Ethics In the Association of Professional Genealogists: Image or Reality? (Updated 26 July)

I have updated this post to discuss recent developments, indicating editing changes in blue text. Some of my changes attempt to address distortions in the arguments which are attributed to me. Roughly 1:00 am 26 July Addition roughly 3:00 pm 26 July

Until I resigned in protest earlier this year, I was a member of the Association of Professional Genealogists, and until last November worked as a professional genealogist. When I first joined the association, I believed the ideals they promoted, and was proud to be a member. In fact I think at that time the organisation made a real effort to live up to those ideals.

Over time, I noticed a shift in attitudes, as members' concerns about earning a good enough living became more prominent, and as some members allowed their ambitions of being accepted by academia to overwhelm other ideas. Several specific incidents have solidified my opinion that the APG's vaunted ethics are nothing but a sham.

The first incident began when a member posted a rambling, apparently drunken message to the APG list. In it, he made a number of ridiculous statements about prominent genealogists. No intelligent person believed these statements then, and I don't believe them today. He claimed someone else sent it in his name, but someone was offended enough to file a formal complaint, and word quietly filtered around that he'd been disciplined.

Given the problems inherent in validating electronic evidence, problems that are also of significance to genealogists, I was troubled by the way this was handled, for reasons I explained in a post to the mailing list archived here . In response, very indirectly, I was given to understand there was other evidence, but refused permission to quote anyone.

Due to the excessive secrecy, I was uncomfortable with the notion of a member being punished for nothing more than insulting a few prominent members of APG. I also felt, for an organisation that claims to encourage learning important skills, to allow a post which raised valid questions in light of the knowledge I had to remain unanswered was bad policy. However, I dismissed these concerns, and tried to remain a loyal member.

Not long after, another post casually mentioned the first issue of the NGSQ had advocated eugenics, the 'science' that claimed those with 'inferior' genes should be 'eliminated' from the gene pool, through forced sterilisation or other means. Since the eugenics movement used and perverted genealogy, often fabricating information to match their theories, and since the Nazis had also used genealogical information to identify "hidden" Jews, this information appalled me.

I quickly posted, expressing my hope that those who espoused such repulsive "ideals" were no longer being honoured by us today. In response, I was attacked, and not a single person supported me. Over time, as I considered the longstanding, although seldom discussed, links between genealogy and eugenics, and the fact that many modern genealogists work with DNA and also do research for medical purposes, this troubled me more and more. Any individual's failure to speak out to support me does not suggest they support eugenics. However, the overall lack of support, on a list that flooded my mailbox the instant the subject of our income and prestige was raised, is troubling.

Although I consider eugenics to be one of the most evil beliefs mankind has ever developed, I limited my concerns to the APG list since I still trusted the overall ethics of the organisation. I did not, at any time, advocate attempting to alter history or destroy records. I did suggest we should no longer honour people who advocated such repulsive and harmful ideas, and that we should add a provision to the Code of Ethics explicitly forbidding ethical genealogists from being involved in or with eugenics in any form.

Since then, as I detail below, my trust in the ethics of the APG as an organisation has been eroded. As my confidence in the organisation waned, my concern over the potential for future abuse in this area grew. And as I attempt to think about this clearheadedly, one question haunts me. Since my opponents claim it is an unimportant issue, and it is an issue which does concern some segment of the public, why not add a provision to the Code of Ethics repudiating eugenics?

The real change came when someone started a thread asking how many of us earned an adequate income. Those who were unhappy with what they were able to charge began seeking ways to increase their rates. Reasonable enough, until a certain posting. Before I mention this posting, I must admit something: I once posted a suggestion that genealogists seek to have access to records limited to identified professionals.

My reasons for this, as stated in my post, were the threats of records closures; I felt this might be the only way to preserve access at all. Since then, I've decided I was wrong, but it would have been reasonable for someone to make a suggestion reluctantly, as the best way of keeping records open on a limited basis. However, if you follow the (long) discussion that began here and quickly degenerated, you will see that some members seem to have been suggesting licensing and limited access to records as a way of increasing their own income and, incidentally, prestige.

