ANADP II Part 6 Day 2: Towards a Cost Spectrum

Action session 4: Towards a Cost Spectrum

Aaron Trehub (Auburn University) & Gail McMillan (Virginia Tech)

Uniting Theory & Practice

(This was a slideshow and then discussion of all of the numerous attempts at costing that are out there; I’m sure slides will be available soon)

  • Once you’ve decided to create a digital collection, we’ve taken on a preservation obligation
  • We’re not saying “cost doesn’t matter”
  • Cost & starting up are the two most difficult things
  • Work to date on cost modeling: Open PLANETS blog, LIFE project
  • Transparency
  • The downside of relying on cyclical funding
  • Keeping Research Data Safe (Beagrie)
  • Cost model for Digital Preservation (Excel Spreadsheet)
  • APARSEN (EU Initiative)
  • CDL-TCP Total Cost of preservation
  • Pay as you go: Continued funding, 4C Project… vs.
  • Paid up: Term limited funding, maybe a “fighting chance”?
  • Rosenthal: Ingest is about half, preservation 1/3, access 1/6th of cost
  • ADPNet: Designed tiered for small institutions to join. Membership + storage fees + equipment.
  • Paralysis of Choice. Danger of researching to death. Which doesn’t work any more.
  • Low barriers to entry–negligable losses in Tessella pilot program
  • DPC Wiki (we need to add the POWRR project!)
  • We have empirical evidence of how this (funding) works.

Lynne’s notes: At this point, there was a lively discussion about the importance of integrating digital preservation practices across multiple salary lines/positions in libraries, rather than having it be a single line-item. When it’s part of *everyone*’s job, it is very difficult to cut, as opposed to a single-person or fee-for-service model, which, when funding cuts roll around, are in much more danger of looking tempting. Also, it was pointed out that we don’t necessarily need to know EXACTLY what DP will cost–an approximation in many cases will do just fine for planning purposes, especially with a mostly-sweat-equity model that only has direct expenses for equipment and storage…


ANADP II Part 5 Day 2: Let’s talk money.

The official theme for the day was “Resource Alignment & Capacity Alignment”… but the discussions were all about cold, hard, cash, whether in the form of ACTUAL cash or invested in resources like people or equipment.

Panel 2: Neil Grindley (JISC), Tom Cramer (Stanford/DuraSpace), Sabine Schrimpf (nestor), Tom Wilson (U Alabama/ADPNet)

What is the most economical deployment of our resources?

  • Can we afford to do preservation?
  • As much as we need to?
  • Things will be lost. Life goes on. We can’t preserve everything.
  • Preservation gains value from heterogenaiety (of processes, software, hardware, etc.)
  • We can’t afford to do DP on everything–that’s a good thing. Ongoing demonstrated value of DP activities is necessary.
  • DP requires choices and active measures, i.e. TRIAGE.
  • If you had more money, would you preserve more? Staff bottlenecks–they can’t do more work than they already are at present staffing.
  • Is it worth it to collaborate on DP internationally? Maybe. We need a business case. Common solutions to common problems. This is good for getting on the agenda of decision-makers.
  • Also important: finding metrics for measuring outcomes.
  • Scoping expectations for any collaborations–where are we heading?
  • Yes, working with other people is really a PAIN. And yet: Saying: go fast alone, go far together.
  • Collaborating is still the best option. The problem is too big to go it alone.
  • We’re better at coordinating than collaborating.

How do we get DP noticed / FUNDED?

  • Need for blurred boundaries in our organizations on occasion. Sweat equity that goes across multiple staff.
  • Don’t create silos of expertise! Educate MORE people. Cross train staff & administrators. Strategic money decisions then come from input across the whole organization.
  • Follow the funding chain.
  • Digital assets/objects: They have implicit value and liabilities. This is critical in selection and appraisal. Organizations have difficulty deciding what is valuable.
  • At ‘Bama, they focused on special collections digitization projects exclusively for ADPNet. Workflows were a big issue: where are duplications identified? How were they defined?
  • Line item–could lead to administrative veto.  Sell them on work we’re already doing. Cultural memory work total, of which this is a part.
  • Risk mitigation model: this is also “insurance”
  • A piecemeal approach may be okay.
  • There is a BIG distinction between “asset management” and “digital preservation” Organization is NOT preservation, and we need to make this clear.
  • Consider neglected communities: such as ALL your suppliers.
  • Business language is not always comfortable for us, but we should really frame this as leveraging assets to pay for liabilities.
  • Return on investment/ the value of scholarship isn’t the question. The question is WHY DOES IT COST SO MUCH?
  • In our language, we need to not make single arguments.
  • Our audience needs a temporal framework (e.g. preservation for hundreds of years, new formats last few decades)
  • We need to consider the externalization of costs: producers of content are not doing triage/selection of any kind right now.
  • Our costs come from lack of metadata at submission, i.e. setup costs.
  • What can we STOP doing, how can we realign, reassign our resources to kill this bottleneck?

