Below are some posts relating to the NMRT survey from the SRRT Listerv.
A polarizing “them versus us” “old guard versus young librarians” perspective has been introduced into the SRRT discussion which is destructive, in my opinion.Nobody is preventing other issues from being raised, new task forces from being formed in SRRT. The fact is, that task-forces have formed on various issues over the years and quickly disappeared for lack of significant activity. Those task forces which persist are those where people are active and committed. There is no conspiracy to impose one agenda over another in SRRT. Suggestions that there are, including suggestions which try to create artificial generational divides are highly divisive and I strenuously object to them.–Mark Rosenzweig
The SRRT discussion list on SRRT issues and the connection of PLG mission is of interest to the future of librarianship, socialresponsibilities, social justice and human rights.
=============
Mark Rosenzweig:
The fact that SRRT hasn’t dealt with many of the issues listed by Rory as his favored “targets” for our work has nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with SRRT’s advocacy on the issues it has pressed, like opposition to war. There is literally no evidence or argument that shows that advocacy of the one excluded or precluded the others. And as Al Kagan has shown previously in a recent posting, SRRT’s resolutions over the years have covered many issues of social responsibility in librarianship other than war.
But I know that opposition to war is indeed disruptive of the neat order of things in ALA as it is everywhere in public life where people have the temerity to insist upon it. It should make people uncomfortable, it must be disruptive because we have, in our lifetimes, allowed our wars to become normalized exercises which we have turned over to the management of specialists in a huge but distanced “military-industrial complex” which “takes care” of war and peace. We don’t even go through the formalities of “declaring war” anymore because we have lately allowed ourselves, putative citizens, to accept that we are in a permanent state of managed war and there is nothing we can do about it It seems to even have little to do with what political party is in power.
So, I’m sorry if people wish they didn’t have to be bothered at our gatherings about discomfiting matters of war and peace which they think are beyond their expertise or professional concern, but their acquiescence in war and illusion that they should best mind their own business is precisely the issue at stake from a social-responsibilities perspective.and exactly what must be challenged wherever people gather especially if we are to be autonomous professionals true to our ethical principles, rather than just servants of a regime or administration who justify and rationalize war by pretending it doesn’t exist as a problem for us or is something we can’t do anything about, as if it doesn’t skew everything we are discussing and doesn’t poison the cultural, social , economic and political atmosphere we are trying to work in.
The reason, however, for SRRT’s lack of effective work on the whole gamut of issues essayed by Rory has nothing to do , however, with our anti-war advocacy but with the inherent nature of SRRT as an organization whose work is only the sum of whatever its task-forces are involved in. There is no systematic,over-arching sense of a “SRRT perspective”. As a founder of the Progressive Librarians Guild and a co-editor of its journal Progressive Librarian I can attest to the fact that it was precisely dissatisfaction with SRRT’s inability to engage many of those issues Rory lists now that led to the initiation of our efforts and any examination of the 20 years of PLG journal shows that we have addressed almost ALL of the issues mentioned and in programs and activities we have tried to encourage the elaboration of a critical discourse on precisely those library issues Rory now brings forward as if they have been completely unaddressed from a social-responsibilities perspective within the profession.
A polarizing “them versus us” “old guard versus young librarians” perspective has been introduced into the SRRT discussion which is destructive, in my opinion.Nobody is preventing other issues from being raised, new task forces from being formed in SRRT. The fact is, that task-forces have formed on various issues over the years and quickly disappeared for lack of significant activity. Those task forces which persist are those where people are active and committed. There is no conspiracy to impose one agenda over another in SRRT. Suggestions that there are, including suggestions which try to create artificial generational divides are highly divisive and I strenuously object to them.
Mark Rosenzweig
=======
On Nov 16, 2009, at 7:57 PM, Elaine Harger wrote:
Dear LaJuan and all,>
Thank you for Samek’s article, and to all for the discussion.>
In the spirit of the the origins of SRRT, here’s a bit of
music from the times our predecessors were living and
working in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139VodjqUnA
And, just to keep it a bit up-to-date here’s his Message to the
Messenger http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3hCQcrfg28&feature=related
Yes, the times are new, but many of the issues are the same
and SRRT needs to continue to be the “conscience of ALA.”
