I think comparing the 2022 resolution on libraries in Ukraine and the 2024 one calling for a ceasefire in Gaza is rather misleading. Of course the former would be uncontroversial in ALA, given that the US government is not supporting Russia's criminal aggression against Ukraine. The 2024 Gaza ceasefire resolution was highly controversial even in SRRT Action Council and of course even more in ALA Council, since it is an indictment of our own government's foreign policy of unconditional support for Israel.
The 2024 IRC "Resolution on Damage and Destruction of Libraries and other Cultural Institutions in Gaza" was fine as far as it went, and in fact I voted to endorse it as an Action Council member at the time. But the chances of ALA Council expanding that resolution to add a call for a ceasefire were only marginally better than the possibility that Council would adopt IRTF's ceasefire resolution as written, which is to say extremely unlikely.
We in IRTF are constantly being told that we must send our resolutions to the various standing committees (COL, IRC, IFC, etc.) to get their approval before Action Council can consider them. But when we do that, the response is either rejection or silence - seldom if ever an offer to work together. And this is not the way it has worked in the past, as one will learn from reading Elaine Harger's book Which Side Are You On? Seven Social Responsibility Debates in American Librarianship, 1990–2015. SRRT Action Council has always had the autonomy to pass resolutions on the issues it chooses and vote to forward them to Council. Only after it has voted on a resolution does it need to consult with standing committees, get their input and if possible endorsement of the resolution either as written or amended based on their input. Otherwise, Action Council would essentially be giving these committees de facto veto power over its every action. Unfortunately that is the way Tara seems to think it should be, but in fact the SRRT Councillor is elected to represent SRRT to ALA Council, not to represent ALA Council to SRRT.
Also, just to correct the record, there was no "vicious rumor that SRRT action council had already voted for the resolution to be introduced at ALA Council and [Tara] was unilaterally refusing to do so". The complaint was simply that even before Action Council voted not to forward the resolution to Council, Tara was declaring her refusal to introduce it at Council even if Action Council did vote to forward it, which in fact they did not. Whether they would have been more inclined to forward the resolution to Council if the SRRT Councillor had not been so vehemently opposed, I guess we'll never know.
So yes, once Action Council had decided not to forward the Gaza ceasefire resolution to Council, given that there were members of ALA Council interested in introducing a resolution actually calling for a ceasefire and not just in defense of libraries and other cultural institutions, IRTF passed the ceasefire resolution along to them. What these Councillors introduced at Council was not exactly the same resolution; it was substantially rewritten by them, but in the same spirit. And of course it failed by a very wide margin at Council in January 2024. I still think it was better to have at least presented Council with that resolution, because otherwise there would have been no discussion of the Gaza issue at all, other than one limited to the defense of libraries and other cultural institutions. But this goes to the heart of the question of why SRRT passes resolutions in the first place. Is it only because we think we can win, or is it to challenge ALA to take bolder, more progressive stances on social and political issues, foster democratic engagement among ALA members and inspire grassroots action among librarians in their communities?
------------------------------
Mark Hudson
Co-chair, SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF)
Pittsburgh, PA, US
------------------------------
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 04, 2025 01:41 PM
From: Tara Brady
Subject: Regarding the current situation
Hi, Mads;
I'm the person who represents SRRT at ALA Council, and what I can tell you is that this isn't really a debate between acting and not acting. The divide, always, is over how. Mr Kagan is simply incorrect that committees 'rarely if ever' support our work. Working with committees is a necessary part of getting a resolution adopted. In particular, resolutions that aren't directly tied to our work as a professional association are more or less guaranteed to get referred to committees if they don't go through them first. That's just how things work at ALA council, and it's one of the reasons why resolutions are often not the best way to advocate for SRRT's values at ALA. They're certainly not the fastest or the most efficient!
The 2024 ceasefire resolution started out with a much broader focus: not just opposing the destruction of libraries, which is something ALA regularly takes stances against, but also calling for a ceasefire and even an arms embargo on Israel. IRC discussed the resolution and instead of endorsing,
introduced one in their report to council (it starts on page 4) that closely mirrored, and even cited, the 2022 Ukraine resolution. They even went slightly further than our Ukraine resolution did, as theirs specifically calls for the US and the international committee to provide funding not just to rebuild libraries and other cultural institutions, but also infrastructure. Is it everything some were hoping for? Of course not. But I keep hearing this claim that ALA has been 'silent' on Gaza in a way it hasn't on other conflicts, so it's worth pointing out how their treatment of Gaza compares to other recent wars.
