Category Archives: ARB Library

Posts related to the archives and rare books category

Silent no more. PBS’s “The Art Show” to feature Theda Bara, Archives & Rare Books and The Preservation Lab

Posted on by
theda bara

Theda Bara, born Theodosia Burr Goodman on July 29, 1885 to a local Jewish family, attended the University of Cincinnati from 1906-1908 before leaving to pursue an acting career. Bara became one of the biggest stars of the silent film era making 40 films between 1914 and 1926. Her femme fatale roles earned her the nickname “The Vamp.”

While most of the films Theda Bara starred in were destroyed in a studio fire, her name lives on at UC with the T. Everett Harré Manuscript on Theda Bara, which is housed in the Archives and Rare Books Library.

This weekend’s episode of CET and ThinkTV’s “The Art Show” will feature Theda Bara and the manuscript in Archives and Rare Books. View it Saturday, May 17 at 6pm on CET or Sunday, May 18 at 5:30pm on Dayton’s ThinkTV. It will also appear on the PBS App and is currently viewable on YouTube.

Included in the episode, Chris Harter, university archivist and head of the Archives and Rare Books Library, talks about the 450-page typewritten manuscript that documents Bara’s life. It was intended to be a memoir ghostwritten in collaboration with Bara, but was never published. Holly Prochaska, preservation librarian and head of the Preservation Lab, talks about how they worked to ensure that the manuscript and letters between Bara and Harré are protected and will remain available for study and research long into the future, thus cementing Theda Bara’s legacy.

chris harter being interviewed by CET

What’s a record?

Posted on by

Librarians, archivists, and records managers can say “record” to one another and know it means document, catalog record, three-dimensional object, or digital file. But this wide net can confuse those who create and manage records but do not consider them central to their jobs. Ask and they may reply “What’s a record?”

Credit: Pixabay

At the University of Cincinnati, a record, whether it’s created, received, or managed by university employees represents an action taken to complete a task. Many documents, paper or digital, can be considered records. But not all for various reasons. Records exist in many places, from filing cabinets to the cloud. Email is a curious case, being both a record and a means for transmitting them.

Record is a ubiquitous term that casts a wide net. Any confusion is understandable. But at UC, a record can be any document, device, or item, physical or digital, regardless of its purpose. Whatever its form or the purpose it was created for or received by UC, a record serves to document the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, and other activities at UC.

At the same time, not every document, device, or item constitutes a record. Examples include rough notes, drafts, or copies kept for reference which do not contain information requiring preservation or duplicate information found in documents deemed official records. Because they are not considered records, they may be discarded whenever the creator or user deems it appropriate.

Credit: Element5 Digital

Those that are records can be found in many locations. Physical ones include boxes, filing cabinets, and folders. Digital locations include computers, shared drives, databases, the cloud, and email servers.

But email as both a record and a location? The answer is yes. Those considered records contain information that falls under the campus-wide General Records and Retention Schedule (GRS), which determines how long records are retained. This does not mean that all emails constitute records. These typically include meeting reminders, courtesy copies, listserv notices, drafts, or a means to transmit documents (e.g. attachments or OneDrive links). They may be deleted.

The definition of a record at UC means that it documents an activity. Not all documents and items, physical or digital, are considered records. Those deemed records can be found in many places from filing cabinets to Teams. Emails serve as both records and means for transmitting them. With this knowledge, UC faculty and staff can exercise greater confidence in knowing what records are and are not and their uses.

Cincinnati organizations fighting for school desegregation

Posted on by

Last November, the University of Cincinnati Libraries announced the award of an Archives Grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to the Libraries’ Archives and Rare Books Library (ARB). This grant supports the archival processing of records related to the lawsuit Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati maintained by the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and donated to the University of Cincinnati in the 1980s.    

Before and during Bronson v. Board, there were several local organizations working towards education desegregation. These groups included committees, religious groups and nonprofits. The Cincinnati NAACP’s records related to the lawsuit include many examples of the different ways in which these organizations worked towards desegregation as seen in Community Notices, Exhibits, Research Materials and Attorney’s Work Files series housed within the Bronson v. Board records. Listed below are some of the different organizations and their impact.  

