 Good evening, everyone. My name is Sangwon Kim. I'm an associate professor at the Catholic University of America's Department of Library and Information Science. On behalf of the symposium and colloquium committee consisting of me, Dr. Jane Jang and Dr. Suyeon Sin and the Department of Library and Information Science. I'd like to welcome everyone here to our sister Thea Baumann lecture series on social justice library information science. And this is our third lecture event and it will be delivered by Dr. Beth Patton. And we are so pleased to see you all here today. After my introduction, we will have about 45 minute lecture by Dr. Patton, right? And which will be followed by questions and answers for about 30 minutes. And you all are in listen only mode. So if you have any questions for our speaker here, please type them in Q&A tab below. You can see the Q&A tab below. And our graduate assistant, Lea Valenti will be keeping track of questions and Dr. Patton will answer them after her lecture. And you can also leave general comments using the chat tab. Let me introduce today's speaker, Dr. Beth Patton. Dr. Patton is a system professor at Syracuse University School of Information Studies. And her research focuses on the equity of information, particularly about crisis informatics and cultural competence. Currently, she is working on very interesting projects about epistemicide libraries during crisis and disaster and these are humanities and the severe rights movement. Today, Dr. Patton will share her lecture titled the ethics of epistemic justice addressing epistemicide through social justice in LIS. Please welcome Dr. Beth Patton. Thank you so much for that introduction. I'm really grateful to be here. And I really appreciate everybody taking their time out today and and being here with me for this presentation. So first I want to acknowledge with respect the Onondaga Nation firekeepers of the Haudenosaunee, the indigenous people whose unseated ancestral lands is where Syracuse is today. Acknowledging the land is an important first step towards reconciliation to help build respectful relationships. It's important because it honors the authentic history of Syracuse, its original people and begins to correct a narrative that has historically excluded them. Before I get started, I wanted to give a special thanks to Catholic University of America to invite me here and especially their Department of Library and Information Science. Thank you, Dr. Kim Jang and Sin for selecting me on the selection committee. I really am very honored by this. Thank you, Dr. Chancellor. I want to give a shout out to all of the scholars who have been doing this work in our field and that I get to do this work because of all of their hard work and building upon that. A special thanks to my co-authors, Dr. Sebastian Junion, Danielle Bertolini and Alexandra Grimm, and of course to the Library Information Investigative Team, my research group at Syracuse who has sat with me and listened to me ramble since this work was just a kind of feeling that I had. I didn't know where it was going to take me. So, before I get started, I just kind of wanted to acknowledge, you know, my connection with Sister Thea Bowman. The more I got to read about her, the more I was really honored to give this lecture. Even if you know me, you probably don't know that I was born at a Catholic school that I went to a Catholic elementary school, a Catholic high school, Catholic college, and when I graduated with my Master's of Library Information Science, I also became a school librarian at a Catholic school in New Orleans. So, like Sister Thea, Thea, I was teaching kids in New Orleans before I left to go get my PhD, and now I find myself in the position of teaching my colleagues and future library students about oppression and race, which, you know, really mimics some of the work that Sister Thea was able to do while she was here with us. So, to my talk, the ethics of epistemic justice addressing epistemicide through social justice and LIS. Most of us as librarians have thought about, we talk about this question, and this question is always centered in my work. When our communities need us, how can libraries help? We also need to be asking ourselves these questions. When our communities need us, how can libraries harm? I think without having this critical examination of how we both help and how we harm communities, we are not doing the job that we could be doing to support them in their times of need. So the outline for my talk today is to introduce you to the concepts of epistemic injustice and give you a couple of examples of the different types. I want to introduce the concept of epistemicide. I want to describe the harms occurring because of these injustices. I want to explicitly spend some time explaining why this is really important for us in LIS and academia. It's really important for all of us to be thinking about this, but especially for us in this field, because we task ourselves with the organization and preservation of everybody's knowledge, not just our own. And this makes it a really important issue for us in our field. And then finally I want to leave us by discussing some justice oriented solutions. And after that I'm happy to answer any questions. So I realized in all the times that I've been talking about this before I didn't start with a definition of epistemology, and it's probably really appropriate. What I really want us to think about right is that epistemology is how we know what we know. It's the things that let us know that what is valid and what is true. This really involves our different worldviews, our different experiences, the different resources we've been exposed to. So just really simply epistemology is how we know what we know. Epistemic injustice was a coin given to us by Miranda Fricker in 2007, and she defines this term as the wrong done to someone, specifically in their capacity as a knower. So as we're going through this process of figuring out what we know, and building upon that, how can people be wronged in that process. I