Which means SRRT must go on providing a space for librarians
who know that libraries must engage with our social responsibilities, as
so well defined in the ALA policy that Al sent out. In solidarity,
Elaine
___________________
LaJuan Pringle.. Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:22:14 -0500
This has been a good conversation. I’m attaching an article [ Raber, Douglas, "ACONDA and ANACONDA: Social Change, Social Responsibility, and Librarianship."Library Trends - Volume 55, Number 3, Winter 2007, pp. 675-697] that serves as a good point of reference as to how and why SRRT was formed. Many of you already know this history, but there are others on the list who may not know or understand SRRT’s history. If any of you have other information available to discuss the history of SRRT, please share it with the rest of us. The article contains a great bibliography by the way and I’m awaiting my copy of Toni Samek’s book (Intellectual Freedom and Social Responsibility...) via interlibrary loan so that I may learn more myself.
The Vietnam War and issues surrounding civil rights played a key role
during the formation of SRRT. I think it’s especially important to note
that the Vietnam war was not a “library” issue but played a substantial
role in forming SRRT. This is something that anyone who joins SRRT should understand. Today’s political climate is much different than the climate of 1969 and it’s why there is a need to examine our priorities – as Rory has so eloquently stated. But I think Alison said it best – this shouldn’t be construed as an either/or proposition. There’s always room to examine our priorities as it relates to issues within the profession while also advocating for issues outside of librarianship. And we’re always going to have to this discussion as to why we deal with non-library related topics. It will be an ongoing indefinite task especially for those outside of SRRT.
The Library Issues and Advocacy Task Force sounds like a great idea and the liaison infrastructure (FTRF, GLBTRT have had liaisons to SRRT) that’s already in place is another way to go too. However, it’s not bad to ask ourselves once in a while, what can we do to better resonate with the association at large. Our continued existence relies on asking (and answering) these types of questions. Thanks!
—–Original Message—–
From: Rory Litwin
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 3:45 PM
To: Lewis,Alison
Cc: srrtac-l@ala.orgSubject: [srrtac-l] Re: Re: SRRT focus ongoing discussion — and proposed new TF.
I think this is going about it a little backwards. A special place for
SRRT’s younger members to talk about political and ethical information
issues?
I think that what is happening is that we have reached a point where what was formerly the core of SRRT, in terms of its individuals and its issues, has become a self-isolated minority that doesn’t represent the
organization and is not in tune with the times. I think that what SRRT
will be from this point, and who its leaders will be and what it’s point
of view will be, is still undefined. We are hearing some ideas (i.e.
Allison’s, and forgive me for not remembering your last name, Allison)
that I think will certainly be beyond the pale because they bear no
connection to what SRRT is about, but it is inevitable that we will hear a wider range of voices if we are going to invite new voices.
But if there is going to be an enclosed subgroup that reports back to the larger group about its minority concerns, let it be the legacy,
continuity-with-the-past group that requests that SRRT consider bringing an anti-war resolution to Council, and let the ensuing dialog result in a strong focus on the information ethics components of the political problem, whether the product takes the form of a resolution or another kind of communication or action.
I don’t see this as an endless discussion. I see this as a turning point
that we have been in need of, painful as it might be, for some time.