ANADP II Part 4: Day 2

The finishing of Day 1 at ANADP II was a group of action sessions; I attended the “Applying the OAIS Framework to Distributed Digital Preservation” session, which was facilitated by Matt Schultz (MetaArchive) and Eld Zierau (Royal Library of Denmark). I don’t have a lot of notes, as we were busy moving cutouts of different types of distributed digital preservation system elements around to try to make an instant system based on our respective collections.

This was far more effective than it sounds (and rather resembles real life, where collaborations are often based upon who shows up). But it didn’t make for much note-taking.

This was followed by a lovely wine reception at the Palau Moja, featuring a classical guitarist performance.

Day 2!

We opened with going over the themes that emerged from Day 1:

  • Legal: We need ‘sweeping principles’ not minutia (which is where the lawyers tend to focus)
  • Organizational: Mirroring between centers
  • Alignment & Interdependence
  • Community building: reaching out to neglected constitutencies, and BEING THERE
  • We do things differently here
  • Intellectual Honesty
  • Documentation & Storytelling
  • PR: Elevator Pitches!
  • Who is “we”?
  • Good enough vs. Best Practices
  • Proliferating projects lead to fragmentation
  • External funding: threat or menace
  • Sustainability/self sufficiency–Assume no new funding

The rest of the day was devoted to talking money, extensively, which will go into the next post, as I have a LOT of notes.


ANADP II Part 3: Day 1

Panel 1: Community Alignment (& Formation)

Conveners: Martin Halbert, Juan Bicarregui, Lluís Anglada, Luciana Duranti

Discussion of the topic “what makes a community work?”: brief outlines from panelists, followed by group discussion.

Juan Bicarregui began by discussing the Research Data Alliance and the APA (Alliance for Permanent Access).

Lluís Anglada asked, how do we align people around digital preservation? He has 12 different programs, working with ~150 institutions. He uses 3 tools:

  1. Remembering effectiveness: shared cataloging, ILL, shared storage all examples of how we already know how to work together well.
  2. We are a community, both local and international–we need to be specific about that, and address both sets of needs
  3. Introduce challenges slowly into the core of business. We already collect & preserve print, collecting & preserving digital is clearly also part of our job.

Luciana Duranti (InterPARES/University of British Columbia/CISCRA)

“Among Peers” became an acronym: InterPARES. It’s multinational, multidisciplinary, multisectional, covering a multitude of issues: cultural, terminological, financial, collaboration, logistic & production related. What works for them:

  •  Organizational policy agreed to at the outset
  • Agreed-upon terminology & concept framework
  • Regular face-to-face meetings
  • Clear expectations & deadlines
  • Fulfillment of complementary agendas
  • Strong interpersonal relationships
  • Strong sentiment of ownership of work
  • Any failure is shared along with successes. No one wants to let the group down.

Question for the panel: Best ways to develop a sense of community?

  • Deepest concern needs to be identified first: address how working with the organization gets the concern dealt with (what’s in it for them?)
  • Former students end up becoming representatives for their new institutions (work the network!)
  • Communities built around facilities or research areas
  • Infrastructure: physical or computing, clustering around technologies
  • Empower local communities
  • Be clear what people get out of it
  • Champions needed: a small group that leads to dissemination: they are the drivers, who move the followers forward
  • We need to foster better leadership: but how?
  • Go to THEIR (government, big data) conferences
  • Clear articulation of the job that needs doing

Lynne’s commentary: Many of the themes above seem to me to be good management & leadership practices in general. Convincing people to participate in larger projects is often about framing it so they know what they get out of it for their efforts, right? It was refreshing to see this spoken about candidly, though. I’ve been to an awful lot of conferences where leadership is referred to, but there isn’t as much discussion about how to actually get people to act. 

