Even beloved public libraries say ‘no’ to adoptees

My proposed presentation on the U.S. adoption system would have explained how facilities like Detroit’s former Crittenton General Hospital, shown here in 1965, promoted adoption and the separation of millions of mothers and their children in the decades after World War II

Between July and December 2018, I made five written attempts to offer a free, adult education program to the public at the Multnomah County Library. The library is a major cultural institution in this region that prides itself on promoting all voices and advancing knowledge and reading, particularly the issues highlighted in books shared with the public.

My presentation and reading would have mirrored the one I gave at the Tigard Public Library on Sept. 25, 2018. You can see my proposal here. 

In the end, the library refused my idea, which would have showcased the little-known research I shared in my newly published memoir on the American adoption experience and on the history of that system in the post-World War II years, along with ways adoptees are denied basic equal rights.

Not only did library event planning staff say, “No,” but they also shared that adult adoptees in the United States weren’t the “marginalized” community that they wanted to focus on with adult programs. Those activities include public events and conversations about books that highlight historic and political issues in American life. 

Don’t Count on “Progressives Allies” to Care About Adoption History or Adoptee Rights

The Multnomah County Library shared this statement with me by email after I asked event planning staff to reconsider my proposal for a free public lecture on the history of the U.S. adoption system. Staff did not change their minds.

As an adoptee, I am not surprised by this outcome.

When it comes to the story of adoptees, articles about adoptee rights, columns on the history of adoption, adoptees seldom find anyone who cares to give them a platform or who really gives a damn what adults adoptees have to say. 

Sadly, the library’s tinny tone reminded me of ways public health officials denied giving me my original birth certificate decades after I had found my birth families. It is hard to ignore that “paternal tone” if you have heard it for decades.

The irony for me is that I used the excellent resources in this library to research my book, including great works on adoptee rights and adoption history, and other works on the larger issue of sociological bias toward illegitimately born people, such as adoptees.

The library also secured many interlibrary loans for me, which was crucial for my work. This facility also has dozens of others books on adoption issues. But that information will stay on the shelves, mostly unknown to this community for now, in part because of the library’s decision.

In my two replies sent to the library asking them to reconsider its decision, sent on Dec. 12 and 13, 2018, I failed to convince the lower level librarian staff that the library decision was not consistent with the library’s stated mission. I wrote: “Among your stated goals are to be a ‘trusted guide for learning,’ a ‘leading advocate for reading,’ and a ‘champion for equity and inclusion.’ My proposal aligned with all three, particularly of a historically marginalized group in U.S. history and to this day.” 

For that email, I copied Vailey Oehlke, library director, and Terrilyn Chun, deputy director. I documented for both senior managers why the library failed, and in a way that showed adoptees that even so-called advocates of reading and knowledge will turn their backs on proposals as simple as a free public lecture.

Neither Oehlke nor Chun replied to my emails.

Why I Care About this Experience with the Library

As an adoptee, I decided long ago I never would apologize for promoting awareness of adoptee rights issues or for my advocacy that tried to educate the public by using facts and research.

That is why I am writing this post on this disappointing experience with the library concerning a human rights issue about millions who are denied basic rights. This interplay with staff showed me even librarians, who may self-identify as progressive, do not see adoptees rights as an issue that deserves a modest platform to discuss ongoing legal inequality in 2018.

I am moving on to find others who care about this issue and the story that still remains hidden in the shadows of shame. 

If you are a Portland area adoptee and care about this issue, you are welcome to contact Oehlke and Chun and encourage them to change the minds of the subordinates who made this decision; find their email addresses here. About the only thing a public official responds to is public shaming through fact-based news reporting and self-concern about their jobs. There is never a wrong time to engage public officials who are responsible for the actions of the public bodies they manage.