Continue reading →

So you want to learn about records management

Posted on by

The Archives & Rare Books Library is pleased to serve the University of Cincinnati with instruction in records management. With a student population of 53,000 and 12,000 employees, lots of records are created, received, managed, and destroyed or transferred at UC every day. The instruction gives employees the skills and knowledge to confidently manage records under their oversight. But what can they expect from instruction?

It starts with defining what a record is: any document, device, or item – physical or digital – that’s created by or received by UC to perform an action. That’s a broad definition but necessary with the many kinds of records on campus. At the same time, it’s just as important to know what is not a record: rough notes or drafts of official documents.

With these definitions, employees can better understand their responsibilities, starting with the four reasons for records management at UC: 1. Minimizing legal risk; 2. Reducing physical and digital storage costs; 3. Increasing administrative efficiency; 4. Preserving UC history. These help employees learn to create or receive records only as necessary to do their jobs and help others. But what about keeping or discarding records?

That involves the records retention schedules. They are a huge part of records management, determining how long records are kept. Most records at UC fall under the General Records Schedule. The GRS governs common business, administrative, and education records. Most areas of UC use the GRS. Yet some units have highly specialized records and therefore use unique retention schedules. Training helps employees understand and navigate both.

With staff understanding what records are, their responsibilities, and the retention schedules, they are ready to learn about destruction and transfer of records. Some records lose their usefulness with time and require destruction. But any destruction is documented on a form. Other records retain their usefulness and are transferred to University Archives.

To learn more about records management at UC, please contact the Records Manager to schedule a training for your unit (kirkwojp@ucmail.uc.edu or 513-556-1958. Training typically lasts one hour with a presentation and Q&A after. Specialized topics require more notice and preparation.

The role of housing in the Bronson v. Board case 

Posted on by

Last November, the University of Cincinnati Libraries announced the award of an Archives Grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to the Libraries’ Archives and Rare Books Library (ARB). This grant supports the archival processing of records related to the lawsuit Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati maintained by the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and donated to the University of Cincinnati in the 1980s.   

Continue reading →

Read Source, the online newsletter, to learn about the news, events, people and happenings in UC Libraries.

Posted on by
source

Read Source, the online newsletter, to learn about the news, events, people and happenings in UC Libraries.

In this issue of Source, Liz Kiscaden, dean and university librarian, writes about how UC Libraries is taking advantage of funding opportunities to Invest in Strategic Priorities. The Archives and Rare Books Library announces receipt of a national grant to process historic Cincinnati schools desegregation case records.The Carl Solway Gallery Archive in the Robert A. Deshon and Karl J. Schlachter Library for Design, Architecture, Art and Planning (DAAP) Library is featured. Ted Baldwin, head of the Sciences Libraries, writes about how the razing of the iconic Crosley Tower will necessitate the move of the current Chemistry-Biology Library space to Braunstein Hall where it will merge with the Geology-Mathematics-Physics Library to become the Science Library opening fall semester.

Beginning in 2025, the Preservation Lab expanded its mission to provide expertise and services to the larger cultural heritage community, moving to a regional lab model. Under this new model, the Preservation Lab is now entirely managed, staffed and equipped by the University of Cincinnati. Two articles: Re-introducing the Preservation Lab and Exploring Historical Bindings: A Hands-On Workshop at UC’s Archives and Rare Books Library celebrate the Preservation Lab. Open Access publishing opportunities are discussed in this issue and upcoming Library Events are listed.

Read these articles, as well as past issues, on the website. To receive Source via e-mail, contact melissa.norris@uc.edu to be added to the mailing list.

Come Get Some Ink on Your Hands at a Cheap Copies! Workshop

Posted on by

Before social media, even before xerox-copied zines and flyers, marginalized communities used simple copying techniques- hectography (gelatin printing) mimeography (stencil printing) and spirit duplication (alcohol transfers, also known as “ditto”)- to make their voices heard. From political activists struggling for independence in India to the early gay rights activists in New York City, and from the dissident writers of Samizdat (self publishing) in the Soviet Union to the striking migrant farm workers of Southern California, these analog copiers were used to spread the word through words and pictures in the 20th century.