ANADP II: The Lost Poster

Here it is, in all of its glory. Thanks to Sarah Fraser, our intrepid Grad Assistant, who did the layout and design. She did an excellent job, and it was a shame that our colleagues didn’t get to see it.

ANADP II Poster: Digital POWRR

ANADP II Poster: Digital POWRR

ANADP II, part 2: Day 1

Day 1 of the ANADP II conference began with opening remarks from Martin Halbert.

  • He noted that the conference was intended to be not just presentations but engagement of community in exploring collaborative opportunities — promoting voluntary alliances, not top-down.
  • The first conference (ANADP I) was an experiment… and so is this one.
  • The final chapter of the ANADP I proceedings volume serve as an agenda for potential collaborations
  • Then he outlined the structure of the conference: panels of experts and plenaries, followed by breakout action sessions

We were also warmly welcomed by Ferran Mascarell, the Ministry of Culture of the Government of Catalunya, and Lluís Anglada, of the Consorci de Biblioteques Universitaries de Catalunya.

Our opening keynote was by Clifford Lynch of the Coalition of Networked Information.

Lynch closed the previous ANADP conference, so he opened up this one by giving us some paths to follow.

He began by noting that there was progress made, and opportunities shifted from the last meeting.

  • We must keep asking : What are we missing?
  • 2 pieces are key: 1) Reflection on alignment and its implications and 2) Areas of alignment from last time and how we supplement them

About Alignment:

There is endless talk of collaboration. Everyone is comfortable with that, which leads to a lot of talking. Often, though, we come up to a barrier: that of interdependence, which is a serious threshold for an organization, because it means that failure elsewhere could affect YOUR services. This is a difficult threshold to cross. In the US, we tend to set up consortiums and umbrella organziations rather than agreeing to multilateral interdependence.

We need to be thoughtful about crossing that threshold.

  • CLIR group — Committee on Coherence at Scale have similarly echoed these themes: interdependence, infrastructure, and sustainability.
  • Fruitful conversations have happened between siloed projects, specifically those linkages between access and preservation/storage.
  • The language of NATIONAL approaches, especially internationally

Alignment as a concept gives us room to move without crossing the interdependence barrier: common values, goals, and themes can be a powerful force for progress. Of course, there is always more to do than the resources available.

The challenge to the conversation re: national approaches is WHO speaks for a nation in Digital Preservation, particularly when we look at the cultural heritage landscape? A broad version of the cultural record: science, arts, government, creative, etc. needs to be considered.

Preserving our cultural record crosses more than the library sector: ‘major’ universities, Library of Congress, governmental sector as well. Digital Preservation also involves archives, libraries and museums–all of which may have strong siloes in place when they (say) report do completely different ministries in their countries. It’s not just LAM, either: what about public broadcasting? Big Data/Big Science? National Academies? NDSA? LIBER?

There is room for coordinated approaches, communicated with a shared voice.

Areas of alignment for our consideration:

Legal Issues: We really need to coordinate these. Can we agree effectively on common principles & goals for national legistlation? Sweeping principles needed, to create public policy initiatives for cultural heritage and digital preservation of it.  At an organizational level, there are a number of other areas with elements to be examined and coordinated–economic, legal, etc. Such as mirroring materials between countries (happening from the ground up in some countries already). Brewster Kahle at the Internet Archive has been a leader in this. Can we make it easier to mirror collections across contexts without needing to re-clear rights, etc.?

Transitions of Stewardship: Licenced access to scholarly journals include community mechanisms for ‘escrow’: PORTICO, CLOCKSS, etc. The DPN is looking at succession arrangements for deposited materials.  What happens when an organization fails? Especially in less elite 4-year institutions in the US?

Scholarly & Scientific Data: Availability of data for 10 years (often dictated by granting agencies)–then what? Who reassesses it?

Technical issues: Common tools and infrastructure. Benchmarking. Security & Integrity. Do we not have data breaches?

Standards: Specific places need them, sure, but they are not broadly necessary in all cases. Best practices and guidelines are being sold as standards: TRAC is valuable, but it should also be amendable. Best practices are pliable.

