SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Hi Al,

Just to be clear, my concern isn't about Emily Drabinski being honest or proudly calling herself a "Lesbian Marxist"-I think that was brilliant and entirely principled. That's the kind of transparency I respect.

What worries me is the ALA's current turn, where leadership seems to be taking advice to cozy up to Republicans, and Sam is signaling a personal political affiliation while representing the Association. That's a very different situation. Emily's self-identification was her own voice; Sam's partisan declaration is being made in the official capacity of ALA President, which risks making the Association itself appear politically partial.

So this isn't about silencing disclosure-it's about protecting the Association's credibility and neutrality in a politically fraught moment. Emily's "Lesbian Marxist" statement was brave and harmless; Sam's Republican signal is a strategic choice that could have real consequences for SRRT and ALA's broader mission.

-Mark

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Hi Al,

Just to be clear, my concern isn't about Emily Drabinski being honest or proudly calling herself a "Lesbian Marxist"-I think that was brilliant and entirely principled. That's the kind of transparency I respect.

What worries me is the ALA's current turn, where leadership seems to be taking advice to cozy up to Republicans, and Sam is signaling a personal political affiliation while representing the Association. That's a very different situation. Emily's self-identification was her own voice; Sam's partisan declaration is being made in the official capacity of ALA President, which risks making the Association itself appear politically partial.

So this isn't about silencing disclosure-it's about protecting the Association's credibility and neutrality in a politically fraught moment. Emily's "Lesbian Marxist" statement was brave and harmless; Sam's Republican signal is a strategic choice that could have real consequences for SRRT and ALA's broader mission.

-Mark

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Hi Al,

Just to be clear, my concern isn't about Emily Drabinski being honest or proudly calling herself a "Lesbian Marxist"-I think that was brilliant and entirely principled. That's the kind of transparency I respect.

What worries me is the ALA's current turn, where leadership seems to be taking advice to cozy up to Republicans, and Sam is signaling a personal political affiliation while representing the Association. That's a very different situation. Emily's self-identification was her own voice; Sam's partisan declaration is being made in the official capacity of ALA President, which risks making the Association itself appear politically partial.

So this isn't about silencing disclosure-it's about protecting the Association's credibility and neutrality in a politically fraught moment. Emily's "Lesbian Marxist" statement was brave and harmless; Sam's Republican signal is a strategic choice that could have real consequences for SRRT and ALA's broader mission.

-Mark

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

Al,

I want to emphasize that I'm completely on the same page with you.

 I share your desire for transparency and for principled leadership that reflects one's values. My concern about Sam and the ALA isn't about limiting disclosure or criticizing honesty-it's purely about how the Association presents itself publicly and the risks of signaling partisan alignment IN THE SENSE OF SUPPORTING ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES, while representing the organization.

So in terms of our core goals-advancing SRRT's mission, supporting leaders who act on their principles, and promoting open, values-driven leadership-we are entirely aligned. The distinction I've been making is only about context and institutional optics, not about your point on transparency or Emily's example.

MARK R

-Mark

Hi Al,

Just to be clear, my concern isn't about Emily Drabinski being honest or proudly calling herself a "Lesbian Marxist"-I think that was brilliant and entirely principled. That's the kind of transparency I respect.

What worries me is the ALA's current turn, where leadership seems to be taking advice to cozy up to Republicans, and Sam is signaling a personal political affiliation while representing the Association. That's a very different situation. Emily's self-identification was her own voice; Sam's partisan declaration is being made in the official capacity of ALA President, which risks making the Association itself appear politically partial.

So this isn't about silencing disclosure-it's about protecting the Association's credibility and neutrality in a politically fraught moment. Emily's "Lesbian Marxist" statement was brave and harmless; Sam's Republican signal is a strategic choice that could have real consequences for SRRT and ALA's broader mission.

-Mark

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

We did NOT elect a Republican ALA President. ON THE CONTRAY, she was defeated two-to-one!!

Al,

I want to emphasize that I'm completely on the same page with you.

 I share your desire for transparency and for principled leadership that reflects one's values. My concern about Sam and the ALA isn't about limiting disclosure or criticizing honesty-it's purely about how the Association presents itself publicly and the risks of signaling partisan alignment IN THE SENSE OF SUPPORTING ONE OF THE TWO MAJOR PARTIES, while representing the organization.

So in terms of our core goals-advancing SRRT's mission, supporting leaders who act on their principles, and promoting open, values-driven leadership-we are entirely aligned. The distinction I've been making is only about context and institutional optics, not about your point on transparency or Emily's example.

MARK R

-Mark

Hi Al,

Just to be clear, my concern isn't about Emily Drabinski being honest or proudly calling herself a "Lesbian Marxist"-I think that was brilliant and entirely principled. That's the kind of transparency I respect.

What worries me is the ALA's current turn, where leadership seems to be taking advice to cozy up to Republicans, and Sam is signaling a personal political affiliation while representing the Association. That's a very different situation. Emily's self-identification was her own voice; Sam's partisan declaration is being made in the official capacity of ALA President, which risks making the Association itself appear politically partial.

So this isn't about silencing disclosure-it's about protecting the Association's credibility and neutrality in a politically fraught moment. Emily's "Lesbian Marxist" statement was brave and harmless; Sam's Republican signal is a strategic choice that could have real consequences for SRRT and ALA's broader mission.

-Mark

Mary,

I completely agree. Emily Drabinski's experience shows how quickly and harshly someone can be attacked simply for being candid about their identity and politics-her unapologetic "Lesbian Marxist" moment on Election Day was treated as scandalous, when it really should have been celebrated for its honesty. The double standard is striking: the same space that punished her is now, it seems, encouraging leaders to wear their personal politics as a badge while representing the Association. I'm fully on board with drafting a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics separate from their official role-it seems both reasonable and essential if we want any semblance of fairness and credibility.

Mark R

Thanks, Mark and Rory, for your thoughtful replies! I totally agree that longer-term action is needed on behalf of ALA.

However, in the shorter term, I'd love to see us come together and insist that the ALA President not make personal political statements while representing the Association. Emily Drabinski was absolutely pilloried when her own personal politics got unfairly dragged into her presidency, so it strikes me as an extreme double standard that whatever consulting group is advising ALA leadership right now is recommending that Sam wield their own personal politics in hopes of currying favor. One thing we've (hopefully) learned from decades of history is that no amount of capitulation to authoritarian regimes is ever enough to satisfy them - we'll notice that we don't see the red states lining up to endorse ALA again now that we have an avowed Republican as our leader.

I'd be happy to help draft a statement asking ALA leadership to keep personal politics out of their ALA representation, for starters, if that might be a helpful direction to head in. I believe that's what Bernadine was hinting at in her comment on Sam's Facebook post as well. 

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:41 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Sorry! I used the wrong pronoun for Sam Helmick! My apologies .

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:39 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Rory, my old friend,

Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive response. I agree with you that the central issue is not Helmick as an individual, nor the fact of his party registration, but the larger question of whether ALA will continue to drift in a posture of accommodation while the conditions of democratic civil society-and of librarianship itself-are being directly attacked.

I completely share your view that the aim is not to alienate or exclude ALA members who identify as Republicans. The point is rather to recognize that the programmatic thrust of MAGA Republicanism-censorship mandates, book bans, attacks on educators and libraries-is incompatible with our core values as a profession. In this context, what matters is creating a strong current of resistance within ALA, one that insists the association take a more deliberate, forceful stand, and that forges common cause with other professional and civic bodies facing the same threats.

You're right that ALA's current stance is less a carefully reasoned choice than a kind of default somnolence-as though, to use your apt metaphor, the house were burning while the family remained asleep. That's why I think SRRT has a special responsibility to keep ringing the alarm, not as a matter of division but of solidarity-summoning members around the values that make librarianship possible.

I would very much support the idea of an "Afternoon of Social Justice" event to address these questions, provided it is framed not only as a discussion but as a call to action. The times demand more than quiet handwringing: they demand that ALA wake up and resist, together.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 05:23 PM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Original Message:
Sent: 8/25/2025 5:09:00 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: RE: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 04:01 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 25, 2025 03:40 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:56 PM
From: Mark Rosenzweig
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

------------------------------
Mark Rosenzweig

Original Message:
Sent: Aug 24, 2025 06:27 PM
From: Mary Moser
Subject: ALA President Sam Helmick - "as a Republican myself..."