I realize how unpopular this line of argument is going to make me among many of you. For quite a number of reasons, though, I think it is the right thing.Rory
======
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:22:41 -0500, “Lewis,Alison”
wrote: I think it’s time to shut up and dance. I’m totally turnedoff by the fact that this issue of SRRT’s focus seems to > be turning into one more endless discussion. Make that one more endless > polarized discussion, presenting the matter as an either/or construct, > wherein we’re asked to choose one side or the other. People who want to focus on social responsibilities issues in the larger > sphere are welcome to continue to pursue those concerns, and will no doubt > do so. I’m currently falling on the side of the debate that says we’ve gotten out of balance and don’t spend enough of our limited time and effort focusing on more obviously library-related issues. I’m also hearing from my students that they are VERY interested in social responsibilities issues but they need to see a more direct connection to their work in the library world. What they are telling me is mirroring what was reported in the NMRT survey. Instead of feeling like we need to “re-educate” them about what SR RT “really” means, I want to *listen* to these younger members of our profession and be more responsive to what they are saying. To that end, I’m proposing a new Task Force for SRRT- The Library Issues > and Advocacy Task Force. This will be an area within SRRT for people who > want to focus on the “more obviously related to library” social > responsibilities issues. I’ve posted a thread on the SRRT ALA Connect > area, in the Discussions Forums on this topic. Please join me in a > discussion there, and/or here, and/or feel free to contact me directly if > you have interest or ideas in this area. All are welcome! The following is what was posted on ALA Connect/SRRT (which you do NOT need > to be a member to access) and should be publicly available: > > I would like to propose a new task force within SRRT — the Library Issues > and Advocacy Task Force. There’s been a lot of talk
about SRRT’s focus of late — I think it’s time to quit talking and
start doing! I’ve set up > this discussion forum as an area to discuss
the following — * Level of interest in such a task force — would
you join and be willing to work on issues in such a task force? My
hope would be that SRRT members could be actively involved in this
task force whether or not they can attend face-to-face meetings.
For those who are able to attend ALA Mid-Winter in Boston, let’s get
together at the All Task Force meeting and do some brainstorming!
Any discussion there can be reported back to all who may be
interested via ALA Connect and/or other means. * What issues
would you most be interested in working on? Ones that spring to my
mind are:
*Closings and proposed closings of state libraries.
*Budget cuts in tough economic times adversely affecting libraries.
Library salaries and labor issues.
Raising general public awareness of “worth” of libraries in the public sphere.
* What other groups inside and outside of ALA can we partner with on such issues?
There are groups working on these issues already, but I think that SRRT should have a voice in these matters as well.
* How could we most effectively work on these issues? Lobbying? Letter writing campaigns? Creating educational tools? Writing resolutions?
* What is the most effective means of communication for this proposed
task force? Listserv? Wiki? ALA Connect? Other? > Please share your own thoughts and ideas! Alison
Alison M. Lewis, Ph.D. >
Assistant Teaching Professor
http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/alewis/ >
________________________________________
Rory Litwin.Sent: Nov 16, 2009 3:08 PM
To: Alfred Kagan
Subject: [srrtac-l] Re: Re: Re: NMRT’s survey on ALA Council
Veteran SRRT members on the list,I haven’t heard how you feel about issues such as the ones below that Ihave suggested as better targets for our political energies within ALA.
* Privacy (of library users, web users, and citizens)
* Copyright and the Open Access Movement
* Workplace speech
* Deprofessionalization and deskilling
* Librarians’ pay and status
* “Next generation library catalogs”
* Cataloging trends
* Market effects on intellectual freedom (media monopoly)
* Academic Freedom
* Internet filtering
* Net neutrality
* Information as a public good
* Disinformation
* Government secrecy
* Privatization of information and information services
* Trends favoring casual users over researchers
* The dumbing down of culture and of educational institutions
* Funding crises / library closings
* The decline of publishing / changes in the publishing industry
* Digitization as a funding priority
* Conflict over the foundations of the library profession
* Education 2.0 and critical thinking
* Critical perspectives on multiple literacies and media shift
* The digital divide
* The literacy divide
* The middle class bias of public libraries
* Serving the underserved
* Racism and sexism and libraries
* Capitalism and trends in the information landscape
* Library of Congress priorities
* American Library Association priorities
* OCLC priorities
* Library education and the iSchools
* Media, information overload, and the educational psychology of
reading
* Critical pedagogy and library instruction
* Queer theory, information access, and information organization
* Neutrality and advocacy
* Bias in systems of information organization
* The crisis in journalism and its meaning for the public sphere
* Change in the nature of the public sphere
* The digital preservation crisis
* The role of local perspectives and local needs
* Commercialization of libraries
* Corporate funding (of libraries, of ALA)
* Indigenous knowledge and Intellectual Freedom
* Intellectual Freedom and hate literature/hate speech
* Research standards in the profession / bias in research
* Googlization
* Google Books settlement
========
On Nov 16, 2009, at 8:36 am, Mark C. Rosenzweig wrote:
There is nothing that is a greater offense to the general sense of
“social responsibility” than unjust, unnecessary potentially
endless, vastly destructive, fundamentally destabilizing and ever-
expanding war. Our great country is presently involved in two major wars/occupations, both predicated on lies, follies, deceptions (self-
deceptions) and veiled predatory interests and is actively getting
more and more parties involved in these pageants of death and
destruction, of mendacity and propaganda, of wasted resources and
wasted lives, while eyeing other spheres in which to flex more
military muscle..