That was the moment I was forced to make a choice, and was forced to realise the APG no longer had the best interests of genealogy in mind. They failed to recognise the same economic pressures that forced the consolidation of so many other businesses and industries. They ignored the impact of Ancestry, which, by making so many lookups easy for anyone, reduced income from such minor projects for many researchers, and when many of their members ended up in trouble, all many of them could think of was protecting their own interest, even at the expense of non-"professional" genealogists.

I refrained from speaking out publicly at the time, despite moral qualms that I should do so, since there are still many honest, decent members of the APG. I hoped to resolve the problems from within, somehow. Not long after, there was a slight amount of publicity because of someone who seems to have felt the same arrogance and elitism that I noted.

Writers have a rule of thumb: if you show a work to one person, and they criticise something, you are still free to believe they just don't understand. But, when you show it to a second person, and they make the same point, you just don't understand. Their response? They mocked Lee, saying the fact that she gave up just proved she didn't have what it took. What they really proved is that they refused to understand their own growing arrogance.

I still stayed quiet, however, although I abandoned active research not long after. I could no longer stomach the profession I had once loved. But I had friends on that list, and people I respected. I stopped taking an active part in the list, although I read the messages for any information I might be able to use in my own research. Then something more happened, which forced me to think again.

I will not link to these postings, since doing so would violate the privacy of an innocent individual, but will provide links to any posts that have not been removed to legitimate members of the press who inquire, upon written assurance the links will not be made public, or the details of innocent individuals released.

In one more example of elitism, listers suddenly began pestering anyone who used a pseudonym. In response, one person posted that she wished to remain private, and so was leaving the list, in order to respect their wishes. Instead of honouring that, one member of the APG responded by posting her name and a link to her personal web page with more information about her and her family, noting how "easy" it was to find.

To me, this was cyberbullying. Not only that, it played right into the hands of those who believe genealogists will dig up your personal information even if you want it kept private. Yet, when I posted insisting the APG take action, I was told it was "policy" to only act if an individual filed a formal complaint. Of course, any one of them could have filed such a complaint, but they chose not to, and I refused to do their dirty work for them.

The only reason I can see for the reluctance to punish this member, as the drunken member was punished, even though his offence only harmed his own reputation and hers reflected on everyone, is the simple fact she is a longtime member of the APG with powerful and influential friends. At this time, when I was exposing the rotten underbelly of their policies, the APG suddenly implemented a new feature of their web site - private forums.

Secrecy, of course, is a great way to hide what you're doing. No matter how many good reasons they may come up with for having such forums, the timing suggests hiding was at least part of the reason for having them. I remained a member of the APG, so I e-mailed my intention to resign and instructed them to take my name off the membership list, rather than be associated with this.

Unable to resolve these concerns, I "threatened" to go public with them. In reality, I made it plain I was hugely reluctant to do so, and would prefer a meaningful dialogue that might resolve the problems without harm to anyone's reputation. Some members answered; I replied to them, but only two even acknowledged my answers. In fairness, I have noticed a number of e-mails to and from my accounts have not been delivered, and have heard similar stories from others, so I can't say who received them.

I can say that few of the people who answered were those who might be able to do anything, and no one in a position to act entered into anything like a real discussion of these concerns. I tried to salve my conscience that I had done what I could. I realised that the last incident was, in a way, a 'litmus test' for me, which is why I reacted so strongly. If the APG had acted honestly against this member, I might have gone on believing the organisation was, on the whole, ethical.

Yet they didn't act. There are still decent people, people I respect very much, who are members, so I didn't act either. One other reaction increased my concern, though. Most people assumed I had some personal issue to complain about. I was insulted a few times by members, one member who did some research on my family in another area made a mistake, and I never said a word about those things.

