager to falsify historical evidence and to misrepresent the course of events.” Archivists must alter course lest this statement characterize the profession. If stewards of history tout violence as a legitimate tool for systemically reconstructing an oppressive society, why would falsification and misrepresentation of the historical record be off limits? Pursuing peace and viewpoint diversity is the prescription for a plagued profession.