What does opposition to war have to do with American librarians?
Is it a library issue? From the point of view of social responsibility it doesn’t matter if it conforms to some arbitrary taxonomy of what is or is not a so-called “library issue”. That way of posing the question is itself fundamentally socially irresponsible!
What does war have to do with US machinists or electricians or
hospital workers? What does it have to do with their unions? Do you
think unions should not take a position against these wars because
wars are not “union issues”? Will you go so far as to say that
unionists who bring up anti-war resolutions are diverting workers
from their proper concerns.?
What does it have to do with doctors and nurses? Nurses shouldn’t
oppose war because it is not a “hospital issue”? What does it have
to do with anthropologists, architects, arachaeologists,
psychologists, historians? What does it have to lawyers, teachers
and social workers? None of these groups should take up positions,
collectively if possible, against unjust war because it is not a
narrowly defined professional issue?
That , of course, is just what the operators of the war machine
would like. That people think that war and peace are only a
personal decision that has nothing to do with their collective
labors, commitments and interests.
We don’t “choose” to address war and peace from a menu of
“political issues” we like and don’t like, issues which we think
are proper to our profession according to some neat taxonomy and
those which are not.. Iif we are moved by the sense of social
responsibility as librarians we have no choice but to act against
war, on the premise that the defense of the cultural values which
undergird the ethical practice of our trade and its healthy
development demands that we must use whatever means are at our
disposal to add our voices against war, its mis-allocation of resources, against its violation of legal and ethical norms, against its destruction of lives and communities, against its inherent irrationality and spread of hatred and distrust and violence ,against all in unjust war that is inimical to the humane development of society to which our profession is committed..
Mark C. Rosenzweig
co-editor, Progressive Librarian
=========
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:03:43 -0600, Alfred Kagan wrote:
>> Just a footnote here. Many govt works are members of unions that take strong stands locally and nationally on the big issues of the day
including war. I am thinking SEIU and AFSCME.
There is also the obvious point that doing nothing is also a political
position. It reinforces the status quo. Everything we do is
political in some way or another. Al
========
On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:22 pm, Allison Angell wrote:
I can’t engage in politics at work, and I’m far from the only
librarian who feels that while at work, he or she should stay
politically disengaged. My identity *as a librarian* is of
necessity different from my identity and beliefs as a private
citizen. So yes, I think it’s *entirely* valid for SRRT to avoid
going too far into issues that aren’t directly related to
libraries. Whatever my position on war (or Gaza, or…) might be
personally, I have no right to spend time *as a librarian*
advocating for it. I don’t expect machinists and electricians to be
neutral; after all, they’re not generally paid through local or
State funds.
SRRT is part of a national library association. Not all of ALA’s
members share the same opinions about the war, or about non-library
social issues. (Of course, we don’t all agree about library issues,
either, but somehow ALA makes that work).
Allison Angell, Benicia (Calif.) Public Library
========
Fred Stoss: With regard to professional organizations responding to issues the opposition to the Iraq War is a good example of ALA failing it members. It took ALA MONTHS to acknowledge that at its June Annual Meeting the Association voted its opposition to the Iraq War. SRRT and individuals PLEADED with ALA to issue some sort of a statement. It literally had to be dragged out of ALA. On the other hand the AFL/CIO (I think) passed a similar resolution and grabbed front page headlines for several days. Even
under the Speaking with One Voice Policy, ALA is deafeningly silent when it chooses.
