SRRT (Social Responsibilities Round Table)

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

------------------------------
Rory Litwin
President
Library Juice Academy
------------------------------

Hi, Rory!

I certainly don't want to speak for Al or any members of SRRT, but as a very recent new member of SRRT, and someone who was involved in drafting the recent resolution, I wanted to share my perspective on why this is important. To me, in the big picture, these resolutions become part of the historical record of our organization - they document the issues where we took a stand publicly and what that stance was. It's important to me as a mid-career librarian, with hopefully a few more decades to go, that the professional organizations in which I make my home are brave enough to take a bold stance to publicly declare human-centered values. I was incredibly moved when, in previous threads, Al shared links to resolutions SRRT drafted in earlier times of conflict. I want to be a part of a professional association that doesn't look away in times of atrocity. Libraries are people  - we serve people. Our shared humanity is what makes us who we are, and I want to be able to look back at the end of my career and know that I did what I could to stand on the right side of history, however paltry my actions may be.

I saw a tweet the other day that was something to the effect of "a liberal is someone who opposes all wars except the current one" and that one really stuck with me. It's important to me, as we continue to do our best to go to work while global catastrophes pile up around us, that I be able to find some way to orient myself professionally to a values system that holds some kind of meaning - a north star that reminds me that what's happening is NOT normal, is NOT ok. It's not ok that people are being killed by the thousands while I type my silly little emails, and I see SRRT and our resolutions as a way to ground myself in that reminder.

Hopefully, in a few decades, I can look back on these resolutions and remind myself - it's not OK now, it was not OK then, and I was brave enough to say it out loud while it was happening, and I am proud to be in a profession that was brave enough to say it out loud as well.

I hope this perspective is helpful, and I look forward to hearing from others as well!

Warmly,

Mary

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

Original Message:
Sent: Nov 29, 2023 11:05 AM
From: Rory Litwin
Subject: What is the importance of SRRT resolutions?

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

------------------------------
Rory Litwin
President
Library Juice Academy
------------------------------

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Thanks Al, and Mary and Karen as well, for stating this so clearly and coherently.

I would just add that the IF aspect of the current war is in fact addressed in SRRT's Gaza resolution, in the Whereas clause stating that "the freedom of expression of people voicing opposition to the Israeli assault on Gaza is being widely suppressed and many are being punished" which references the October 20 article in Jewish Currents, "A 'McCarthyite Backlash' Against Pro-Palestine Speech". But as Al states, we cannot limit ourselves to just the IF issues in the current context.

Regarding the backlash against pro-Palestine speech, which has only intensified since the above-referenced article was published, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) has compiled a very thorough list of Campus Climate Resources, which may be useful to anyone encountering intellectual freedom challenges on Palestine in their academic work: https://mesana.org/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom/2023/11/21/campus-climate-resources

-- Mark

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Thanks Al, and Mary and Karen as well, for stating this so clearly and coherently.

I would just add that the IF aspect of the current war is in fact addressed in SRRT's Gaza resolution, in the Whereas clause stating that "the freedom of expression of people voicing opposition to the Israeli assault on Gaza is being widely suppressed and many are being punished" which references the October 20 article in Jewish Currents, "A 'McCarthyite Backlash' Against Pro-Palestine Speech". But as Al states, we cannot limit ourselves to just the IF issues in the current context.

Regarding the backlash against pro-Palestine speech, which has only intensified since the above-referenced article was published, the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) has compiled a very thorough list of Campus Climate Resources, which may be useful to anyone encountering intellectual freedom challenges on Palestine in their academic work: https://mesana.org/advocacy/committee-on-academic-freedom/2023/11/21/campus-climate-resources

-- Mark

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin

Hello everyone,

I am a member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a longtime SRRT member. I have no problem with the substance of the ceasefire resolution that has been discussed here, but the intensely controversial nature of the topic has me wondering some things about SRRT resolutions in general.  I don't want this to be taken as an objection to doing this resolution or ones like it, but I have some misgivings, and I think it might be time to come back to some questions that come up around this kind of thing periodically.  This might be a question for Al Kagan, because he can probably best articulate the reasons behind doing these resolutions.

I think that the people who might be most strongly opposed to a ceasefire resolution have intense emotions about it, in a deeply personal way, and are people who might potentially join with us on other issues, if we don't alienate them too much. I think that that is a thing to consider, and for me it raises the question of why we do these resolutions and what we really gain when we are able to pass them. There are more granular questions that come to mind as well. What is the point of SRRT resolutions versus resolutions that we take to ALA Council with a realistic hope of getting them passed there? When a general topic, like the conflict in Israel/Palestine, has strong intellectual-freedom or other library-related angles, why don't we consistently take the approach of sticking to those issues when we do a resolution? In this case, I would personally be more in favor of a resolution focused on free speech rights surrounding the issue, which most strongly impact critics of Israel. This would also generate a lot of controversy, but it would be easier to justify its importance within ALA. What is the cost of choosing to do resolutions that are strongly library related versus others?

Over the years, Al has been the strongest advocate of doing resolutions, especially ones focusing on international issues. I am sorry to single out one person with this, but I think he is probably the person most able to respond thoroughly. I think these questions warrant discussion periodically. Even though I've been there for discussions of these issues in the past, I've never come away totally convinced.

Rory Litwin