Why didn't I pursue my personal "issues"? Simply because they were personal, too petty to make a fuss about. People make mistakes, say something thoughtless, and none of that is worth a lot of time and trouble. Yet, when they learned my concerns were larger, and not personal, most people couldn't understand why I made a fuss. The fact they felt a little lost money or an insult were more important than issues that should concern everyone only deepened my concerns about the culture of the APG, and the moral compass its leaders were providing.

Today, something happened that forced me to revisit all this, and I am finally speaking out. Today, an APG member posted the full text of an article in the Providence Journal (I am not linking to the post, out of respect for the Journal's rights) and specifically noted they were doing so to circumvent the Journal's requirement that every reader register (at no charge).

In other words, this was a deliberate act! They posted a copyrighted article deliberately, and deprived the newspaper of readership information which would be of commercial value to them. Now, I don't like registering either; I always wonder how much more spam I'll get. But this is a member of an organisation that makes a big issue of copyright, and members are quick enough to complain if their Copyrights are infringed. I am not a copyright attorney, but it seems plain to me this member violated Federal law, despite an ethical pledge that requires members to obey the law, and specifically Copyright law.

So I e-mailed the administration, including the offending message with full headers, the only evidence I had, or would be likely to have. Despite that, they e-mailed me in return to say they would only act if I filed an official complaint. I did so, but this forced me to consider: why have such a policy, and why wouldn't one of the officers file a complaint themselves?

Well, such a process is inconvenient, it takes time many people don't have, and it can be intimidating to some people. In other words, their ethics policies have been set up to insulate their members from as many criticisms as possible. Which finally convinced me, when members are working in areas 'sensitive' to the issue and the organisation is reluctant to publicly disavow eugenics, when members may still be working in secret on their private forum to plan ways to limit records access to "licensed" genealogists, meaning you won't be able to learn about your own family without paying through the nose for it, and when members openly violate the Copyright laws - I had no choice but to expose the APG for what it is.

I now understand how whistleblowers feel, and how difficult it is. Should I have spoken out sooner? Probably. I will never know how much harm has been done by my silence, while my speaking out now has ensured it is unlikely anyone who is a member of the APG will ever speak to me again. In fairness, while many who have contacted me have not agreed with me on every point, and some have disagreed with me on most or all of the points I made, the responses I have received have been far less negative than I feared they would be. But I sincerely believe that the APG has become corrupted, that its leadership, in the absence of real ways to advance the field of genealogy, has resorted to secrecy lest their image be tarnished, and that the only way to clean up the mess is to dissolve the APG completely, lest consumers believe their prattle about "high ethical standards".

Since I have no connection with the Providence Journal and didn't write the article in question, why do I care so much? Again, it isn't really personal, although I do have a slight personal interest in this one. But I also care about all my fellow writers - when a member of an organisation that makes so much noise about their "ethics" publicly ignores copyright laws, that can only encourage those who don't even understand the law to think it is okay. In other words, every writer has suffered an increased chance their work will be stolen because of that message. And since the APG administration didn't think that was serious enough to act against on their own, forcing me to file a formal complaint before they would even consider doing anything, it is past time I spoke up!

Today, the member in question made another posting to the list, reposting the article with permission from the Providence Journal. They included a message stating their omission of Copyright permission yesterday had been "inadvertent". While it does not technically say this in so many words, the message is carefully crafted to avoid accepting any real blame, by implying they had sought permission and just somehow forgot to mention it.

Aside from the fact I have trouble believing anyone would go to the trouble of obtaining permission to republish an article, and then forget to mention it (which the new post doesn't quite say, anyway), the original post gave as a reason for the full posting the fact that "viewing the Providence Journal requires readers to login". Again, this was deliberate! After the fact, when I complained, the person in question presumably contacted the Providence Journal, worked something out with them, and obtained permission to cover themselves legally.

