SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

 View Only
last person joined: 12 days ago 

The Social Responsibilities Round Table works to make ALA more democratic and to establish progressive priorities not only for the Association, but also for the entire profession. Concern for human and economic rights was an important element in the founding of SRRT and remains an urgent concern today. SRRT believes that libraries and librarians must recognize and help solve social problems and inequities in order to carry out their mandate to work for the common good and bolster democracy.

Learn more about SRRT on the ALA website.

Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

  • 1.  SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 04, 2025 03:55 PM

    The attached document represents the views of the International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF) of SRRT presented to the AC last weekend before Monday's AC meeting. It is a proposal --signed on to by me, Mark Hudson (co-chair with me of IRTF) and Al Kagan from SRRT AC and the IRTTF. It is a proposed prospectus and not a rigid blueprint for SRRT's future orientation, intended to ocontribute to a free discussion about the direction of SRRT.

    Mark C. Rosenzweig

    SRRTAC member, co-chair IRTF



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


  • 2.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 04, 2025 05:51 PM
    Edited by Tara Brady Mar 04, 2025 07:31 PM
    Mark: 
    As you know - but many of our fellow members likely do not - SRRT is in the process of gathering feedback from current, former and prospective members of our round table and trying to collaborate on a plan for this round table's future. As you heard in the action council meeting yesterday, attempting to preempt that work by presenting a fully-formed plan developed by your task force's inner circle, rather than joining the rest of us in the hard work of talking and listening to find a way to resolve our differences and move forward together, is, to say the least, not particularly helpful, especially not in very this difficult moment for our round table

    I have been involved in SRRT Action Council for close to ten years now, and to be blunt, it was clear to me from the start that SRRT was the sort of 'progressive' space where a handful of white men do most of the talking while everyone else does all of the work. You developed your 'proposal' not just without the input of the rest of action council, but without even involving our leadership team - Charles and April, who somehow got us through last year, Olivia, who has taken the helm so ably, and Rachel who for some reason despite all our flaws and furies has agreed to do the job next year. That you heard the feedback you did yesterday, and nonetheless chose to post your plan here, is incredibly disrespectful to the people outside your clique.

    I think it is high time for the inner circle of longtime members who seem to approach every dispute the same way - by drafting a statement in isolation and expecting it to be rubber stamped - to have a little introspection and humility about why your ideas are often failing to get traction these days. If the 'generational shifts' - your words! - are the problem, you should be taking the time to consider why that is, and to try to bridge that divide with respect and collaboration, not by fiat. If you want SRRT to survive beyond your 'generation,' there is simply no other option.

    The issues with effectiveness and collaboration we have been facing can not be solved by a handful of members marching up to the connect forum and nailing some theses to the door. We will only solve them by talking and listening to each other. So to any members who are new to this dispute, I encourage - really, I entreat - you to come to some SRRT AC meetings, where I have no doubt these issues along with many others will be on the agenda in the coming months. We don't just want your thumbs up or thumbs down, we want your voice as we work together on making this round table more open, more collaborative and  more effective as a force for change in ALA and in libraries. 




    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 04, 2025 06:18 PM
    Let me just say that in order to have a dialog and to make progress, people must put ideas on the table. Mark did that, and all others are welcome to do the same. I was at the listening session, and I didn’t really see any concrete ideas put forward there. It is not disrespectful to put forward a position. If anyone wants to critique a position they are empowered to do so. We have to begin somewhere.


    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 04, 2025 07:26 PM

    Al, I can see where you're coming from.

    That said, there's a reason I try to remember to ask in meetings that if participants tend to speak a lot, to please try stepping back and listening more, and that if participants tend to stay quiet, to please try stepping up and speaking up. 

    The latter is difficult, if not impossible, when a few individuals have the privilege to almost always be the first and loudest to state their piece. Especially when it comes to voices that have been historically marginalized, ignored, disrespected. I understand there's a difference in comfort levels in speaking up. However, it feels incredibly vulnerable to speak up when one is worried they're not going to fit in, or that they're going against a majority. It can even feel unsafe to do so.

    Here on Connect, as in our meetings, I would urge those who tend to speak up a lot to please, try stepping back and listening more, and allow more space and breathing room to invite contributions from folks we tend not to hear from so much. 

    I believe we can have more skillful, constructive, and collaborative dialog apart from arguments, critiques, rebuttals, and combat, if those of us in positions of privilege can listen at least as much as we speak.



    ------------------------------
    Olivia Blake (she/her)
    orhysb@gmail.com
    Systems & User Services Support Librarian, Library Connection, Inc.
    SRRT Action Council Coordinator (2024-2025)
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 02:33 PM
    Olivia,

    You may not have noticed, but I try to let others speak before I say something unless the agenda item is directly related to me. This is a conscious process. However, I realize that I am involved in many of our agenda items. You may not have been in a meeting where I facilitated it, but many think I am a good facilitator because I am aware that some folks are hesitant to speak, and therefore I sometimes check in with them. For example, when Charles couldn't make an in-person meeting, he asked me to facilitate. 