think one of the things that's really important for us to think about is that these injustices suppress the epistemic agency of some members of a group. While elevating that of others, thus producing a privileged and a derogated category of knowers, right. If we think about the ways we understand racism and oppression and how some folks benefit from this and some people are held back from this. This concept is very similar to that. Some people's epistemologies are upheld within our educational systems and through the ways we practice library and information science, and other communities are harmed by the way we practice. So I've told named two kinds of of injustices testimonial hermeneutical other scholars have come along and talked about participatory and curricular. And so these are the types of epistemic injustices that I've been focusing on thus far in my work. So testimonial injustice is when a prejudice causes a hear to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker's word. I just want to point out that here and speaker are in italics because those are Fricker's words. When I write about this, I try to use a more inclusive term like sender and receiver, and I'll do my best to remember that today while I'm talking. For example, Fricker gives us and is in our in her book is about Tom Robinson into kill a mockingbird. And, you know what we really want to take away from that is understanding that even though Tom Robinson was a well liked person and was telling the truth. Because of prejudice against who he was the jury couldn't believe him. So this cartoon and its explanation because I think so many of us have experienced this type of testimonial injustice, where the point you made the information you gave was valid, but because you didn't have enough credibility. Those other folks in the room couldn't receive it. Excellent suggestion Mrs Triggs, perhaps one of the men in here would like to make it. I think this is perfect because it really highlights that the value of the suggestion is good right the suggestion is excellent, but it needs to come from somebody else. That's testimonial injustice, when we are speaking our truths and other people dismiss that. So hermeneutical injustice is a gap in collective interpretive resources, creating a barrier for someone who is trying to make sense of their social experiences, or that of their peers. And I think I think the second part is really important for us to think about as library librarians and educators, we can't just know what we know. We need to understand other communities ways of knowing to, if we're going to be good advisors, if we're going to be good mentors, we need to be able to understand their experiences, their previous world views as well. For example, Fricker gives in her book is is the Anita Hill testimony, and the idea about the term sexual harassment for generations women knew what sexual harassment was in the workplace, but didn't have language to discuss it, and certainly didn't have laws to hold folks accountable. So after this became a concept that we all understood and had a name for more people were able to step up and defend themselves when they found themselves in these experiences. We also look more recently to the me to movement levy and Matt's and tell us that in every country in the in almost every country in the world, we saw an increase in reporting of sexual assaults and sexually related crimes. After the me to movement started, when we give things language, we're able to discuss it, understand it, study it, and start to make a sense of other people's perspectives and worldviews. What we see in history and justice is the exclusion of one's participation in their own epistemological development. And this includes dismissive behavior such as keeping someone out of the loop. We can think about situations like that my grandfather was in when he was trying to get an education. He wanted to be a doctor, but there was nowhere in the state of Alabama where he could earn a medical degree. He wanted to go to another state to study. And even after learning earning his medical degree when he came back to Alabama he couldn't sit in the same room as the other doctors during their professional developments. So that completely being removed from educational systems is part of this participatory injustice. But so is the so are those dismissive behaviors, where we're keeping somebody just out. You know, out to the side or something like that. A great modern day example for us is that UT Austin in 2013 their computer science department created an algorithm called grade, which would help make decisions about who got into the PhD program. So it also makes decisions about who doesn't get into the PhD program. And this year their department decided to abandon it. I think it's really important for us to think about like what human traits are we missing what characteristics are we missing when we allow a computer algorithm to decide who is worthy of getting a PhD or not. And there were certain characteristics where if you graduated from an HBCU, or other other types of institutions, folks were getting marked down. And so just thinking about how many scholars got kept out of this institution, because we relied upon an algorithm to decide who was worthy of studying here. Curricular injustice happens when physical resources are not available to help support epistemic growth and or are used to suppress and eliminate the creation of rival and alternative knowledges. Carter G. Woodson has been telling us since 1933 that we have not only miseducated the Negro, but also all of the rest of us. He tells us that, you know, we only talk about black folks in relation to slavery. And, you know, immediately after slavery, we, and now we talk about them during the civil rights movement. And in that same vein, we don't talk about Africans early advancements of science or to literature. And so what does it mean for us to continue to keep these kinds of epistemologies the epistemologies that are coming from indigenous communities, from the black community, from the