Now, if the member had posted something like "I did wrong. I tried to steal Copyrighted work, even though copyright law is specifically mentioned in our Code of Ethics, and has been discussed on this list many times. I'm sorry, it was a crime, and I've already contacted the copyright owner and settled the matter with them" I would stick to the APG's response to this. In any case, they should have reacted faster and more forcefully.

But, what the member did instead was craft a post that left the real facts clouded, that could easily create the impression they had permission all along. Since that is only my judgment, judge for yourself. That message, to me, is the perfect triumph of image over truth. Which is exactly what I've said here: the APG has changed, and their ethics are image, not truth. It reads, to me, like something written by the kind of lawyer who originally studied the law in order to find out how to bend it to their will. No statement is technically false, but the overall impression is far from the truth as I see it.

And, if this little attempt to preserve one member's image succeeds, it will have exactly the effect I feared in the first place: those inclined to violate copyrights will think it's easy enough to wiggle off the hook. Writers everywhere should be outraged, and truly ethical genealogists should be outraged as well.

Courage or Cowardice?

How should a writer respond to outrages such as the one I wrote about below? I don't ask this question in order to put anyone else on the spot. It is my belief each of us must make the best of our lives in our own fashion. I don't know anyone else's heart, or the deeds they do in secret. So if you've settled this question to your own satisfaction, I have no right to say your answer is the wrong one.

Even if you pursue a different course than I believe is wise, you may be right and I may be wrong, or each of us may be, in different ways, right. You may do more to make the world a better place than I ever manage to do. I ask the question because it is one I wrestle with. I am not satisfied that I have found the best answer.

When I learn of suffering and injustice, should I set aside the writing I'd like to be doing, and write endless articles in the hope someone will take notice? Or, should I learn about these things, absorb them, and then write whatever I am inclined to, trusting that my sensibilities will come through and influence my readers? One way, I am unhappy and it seems that no one ever listens.

The other way seems so inadequate, so selfish, even if there are examples of authors whose fiction has helped to shape the opinions of a society. I understand one of the reasons the media won't cover these stories; most people are tired of hearing about them, worn out with learning of tragedies it seems they can do nothing to prevent. I, too, am tired of hearing about them.

I'd like nothing more than to know that the outrages were ended, there was no need to hear of them or think of them any more. But that isn't the way the world works. So, as a writer, I have to ask myself the question, "What should I do? How can I best help?" Writing is my greatest talent, however limited that talent may be. And those who are weary of thinking about such things are more likely to read my thoughts if they're slipped into a work of fiction.

Yet, as any fiction writer knows, you can't write a thinly disguised tract and have it entertain anyone. Yes, I could churn out a melodrama within a few weeks, complete with sympathetic victims and posturing, horribly evil villains. And no one would want to read it, and even if they did, it would not do justice to the complexity of the subject.

You can't force fiction. I have to write the ideas that come to me. Will the right idea ever arrive? I have no way of knowing. Which way lies courage, and which way cowardice? I will probably continue to do as I have so far, writing fiction, and occasionally howling out in words of grief and rage when I learn of some more unbearable tragedy.

What does that make me? Am I a coward for not confronting these issues head on? Or would I simply be wasting my effort, doing nothing but easing my own conscience? The final decision is mine, I bear the responsibility, but I welcome the opinions of any of my readers who feel they have any answers. And I fear, whatever decision I make, I will never be wholly at peace with it as long as hatred takes its awful toll on the innocent.

When Will We Learn?

I had hoped to be writing a Marieke story tonight. I enjoy writing, and it's what I prefer to do. But sometimes you need to set aside what you want to do in favour of what you need to do. I read a post over at Kim Stagliano's blog that really upset me, and I believe the issue needs wider publicity.

Please, go over there to read the post. I'm sorry if you're busy and were hoping for a quick, fun read, but this is important. You can come back here when you're done.