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

------------------------------
Mary Moser
Associate University Librarian for Academic Engagement
University of Massachusetts Boston
------------------------------

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Al, 

Thank you for restating your 9 points. You know I've always valued your clarity in laying out how ALA has, step by step, abandoned democracy and social responsibility as guiding principles, and I agree that the trend you identify is deliberate, not accidental.

I also want to clear up one point of possible misunderstanding. I don't see this as a question of whether ALA "has members who affiliate with the Republican Party." Of course it does, and that in itself isn't the issue. My concern is that the president of ALA, in a government hearing, chose to identify herself as a Republican - as if that were part of her representative role. That is different from the free speech of an ordinary member. It situates the Association politically in a moment when the Republican Party is actively waging war on libraries, teachers, and intellectual freedom.

So my worry is not about "policing affiliation," but about how ALA leadership frames itself in the public arena, and what that signals about the Association's priorities and alliances at a time of intensifying crisis. If we let this pass without comment, we risk reinforcing the idea that the only political identity ALA leaders can comfortably claim is one aligned with the very forces attacking us.

That's why I raised it, even as I agree with you entirely that the deeper problem is ALA's deliberate drift into managerialism, enclosure, and silence about the broader political threats we face.

Best,

Mark

The challenge here goes beyond a single statement or individual; it's about ALA's broader posture in the face of a hostile political environment. We're seeing signals that leadership is defaulting to a non-confrontational, conciliatory approach-prioritizing "acceptable" appearances over resistance, even as the country faces a coordinated, aggressive right-wing takeover. That matters because it shapes what is considered legitimate dissent within the organization, and who is allowed to speak or act without being disciplined.

Practically, the next steps are about pushing SRRT and its allies to make principled, visible, and coordinated interventions. First, we need to document the pattern clearly: statements, policy choices, and inactions that reveal a reluctance to confront political encroachment. Then, we amplify awareness among members-through communications, forums, and coalition-building with other caucuses-making clear that this isn't an abstract concern but a direct threat to the values and autonomy of the association.

From there, we work within ALA structures to insist on accountability and course corrections. That could include resolutions, letters, or motions that call for transparency, explicit defense of intellectual freedom, and clear policies protecting the organization from political capture. Finally, we mobilize membership engagement: attending meetings, submitting statements, and applying consistent pressure so leadership knows that passivity is not acceptable.

The principle is simple: silence or conciliation in the face of organized political hostility is not neutral; it is a choice with real consequences. SRRT can-and must-act strategically to ensure that ALA lives up to its stated values, defends its members, and resists co-optation. I'd be glad to help draft, strategize, and coordinate these next steps to make them as effective as possible.

Yours,

Mark

Thanks so much, Mary! I really appreciate YOUR energy and commitment here-it makes all the difference.

The way forward begins with building a clear, shared understanding among SRRT members of what's at stake, both in principle and in concrete terms. From there, we need to elevate the issue within ALA in ways that combine rigor with accessibility: statements, posts, and conversations that trace what happened, why it matters, and how it conflicts with ALA's stated values.

The main point is that the appointment of a Republican ALA President who lost the election by two to one - because the winner, Ray Pun,  fell ill - was a choice. If she lost, by the way, I daresay it was in large part precisely because she was a Republican (although she didn't run on that or make it explicit) and official ALA thought that might be cool for a less "confrontational" resistance-based strategy ....

Obviously important is coalition-building around an explicit opposition to the authoritariansism embraced by the Republican Party.. SRRT could be a sper-head of that. Engaging other caucuses, interest groups, and committed members amplifies our voice and makes it clear that this isn't a niche concern but a membership-wide imperative. Through formal channels-resolutions, letters, or motions-we can insist on accountability, making explicit the course corrections we believe are necessary. At the same time, encouraging members to speak, participate in forums, and attend meetings ensures that our advocacy carries weight.

This is about sustained, principled, and practical action: principled in defending the values we claim to hold, practical in working strategically within ALA to demand real accountability. I'm happy to help draft, strategize, or push any of this forward.

In solidarity,

Mark R.

Thanks so much for the support and, as always, the eloquence, Mark! My question for you, as someone relatively new to SRRT, is what might the next steps look like here? How can we elevate this within ALA membership? What would a course correction look like, and how do we ask for it/demand it? I'm 100% on board - I'm just looking for productive next steps that I can help with!!