queer community. What does it mean for us when all of these other ways of knowing are always an elective, while Western white epistemologies are always core curriculum. Yacovone at Harvard has been doing a study and he's been looking back to the next 1700s about how textbooks have taught white supremacy. I think a better name for this article is our teaching white supremacy. I think we would be, you know, naive to think that this has stopped. I mean, how do our textbooks by changing our stories by racing these stories, and by privileging some ways of knowing over others, how did they contribute to this epistemicide. So, those are the four types of epistemic injustices, testimonial hermeneutical participatory and curricular. These injustices are persistent. And often if you are in a community or, you know, often if you experience one of these injustices, it's likely that you will experience another one. And in my mind, if we don't correct in my mind and in this framework, if we don't correct these injustices when they happen, they can lead to an epistemicide. Epistemicide happens when several epistemic injustices occur collectively and reflects a structured and systemic oppression of particular ways of knowing. Epistemicide is defined as the killing, silencing, annihilation, or devaluing of a knowledge system. And this work is coming from this term specifically is coming from Santos's work. In 2009, where he wrote epistemologies of the south justice against epistemicide, and he recently published another book about epistemologies from the south called knowledge is born in the struggle. And, and I think it's really important to highlight this work is coming from that space. Here are some examples of epistemicide. We can think about the knowledge and the epistemologies that were lost through the trans transatlantic slave trade. We can think about in Salem, Massachusetts when women were murdered for being witches, but really they were murdered for women's ways of knowing. Back to Indian residential schools both here in the United States and in Canada, where their goal was to kill the Indian and save the man that quote maybe more than any other really hallmarks for me, what it means to try to move, move somebody's cultural experiences and especially their epistemologies and separate them from their cultures and understandings. We can look back to Nazi Germany where many books were burned, especially books about queer communities, any book that was deemed on German faced the threat of being destroyed. We can look down to the southern border at the United States and think about how are we perpetuating this now with family separation acts. And I think it's important for us to think about, you know, the 1776 report that was commissioned by our last president, and thinking about this kind of attack we're seeing now in critical race theory, where the book that has a black character, or that is focusing on, you know, the history of racism is being challenged and challenged in schools across the country. I thought about trying to start naming some but you know that would honestly take up the rest of my time we see this happening across the country. And from page 36, you know, in the 1960s and even more radicalized challenge has emerged this newer challenge arrived under the feel good names of liberation and social justice. Instead of offering a comprehensive unifying story, these ideological approaches diminish our shared history and disunite the country by setting certain communities against others. So bold to try to pretend that we have historically had a unifying human story. When I really want us to make sure that we are thinking about how do we make sure how do we protect how do we preserve these stories and these authors in our libraries and our institutions across the country, especially right now and so many of them are being threatened. I think this important for us in LIS and academia. I love this quote by Dr. Bab, the uncomfortable truth is when racially minoritized women speak out about their mental health, they are less likely to be believed than their non racialized counterparts. Many women of color we can think about Serena Williams. I've had my own experiences where when I tried to provide testimony about how I felt, both in academic spaces but also at my doctor's office, where my testimony and my knowledge about my own body was dismissed. In 2007, we understood in the science community that dark skin decreased the act accuracy of pulse oxymeters. You know the same devices right that we use during coven to decide how to escalate and treat patients that are coming to us in our hospitals. This was the black woman's third trip to the emergency apartment. And she was feeling short of breath. She was starting to panic. She knew the coven 19 death toll was climbing, and that it was far worse for black people than white people. And yet, the doctors told her to go home again. But this time she pleaded. If you all don't admit me to the hospital, I'm going to die. I can't breathe. This is not the only time we've heard the black community saying that in the recent years. We can think about Gary Fowler, a 56 year old man, Deshaun Taylor, a 23 year old man, Reginald Ralph, 50 years old, and Kamora Lynam, nine years old, who all went to different medical centers, who all gave testimony about how they felt, and all who were turned away from receiving care. And they all died soon after. So, even though we know as folks who design medical informatics equipment, even though we are participating in spreading information about coven about health care, health and medical informatics is a huge part of our field. Even though we've known for almost 20 years that these devices don't work as well for black people. When we look at websites provided by the state to to share information and that, you know, should be working against misinformation, nowhere on here does it warn doctors, or patients that they're reading might be wrong. What does this mean for us as people who should be sharing information that this entire community, and how