    Al





    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 04:09 PM
    I feel that there's a lot of separate issues being discussed here that are convoluting together and it's creating this giant, unmanageable mess. For SRRT members that have not been attending Action Council meetings, here are the issues:
    • We have been hearing from our members that there are a lot of barriers to participating in SRRT and in ALA. Cost and time are the biggest barriers. This tracks with our concerns about the negative impact of membership dues and inequity when it comes to who can attend conferences. The purpose of the listening session last week was more to hear about these barriers and other issues that our members wanted to discuss. We plan on sharing this feedback once we have it compiled, including with ALA Membership Services. The session was not intended to shape the future of SRRT's priorities going forward (that I'm aware of). I feel that some people were disappointed that this is not how the listening session worked out.

    • SRRT leadership has been receiving frequent complaints of negative behavior, particularly on Connect, along with comments about feeling unwelcomed and intimated in SRRT spaces. We saw comments on the membership survey we deployed last year, the exit survey we did this year, and direct emails to myself and others in leadership positions. We have had both SRRT general members and Action Council members cite this as a reason for leaving the round table.

    • Last year, the International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF) introduced the Resolution in Defense of Peaceful Antiwar Protest and Academic Freedom. In January, SRRT Action Council voted not to send the resolution to Council, with some people favoring other actions, such as creation of toolkits or programming, over the resolution. While I cannot speak directly on behalf of IRTF, they feel that rejection of this resolution is an affront to the history of SRRT.
    I will amplify Olivia's call for unity. It's going to be a tough four years, at least, and we need to be on the same side.

    As for the proposal, I need a little time to digest it. I didn't know that was coming, so it caught me off guard. I'm sorry that I did not make it to the meeting Monday, so I will have to read the minutes to catch up on that conversation.



    April


    --
    April Sheppard
    banhatenotbooks@gmail.com

    Please know that I honor and respect boundaries around personal time, well-being, caretaking, and time off. My work hours may be different than yours. Should you receive emails from me during a time that you're engaging in any of the above, please protect your time and wait to respond until you're working.



    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 04, 2025 06:29 PM
    Thanks, Tara, for adding this helpful context.

    You highlighted a key point about what we've been hearing from SRRT membership, as well as Action Council, and even external progressive activist spaces: collaboration is essential if we're going to build community and work toward positive, constructive change.

    I can absolutely appreciate IFRT's desire to express their views, and I look forward to Mark, Mark, and Al bringing this to the table once we can arrange for a larger facilitated discussion where we can all work together on how we, as a collective, see SRRT's role, responsibilities, capacities, limitations, resources, etc.

    My hope is that we'll be able to continue the conversation in a way that invites joyful resistance against The Problem (i.e. oppressions, etc) rather than combat & competition against one another, which I fear is the consequence of having a single proposal laid out as a starting point. Let's see if we can co-construct SRRT's future, instead.

    Olivia

    Olivia Blake (she/her)

    orhysb@gmail.com

    CLA: Co-Chair, Legislative Committee

    ALA: Coordinator, Social Responsibilities Round Table Action Council




    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 04, 2025 07:35 PM
    I sat in on the SRRT meeting yesterday, where Olivia expressed her strong reaction to this proposal, which had been shared with Action Council earlier. I was really curious to see what it said, and how it said it. I'm in my late 50s, more or less a white male, and I grew up with an orientation to politics and activism where drafting a statement and then expecting the ideas in it to be hashed out in written debate is just the way things are done. I like the IFRT statement in itself, though I would be interested in seeing countering arguments. At the same time, I also know that SRRT's track record in doing things this way for the last 50+ years is very problematic. I myself couldn't stomach the macho energy and the simmering anger at meetings, especially as I found myself to be participating in it, so I dropped out (about 15 years ago). Deep in the listserv archives, hopefully lost to time, are brutal email debates that I am deeply ashamed of my part in. I think those kinds of feelings are linked to that mode of discourse in a lot of people's experience. While I don't find anything wrong with the IFRT proposal in itself, I think it carries along with it assumptions about how we are supposed to do this work that are from another era, when the white male orientation of progressive groups wasn't questioned so much, when maybe we still had a "public sphere" in the Habermasian sense, and before mass media had reshaped culture to the extent that Marshall Macluhan predicted it would (to give you my two middle-aged white male orientating references to this discussion). 