Mary, thank you for the clarity and courage of your message. What you describe is not just "concerning"-it is intolerable. For the President of the American Library Association to openly identify with the Republican Party at this historical moment is nothing less than aligning our profession with the very forces seeking its destruction. Let's name it plainly: this is not "reaching across the aisle," this is crossing over to the enemy camp.

The Republican Party today is not some abstract "other side." It is the political engine of book banning, censorship, criminalization of educators, dismantling of cultural institutions, and the direct targeting of LGBTQ+ and immigrant colleagues and patrons. It is the party of authoritarianism, and there is no neutrality when authoritarianism is on the rise. To affiliate oneself with that project while holding the highest office in our Association is a betrayal of our core values, our colleagues, and our communities.

We cannot allow this to pass as an individual "choice" or a personal idiosyncrasy. It is a political act, and it demands a political response. If ALA's leadership normalizes such an alignment, it sends a message to members and to the public that we are prepared to accommodate those who would destroy us. That is unacceptable.

What we need now is not appeasement, not "bipartisanship," not a fig leaf of ideological diversity-but resistance, solidarity, and fight. The library profession has always claimed to stand for intellectual freedom, access to information, and the defense of the vulnerable. Those principles are not compatible with Republican authoritarianism, and they cannot coexist with a President who openly affiliates with it.

The answer is not to cancel our memberships and retreat. The answer is to organize, to raise our voices, to demand accountability and a course correction from within. ALA belongs to us, not to its current leadership, and it is our responsibility to fight for its integrity. I say: let us refuse silence. Let us make this a line in the sand. Helmick cannot claim to represent us while standing with those who seek to destroy us.

Now is not the time to walk away. Now is the time to fight like hell-inside ALA, in SRRT, and wherever librarians gather. If we do not defend the soul of our Association now, it will be lost.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

I want to acknowledge and appreciate the courage it took to share this post. I also read Mark's post in the other thread, and I agree there are serious concerns when an ALA president publicly states their political affiliation while serving in an elected capacity.

I say this as someone who has served in a non-partisan elected position. I view ALA elected roles in the same way-non-partisan by nature, since the membership represents a wide and diverse range of perspectives. While individuals in such positions certainly hold personal political beliefs, that does not mean they should identify or align themselves politically in their official capacity.

I fully understand how Sam Helmick was appointed under our current bylaws, and I am not disputing that process. However, as ALA members, we should be concerned-and we should voice those concerns clearly-when a position that should remain non-partisan appears to be politicized.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.

Thank you Mary for sharing this information . I would also add that the current Republican administration fired the first Black female Librarian of Congress without justification. In my own community, I have watched Republican officials demonize and attack libraries and librarians. I agree that as the president of ALA leading with, "As a Republican" is inappropriate. 

Your voice on this matter is important, so I would ask that you reconsider leaving the organization. We need outspoken individuals who bring issues such as this to the attention to the membership. Thank you again!

Hi, everyone -

I'm curious if anyone else has run across this Facebook post or other instances in which ALA President Sam Helmick openly identifies as a Republican, possibly as a show of trying to "reach across the aisle" to an administration and a party that has actively:

• Dismantled the IMLS
• Systematically repressed historical truth in our nation's libraries and museums
• Led the charge in book bans, censorship, and attempted criminalization of librarians and teachers
• Destroyed decades of open access federal data
• Caused multiple states to "divest" from the ALA
• Made living and working in this country less safe for my LGBTQ+ and immigrant library colleagues and patrons 

Seeing this post and this statement absolutely shook me to my core. I grew up "Republican" in a red state, so I understand that in an ideal world there is a time and a place for ideological diversity. However, given that we are actively living through a rise of authoritarianism, I cannot place any faith in a leader of our association who openly aligns themself with a political party that is not just hostile, but also actively destructive to our profession's core values and and principles. Now is not the time for "both sides" and appeasement - now is the time to fight like hell, loudly, for the lifeblood of our profession, and I now have zero faith that Sam Helmick is the person who can do this for our association.

I will be canceling my membership, but I wanted to bring this here first, share my concerns, and see if there are any avenues we could possibly pursue as a group to voice our displeasure at our association President using their political affiliation as an attempted bargaining tool during a time when we have been cautioned, time and time again, against displaying any type of partisan activity or language lest we jeopardize our non-profit status.

I'm including here a screenshot of the post, as well as a link to the article the post references.