Each year, librarian, zinester and lover of “arcane technologies” Rich Dana sets out across the US on a series of in-person workshops to demonstrate these low-cost techniques and how contemporary artists and writers can use them to publish editions of zines, chapbooks, prints, and flyers. The Archives and Rare Books Library and the Elliston Poetry Room are sponsoring Rich’s Cincinnati stop of his Obsolete Roadshow series on April 7, 2025.

Rich will present a hands-on workshop for UC students in the morning (sign up online or via the QR code below; space is limited to 25). In the afternoon, the public is invited to hear Rich talk about the history and use of the technologies and receive a hands-on experience, as well.

Both events will take place in the Elliston Poetry Room (Langsam Library 646). Come join us and get some ink on your hands!

rich dana workshop flyer

Meet the notable and expert witnesses of Bronson v. Board of Education 

Posted on by
Image of document titled report to the court re: deposition of plaintiffs expert witnesses. Lists names of witnesses deposed in April of unknown year. April 1 is Dr. Robert Green. April 15, 18 and 24 is Mr. William Lamson. April 21 is Dr. Gordon Foster. April 25 is Dr. Karl Taeuber. The second part of the document lists so far the number of days each witness was deposed. Mr. Martin Sloane one day. Dr. Karl Taeuber, Dr. Robert Green and Dr. Gordon Forster each two days. Mr. William Lamson six days. The document finishes with a note that Mr. Sloane and Dr. Taeuber are about finished with their depositions and how long extra the rest will need. Dr. Green one additional day. Dr. Foster and Mr. Lamson both four additional days.

Last November, the University of Cincinnati Libraries announced the award of an Archives Grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to the Libraries’ Archives and Rare Books Library (ARB). This grant supports the archival processing of records related to the lawsuit Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati maintained by the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and donated to the University of Cincinnati in the 1980s.   

All achievements and accomplishments of the witnesses listed are current as of 1979, the year that the witnesses began giving depositions. 

A black and white photograph of Theodore Berry sitting at his desk in a suit and glasses. He has a corded telephone up to his left ear and is smiling into the camera. He is holding a pen to a piece of paper in his right hand.

Theodore Berry (1905-2000) 

Continue reading →

Black History Month spotlight: Marian Spencer  

Posted on by

Our final spotlight of Black History Month is a well-known figure in Cincinnati’s history of civil rights and activism, Marian Spencer. Born in Gallipolis, Ohio in 1920, Marian Alexander was a graduate of Gallia Academy and went on to study English literature at the University of Cincinnati. During her time at the university, she was involved in campus life and was an active member of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. While here, she also met her husband, Donald Spencer. After college, the couple settled down and had two sons, Donald and Edward. 

"Every child should at least have a chance to get a good education."

Spencer’s sons were actually what sparked her passion for civil rights and equality. When the boys were young, they wanted to go to an event at Coney Island Amusement Park but were disappointed when they showed up and were escorted out because it was a segregated event. Spencer, along with 28 other witnesses filed a lawsuit and won the case to desegregate the park.  

Following this event, Spencer dedicated herself to fighting for civil rights and equality in the Cincinnati area. She spent time as the NAACP Cincinnati Chapter president, served on Cincinnati’s City Council and was a representative of Ohio’s Democratic Party at a national level. Even more than this, Spencer was passionate about equality in education and played a pivotal role in the 1974 Bronson case, which was a catalyst in desegregating Cincinnati Public Schools. Other organizations Spencer worked with include Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Planned Parenthood, Cincinnati Human Services Task Force and the U.S. Civil Rights Commission Ohio Advisory Board.  

You might recognize Marian Spencer’s name by the street that’s named after her downtown, the dormitory that’s named after her or perhaps by her well-known scholarship here at UC. To learn more about Marian Spencer’s life and work, visit the digital exhibit: 

Home

To see the full collection of Marian and Donald Spencer Papers, visit the University Archives at UC’s Archives and Rare Books Library.  