    I would like to suggest that there is also an issue of control. A lot of the heat and bad feeling in progressive groups, in my experience, comes from contests over control that are only superficially contests of ideas. That can be just as true when the group is working within a self-consciously collaborative ethic. To put sex, gender, and age to one side for a moment, we have a group that started an organized process aimed at shaping the future of the organization - and feels a sense of ownership of this process - and we have a group that made an intervention in a way that sought to shift control away from that organized process ("attempting to pre-empt that work," in Tara's words). The two Mark's and Al may not have been aware that they were making a power move, but they were. I know they must feel they are trying to save SRRT, and that feels important enough to interrupt the process that is being governed by others. But I say, be a little more trusting. I have confidence in the process that Olivia is trying to guide.

    Rory Litwin


    --
    Rory Litwin




    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 05:55 AM

    I was there too for the 'brutal email debates' that Rory describes, but more as a 'lurker' and not a frequent participant, although I was an active SRRT member, served on Action Council and regularly attended ALA conferences during that period. My recollection is that much of the rancor was caused by people from outside SRRT and ALA who were trolling the SRRT listserv aiming to sow discord, although no doubt there were some extremely unpleasant exchanges between SRRT members as well. ALA Connect has its shortcomings to be sure, but one thing that has definitely improved is that Connect does not allow people from outside the organization to intrude on our conversations, and I think this has greatly improved the overall tone of the discussions.

    I understand that SRRT leaders are trying to guide a process, and we don't want to preempt that process. But I would reiterate what Al said: to have a dialogue, people must put ideas on the table. And as Mark R. made clear in his initial posting of the IRTF proposal, it is intended as a prospectus and not a rigid blueprint. In other words, it's an effort to participate in the process. No one was expecting it to be 'rubber stamped' as Tara accuses us of doing. How could we expect that, having no power or authority whatsoever in the organization, despite the effort to portray us as would-be tyrants purely on the basis of identity? I'm sorry to have to say this, but the response from Olivia, Tara and others makes it clear that SRRT leaders simply do not want IRTF's participation in the process. And I think this has far more to do with the content of IRTF's ideas than with race, gender, 'generational shifts' or anything else. So nothing I say here will make any difference, unfortunately. The goal is to marginalize and ultimately exclude IRTF's perspective, by any means necessary.



    ------------------------------
    Mark Hudson
    Co-chair, SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF)
    Pittsburgh, PA, US
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 07:59 AM
    Edited by Ian Bogus Mar 05, 2025 08:16 AM

    Dear all,

    The main concern I had in reading this prospectus is one of framing. Reading the room, as it were, is more important than ever in today's political climate. Some of the methods that worked in the past are less effective today. Some of that is because there is more known about how to control the narrative and folks are using that knowledge. While I believe in the power of civil discourse, I fear society is moving away from it.

    In my opinion, much of the content that is in the prospectus is good. I fear the delivery will be counterproductive. Librarians can and should be promoting free speech, social justice, climate change, etc.. but I don't think any of that is, or needs to be, labeled as "radical" or even "leftist."  Why would we give an opportunity for someone to grab on to a phrase in an attempt to dismiss the whole? Doing so raises a lightning rod that detracts from the message. How we frame things matter. Take for example this thread. At the time I am writing this, there is more than half a dozen posts on this thread. None of them discuss the content. What I heard from Olivia at the AC meeting is that the delivery itself has gotten in the way of the message; I agree.

    One last point about resolutions. I think it would be more productive for SRRT to move towards more active opportunities. I think resolutions have their place, but are most effective in today's climate when used sparingly. I do not think they change minds in the way they may have even a decade ago. I think that programs have a better opportunity for making a difference; they also have fewer hurdles to pass over. For example, I do not believe that ALA has a resolution against book banning. They do have well crafted statements and resources, including downloadable content, that librarians can use locally. I believe that these types of tools will have a greater impact than resolutions in most instances. 

    All the best,

    Ian



    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 07:55 AM

    THANK YOU, IAN!  Words like radical and leftist are precisely why our board has forced us to disengage from ALA completely as a system.  We can buy our own membership but we cannot do anything ALA related during work hours and we cannot be reimbursed for any ALA membership, courses, or conferences.  

    Respectfully,

    Deb Corbin

    Branch Assistant

    South Carolina



    ------------------------------
    Deborah Corbin
    Branch Assistant
    York County Library
    She/Her/Hers
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 09:06 AM
    How we describe ourselves says far less about us than what we do. We can call ourselves 'leftist' and 'radical' until we're blue in the face: it's meaningless if we're not accomplishing anything. And if we're doing the work, that work matters whether we call ourselves 'radical' or not. 




    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 08:32 AM
    Edited by Mark Hudson Mar 05, 2025 08:38 AM

    And just to be clear, when I say 'by any means necessary' I'm referring to the liberal-centrist weaponization of identity politics to attack and marginalize the left, which this is another fine example of (not saying identity politics are bad per se, just that they are sometimes instrumentalized in certain ways by liberals that are harmful to progressive causes). At this past Monday's Action Council meeting, the authors of the "SRRT as Radical Caucus" document were actually attacked by one SRRT leader for "embodying white supremacist culture" or something to that effect. This for a proposal which actually calls for SRRT to reaffirm and redouble its commitment to antiracist activism! Someone really should have been shown the red card for that.

    Again, to reiterate, for all the good it will do, the document is only a proposal and an effort to participate in the discussion that SRRT leaders say they want to have. The hostility it's elicited from SRRT leaders has far more to do with its content and the fact it's coming from IRTF than anything else (e.g., race, gender, 'generational shifts'). Some recent historical context for anyone who hasn't been following Action Council's deliberations over the past year or so: IRTF's resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and defending the free speech rights and academic freedom of antiwar protesters have not been supported by a majority on Action Council, and have even been dismissed as a waste of time by some. IRTF had to go outside of SRRT to find a mover and seconder on ALA Council for the ceasefire resolution, and the free speech resolution never made it to Council at all because we couldn't find a mover and seconder.

    That's all I have to say about the matter. I would be interested in hearing what rank and file SRRT members have to say. This Connect group is for all SRRT members, not just Action Council.



    ------------------------------
    Mark Hudson
    Co-chair, SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF)
    Pittsburgh, PA, US
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 08:46 AM
    Edited by Ian Bogus Mar 05, 2025 08:47 AM

    Mark,

    The sentiment expressed was that the methods utilized white supremacy structures. There was no statement that anyone had internalized racism. I also did not hear anyone point a finger that it was intentional. Some resources were provided to reinforce the perspective and an attempt to dismantle said structures. Conflating structures with internalized racism is somewhat analogous to the warnings IRTF has made conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. They are different. There are structures everywhere, and we are responsible for pointing them out when we notice them and attempting to do better.

    Ian


    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 09:02 AM

    Ian,

    I understand your point, which was also made at the Action Council meeting. But I do not agree that the 'methods utilized white supremacy structures', nor that the accusation was unintentional. I do agree we should be discussing the content of the document. Unfortunately, the effort to discredit it as 'utilizing white supremacy structures' has effectively derailed that discussion, as I think it was intended to do. I also agree we would not officially label ourselves the 'radical caucus', for the reasons you cite. But this is just a document about ideas and the direction of SRRT. No one is proposing that we rename SRRT.

    -- Mark



    ------------------------------
    Mark Hudson
    Co-chair, SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF)
    Pittsburgh, PA, US
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 16.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 08:50 AM
    I'll share my own take on the content of the statement and the debate it wants to be a part of, for the record. I think a centrist liberal SRRT would be redundant with ALA as a whole and wouldn't have a reason to exist. I don't know why someone would want to be involved in SRRT if they didn't want to push ALA to take stronger progressive positions. I would hope that's something everyone could accept going into a more nuanced discussion about the future of SRRT.

    Rory




    Original Message


  • 17.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 08:59 AM
    I think it would be helpful for Oliva to outline the process her group is using to gather opinions on the future of SRRT for this planning project. I am afraid of stepping on toes by participating in a discussion of the IFRT proposal now, but I am not aware of what it is I should be participating in instead. I wanted to attend the listening session, but I was called away at the last minute. Since I'm not on AC, I didn't know this planning process was happening until I sat in on the meeting. Could Olivia or someone else bring SRRT members up to speed?

    Thanks,

    Rory




    Original Message


  • 18.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 09:38 AM
    I think Rory has identified a major problem in this discussion. I am on the Action Council and I have no idea what the SRRT officers and programming committee have in mind about the process for this discussion. It seems to me that the listening session did not produce any concrete ideas. Therefore it is up to Action Council members to begin a discussion with a vision statement. As leaders of SRRT, I think we have two major roles: representing our members and taking leadership. That has always been my intention. That is what I consciously did when I was the SRRT Councilor. I ALWAYS took whatever the membership and AC wanted to the ALA Council. At the same time, as a leader I was always involved in writing and proposing resolutions to be considered by the Action Council. 

    One year there was a membership initiative from SRRT members who none of us knew to put forward a resolution for the impeachment of President Bush. The Action Council considered it and voted to put it forward. This caused quite a commotion at the ALA Council. It was initially ruled out of order until people came to their senses and decided its could be debated. Of course, it lost by a wide margin, but the SRRT members were heard. There is nothing wrong in opposing the mainstream, that is our mandate. As Rory said there is no reason for SRRT to exist if it is going to become part of the liberal establishment. As Mark said, nobody is proposing to rename SRRT. If anyone thinks the words leftist or radical will make us less effective, just say we are progressive. My point is that we must be an opposition to the mainstream liberals. 

    I will have something to say about identity in a forthcoming message. Also I would like to hear from the Feminist Task Force and the Maartin Luther King, Jr. Task Force about their vision going forward. We need more voices in this discussion.

    Al





    Original Message


  • 19.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 01:13 PM
    Thanks for the energetic discussion, folks. And Rory, thanks for this question.

    The truth is, for my part, I don't have a carefully engineered 10-point plan.

    What I *do* have?

    I have my own discomfort even being present, let alone speaking up, in this space as a queer autistic woman - as well as discomfort sitting with my own constellation of privileges, like my white privilege as a leader in a space that is also supposed to be anti-racist. (I share these personal discomforts only to own, transparently, how vulnerable it feels to participate in SRRT right now. Not to start some kind of contest of oppressions.)

    Beyond my own experience? I have feedback from Action Council members. Feedback from SRRT members past, present, and, hopefully, future. Observations of harm to individuals and to the SRRT community.

    What's playing out in this thread exemplifies a lot of that feedback. It makes SRRT feel unwelcoming at best, to many who might otherwise actively participate in this community.

    This conversation has escalated dramatically and quickly, when that was never the intent. A level of frenzied urgency has infused this discussion that is totally counterproductive to end goals that I think we've been hearing & talking about for a long time:

    To make SRRT more welcoming, more community-oriented;
    To engage more individuals and encourage member involvement;
    To build coalition with other groups;
    To better invite, listen to, and amplify historically marginalized voices;
    To move SRRT closer to being a safe space, a brave space, where historically silenced voices are heard and respected;

    And from all of that, to make SRRT a safe space to Do The Work of our mission.

    Doing that work, and making this space safer to do so, can and should go hand-in-hand. This doesn't have to be an either/or question - it can be both/and. We don't need to halt operations on fighting oppressions, resisting authoritarianism, protecting free speech, etc. while we get our own house in order.

    But I do think that the latter is an important part of the former. How can we do this work effectively if we're recreating a microcosm of the same systemic, structural oppressions we aim to dismantle?

    It's to that end, at least in part if not entirely, that this discussion arose in the first place. That includes the member surveys our membership team has been working on, my adding the agenda item to discuss SRRT's future in both February's and March's Action Council meetings, the arrangement of last week's listening session, and more.

    I don't have all the answers on how best to move forward! I don't think any individual does.

    But, I do have a deep desire for SRRT to become not just more inclusive & equitable, but expansive, supportive, empowering, and dare I say, perhaps even restorative. That is going to take time, and listening, and honest, uncomfortable self-reflection, and a lot of active work if we're going to effect tangible change.

    Next steps are likely to include additional surveys and other requests for SRRT member feedback, some kind of facilitated strategic discussion amongst Action Council members, as well as additional facilitated discussion(s) amongst the wider SRRT community. From there, I don't know for sure, but I'm trying to keep a growth- and curiosity-oriented mindset, and hope we can involve as many SRRT voices as possible through each step of the process (whatever it may wind up being!).

    When I said earlier I'd like to see us co-create SRRT's future, I meant it. I may be the current Action Council coordinator, but that's far from an authoritarian role. I'm just trying to shepherd us as a community toward those goals I named above.

    So at this point, I'd like to ask the SRRT community for your patience, and to please stay tuned for more concrete details as they become available. Coming up with a further action plan, one that accounts for both SRRT's challenges and its ideals, is going to take some time in and of itself. But if that means we ultimately come away with a stronger, more engaged and collaborative community, one that is inclusive and expansive, I think it will have been time well spent.

    Thanks again for the discussion folks. I hope the rest of the week treats you well, and that you all have a good weekend ahead.

    In solidarity, and signing off for now,

    Olivia


    Olivia Blake (she/her)

    orhysb@gmail.com

    CLA: Co-Chair, Legislative Committee

    ALA: Coordinator, Social Responsibilities Round Table Action Council




    Original Message


  • 20.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 10:22 AM
    Good grief, people. I'm new to SSRT and IRTF as well as the politics of theSRRT AC so I have no history. However, attacking Mark, Mark, and Al as dominating discussions and taking advantage of their white male status is utterly defensive and unproductive and untrue. I have not seen the authors dominating other voices at any meeting.

     Let's evaluate the proposal objectively divorced from its proponents. I attended the meeting where the document on what white supremacy looks like was taken as an accusation of racism in our group.  On a specific issue, ALA must oppose genocide and support dissenters. Otherwise, ALA's commitment to intellectual freedom is a joke. Since the authors and I have a radical perspective, how much of this dissent is anti-communist? 

    Karyn Pomerantz
    Co-editor of the multiracialunity.org blog





    Original Message


  • 21.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 01:13 PM
    We can be proud of the SRRT history promoting the rights of women and marginalized communities. Right from the beginning, SRRT established a task force on Women’s Liberation and another on Gay Liberation in 1970. In 1971, SRRT made task forces on Chicanos and American Indians. The Ethnic Materials Information Exchange Task Force was established in 1973 (and later became a round table), and there was also a task force on Intercultural Relations started that year. A Coretta Scott King Task Force was established in 1980 (and later became a round table). In 1990, SRRT had a Refugees, Migration, and Homeless Task Force. The MLK Jr. Holiday Task Force was established in 1999, and the Rainbow Project appeared in 2008.

    There are way too many events and programs to list, but a few early ones were the 1971 Kiss-In at the Hug a Homosexual Booth (with the Junior Members Round Table), the 1972 program with Jesse Jackson (with the Black Caucus) and the 1973 Workshop on Prison Library Services (with the Black Caucus).

    Regarding officers from 1969 to 2025, 69% of coordinators have been women, 70% of secretaries, and 69% of treasurers. I am not able to identify all the LGBT officers, but can say that I know of number of strong leaders who have been SRRT officers. And there have been several very strong, courageous, and prominent African-American SRRT and ALA leaders, E.J. Josey, Ginnie Moore, Mary Biblo, and LaJuan come to mind. E.J. was a larger than life figure and the first African-American ALA President, and Ginnie and Mary were very long-term ALA Councilors. I think Mary was the longest serving ALA Councilor. Also many ALA Presidents came out of SRRT.

    SRRT has also had good relations with some of the ethnic caucuses. We have co-sponsored programs with the Asian Pacific Librarians Association-APALA (with Gary Colmenar as liaison) and the American Indian Library Association-AILA (including with current ALA President Cindy Hohl). And of course, we have co-sponsored the MLK Jr. Sunrise Celebration every year at Midwinter/LLX with the Black Caucus (BCALA).

    With this background, I want to point out that SRRT has always strived to be a diverse organization with many marginalized communities represented in leadership positions. That is not to say that there isn’t room for improvement. It is true that officers have usually been privileged white people, two-thirds women. And it is also true that white men have sometimes had a disproportionately loud voice.

    By its nature, SRRT has attracted strong personalities over the course of its history. This has been my experience since 1990, and it is still true today. We should be thankful that strong advocates have been around. They have made a terrific impact on SRRT and therefore ALA.

    I hope all will take this history into consideration before making blanket statements about how white men are dominating SRRT. I am afraid that identity is currently overly stressed in our current discussions, at the expense of real ideas concerning SRRT’s current vision, strategies, and focus areas. We need a principled discussion on the way forward, and we need people to speak up. By definition, activists do speak up. I am aware that it can be difficult to put oneself forward when just getting involved, but remaining silent is not an option if you want to have an impact.

    Al


    Original Message


  • 22.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 09:03 AM
    This post is a great example of what I cited in the meeting on Monday: that your task force's inner circle does not seem to listen closely or with an open mind when people outside your clique are talking, and so you very often wind up arguing with positions that nobody is taking. 

    I did not suggest that the round table or its action council has been composed primarily or entirely of white men, now or at any point in its history. I said - and I'm far from the only one who has observed this - that in my experience of the last ten years at SRRT AC, the people who do most of the talking are white men, and that they are not the ones who do the work. And so this list of women and people of color who have been active and done important work in SRRT, and the history you cite of SRRT having predominantly female officers doesn't really counter the point. All those predominantly female officers are some of the 'everyone else' I mentioned - being an officer of this round table is a lot more work than just showing up to talk and vote! 



    Original Message


  • 23.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 05, 2025 09:39 AM

    Hi, all! I come to this discussion late, with deep gratitude for the work of SRRT AND for the work of the IRTF, and for Mark and Mark, who welcomed me warmly when I reached out looking for ways to become more involved in just such discussions (how do we move ALA in more progressive directions). I haven't been able to be as engaged in SRRT as I'd like - both due to a super-busy work schedule and due to wrangling two young kids who are disease vectors. I'm not usually able to attend the AC meetings, so I try to follow the Connect discussions as closely as possible. 

    All that is to say, I guess my credentials are - rank-and-file SRRT lurker, wanna-be IRTF participant, mid-career library professional staring down the next 40 or so years of my life and work with a sense of deep dismay. I'm already feeling pretty darn disenfranchised by the Democrats in general, but I would like to be a part of a more inclusive process that Olivia describes in the areas in which I'm able to have more agency (my professional associations). Mark and Mark are, as ever, incredibly thoughtful in the work they share here, but it's worth noting that their work is theirs alone and not representative of or inclusive of the other voices, including women, who have participated in other IRTF-led projects in the past. So I'm not sure it's fair to present it as representing the views of the IRTF, such as it is, given that others who have participated in such projects in the past were not asked to contribute (or maybe they were and I was not included in that list because, as I said, I have not been as active as I'd like, and I know the fault for that is partly my own!).

    The prospectus presented has powerful words, but they're also lofty and, to me, don't have a lot of concrete, actionable goals that would actually be attainable by a member-driven, volunteer-led group such as our own that truly must be focused on coalition building within our own organization and with those around us. I have been most inspired by Frieda's educational outreach efforts, such as her pathfinders (which I have supported her in creating) and her webinars - examples of activities that feel like concrete actions that people like us can actually take and can achieve given the constraints of our roles and our resources.