A lot of the information you just read shocked and upset me, but one item stood out. It stood out because it was the only one that specifically mentioned life expectancy. It seems that in North Korea, autistic children are sent off to "a remote institution where their life expectancy is less than 2 years". Many of them starve to death.

How is this any different than the groups singled out in Nazi Germany to be sent to concentration camps where they died, often of starvation? Why haven't we heard any of this from the media? Oh, I forgot, they were busy covering the really important stories, like the fate of Anna Nicole Smith's dead body. In fairness to the media, though, they cover what we want to know about.

It seems that, as a society, we are more interested in the fate of one dead woman's body than the fate of thousands, perhaps millions, of living, helpless children. Or at least that's what the media thinks. I hope most of my readers disagree. I hope most of them are wondering why the American government is silent about this issue.

Why can the United States, which tosses billions of dollars around the world, not do more to help those countries who sincerely want to do more but don't have the funds to do it? Why don't we speak out against the governments that just want to kill helpless children? How many more countries is this happening in? Is it just North Korea, or are there other regimes willing to get rid of the "inconvenient"?

Why haven't we, as a society, learned anything from history? When will we learn? How many millions will die before we do learn? And how can we say, "We didn't know", when in fact the lessons of history have told us enough that we should know? Killing any group of human beings is never acceptable! That isn't such a long lesson, or such a difficult one, so why is it so often ignored? If you don't have time now, come back later to visit geistweg † genocide, a blog about this very subject, one that potentially threatens every human being on earth.

I hope every one of you who reads my post will do what you feel that you can. It isn't my place to tell you what you are able to do, but I can make a few suggestions. Write about this on your own blog, contact the press to ask why they aren't covering it, write to your Senator and Representative to complain that the United States isn't doing more. Please... for the sake of all those helpless children who can't even speak for themselves and are starving to death in North Korea and perhaps elsewhere as I type this.

Letters by Otto Frank to be Released 14 February

Although it is my understanding this will not be formally announced until the 14th of February, an important story has been revealed on several mailing lists. Two years ago, the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research in New York was attempting to catalogue unindexed materiel in their possession. One of these files proved to contain roughly 80 letters, many written by Otto Frank himself, and all related to his efforts to secure some safe haven for his family.

If the reports are correct, the father of Anne Frank wrote letters to friends, family, aid organisations, and US officials. He was desperately trying to find some way to get his wife and daughters passage out of Holland to a place where they would be safe from the Nazi menace that ultimately killed them. Many of them were written in 1941, up until the date when Germany declared war on the US.

The file also includes letters from family members in the US, and from a friend Otto Frank made in his university days, Nathan Straus Jr., son of the founder of Macy's. The file is at least half an inch thick, and include documentation of Otto Frank's efforts to secure his family passage to the United States or Cuba. Since the US had closed their consulate in Holland, some of the letters discuss possibilities such as an escape through Spain, departing for North America by way of Portugal, which was neutral.

This file apparently originally came from the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, one of the organisations that sought to help Jews seeking to flee a Europe darkened by the clouds of rising Nazi oppression. Sadly, the letters do not seem to have ever received a reply, probably due to the unforgiving nature of US immigration policy, which condemned many Jews to their deaths who might otherwise have been saved. It is a reminder of our past many of us are ashamed of, yet one we must not forget. We may not be able to alter that past, but we can make sure we don't repeat its mistakes.

The letters have been held at YIVO since at least 1974, when the last of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society's archives was transferred to their care. No one was aware of their presence in these archives, and they were only discovered two years ago. Their existence has remained a secret since YIVO felt it necessary to consider the legal implications of this find. It is appalling such an important find should have to be kept hidden from the world for so long for such a trivial reason, but I can hardly blame YIVO for fearing entanglement with lawyers.

YIVO's plans are to hold a press conference and release the documents on the 14th of February. I hope the press will be well represented, and that they will give this story the importance it deserves. Whether or not it is the lead story on the evening news, I know I will be paying special attention to all news outlets on the 14th. Tears may not seem a good mix with Valentine's Day, but, for me at least, this is too important to put off.