Bronson v. Board of Education Case Timeline 

Posted on by

Last November, the University of Cincinnati Libraries announced the award of an Archives Grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission to the Libraries’ Archives and Rare Books Library (ARB). This grant supports the archival processing of records related to the lawsuit Bronson v. Board of Education of the City School District of the City of Cincinnati maintained by the local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and donated to the University of Cincinnati in the 1980s. 

For the continuing blog series on this project, project archivist Julianna Witt provides a timeline of events from the filing of the case in 1974 to its settlement nearly a decade later.

May 29, 1974 

Bronson v. Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati is filed on behalf of Mona Bronson, and other school children by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to address racial isolation in Cincinnati’s public schools. The lawsuit is filed against the Cincinnati Board of Education, Ohio State Board of Education, State Superintendent, Attorney General, and Governor.  

January 30, 1975 

The affirmative defense opinion by Judge David S. Porter of the District Court is declared. Judge Porter raises the question whether the decision in the earlier Cincinnati desegregation case Deal v. Board of Education is still viable in the 10 years since the decision and if the same matters can be re-litigated. Judge Porter finds that the decision in Deal v. Board is still acceptable, and the doctrine of res judicata is acknowledged. This doctrine prevents the plaintiffs from relitigating arguments prior to the July 1965 Deal v. Board decision.  

April 23, 1975 

The plaintiffs file an appeal that transferred the case to the Sixth Circuit Court. Judge C.J. Lively and Judge Harry Phillips find that res judicata does not apply and instead collateral estoppel, which is the least strict of the two re-litigation doctrines. They introduce the fact that this does not prevent the plaintiffs from bringing forth post-July1965 evidence that occurred after Deal v. Board. Pre-Deal v. Board evidence can also be offered, however, only if the evidence is introduced on behalf of children born or not of school age as of July 1965 as long as it does not contradict earlier arguments. A rehearing of the appeal is denied, and the case is returned to the District Court.   

June 27, 1980 

Judge Porter retires and the case is transferred to Judge Walter H. Rice. Judge Rice issues “Entry Setting Forth This Court’s Interpretation of Sixth Circuit Opinion in Bronson v. Board of Education” which asserts Judge Porter’s affirmative defense opinion.  

October 14, 1980 

The plaintiffs file a response memorandum with the court that introduces the dual school system theory which was argued in two United States Supreme Court cases, Dayton Board of Education v. Brinkman and Columbus Board of Education v. Penick. Both cases ended in 1979 and evidence in both found that in the Cincinnati schools, dual school systems were existent in May 1954, the date of the Brown v. Board decision. Since this was not discussed in Deal v. Board, the plaintiffs maintain that the case does not have to follow collateral estoppel completely.  

February 11, 1982 

Judge Rice decides collateral estoppel is still in effect as there is not sufficient evidence to suggest that Cincinnati schools had a dual school system but enough reasoning to consider if evidence is brought forth. The plaintiffs cannot relitigate the exact arguments that were discussed in Deal v. Board. However, they do not have any restrictions when it comes to pre- or post-July 1965 evidence that was declared in 1975 and 1980. 

December 19, 1983 

Judge Rice accepts the suburban school districts’ motion for summary judgement and dismisses them from the case. In the court pleadings, Judge Rice explains the reason for dismissal as the plaintiffs were unable to produce sufficient evidence to find the suburban school districts guilty of unlawful segregation. Cincinnati Board of Education and the State defendants have not been excused.  

April 6, 1984 

A settlement is reached and agreed by both sides without going to trial. This does not include the suburban school district defendants, as they were dismissed. The matters of the settlement include: 

  1. The Cincinnati Board of Education has seven years to reduce the current Taeuber Index of Dissimilarity score by 17 points. This index measures racial composition within a school compared to the district. 
  1. The Board can decide how they will reduce racial isolation. However, they must claim responsibility to achieve the target Taeuber Index score. 
  1. The State will provide financial assistance for efforts in reducing racial isolation with some restrictions. 
  1. A committee will meet yearly to review the district’s progress. 

This project has been made possible in part by grant RH-104772-24 from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission (NHPRC). Any views, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this blog post do not necessarily represent those of the NHPRC.