And now, the ICE kerfluffle, records management-style, part 3

[We have invited Brad Houston, City Records Officer, City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to contribute to the blog with his thoughts about the proposed destruction of ICE records. We invite further conversation in the comments to his posts and at our Twitter account. This is the final post.]

 By Brad Houston

The Human Rights Angle

Still with us? Congratulations on getting this far. Your reward for getting to the end of this series is likely the most controversial angle from which to examine this issue, plus the promised “TL;DR” section. You’re welcome!

I said two angles in the first post—so where’d this third one come from? Well, I’m least qualified to talk about this part of it, so I didn’t want to necessarily include it as a main plank of this post. But I did want to at least address it a little bit. The “soft” part of this angle is the question of “whose story gets told by the Archives”, and questions the assumption made by the appraiser that “major activities of federal officials” are the only ones worth archiving. As has been discussed at great length in the archival literature, the question of whether to document the high-level functions of government or the quotidian effect that government has on everyday people is very much an open one. The former has long been the default position of most national archival agencies, including NARA, and you can see that in the record groups and appraisal decisions that NARS/NARA has been making since the 1930s. The latter happens more sporadically, and primarily as part of managing vital records of the State, but it DOES happen.

As Splinter notes, Alien Registration Files, to take a relevant example, are already marked as permanent by NARA because they serve as “the primary documentation for most of our government’s immigration processes”. I don’t know enough about these files to say for sure, but it seems plausible that some of the information in the ICE files under scrutiny makes its way to this primary documentation. Is that enough? Should these records be preserved as a way of further providing records as “evidence of the interaction between the people and the federal government”, as Stacy Wood suggested to Splinter? I would suggest that NARA’s mission, for better or worse, dictates their answer to these questions in their appraisal decisions. In which case, attacking individual scheduling choices seems less efficacious than working to refocus NARA’s emphases on a policy level.

The second angle is a bit more dangerous, and that is the question of these records as long-term Truth and Reconciliation-type records. In other words, under the current administrative and legal regime, NARA and ICE believe they are within an acceptable legal framework to destroy these records after 20 years, since there is not likely to be widespread research interest in any particular case. If, however, a president or Congress is elected in 2032, say, who creates policy to dismantle ICE and/or provide redress to victims of systemic abuse in its detention centers, that calculus about the long-term value of these individual case files changes drastically. In that case, the hypothetical commission investigating abuses would likely lament the fact that records from 1999 were destroyed in 2019 following the approved retention schedule.

Having said that, there is no reasonable expectation that NARA can provide retention guidance based on that hypothetical, nor that ICE would follow any guidance so proffered. So this use case might be a case where future Commissions will need to rely on either records requested and saved for particular cases, or hope that the reports are, in fact, accurate enough to make a proper accounting.

TL;DR

Whew! That’s over 2500 words of rambling on this topic, and I could probably write 1000 more easily. Which sort of speaks to my overall point—this isn’t an issue that can be readily summarized or boiled down to a press release. There are all sorts of records management considerations that need to be taken into account to provide all of the necessary context behind the ICE request to destroy these records, and I just don’t think “we want to cover up evidence of our wrongdoing” is necessarily the primary driver. (I will concede that it may be *a* driver.) Frankly, I have a decade plus of records management experience, and I am only about 80% confident that I have explained this right even in this enormous post (or, more likely, series of posts, depending on how the blog runners edit this :). The federal government is an enormously complicated beast, and I have at best a sub-dermal understanding of its operations.

But that’s the point, innit? I don’t think that we, as archivists and records managers, can reasonably assume that discussion of these issues in “mainstream” venues, particularly political-type venues, are fully informed on the situation. There is generally just a lot of misunderstanding in the public sphere about what records management is supposed to do and why this kind of request is much more likely to be a case of “we need to clear out our storage areas” than “we are nefariously destroying records of historical value”. Stories like this tell me that the profession as a whole needs to do more work educating the public about not just the value of records with archival value, but about the process of appraising those records, and why not everything that institutions are creating needs to stay around forever and ever.