their experience of this device is completely missed from from this type of literature. I think it's, it's, it's, it's really important for us to consider this when we are compiling resources that focus on health information to make sure that information is covering all of our communities, and not just centering some. If we look to who is going to college in the United States college students right now are twice as likely as faculty to be black, and four times as likely to be Hispanic. So we see a huge gap in racial disparity between our students and our faculty. So why is this a hermeneutical injustice. This is a hermeneutical injustice because as the students come into our universities and come into our spaces. Our faculty, our librarians are not trained, nor prepared for how to support and uplift these other ways of knowing. This is something we have to fix. I'm talking about participatory injustice. This article that I wrote that's about injustice that's about oppression and I wrote for librarians and academics lives behind a paywall. So how do I work towards justice and equity, knowing that it's going to cost you $14 to read this. What does that mean for librarians and, and members of the community that don't have access to this this information is just not available for them. I think we see this in play when we think about publication counts, when we think about citation counts, when we think about the H index and journal impact. All of these processes of publishing within academia have different experiences of gatekeeping. And if you have ever submitted anything that is anywhere closely related to diversity and inclusion equity about race. You have gotten back reviews that demonstrate how underprepared we are as a field to critique and review this type of work. And so what we see is this work getting silence to journals that are specifically focusing on these topics, and it's much harder for scholars that are doing this work to make it into some of the top tier journals, because they don't have the reviewers to look at it. So we can look at curriculum and justice, the archives department in this archive the department of archives and history in the state of Alabama came out last summer in 2020 after the murder of George Floyd, and, and put out a statement of commitment. They said that they had intentionally been collecting the history of Confederate Alabama, while also intentionally neglecting the history of black Alabama. And we can look to the library in Virginia, where former Governor Doug Wilders papers have not been processed yet and are not available in the state library. Right assessors papers are starting to get filed. Everybody before him's papers have been processed and are available, the people after him, their papers are processed and available. So, we are to understand that the only black governor of Virginia, his papers are cataloged and are not available. For what reason, how did this happen. How are we graduating folks that are going out into libraries and archives, and making these kinds of decisions. In 1963, my father was the first black man in Alabama to desegregate schools. And if you go to the Department of Archives and history in that state and you search for my dad, only one result comes back. This means this is what's available for all of our students in the state of Alabama, when they go to our repository, that should be the collective history of our state. How is it okay, as an archive, that this is the information available about one of our, you know, important pieces of history. How is this possible. So, Fricker told us that these things are bad, obviously, but they also produce harm, and these harms can be felt at the individual level and she also said they could be experienced by the collective. But I also think they can be experienced in the future. And when I think about these harms, I really think about them as a metaphor of like a pebble hitting a body of water, and that kind of ever expanding ring. So, the primary harm happens to the individual. And it can create a literal loss of knowledge. This is that exact moment when someone experiences an epistemic injustice. Imagine being a new faculty member and coming into an institution and then being told to not do any diversity work. Right. And at that moment, that new professor starts questioning the validity of their work, if they should be in this space. And it probably acts as a chilling effect that makes them less likely to speak up. Now, not only is that faculty member hurt, but their society that they are a part of is missing out on a chance for them to speak out in a space where if their research, if their ways of knowing had been supported in the first place, we could expect scholars to come into our spaces and immediately start making impact. Instead, our larger community is missing out on this. I think it's also exponential in its harm. If academia and education is really that like standing on the shoulders of giants. If I'm supposed to be building on the work that happened before me. How many times have we kept people's voices out of our spaces because we didn't understand their work, or because they were too different than us. And my concept of the third harm really tries to get at this collective loss that's like impossible for us to quantify, but it is possible for us to imagine the violence of erasing knowing that's inflicted upon one generation will certainly impact the next. It's really hard for us to recognize, especially when we come at this as librarians and information sciences from a place of beneficence, right. We think we are making these gatekeeping decisions about what books we should collect, what programs we should run, what work we should let into journal articles, and we are literally gatekeeping information and deciding what we should know and what is worthy of Andres in 2018 describes all about how information systems reinforce trauma through practice and emphasizes the importance of finding language to express what is happening in academia to create resistance. When I think about my first