    I'd also like to be in dialog with others, particularly the most marginalized in our profession, about which approaches they feel would be most successful in building necessary bridges to right long-standing wrongs and redress long-standing hurts, including those perpetuated by our own profession. I feel like much more dialog is needed in these areas before we're able to start prescribing effective solutions. 

    My three cents! I would very much appreciate having a voice in this process, however it takes shape, and being a part of the ongoing dialog!

    With gratitude,

    Mary



    ------------------------------
    Mary Moser
    Engagement and Advancement Librarian
    University of Massachusetts Boston
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 24.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 12:07 AM

    Mary, I apologize for not including all IRTF participants in the drafting of the 'radical caucus' proposal. Mark R. sent me his draft of the proposal just a few days before this past Monday's Action Council meeting, and we wanted to get it to AC before the meeting and try to get some constructive feedback from them. In retrospect, perhaps we should have waited. But it's still a work in progress, and I would like to convene a meeting of IRTF participants later this month to discuss it and catch up on some other IRTF matters. I'll send out a Doodle poll next week so we can schedule a meeting for sometime later in March. Once it's scheduled, I'll email the Zoom link to everyone and also post it here on SRRT Connect.

    -- Mark



    ------------------------------
    Mark Hudson
    Co-chair, SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF)
    Pittsburgh, PA, US
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 25.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 08:54 AM
    Mary makes a good point. I think it speaks volumes that despite the fact that you developed this document only among the three of you, you nonetheless felt comfortable referring to it as 'the views of the International Responsibilities Task Force.' And Rory is quite right in his post up above that this looks from the outside like a power grab, an attempt to put your opinions out first and define both the narrative and the starting point. Know that no matter what statements you write, our collaborative process will continue, not with competing drafts of 'ideals' and 'visions,' but with a plan we build together from the ground up. 

    It would be great, though, if you could take some time to consider the very real and very concerning feedback we have heard about disruptive and aggressive behavior from some members of this round table - which has led to members, even longtime ones, leaving the round table entirely. That's a cycle which has gone on for too many years and which must be stopped if we are ever going to be who we say we are. I don't see anything in your document about how we treat each other. I don't even see the community commitment we adopted last year reflected - though perhaps that's one of the 'generational shifts' you want to see rolled back? But I do hope you and your collaborators on this document will give that point some thought. 



    Original Message


  • 26.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 11:39 AM
    Edited by Mark Hudson Mar 25, 2025 12:42 PM

    Tara,

    Please stop your smear campaign. IRTF members have not engaged in any "disruptive and aggressive behavior" despite frequent insinuations from you and others in the SRRT leadership about "feedback" to that effect. As for the Community Commitment you so often invoke, you and other SRRT leaders might want to start applying it to yourselves and not just others with whom you have political disagreements. The attack on the authors of the "SRRT as Radical Caucus" document at this week's SRRT Action Council meeting is a case in point. Imagine if one of us had accused you or other SRRT leaders of "methods utilizing white supremacist structures" for a proposal you had made (even one which, like the IRTF proposal, actually calls for SRRT to reaffirm and redouble its commitment to antiracist activism). But apparently it's "do as we say, not as we do". Again, please stop smearing IRTF and start engaging on the level of ideas.



    ------------------------------
    Mark Hudson
    Co-chair, SRRT International Responsibilities Task Force (IRTF)
    Pittsburgh, PA, US
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 27.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 01:17 PM

    Mark:

    Re-read my comment. This is feedback we have heard from many different sources.  That's a fact, not an 'insinuation.' I didn't accuse anyone specific of anything, but the tone of discussion at SRRT has been a factor in people leaving the round table for many years. It's something that's been documented and discussed for many years.  There are discussion on the subject on the archives of this very forum going back as far as 2009. It led to two different resignations from action council just two years ago.  We can't keep ignoring this fact. 



    ------------------------------
    Tara Brady
    Queens Public Library
    She/Her/Hers
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 28.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 01:59 PM
    Per our Community Commitment, I am asking for a pause in this discussion. 

    We're caught in a loop right now. The discussion is going in circles with no progress and it's getting personal and heated. Can we take a day or two to reflect?


    April

    --
    April Sheppard
    banhatenotbooks@gmail.com

    Please know that I honor and respect boundaries around personal time, well-being, caretaking, and time off. My work hours may be different than yours. Should you receive emails from me during a time that you're engaging in any of the above, please protect your time and wait to respond until you're working.



    Original Message


  • 29.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 02:45 PM
    I second April's request. Let's all take a breather and reflect on this discussion. Thank you.