Yes, archivists, this means that as ambassadors to the public in a way not always possible for pure RMs, you’re going to have to learn more about records management, and that need is only going to grow. Sorry. I promise, however, that it is not as bad as it looks, and you will even get the chance to learn more about how records get from point A to point Z in the first place. Knowing more about that is going to help us talk to non-experts, and (hopefully) cut down on the alarmism a bit.

And yes, if there IS a use case for these records in year 21 after they’ve closed, or if there’s otherwise something about retention that you think should be brought to NARA’s attention, of course you should provide public comment—that’s why the public comment period is there. But reflexive complaining about destruction of public records, as much of this genre of release seems to be, does not help anyone.

[See Part One here!]

[See Part Two here!]

Advertisements

And now, the ICE kerfluffle, records management-style, part 2

[We have invited Brad Houston, City Records Officer, City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to contribute to the blog with his thoughts about the proposed destruction of ICE records. We invite further conversation in the comments to his posts and at our Twitter account. This is  part two of three posts.]

 By Brad Houston

The Records Management Angle

Welcome back! In this part of the post, I’m going to talk about the destruction of records by ICE from a strictly-RM viewpoint. Buckle in, folks, it’s going to a wild ride. (Is he joking, or does he actually enjoy records management discussion that much? Little of column A, little of Column B.)

The important thing to remember when we’re talking about records management at a federal level is that the Federal Records Act has no inherent enforcement mechanism. What this means is that to the extent that Executive Branch agencies follow records management practices at all, they are *only* constrained in their assessment of appropriate retention times by the canonical records values (Historical, Administrative, Legal, and Fiscal) that attach to those records. To the extent that there is any meaningful penalty for improper destruction of records at all, it is attached to destruction or mishandling of records under another criminal statute (remember, Hillary Clinton was being investigated for Those Emails under the Espionage Act, not the Federal Records Act), or as part of litigation, either in sanctions for improper destruction or in the inability to produce records to support a case. If ICE *really* wanted to get rid of those records, the main thing stopping them from doing so unilaterally is public opprobrium… and as has been suggested to me on Twitter, the premise that ICE cares about that is questionable at best.

(SIDENOTE: At this point, after almost 70 years of no enforcement power and concomitant records manager frustration, cold-turkey implementation of penalties might be, ahem, ill-advised:

https://twitter.com/herodotusjr/status/902710767258132481

Anyway.)

So let’s examine the three relevant values (Fiscal likely not factoring in, though tell me in the comments if I’m wrong):

Historical: This is the value ACLU is apparently hanging its hat on, which is kind of the records equivalent of putting all your money on 36 Red. My general rule of thumb is that only about 5-10% of records in a given institution are genuinely historical in nature; per NARA’s communication with Splinter News, at the federal government level that’s down to 2-5%. ACLU’s main argument for permanent retention of these records appears to be “Even 20 years is far too short for keeping the record of a death or sexual assault of an individual in government custody.” Which, sorry ACLU, saying that doesn’t make it so. NARA’s primary reason for approving temporary retention is that the series in question “Does not document significant actions of Federal Officials.” Which is… not untrue? Secondarily, the appraisal document indicates that “the information is highly sensitive”, which is…also accurate? For the latter, you cannot divorce the privacy issues inherent to records from their appraisal. The PII that is likely to be endemic to these records means that they are only going to be available to subjects, family and other privileged groups for a good long while after close of file; once the privacy restrictions expire, are the particulars of an individual case of real interest to most researchers? I would argue “probably not”—you are at that point looking for systemic analysis rather than specifics. (For the former, see the last section of this. Or, you know, the Appraisal literature for the last 30 years or so.)

Which takes us to:

Administrative: There’s a couple of sub-values at work here. One is the primary use of the records by ICE, which presumably is to document the circumstances surrounding the in-custody deaths or sexual assaults and (one hopes) use that information to improve their operations (I know, I know, but I’m speaking generally here). The secondary use of these records is as the accountability measure, which is what ACLU is most interested in. Mechanisms such as FOIA and other public records laws are supposed to facilitate this secondary use, by allowing members of the public to see documentation of agency operations and take action to push for changes as necessary. To the extent that the ACLU complaint is a valid one, it is in this area—given the tendency of federal agencies to try to skirt FOIA by whatever means necessary (often but not always including overclassification), it makes sense to push for longer retention of records to ensure that they are around long enough to be released at all. Having said that, three big caveats:

  1. 20 years is a long time, comparatively speaking. There is probably not a lot of primary administrative value in these kinds of records—either ICE officials take action on this sort of information as it happens, or they don’t—so that retention period is probably for a combination of legal reasons (see next section) and specifically to give people a chance to review these records for accountability reasons in the first place. Whether they will be released in a form that is minimally-redacted enough for people to use them is another question, but that’s what lawsuits are for!
  2. Case files for this kind of thing are rarely the only documentation for information on the overall process—there are almost always summaries, reports, audits, etc. that have the systemic information about responses to programs that is really being sought here. Splinter makes a fair point that the kind of information that suggests abuses in the system might be sanitized by the time it gets to annual reports, but frankly if we accept that premise there is nothing really stopping ICE from sanitizing the originals either.
  3. Given a request for a particular case file, especially if that request gets to the point where it is being litigated, the chance that case file will *actually* be destroyed is low, because of the records best practice of putting a hold on records subject to litigation. Which is a nice segue into:

Legal Value: That last point is a nice segue into my discussion of the final main record value applicable to these records. Ironically, legal value is probably the value that argues most strongly *for* longer retention of records such as these. To the extent you are maintaining a record for an extended period of time under this value, you are doing so because you believe that having the record will ultimately exonerate your or your organization’s actions. There are all sorts of calculations made here by ICE’s lawyers that I am not privy to, such as the relevant criminal and civil statutes of limitations for sexual assault or murder/wrongful death as they apply to detainees. But the 20 year retention period tells me that ICE lawyers a) determined that 20 years was sufficient under civil statutes for retaining records for defending the agency vs. litigation; b) calculated that the risk of criminal charges being brought against the agency in any given case after 20 years was low enough to justify destroying records at that point. (Note too from the Splinter article that when a case IS found to be as a result of employee misconduct, those records are supposed to be maintained permanently.)

“But Brad,” you ask, “What about when the records show that ICE DID NOT act appropriately in regards to detainee sexual assault or in-custody death?” An excellent question! Even in those cases, official records can often provide mitigating circumstances that can lessen the severity of the charge or sanction towards the agency. But even if the records show unequivocally bad actions on behalf of ICE, this is one of the circumstances where the Federal Records Act has teeth after all—because if records in either civil litigation or criminal cases can be shown to have been destroyed outside of the regular retention period, with intent to conceal the actions described by those records, courts can apply sanctions, from instructing juries to assume the worst-case scenario is described in the missing records to awarding the judgment to the plaintiff outright. The question of intent is difficult, but not impossible, to prove, so here again I would expect ICE lawyers to not want to chance it any more than they have to.

[See Part One here!]

[See Part Three here!]

 

And now, the ICE kerfluffle, records management-style

[We have invited Brad Houston, City Records Officer, City of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to contribute to the blog with his thoughts about the proposed destruction of ICE records. We invite further conversation in the comments to his posts and at our Twitter account. This is  part one of three posts.]

 By Brad Houston

Can we take a deep breath and relax for a moment, please? I get it. I really do. ICE is a deeply problematic agency with some deeply problematic policies and procedures, and the stance of the current administration is going to be largely to exacerbate them. In that light, seeing a press release from the ACLU that the agency is going to start “Destroying Records Of Immigrant Abuse” is, at first glance, deeply alarming. But can we step back a moment here? As a records manager, an archivist, and someone who recognizes that Outrage Fatigue is a real thing, I have real concerns about reflexively getting one’s hackles up about this. Sure, as was pointed out to me on Twitter by one of this blog’s administrators, it can be argued that it is ACLU’s job to argue the worst-case scenario and rouse people to action. As information professionals, we should do better.

As I see it, this issue—and the reaction thereto—can and should be examined from at least two angles (plus a third which I am not really qualified to opine upon, but will attempt to address anyway).

(NOTE: This wound up being WAY longer than I was expecting, so I have asked editors to split this up into a couple of posts so you don’t get records management burnout. We’ll start with Angle 1, information literacy.)