Economies: The nightmare of sustainability. We weep together and share, mostly. There’s a connection between making our case and sustainability, which is often code for “somebody else pay for this, please!.” Sometimes, the right answer is to argue public good and public heritage. Outsourcing & fees is not always the right answer, and disinvestment in US education has been particularly rough.

Audiovisual Preservation: Much A/V is predigital, getting converted. This is just a big old mess. Specialized knowledge and equipment required, and interdependency likely will be required, as the media is just rotting away, the equipment is obsolete, and time is against us.

Big Data/Datasets: Do we get scale & level of investment yet? Memory organizations are full of ephemera (like catalogs and airplane schedules and menus that give a sense of the history of manufacture. These used to be easy to capture. Now they hide in web databases. Traditional web archiving doesn’t grab them. In the aggregate, they represent a big loss of historical knowledge.

News: Every nation collects, but it’s not paper anymore, but databases that are held and discarded. Even if we preserve it, how do we share it? Large organizations–PBS plus Government plus organizations–these represent huge problems, and that doesn’t even take into account personal digital archiving/digital lives.

Collecting policies: We need to know what others are doing, and measure how well we’re doing. What percentage of the cultural record are we actually preserving? Journals? Ebooks? Surface web? We need to agree roughly on how to count, so we can figure out where we are. The Public & Policymakers don’t understand the scale of the digital preservation problem or the seriousness of its results. We can’t be perfect, but we need to get enough coverage. We need strategies for making the case, that explains the necessity for policy and resources together. We can’t solve it with money alone. It must be paired with policies and copyright law, etc.

This is a moment of real opportunity. The public is recalibrating their relationship to their own digital lives: they are now noticing that photos, ebooks, music, etc. don’t stick around. There is a growing stream of individuals heading to their local libraries to figure out how to maintain their stuff.

Questions from the audience:

Q. Does the need for standards automatically equal interdependencies?

A. We RUSH to standards, sometimes, rather than being flexible. We need to prioritize where we need them and where we don’t. Example: UNESCO: making the case for DP–the last meeting had government & business people discussing the problem, but not memory institutions. We need to push back, to publicize.

Q. Advocacy presupposes that we’re speaking with one voice. We don’t have a good history of doing that so far.

A. We hope to find one voice at a high level, at least…

[end of first plenary session]

What we did in Barcelona, or, A trip to ANADP II [part 1]

From November 18-21, POWRR Project Director Jaime Schumacher and I were privileged to attend the Aligning National Approaches to Digital Preservation II (ANADP II) Event in Barcelona, Spain. We submitted a poster proposal at the behest of Martin Halbert, who is one of the advisors for the POWRR project grant.

We were scheduled to present a poster about the Digital POWRR project, which we had printed out, mounted, and duly shipped along to the conference two weeks before. Alas, it never arrived, as it was held up in customs in Madrid for relatively unclear reasons. (Lesson 1 for international conferences: carry the poster onto the plane!)

Once I’ve dug up a decent image of our poster, I’ll post it to the blog.

On the bright side, the story of our missing poster made its way through the conference pretty quickly, and as a result, attendees actually sought us out to hear about our project, since the poster wasn’t there to prompt them.

This conference runs a bit differently than the others I’ve attended. Rather than the usual keynote-panels-papers-posters lineup, where you spend several days listening and thinking intently, the structure is keynote/remarks-action sessions. What’s an action session? Well, it’s a group meeting that follows the keynote or remarks, and works along some of the themes of the keynote or remarks, often incorporating exercises or other activities that encourage us to think out loud, to interact, to consider what we can actually DO, in our own professional and institutional contexts, to solve the problems at hand, or at the very least, not contribute further to them.

The structure of the conference feels frankly kind of revolutionary to me, at least. It was truly an honor (and a bit intimidating at first) to be included in the conversation, as we were interacting with people whose work we’ve cited, professionals who can quite handily and easily be called the thought leaders in the field. I was nervous that it would be a “better not to meet your heroes” kind of situation, but it really wasn’t.

I want to make it very clear that we were heard. Both Jaime and I attended sessions with the intent of constantly beating the “don’t forget the smaller/less wealthy libraries” drum, and I can say in all honesty that we had very little drumming to do after the first day. The folks in attendance, many of whom work for national libraries and major universities with decent resources, are very, very concerned about the gaps that are developing/have developed between their libraries and their less-well-resourced colleagues. They know, and they consider it their problem, too.