feeling of like not understanding what kind of oppression was happening in the spaces I was in. I've really found power in being able to lay out epistemic injustice and epistemic side as some of the things that I've been experiencing throughout my educational careers. And it is terrible and wonderful to hear so many other people who have been in that position, who can like, you know, understand this feeling of their ways of knowing being suppressed. When we think about critical feminist conceptualizations of ethics. It is always asking us to think, take action and reflect right to oversimplication but like thinking about theory, practicing it in action and being reflexive about what we do. It is critical that we examine how our particular Western LIS norms, such as cataloging, classification, readers advisory, and even reference service can derive from the best of intention, but still may annihilate ways of knowing. So how do we move towards justice. One of the first things that I want to point out is that we have to intervene at that first moment of primary harm. It takes bravery. It takes risk to do this in the moment, you cannot let these moments passed by, because we can't fix third harm. What happened in the past, if we lose our ancestors and we did not preserve their work. If we have not, you know, collected and preserve those materials, they're gone. We can't ever go back and fix that. And so this is something that we have to address immediately when it happens. One of the things that we can do is make sure that we are amplifying voices, not giving people voices, right. We have voices, but making sure that we are amplifying the voices that are in our space. When your community members speak up, believe them. To kind of break this down and these are not all of the testimonial injustices that people can face in our libraries and in academia. These are not all of the solutions, but these are some. So, thinking about disregarding somebody's capacity as a knower, when we devalue research about minorities or minoritized communities, when we invalidate the authority of a person of color who's a faculty member. When we silence objections against injustice. And when we discredit faculty of color, faculty with accents women in student evaluations, if we don't think about the ways people dismiss this kind of work in student evaluations, we're doing our community a disservice. So some of the things that we can do believe your community members when they share their experiences, work towards amplifying and re-centering their voices, and the work that's happening in your different communities. And I think probably most important for all of us, acknowledge when your own experience or your own knowledge is limited, and somebody else's experience may deserve more credibility. Right. This is the academic like have several seats. Take a moment when somebody else's experience has more credibility than yours. We cannot have all of the experiences. We cannot read all of the books. We cannot know all of the things we need to have humility and understand when what we know is not enough. If we look at hermeneutical injustices, Indigenous perspectives missing from our catalogs, right, this is a hermeneutical problem. We don't have the language within our controlled vocabularies within our subject headings to really serve Indigenous communities to the extent that we should be able to. So the solution to that is to create a thesaurus that supports the Indigenous communities epistemic power. And so if we look at the Mashantucket Piqua, thesaurus of American Indian terminology, we can see this method as a method to incorporate Indigenous perspectives into mainstream controlled vocabularies. It is critical that we think about how do we start adding these other voices, adding these other terminologies within our finding agents in the archives within our subject headings and within our controlled vocabularies. And I think, you know, so many schools use controlled vocabularies for research topics and to kind of focus, you know, what we study on. And when I got to Syracuse, there were no categories to talk about information equity to talk about community resilience to talk about epistemicide. So what does that mean for me as a scholar when I come into a place and there's no words to describe what I'm trying to get done. Permanent permenutical injustices lead to cultural taxation. And what I mean by that is if we don't have faculty and librarians that can support our students of color, our queer students, our students that are coming with different abilities, then the faculty members from those communities get taxed for understanding that rather than the communities that don't have enough knowledge. We often see people getting asked to do more diversity service to do more service across the board because we need someone that looks like you in this meeting we value your voice right but you get these requests all the time everywhere. There becomes I don't want to say a burden because right we love our students but there's an expectation and you know for me like I need to take care of the students that are coming after me right that's part of my journey and what I value. But we end up doing uneven mentoring, and we're often responsible for educating others when these topics around race and oppression come up. It becomes our responsibility to teach our colleagues and to teach our students what these things are, and, and we're called upon to do this work all the time. How do we fix this. One of the ways we can fix this is to make sure that concepts around and theories around race, gender and oppression are understood by all faculty staff and students that all of our librarians that all of our archivists are coming out of their educational programs, understanding this type of information. There's a lot, you know, I just shared Carter G Woodson's work from 1933. W Ed Du Bois was before him. There's at least 100 years of black epistemology work that we could be claiming and bringing into our LIS spaces, and yet it stays ignored. When I bring those