    Derek Wilmott Montoya, MLIS (he/him)

    ALA/SRRT Treasurer 2024-2025

    SRRT Member-at-Large 2024-2027

    SRRT Programming Committee, Co-Chair

    419.530.7984

    rwilmott@hotmail.com

     




    Original Message


  • 30.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 06, 2025 10:21 PM
    As a newbie member, I was blown away by the criticism of the proposal authors instead of critiquing the proposal. Yes, let's break and come back to discuss the content of the proposal. There are many disagreements, such as over Palestine, that are covered up by focusing on alleged bad behavior. Mark deserves an apology for the accusations of being "aggressive" and all talk and no action.  Holy cow, this vitriol triggers many memories about all the internal fights we had in the anti-Vietnam War movement, lol. Let's move on.

    Karyn
    Karyn Pomerantz
    pomerantzkaryn6@gmail.com
    Retired GW SPH
    co-editor of the
    multiracialunity.org



    Original Message


  • 31.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 07, 2025 07:05 AM
    In the course of a long life (I was 84 yesterday), I have observed progressive/left groups of all kinds eating their own and destroying themselves.  I agree with Reagan on nothing whatever but his remark on working with people who agree with you on most things but not all is right.  If the reactionaries can practise that then so should we.  Best wishes to all SRRT members, Michael


    --
    ----------------
    Michael Gorman
    Chicago, Illinois
    Editor, Caxtonian
    -----------------



    Original Message


  • 32.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 07, 2025 09:41 AM
    I appreciate your thoughts on this matter, Michael, "... working with people who agree with you on most things but not all is right."

    I cannot fathom why we are having this internal fight, when we are in a time where so many are trying to end DEIA and social justice in this country. We should be rallying together under a common cause to protect our libraries and our communities in a free and democratic society. 

    It would have been more meaningful if the IRTF had sent their "radical caucus" document to the SRRT Programming Committee, who recently held a listening session for these exact comments and suggestions.  While I agree with many of their points in the document, they presume to speak on behalf of all of SRRT. Three people do not represent all of SRRT. We need to work together, and the time for long-standing grievances needs to be set aside.

    I ask that anyone send us their thoughts and suggestions on the following Listening Session questions, to please send them to the SRRT Programming Committee Co-Chair Derek Wilmott Montoya (rwilmott@hotmail.com).

    • How welcome do you feel in ALA and/or SRRT?
    • Do you feel like your presence makes a difference to ALA and/or SRRT? If yes, how can you tell? If no, why not? What would make a difference?
    • Please describe any barriers you have encountered that keep you from being involved in ALA/SRRT - either personally or professionally. What suggestions do you have for addressing these barriers?
    • Please describe any suggested changes you'd like to see in ALA and/or SRRT, for example: financial, physical (e.g., virtual attendance at conferences), attitude, community-related, accessibility, goals, programs.

    Let's move forward and not get mired down with all this negativity. Thank you.

    Sincerely,

    Derek Wilmott Montoya



    Original Message


  • 33.  RE: SRRT as the "radical caucus" of ALA -- re-envisioning SRRT

    Posted Mar 07, 2025 10:43 AM

    Radical and leftist. Seems a bit rigid to me. I am not sure why we would want to use the language that is used against us. Why can't we be just what we are. Our ideas are not radical. Fair access to information, equality, and social justice are just plain old human rights. We need to paint them as the norm and work to make it that way. The words radical and leftist are like earplugs to a disturbingly large part of the population. It is not radical to want to help people. I have been part of one listening session and read one thread on a topic since joining the SRRT (this one), and it's clear why many are driven away. This is not a discussion, this is infighting. If a group like this is going to make real change in other people's houses, our house has to be in order and it does not appear to be. What is the solution to the statement that was written by a select few and rejected (in part or in whole) by those who need to support it? Find a better way. Include more people in creating it instead of expecting the members en masse to suggest edits. I know I am not up to speed on the inner workings but isn't that the point? I've dipped my toes in the water of the SRRT and it is choppy and cold. If people are tired of the "white guys" overseeing this group, how do we change that? Our first "radical" move might be to DEI this whole thing up and show that at our core we believe in what we want to fight for. Press releases, declarations, and mission statements fall short without the actions that should follow. I'm sticking around but I'm too old to be indirect and too engaged to be quiet. We don't need to claim that we are radical or leftist although some might be. Maybe the message would be better communicated by sticking to some central tenants as how the norm should look: Decency, kindness, empathy, compassion, and social justice. Equity should not be a radical idea. The actions taken should be strategic and well-planned. We have this forum to make change more likely. But not if we can't get it together here. P.S. My profile is filled out if anyone has questions about who I think I am. Really I'm just a guy who falls on the side of just giving people the chance they need and the means to get there.



    ------------------------------
    Joseph Scribbins
    Technical Services Librarian
    Brewer Public Library
    He/Him/His,Hey You
    ------------------------------

    Original Message