That is reassuring.

The next few posts will consist of my notes, generally from the keynotes/remarks. Keep in mind that, as at most conferences, the notes get to be less and less as the conference goes on, because conferences take time and energy and brain, all of which dwindle over time in my case.

My only other personal note is that, unfortunately, the conference was capped off with my contracting a rather unpleasant case of food poisoning that I first experienced on my flight back from Barcelona, which I really do not recommend to anyone. 🙁 I’m much better now, thank goodness, and can look at the conference with fresh eyes.


4 Ds and an M

I gave a 45 minute presentation on digital preservation to about 50 faculty and administrators on my campus recently. When running into some of them since then, the thing that’s proven to be memorable is a mathematical description I created for DP and shortened to “4 Ds and 1 M.”

In preparation for my talk I subjected several of my colleagues to two trial runs. I wanted my overall message to be that we must make selection decisions about what we are going to “treat,” so to speak, in a preservation system. The first practice run was very objective and scholarly, but a fellow POWRR member suggested putting my “ask” right up front so the administrators would know where we were heading. A campus colleague suggested including a real example to punctuate the need.

Several of the people in my focus groups have heard me talk about selection, record keeping and preservation issues on my campus for years. Their advice was to make it more visual and to personalize it with examples I’ve found that anyone on campus could relate to as I built my case. As a result, my talk had many screenshots containing examples of Web-based records practices we currently engage in that put our historical record at risk.

On presentation day, I led my audience through the difference between storage and access and how different formats create risks that concern me. I even found an article in The Economist to help emphasize how the concept of Bit Rot is finally emerging to wider audiences.

The schematic of the OAIS Reference Model elicited satisfying gasps and eased the way into an overview of our grant project, the Tool-Grid, and what I discovered in our campus conversations. I also showed a great slide that colleagues who graduated from DPOE’s Training the Trainer curriculum shared with me (planetary orbit-looking, with consecutively smaller rings). This visual of what decision-making looks like served as a suitable segue to what we can do now, long before deciding on a preservation system.

Early on in the talk I provided a distilled definition of preservation and I used it again in the closing. The long sentences we usually see didn’t really look right with all the visuals, so after a slide that distinguishes the concepts of storage and backup I came up with the following as a mnemonic device:

A long sentence into a mathematical equation that resonates.

Turning a long sentence into a mathematical equation that resonates.

I’ll take the feedback I’ve been hearing as a small sign of success that at least one message resonates. When people comment they don’t remember what all of the 4Ds are, but they can usually state two of them. At least they know there is more to it than just back up! My hope is that this foot-in-the-door can be leveraged to a wider conversation on campus and actual movement towards securing our digital heritage. Time will tell!

My advice to anyone engaging with others on this topic for the first time: identify people at your institution whose advice you value to practice your message with. Make sure to mix in people who know what you’re talking about with a healthy dose of people who don’t. With this kind of feedback, we can at least feel confident that we will hit the right notes when we have a chance to close people up in a room and bend their ears.

Testing A Piece of Digital Preservation Management Software: Day One Thoughts

As our intrepid readers know, we are now entering the testing phase of our project. Want to see where we are? Check out the wiki.

So, I attempted to test my first piece of software today. Keep in mind that this is end-user style testing, where my goal was to launch the installed software on the requisite laptop, completely cold, and figure out how easy it was to use out of the box by poking at it. We’re asking questions like “how intuitive is it?” You can find our tool evaluation documents on our wiki.

It was…educational. And not as easy/intuitive as I’d hoped.

Here’s what I was hoping to do with this software (no, not identifying it right now, but it’s one of the ones we’ve selected to look at in-depth):

1. Ingest a folder with a small directory structure and three different file types.

2. Have the software extract/import metadata from the files (or, later, from a supplied file) to the software.

3. Add the metadata to the files, and POOF! prepared for export into the long-term storage vessel of my choice.


It…didn’t work like that. I suspected not, and that was confirmed.

This tool seems aimed towards large-batch prep for preservation of materials that are fully processed with all the metadata ready to go, not a small batch of stuff without ready metadata.

I had trouble navigating through the software to find the pages indicated by the help documents. Firstly, read this and try to find a solution. I was making notes in capslock on my documentation sheet within 15 minutes of opening the software in my frustration, especially when the navigation in the help documentation also failed and I had to relaunch it to regain the windows I had clicked away from.