I think the issue that is taken with SRRT about pressing social concerns, rights, and practices is the fact that survival of libraries as a concept, as a place, as a profession is being so dramatically impacted by external conditions, primarily economic conditions, that issues about wars, torture and human rights abuses, and events far away do not help the present situations about pure survival. There is a part of ALA that is looking for ALA to respond to the battles and wars being waged against libraries in communities, campuses, corporations, and institutions, rather than responding to Wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Fred Stoss, TFOE Chair
University at Buffalo, SUNY
=========
Mon 11/16/09 2:43 PM , Rory Litwin :
Tom, I don’t have time to write a sociology paper or even go back and
dohe literature review. What I am saying relates to most of what has
been written about social and cultural trends since the 80s. I think we’ve reached a point where there is a gap that can’t be bridged
> by discourse and can only be bridged by time.>
> Rory
=========
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:31:47 -0500, “Twiss, Thomas Marshall” I agree with Mark’s position as well. As
> librarians with a sense of social responsibility, we have an obligation to speak out on a broad range of> issues where we see a connection to our professional mission. The alternative would be to accept a narrower, and considerably more> conservative, definition of the role and responsibility of librarians> prescribed by librarians who are fixated upon the supposed limits of our professional “expertise.” But many of those same librarians opposed our resolution on disinformation and secrecy, too. (And-to the extent your arguments have any validity regarding the antiwar resolutions they woul> seem to apply to the resolution on disinformaton and secrecy as well.) On the other hand, we in SRRT weren’t the only ones who saw a connection> between libraries and the war. The overwhelming majority of people who attended the ALA membership meeting
that discussed the “Resolution on the> Relationship Between the Iraq War and Libraries” in 2005 saw th> connection, and voted to pass the
resolution, as did ALA Council. I don’t see any evidence that this made SRRT less popular within the organization.
In fact, I vividly recall a young woman who came up to me after the> membership meeting had passed that resolution, to thank us. She told me> that it had been the first time at that conference that ALA was addressing an issue that seemed important to her as a
librarian.
I’m interested, though, Rory, in hearing the evidence you have for some of the statements you’ve made. What is your basis for arguing ALA’s position> has had the cumulative effect of marginalizing the association? How has this happened, when-as you admit-ALA hasn’t much publicized its position? And why has this happened when “People don’t care what other people happen to believe?” You argue that the culture has changed, and that “things don’t work the way they used to.” No doubt some things have changed. But what is your basis for suggesting people care less about what other people think than they did “forty years ago”? Are you saying ALA’s resolution on the> Vietnam War had a major impact on our country that our resolutions on the Iraq war have not and cannot have? How do you know either of those observations are true? You ask what the press, the talk shows, and the blogosphere would have said if ALA had publicized its antiwar resolutions. I would guess some of these would have ridiculed
ALA-much as the talkshows and much of the press ridiculed expressions of anti-war sentiment in the> late 1960s and early 1970s. But why do you believe that today that would> necessarily marginalize ALA within an increasingly antiwar U.S.population? Tom
========
From: Rory Litwin
Sent: Nov 16, 2009 8:25 PM
To: Council srrt
Subject: [srrtac-l] Re: RE: Re: NMRT’s survey on ALA Council
I’m sorry, Mike, but this is BS. It may be possible to make a weak
connection between an issue like the war and library funding, but to say that we can therefore call it a “library issue” and expect to be taken seriously is silly. I think we need to rethink that strategy. Framing is important, but it only accomplishes so much. The fact is, SRRT has been very interested, even preoccupied, with issues that have only a distant connection to libraries. If we seriously want to continue doing that on the same scale (and my view is that we should cut way back on it) then we should at least be honest about what we are doing. When my own group engages in BS it makes me really uneasy.
Addressing issues like the war is not necessarily what SRRT is about. As I have pointed out there are many political issues to address within the library and information sphere.