Never Again!

Today is International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a day set aside to remember the millions of innocent individuals who died in the Holocaust. They were singled out by a policy directed by mindless hatred, and exterminated with an enthusiasm that can only be described as maniacal. The Nazis believed that by wiping out Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, and the disabled they would be somehow "purifying the race".

Perhaps the ultimate testimony to the tragic absurdity of the "science" which convinced them of this is the fact that, if those rules had been followed impartially, Adolf Hitler himself would have been classified as a Jew and deported to a camp. When the war was over, and the world was forced to confront the things they had ignored for so long, and see the consequences of ignorance, bigotry, and hatred, their response was "Never Again!".

Has this promise been kept? Look around you. In Cambodia, in the lands that were Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, in Darfur, and in so many other places I cannot bear to name them all, masses of human beings have been massacred for no better reason than the Nazis offered, and the world watched and did nothing. The Nazis sought to wipe out all trace of disabilities we now test pregnant mothers for, so their children can be aborted, denying them any chance to live at all. And it is nice and 'sanitary'; we don't need to confront the reality. "Fetuses", not babies, just as it was "the Final Solution", not mass murder. Anti-Semitism is on the rise, and has been for years, and few people speak out against it. There are even attempts to deny the Holocaust ever happened.

When you reflect on this day, know one thing for certain: it happened. In Bad Arolsen, in Germany, there is a massive archive with tons of papers, all original, and all proving, in the murderers' own hands, what the Nazis were guilty of. On millions of bookshelves, there is a book, the last remnant of a beautiful, talented girl who describes much of what was happening in her diary, which was saved when she was taken away to be killed. Her records are found in the archive in Bad Arolsen. The evidence is consistent, each piece confirms the others.

It happened. The only reason for denying that it happened is the wish to stir up the same kind of vicious, lying, murderous hatred that fueled the greatest tragedy the world has known to date. If you doubt, read the books, look at the pictures, view the films the Nazis themselves took. Some who deny the reality of what happened try to make excuses; yes, many died, but that was just due to disease the Germans were unable to control. They lie! The records in Bad Arolsen, records kept by the Nazis themselves, list victim after victim, and after their name, the notation "Executed".

Those who did die of disease did so because they were gathered together in unsanitary conditions, malnourished, and waiting to be executed with the others. Disease may have done the Nazis' work for them in some cases, but it can't spare them the blame for the outcome. If you don't already know, read about what happened. Research it. Learn all you can about it. And, when you are so sick that you understand "Never Again" may be the most important pledge the human race has ever made, speak out against hatred, against bigotry, against murder, wherever you find it, whatever interests try to excuse it.

The Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust; I have no intention and no desire to deny that. But other groups were singled out, and if any group may be singled out, all groups live in danger. "Never Again" will be a hollow lie until every time an American spooking at shadows demands that all Moslems be killed, we all cry out in protest, Jew, Moslem, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, atheist, or anything else. It will be meaningless until we refuse to accept the singling out of any group to be 'cleansed', to be 'reduced', to be attacked in any way whatsoever.

I can think of no finer memorial to all the victims of the Holocaust, nor any so well suited to the occasion, as a society that takes "Never Again!" as the single most important thing we can guarantee our descendants. It is more important than a healthy planet, more important than a thriving economy, more important than any other type of freedom. Until all groups can feel sure that they are free to live, how can they enjoy any of these other things?

If you agree with my message, and believe it is as important as I do, feel free to link to it, or even to copy it. I am the rightful Copyright owner, but I give you permission to do so, with a single restriction. Lest some hateful group that opposes this ideal think of a way to twist my words, you may only copy this post if you copy it and reproduce it in its entirety. If you wish, you may highlight certain passages differently than I have done, so long as you leave my words unchanged, and you may omit any hyperlinks I have included. With that restriction, I encourage you to spread this post as far and wide as you are able.