This tool (based on the help files that I finally attempted to use) assumed I had metadata all ready to go in a delineated file. What I had was an XML record for the whole file that I managed to export from our ARCHON system. Which I then couldn’t figure out how to convert or import into the “delimited file” that the system expected.

The tool also assumed that I knew enough about MODS to build a record more or less from scratch, if I didn’t have delimited metadata to add. (I’m a former cataloger but not a metadata expert by any means. I don’t routinely build records, I use tools like ARCHON to build them FOR me out of relatively standardized natural language that I enter into the software.)

I have trouble imagining the workflow for this software without more expertise than I currently have. I’m sure I’ll DEVELOP more as I learn more. But.  Frustrating.

I’m sure that the other tools I’ll test will likely be frustrating in slightly different ways.

Digital preservation lesson for the day: there will always be things that you don’t know. The cost of not knowing is the time it takes to either ask for help or figure it out yourself.


Reflections from Digital Directions 2013 Conference

Digital Directions Sign

Digital Directions Sign

From July 21st to the 23rd I had the opportunity to attend the Northeast Document Conservation Center (NEDCC) sponsored Digital Directions; Fundamentals of Creating and Managing Digital Collections conference on the campus of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Along with the friendly people, good eats, and plenty of bookstores, I was able to network and engage with people about digital issues in its many forms. There were people who were “experts” in the field, to those who were just getting started in the process. Find the conference program here.

The first day was a lot of theory and guidelines about various issues for digital collections. It was quite overwhelming at some points, with a lot of resources and terms being given. Day two comprised of breakout sessions, where I focused on digital collections, digital preservation, metadata, digital repositories, and cloud. Day three focused on collaboration within your institution, specifically between IT and the library and externally. One of the main idea from day three was beneficial partnerships and that all project partners big and small bring something valuable to the table.

On the third day attendees had the opportunity to tour two of the labs on the U of M campus:  Tour of University of Michigan Digital Conversion Unit or of the Technology Lab. I did the tour of the conversion unit, which was quite impressive and I was glad to see that they have the same Epson 11000XL that we have at Chicago State. See images below.

During the informal breaks I had the opportunity to talk about our project (and to pass out the cards) and everyone I spoke to about it was impressed. Some had heard about it and others were interested in learning more. One of the archivists that I talked to mentioned that it was hard within her state to get people to work together, so she was interested in know how we formed and the responsibilities of each institution.

Conference Takeways

  1. Know your institution, in terms of risk management (is some loss acceptable to you? who will be doing the metadata, how specific will it be?), budget, staffing (who responsibility is what), formats, mission, etc.
  2. It does not take much to get started with digital preservation-every little bit helps
  3. You really cannot do it alone (get assistance at every stage of the process)
  4. Modify standards, guidelines, and best practices to your institution, sometimes just good enough works
  5. Make your metadata interoperable and specific (ex. downstate and Illinois versus just downstate), so that when you merge records it is clear
  6. Approach stakeholders with a tailored message this can be done through workshops and one-on-one sessions. When involving IT, do not let them take over the project, this is your territory.
  7. Assessment of digital collections has to be done, either qualitative or quantitative.
  8. Document what you have done to the collections so that 1) those in the future can know and 2) that data was not lost in the transitions (bit count)IMAG0608
  9. Within the conversation of digital preservation we need to make clear the difference between preservation and access copies
  10. Learned more about the environment that digitization should be taking place in, in terms of lighting, monitors, and equipment.

I think that it is interesting and important to point out that while there was diversity within the conference attendees, it seemed to me that I was the only (if not, I apologize) attendee from a predominately African American university. This is why I think that CSU’s involvement can demonstrate the importance of not just digitizing and providing access to collections about African Americans, but also for the long term preservation of it for future generations.

One of the highlights (in addition to the conference) was exploring the campus libraries and talking with the Outreach Archivist in their Special Collections. To me it is always nice to see how their special collections are set up and what kinds of programming they do.

If you will excuse my metaphors, digital preservation is like this cube in a couple of ways

  1. It only takes a little push to get rolling, and
  2. You have to look at it from several angles

Please add your metaphor in the comments.

Post written by Aaisha Haykal, University Archivist, Chicago State University.