Rory
==========
On Nov 15, 2009, at 8:13 PM, Mike Marlin wrote:
I believe the survey results are a cause for reeducating Jenny Emanuel and other ALA Councilors, not necessarily ALA and NMRT general members! After all, Ms. Emanuel’s question was framed from her opinion that resolutions to withdraw troops and shift taxpayer money from wars to libraries are not library related. As Al Kagan pointed out, it’s all in the framing. With that said, SRRT, in its official communication, has always advocated for library-related social issues, sometimes after proving so in rigorous internal debate, and been willing to demonstrate the library connection when challenged in Council. I believe members often disagree with SRRT for raising social issues at all without thinking through the connection to libraries. I would suggest that Ms. Emanuel resurvey NMRT members with the same sorts of questions but leaving out the library-related vs. nonlibrary-related tangent. I bet she would achieve different results. I
also object to her follow-up questions about what ALA should or shouldn’t do, especially since she readily admits the answers were influenced by the preceding questions. The survey seems to me to be leading the witness.
Finally, you could change the frame and say that George Bush was a liberal idealist since his professed ideal was to liberate every country he could get his guns on, and it’s probably a good thing then that not all ALA members are liberal idealists! Mike Marlin California State Library,Sacramento
=======
From: Allison Angell
Sunday, November 15, 2009 3:28 PM To:
srrtac-l@ala.org
Of course it would be good if more new ALA members are aware of SRRT, but I don’t agree that the survey results are a call for re-educating ALA members. Do we need “SRRT to do more to inform ALA members of the importance of social responsibilities”? SRRT can’t assume NMRT members are uninformed, just because they don’t agree with SRRT on the importance of advocating about non-library social issues. Not only might this divert time attention that could be better spent elsewhere, but also this runs the risk of sounding condescending (”you don’t agree, so clearly you don’t understand. I’ll explain it again.”). Allison Angell, Benicia (Calif.) Public Library
allison_angell@yahoo.com
======
— On Sun, 11/15/09, Conner, Tiffaniwrote: NMRT’s survey on ALA Council To:
srrtmem@ala.org
2009, 2:42 PM Dear SRRT folks, I have been following the NMRT survey
posted by newly elected Councilor, Jenny Emanuel.
NMRT survey
In her executive summary she mentions the following (I’ve attached the executive summary): I then asked their opinions about some issues that Council has recently dealt with in order to gauge how I should be voting in the future.
The first was whether ALA should be involved with social issues relating to libraries (I used benefits for same sex partners of library workers as the example). 64.2% said yes, 7.5% said no, and 22.6% maybe.
The second was whether we should be involved with non-library social issues, the example being withdrawing troops from Iraq. 2.8% said yes, 73.6% said no, and 18.9% maybe.
The third referred to electronic participation in committeesand
conferences; 94.3% said yes, 5.7% stated maybe. A had several comments that my examples weren’t that great, which I agree with especially the partner benefit one, but I wanted to use recent examples, and those are what first came to mind.
I then asked what NMRT members want ALA to do and what not to do. There was a lot of overlap in the answers to these questions, so I’m grouping them together. As expected by the preceding questions, a large number (12) mentioned that they did not want ALA to be focused on non-library social issues. One did indicate that they liked ALA taking a stand on social issues, but reflected “that really isn’t a fair ‘wish’ since I know not all members of the organization are liberal idealists”. [END nmrt SUMMARY]
++++++
I feel that what you see above is a prime reason for SRRT to do more to inform ALA members of the importance of social responsibilities, both directly about libraries and indirectly related to libraries. SRRT could offer excellent discussions on social responsibilities and engage NMRT members in active, vibrant exchanges. NMRT is a group that has lots of energy (I was a member for 5 years-when you roll off as “too old” 
). I’m certain that many NMRT folks are also SRRT members, let’s seize the opportunity to engage with this group-a
group who wants to be involved and is pleading for folks to help them
figure out how to become involved with ALA. Tiffani .
Tiffani R Conner, MS,
MSIS SRRT Councilor
+++++++++++++++++++++