My resignation letter

Why I resigned from my role as chair of the IBPA advocacy committee

November 8, 2021

Dear A.B.,

It is with difficulty and sadness that I inform you of my resignation as chair of the advocacy committee.

My involvement in IBPA as a member, volunteer and committee chair have been among the most empowering and educational experiences in my publishing career. As part of IBPA, I have interacted and learned with other independent publishers and developed meaningful relationships, all of which have fostered my growth and development as a publishing professional, for which I am grateful.

Last week when I shared an article about Kenny Brechner’s resignation from the ABA board and enthusiastically suggested we stand with him, I was pointed to an updated IBPA policy that I found troubling. The Code of Ethics was updated to oppose publishing “works of hate speech, or works that encourage discrimination, oppression, or violence,” and a hate speech policy was added to the termination policy to clarify its meaning. I read the thoughtful and well-intentioned explanations from you and other board members. I read the policy numerous times. I turned around every position carefully, wanting to accept that this policy is okay. But it's not, and I can't pretend to agree with it. 

I was informed that a goal of the policy was to remain apolitical. But free speech, unconstrained, is an apolitical stance. A book publishing organization, of all entities, ought to stand for free speech at all costs. While that is messy and uncomfortable, it’s also paramount to protecting the rights of all voices. The ALCU’s attitude on protecting free speech aligns with my own. (Brechner’s essay on the matter reflects my position more comprehensively.)

I was informed that a driver of this policy was to require professional and respectful decorum among its membership. (I would agree with that goal.) If that were the case, the ethic would communicate the need to uphold professional and respectful interactions at IBPA events and with members instead of “To not publish works of hate speech or works that encourage discrimination, oppression, or violence.” As if hate speech in and of itself isn’t extremely complicated to define, the additional language only makes the ethic increasingly vague and subjective. Nor does the ethic point to decorum, until one reads the footnoted hate speech policy, the UN definition of free speech (which IBPA defers to) and the additional language IBPA opted to include. 

As the ethic and hate speech policy are written, they pertain to: all books and works published by IBPA members, communication in “business affairs or personal interactions” and “any kind of communication in speech, writing or behavior.” These transcend the concept of opposing works of hate speech and encouraging respectful decorum. Given the broad, unbound language of this policy, especially in the context of the climate within our industry, the policy is egregious. Yes, words can hurt. Books and their ideologies can be negative, dark or even evil. But good can come from the disputes and discussions that arise because of them. And when mailing a controversial book can be referred to as a "violent incident," or displaying the wrong book cover can be thought to do “terrible and racist harm,” or an organization rescinds a book award in the name of supporting marginalized authors, we have a problem. In an atmosphere where we can't question such claims or the motivations behind them, the IBPA policy, as written, invites this type of controversy, and perhaps empowers it. 

I stand for egalitarianism. I stand for conducting oneself as a professional and for the respectful treatment of all persons. I also stand for free speech, due process and freedom of thought and inquiry, and it is these principles being threatened by this policy, which I stand against.

Sincerely,

Mel

Errata (December 3, 2021)
After sending my resignation letter, it was pointed out to me that I had not, in fact, “enthusiastically suggested [IBPA] stand with” Mr. Brechner. And that turns out to be correct (I reread my email and realized my error). Here is the language I included when I forwarded the Shelf Awareness Pro newsletter that included the article about Mr. Brechner:

Please read the "Kenny Brechner Resigns from ABA Board over Free Expression Approach" piece below. This is incredibly important. I am disappointed with the ABA's decision to constrain what free speech means, and I struggle with the fact that IBPA has yet to define the core value about not publishing works that incite violence or promote hate speech. I stand with Brechner's resignation, in that it illustrates standing for free speech.

"Protecting the speech we find offensive so that our own speech is protected can be emotionally messy. It is built upon the intellectual appreciation that there is no free expression without free expression for all. Free expression is not about putting forward that all speech is equal, nor that exclusion isn't harmful, but rather that the suppression of speech is the greater harm..." - Brechner