theorists into my writing, I get asked to like say why these people are important. Nobody's ever asked me to like qualify Habermas or say why I'm using for cult nobody has ever done that. But every time I bring in a black theorist. I have to explain why I think that practicing citational justice is one of the ways that we can think about participatory justice. I also would love for us in academia and within libraries to explore open access, and for us to critically examine what biases we have against open access, and think about what it means for us to be creating work. Especially when we work for practitioners and talk about practitioners and study them that some of this work is unavailable to them. Some of the ways that this can happen discrimination in the tenure and promotion process, devaluing community and committee service. Like we ask people from other communities with different worldviews and worldviews that ask them to take care of their communities, and then we bring them into academia and then punish them for that. That's our fault. Right. That's why we're losing scholars of color. This is why we're losing librarians of color, because we don't ask them to come to our institutions. We ask them to change. We ask them to come into our institutions and have them change. We're never going to get to equity like that. Some solutions consider how journal impact might contribute to participatory justice. Think about the high cost of how the high cost of journals makes knowledge less accessible. We would collectively be reevaluating how we count the impact of community work. And I think that we all need to be working towards creating more diverse and more inclusive spaces, so that we're not burdening the members of racialized and marginalized communities. I'm using the curriculum. One of the ways I see us moving forward with this, this picture on the left is a picture of my dad and my grandfather, the moment where schools were actually desegregated in the state of Alabama. But looking towards local community archives like rocket city civil rights that is working in its own community to highlight preserve and share these histories and tell these stories. And if our state archives doesn't have this information, if our national archives doesn't have this information, who are the people in the community that are working hard to make sure this information is available for the next generation. When this happens, we lose a chance to learn from diverse knowledge systems. We don't have when this isn't part of our curriculum. We don't have the ability to have conversations about cultural competence. Everything has to be like diversity 101. And so we always spend this time arguing about semantics instead of thinking about actions and steps we can take next. One of the things I think we can do to start correcting this are conducting syllabus audits. Who are you having your students read. Who are you not having your students read. What books are you collecting in the library, what materials are you focusing on in the archive. What are you missing, whose voices are not represented. I think we need to be intentionally practicing citational justice to include missing voices from our work. I posit that we should move away from textbooks to make sure that we are diversifying the voices that we are putting in our classrooms. I mean this also like if you're doing story times, making sure the same voices aren't shared over and over again. And I think we really need to train the next generation of LIS students to identify and correct the gaps in their own curricular experiences. There's zero way in the two years we have them as LIS students that we are going to be able to fix their entire curricular experiences, but we can help them start to identify their gaps and start to be critical about the education they've received so that they can go ahead and make some of these adjustments that they need to to correct their own gaps so that they are not perpetuating these mistakes in their own communities. I want to share just a couple of resources that I think if you are trying to wrap your mind about some of the ways people experience injustice. If you want to read some real testimony from faculty of color that are in our field. Please look at the jealous July 2019 issue. There are many voices and many powerful testimonies about what it is like to be a faculty member of color within our space. I'd like to give a shout out to the International Journal of Information Diversity and Inclusion that is always focusing on these topics. And then also to knowledge justice a book that just came out fairly recently. It's, I think as far as I know one of the first books to really focus on critical race theory in LIS. It's an edited book and one of the chapters that I really like is by Stacy Collins that focuses on epistemic supremacy, and I think that idea of epistemic supremacy is really closely related to this work. So what's next for me and and my research team and doing the next step of this work. Well we finished a book, a book chapter on curriculum epistemic side within MLIS programs that will help faculty members reconsider their curriculums. We are finishing up a book chapter right now on anti blackness and epistemic side in libraries archives and museums. I think that these are the only epistemic injustices out there. I think there are probably others. So I want to spend some time trying to identify other ways we suppress people's ways of knowing. I want to understand more fully how epistemic side intersects with tenure and promotion. And finally I'd like to validate this conceptual framework through some more qualitative interviews and probably some quantitative surveys as well. So instead of summarize and wrap things up, you know, there's four kinds of epistemic injustices testimonial hermeneutical participatory and curricular, and if we don't interrupt them. It leads to epistemic side of references that I know you won't be able to see on the screen right now. So I'll skip through them but I'm happy to share them with y'all when you're ready.