Archives and institutional memory (for lack of a better title)

I had an interesting conversation with a student who was researching public spaces on campus. Specifically, she was researching The Heart, a central place on campus that students use to respect and not walk on, taking detours if needed to get where they were going. Now everyone walks on it and it is not a sacred space. The student lamented this, and told me that through her research, and the research of other students in the class, she believed Earlham to be a better place in the past than it currently is. She believes that students were more into academic pursuits outside the classroom, more engaged, and more active in the organizations they founded. I found her perspective very interesting and confirmed that one of the best parts about working at Earlham is being able to interact closely with students.

But from an archives standpoint, I posed this question to her: if you are finding evidence that students were more interested in academic pursuits in the past, are all voices heard? Are the records accurate? In what sense are you taking your own wishes and needs and projecting them into the past? Because we might not have records that discuss students lack of engagement, is it easier to assume that they were engaged? On the other hand, we do have controversial issues files and some student organizational records that may suggest a troubled past in many areas, whether it be race relations or alcohol problems. How do we acknowledge that our archives are not close to complete, or tell the entire story of the school? How can we better capture the entire reality of campus life? Or do we focus on institutional memory through official records and assume people will capture the many other sides of life through their own photos, diaries, memories, and so on.

Just some ramblings during my evening reference shift.