The poems are enough to make one blush. Reading the correspondence between then-Senator Warren G. Harding to his mistress Carrie Phillips in the Library of Congress, one can understand the controversy behind their preservation. The Harding-Phillips correspondence, which spans the length of their relationship (1910-1924) reveals the intimate relationship the pair had, as well as shows the length of secrecy the couple had to apply in order to preserve their affair. Several stunning papers list code word after code word, a scandalous dictionary of sorts. Other pieces in the collection offer extremely intimate insight into a couple’s relationship that give the reader that quintessential feeling of intrusion. For all the reading and digging historians do, sometimes a record comes along that reminds us of the intimacy of our work, and these papers are such a collection.
So it makes sense that there was a heated and dramatic attempt to hide the evidence of this relationship. Archivist Kenneth Duckett of the Ohio Historical Society secreted the letters during a negotiation between his institution and the Harding Memorial Association wherein ownership of Harding’s papers was being determined. The intimate nature of the correspondence with Phillips and the damning evidence of an affair posed a risk to the negotiations. The existence of the letters and Duckett’s copying of the pieces outside of institutional direction resulted in a lawsuit, a court case, and the eventual closing of the records for 50 years.
Duckett’s actions have only enhanced the drama of the collection itself, raising challenging questions as to the ethical choices archivists make. Duckett, while acting in the 1960’s, did not have an outlined ethical guide to gauge his actions and protect his decisions. Looking at his behavior from contemporary Code of Ethics, it appears he acted in the best interest of the preservation of the collection, but endangered professional relationships with the donors in question and exhibited questionable professional judgement. As far as the records show Duckett, in collecting and preserving the letters outside of the professional relationship with the Harding Memorial Association, was not preoccupied with damaging Harding’s legacy, though the memorial association and family associated with Harding certainly saw the correspondence as a threat to the memory of Harding they worked hard to maintain. It is understandable to have such a reaction, where the letters came as a surprise third-party donation in the midst of negotiations. Anyone would be blindsided by the disclosure, and question the relationship between oneself and the preserving institution. While the association eventually consented to the accessibility of the documents, which you can view now on the Library of Congress, the implications of Duckett’s actions and the responsibility of the archivist to manage both donor relationships and the preservation of historical documents weigh heavy.
How should archivists go about protecting future access of potentially sensitive items while ensuring a secure transfer of power with donors? When does the right to privacy end? Would this be a different conversation if Harding wasn’t a senator at the time of his indiscretion and went on to have a public career as a politician?
Ultimately, I believe the archivist has the responsibility to push the uncomfortable conversations with donors in the process of establishing a collection within an institution. Archivists should set strong boundaries and expectations about access that can support them in their negotiations. Furthermore, archivists should be supported in broaching the sensitive discussions around privacy and legacy. Destroying evidence out of embarrassment or prioritization of a legacy should be challenged. Transparent dialogue around these potential issues will set minds at ease about donations while prioritizing future access and research utilizing such collections. Ultimately, if donors are not comfortable with an agreement, they can withhold donation or maintain their own records. There is a cost to preservation and the “immortality” of the archive, but it should be transparent for both parties to remain as ethical as possible.
Numen 