Once we at SRRT heard IRC's resolution was coming, I tried to get action council to discuss the possibility of trying to amend it on the floor to go one step further and call for a ceasefire. But instead of trying to listen, persuade and maybe even compromise with the rest of action council, IRTF began shopping their resolution to other ALA councilors. They did this before action council had even voted on whether or not they wanted it introduced. When they got alternate movers lined up they pulled their resolution from consideration by action council before we got a result for the vote (so much for democracy!)
This meant that when it came to the floor debates on these two resolutions, I had to decide whether to bother with the amendment I wanted to try for - which would now be met with the plainly correct argument that a ceasefire resolution was on a future agenda already - or to just support both resolutions. (I was also, I will admit, completely drained and demoralized by the incredibly hostile discussion as well as by reports that some SRRT members had spread a rather vicious rumor that SRRT action council had already voted for the resolution to be introduced at ALA Council and I was unilaterally refusing to do so.)
A carefully crafted call for a ceasefire, debated respectfully on the floor, was really the best option if SRRT action council wanted more than IRC's resolution. That's not me trying to avoid or derail anything - it's my honest and well informed opinion as somebody who has shepherded a lot of this round table's business through ALA council. I definitely can't say for sure that ALA Council would have expanded IRC's resolution even slightly if we had been able to work together and focus on that, but I do know it was the best option I could offer, and it still infuriates me that we didn't get the chance to try because some members decided to go around action council. Our failure to work together hampered our ability to advocate for our values. That's not the committees' fault.
Action council is at this point, I would argue, pretty thoroughly dysfunctional. But the claim that there is a 'stand up for our values!' faction and a 'safe space' faction is bunk. This failure to work together hampers our ability to advance our values, true, but it doesn't follow that everyone must line up behind any one individual or group. We address our failure to work together by working together.
For several years now SRRT has been taking feedback and holding listening sessions and trying to work towards a plan to work better together. It's been slow going - partly because some don't want change! - but I hope that work is starting to come to fruition now, and I hope everyone who wants to see SRRT get back to making positive, progressive change in ALA and in libraries will stay engaged and help us finally get it together.
Original Message:
Sent: 7/4/2025 1:13:00 PM
From: Mads Kerlan
Subject: RE: Regarding the current situation
Thank you, as usual, for the helpful context, Al. I find this very useful as a newer SRRT member trying to orient myself. I took the 'Responsibilities' bit of SRRT to mean that we as librarians and information workers have a mandate to take action. There are so many pressing threats that we ought to be mobilizing over right now, our silence being one of the most urgent; we really cannot afford to delay any action. It is unconscionable.
In solidarity,
------------------------------
Mads Kerlan, MLIS
they/he
News Editor
Journal of Intellectual Freedom & Privacy
Original Message:
Sent: Jul 03, 2025 04:55 PM
From: Al Kagan
Subject: Regarding the current situation
Friends, colleagues, and all SRRT members,
Let's step back and look at the big picture historically. The SRRT Action Council has always tried to influence ALA policy, and has often succeeded. This has often been done through resolutions at the ALA Membership Meetings that were forwarded to the ALA Council. SRRT has never let ALA Council committees dictate its actions. Historically these committees have rarely if ever supported SRRT resolutions. SRRT generally succeeds by overcoming the resistance of the official ALA establishment. SRRT has usually introduced at least a few resolutions every year. SRRT had 11 resolutions in 1974 and half of them were passed by the ALA Council. SRRT had 9 resolutions in 1971 and 1993. (See the SRRT Resolution Archive online.) Although SRRT is still doing excellent programming, it is not doing much on ALA policies lately. This is the first year in SRRT's history that it has introduced no resolutions, either SRRT-only or Council resolutions. So the SRRT membership should hold the SRRT leadership accountable for its lack of addressing policy issues to the ALA governing body, the ALA Council. The SRRT founders named the SRRT governing body the ACTION COUNCIL for a reason. Would the SRRT membership prefer the members of the Action Council to all smile in a "safe space" and do nothing in the ALA Council, or would the membership prefer that SRRT vigorously address the fascist policies coming out of Washington? Calling principled debate "bullying" or "a coup" is mind-boggling to me. Perhaps there is a question of style, those from New York City express themselves differently from those in the South. Every SRRT Action Council member has one vote, and the majority will always prevail. Democracy within ALA has always been a SRRT priority for the Association as evidenced by early successful SRRT resolutions. It is profoundly disheartening that we are losing democracy within our own round table.
Al
Al Kagan
SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force
SRRT Councilor, 1999-2009, 2011-2015
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration Emeritus
University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign