The International Literacy
Association!!??
Our Thoughts on a Name Change
An Op-Ed piece by
Jack Cassidy &
Evan Ortlieb
(IRA Board meetings
are open to all IRA members. Members can attend as observers but are usually
silent unless invited to comment by the Board. Few IRA members actually do
attend as observers. The IRA Special Interest Group, Specialized Literacy
Professionals fought for open Board meetings almost 20 years ago. One of the
authors of this piece did attend the recent Board meeting)
At the October 2013 Board meeting of the International
Reading Association (IRA), the Board of Directors of IRA voted to change the
name of the organization to the International Literacy Association and to
re-incorporate in Delaware. A temporary board for the ILA was elected; and the
process was begun. Discussion was relatively brief and only one board member
spoke against the change. For the final vote, nine voted for the change, one
member voted against it and one abstained; one board member was absent. We believe
this decision was too hasty, premature, and possibly wrong!
Some History
The
name, “International Reading Association,” was voted on by the founding members
of the organization fifty-nine years ago. Since then, the organization has
grown tremendously and has affiliated councils all over the US and around the
world. Many, if not most, of the affiliated state councils also have the word reading in the name (e.g. Keystone State
Reading Association, Diamond State Reading Association, California Reading Association,
etc.). Approximately, thirty years ago a motion was made before the IRA
Delegates Assembly to change the name to “International Literacy
Association.” The primary impetus for
that change came from some European and Canadian delegates who felt that the
initials “IRA” were too often associated with the outlawed and notorious Irish
Republican Army. The Delegates Assembly consisted of representatives from the
various state, local and provincial IRA affiliated councils as well as
representatives from national affiliates. This group was considered the
ultimate decision making body of IRA. The motion to change the name failed
overwhelmingly.
Times
have changed. Tensions in Ireland have cooled considerably; the IRA is no
longer the pariah it once was. The IRA Delegates
Assembly was eliminated in the last decade. Apparently, legally only a board
elected by the entire membership can make decisions about an organization. In
other words, the IRA Board, which is elected by the entire membership, can make
such a change. The relatively new bylaws of IRA identify the Board as the
official decision making body of the organization.
Pros and Cons for the Change of Name
At
the IRA Board meeting, the major reason for the change was that the term “literacy”
is more contemporary and is more reflective of the broader focus of the
association to include writing, speaking and the new literacies. Also, it was
mentioned that other organizations had changed their names. The National
Reading Conference (NRC) became the Literacy Research Association (LRA); the
College Reading Association became the Association for Literacy Education and
Research (ALER). In addition, it was suggested the name International Literacy
Association would be more attractive to “Gen X ers” and millennials, two groups
that have, heretofore, not been flocking to join IRA.
The
lone voice of dissent at the IRA Board meeting alluded to the long history of
the IRA and its name. The new name
might actually cause a decline in membership since no one would know anything
about the new organization. There would also be a cost in changing the name –
new logo’s, rebranding, massive PR efforts etc.
Also, mentioned was the fact that the name change could lead to changes
in the names of the premier journals (e.g. The
Reading Teacher, Reading Research Quarterly, etc.).
My Thoughts – Jack Cassidy
As a member of the “silent generation” (those born before WW
II), I think the Board assumed that that I would automatically be opposed to
such a name change. In fact, at the Board meeting, reference was made to the
fact that the “older’ IRA members might object, but younger members would
likely embrace such a change. More importantly, the new name would help attract
new members. However, since I now know that middle age ends at 75 (and since I
am years away from that milestone) I do not consider myself “older”. My
feelings are ambivalent. I can see the arguments both for and against the
change. Recently, when I helped found a
state organization, I argued for the name Texas Association for Literacy
Education (TALE). I also argued for the name change of the IRA Special Interest
Group, Specialized Reading Professionals
to Specialized Literacy Professionals;
however, neither of these groups had a 59 year history. Also, neither of these
groups, like ALER and LRA, had anywhere near the membership of IRA.
Ironically, one of the arguments against the name change 30
years ago was that the word literacy could
connote too narrow a focus. At that time, it was associated with the field of
adult literacy and IRA had a much wider audience. Today, the term literacy has developed into a catch-all
word for all kinds of knowledge – cultural literacy, media literacy, science
literacy, etc. Thus, teachers trained in
any area could thus be termed “literacy specialists,”
My Thoughts – Evan
Ortlieb
As a member of the millennial generation, the Board might
expect my opinion to be that of relief- that finally the IRA will be giving
adequate attention to other aspects of literacy not reflected by the term-
reading. Yet there are a number of reasons why I feel the International Reading
Association should and must maintain its original name during this critical
juncture. When I was first introduced to the field in 2005, I was told that I
had to go to the IRA conference because it was the mecca of all things in the
field; to this day, it retains that distinction to teachers and professors
alike.
This begs the question why change the name when it trumps
every other organization in the field. Just as with everything else in public
spheres, it seems the aim to be more inclusive and potentially not offend those
who value writing or other areas of literacy more than reading. Yet I am
offended at the change away from reading. Everyone who knows anything about the
field knows that the International Reading Association is more than just
reading; inclusive terms, though, can water down the appeal of the
organization. For instance, literacy, as it is currently defined, is somewhat
inclusive but not as inclusive as Language Arts or English. But those terms are
integral to other organizations, so naturally those would not make sense. What
about an even broader term like Education, or better yet, Learning? But that
might sound too cognitive? This never-ending
slope of inclusion is laden with problems as it no longer allows the field to
identify with an already established organization that has stood the test of
time.
Organizational focus changes in scope with what is hot and
what is not but no one felt the need to change the name to the International
Print and Digital Literacies Association several years ago when these topics
were in the limelight. Moreover, a name change does not correct the budgetary
difficulties of the last several years; in fact, it may signal another alarm
that change can compromise existing success (i.e., having the East and West IRA
conferences in the same year; having presentations heavily comprised of
publishing company representatives; and publishing articles on the periphery
instead of on effective reading instruction).
Call me old-fashioned, but why not let the members of the
organization have a say in what transpires? It may turn out that they like the
change and if so, then carry on. But its members may very well feel that
reading was their attraction to the organization in the first place; that they
love to teach children, adolescents, and adults to read; and that they will be
resistant again in ten years to another change in name when another term
becomes currently in fad.
We Agree
Both of us agree that the decision to change the name was
too hasty and premature. Although we have
great respect for the knowledge, diligence and integrity of the elected Board, IRA
has many stakeholders – members, publishers, prospective members, classroom
teachers, reading specialists, council members, etc.. All of these
constituencies should be allowed to comment. Indeed the Board should facilitate
forums where this input can take place. So, what should be done immediately – AN IRA
BOARD MEMBER WHO VOTED ON THE PREVAILING SIDE SHOULD MOVE RECONSIDERATION OF
THAT VOTE. HOPEFULLY, SUCH A MOTION WOULD BE SECONDED AND PASS. STAKEHOLDERS
WOULD THEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. That is our opinion.
(Jack Cassidy is a former IRA
President and Evan Ortlieb is senior lecturer at Monash University in
Australia. Both are members of the Executive Board of the Specialized Literacy Professionals)