The Information Literacy Angle

As stated above, the ACLU and similar activist groups arguably exist to get into a frenzy on issues like this, and to a certain extent press releases like this one should be expected. The problem is that—how can I put this delicately?—As activists and not records professionals, these groups may or may not have any idea of what they are talking about. Public advocacy groups in general tend to focus more on the aspects of public records law relating to *access*– your Freedom of Information Acts, your Open Records Laws, etc. And that’s good! They should! There is an unfortunate tendency at many levels of government to subvert the spirit of open records laws, and to the extent that agencies are preventing legitimate access to public records, advocacy groups should push back against it. This… is not that. This is an unfortunate tendency on the part of advocacy groups to object to the proposed destruction of *any* records, particularly those belonging to hot-button agencies like ICE or the FBI. To be frank, government entities neither CAN maintain all records until the end of time (because of storage costs and concerns), nor SHOULD they do so (because of the undeniable tendency of post-1945 society to create many, MANY more records than are strictly necessary, which significantly impedes information management and retrieval). As such, when I see news like this coming from a group like the ACLU, the IFF, or the Sunlight Foundation, I am careful to scrutinize what they’re actually complaining about.

In this case, I am particularly skeptical because the ACLU does not provide much context to support the seriousness of their complaint. For example, they quote from the official NARA appraisal report in their press release, but they do not provide a link to the original document so that readers can assess for themselves the context in which the appraisal decision is being made. If I received an argument like that in a student paper, you’d better believe I would at least be knocking off points for improper citation. (For reference, the ICE request and the NARA appraisal response are both available at http://thememoryhole2.org/blog/ice-document-destruction. This information courtesy of a separate google search.) There’s also no information in the press release about comparative retention of similar records elsewhere in federal government—as an information professional I would want to know about this in order to determine if ICE’s request is wildly out of step with best practices. Information found elsewhere suggests this may be the case—DoD retains its records of sexual assaults vs. detainees for a minimum of *50 years*, for example, suggesting ICE may be overly aggressive in its request. But elsewhere, records of in-custody deaths maintained by the Federal Bureau of Prisons are retained for just *5* years after the close of investigation. So there’s clearly some variance in best practice here, for which ICE’s proposed 20-year retention is well on the spectrum. Nowhere in the press release or related statements is there any indication of this. When we talk to students and members of the public about information literacy, we ask them to consider the source of the information, whether that source may have a bias, whether its assertions are well-supported by the evidence, etc. As information professionals, it is incumbent upon us to undertake the same due diligence when we are sharing information among ourselves.

[See Part Two here!]

[See Jeremy Brett’s original statement here!]

The Color of Surveillance: Government Monitoring of American Immigrants

If you were not able to watch last week’s conference on government monitoring of immigrants and border communities in the US — organized by Georgetown Law’s Center on Privacy and Technology, you can watch the webcast online at:

http://apps.law.georgetown.edu/webcasts/eventDetail.cfm?eventID=3143

The schedule is available here (click on view details).

Stay tuned for another blog reflecting on the conference.

Lack of Data Disclosure about Immigration Enforcement

Last week, on June 8, 2017, the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), based at Syracuse University, a non-partisan research data center at Syracuse, has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) charging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) – a part of the Department of Homeland Security — with unlawfully withholding records on deportations. The lawsuit follows an earlier lawsuit filed on May 9th.

The records track ICE deportations under its “Secure Communities Program” (S-Comm). The “Secure Communities Program,” which was piloted in 2008 under President George W. Bush, relies on partnerships among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies and integrated databases, to speed up deportations.  Following criticism of the program by civil liberties and immigrant rights groups, President Obama had suspended the program in 2014 and replaced it with the Priority Enforcement Program. Under Executive Order 13768, entitled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, signed by President Trump on January 25, 2017, however, “Secure Communities” was reinstated and replaced the Priority Enforcement Program.

Under the “secure Communities” program, the fingerprints of any human being who is arrested and booked into a local jail for any reason can be matched against ICE’s immigration database. This allows ICE to initiate deportation proceedings against non-citizens. Critics have complained that the program eroded immigrant communities’ trust in police and that it – based on the government’s own statistics – “ensnares huge numbers of low-level offenders and non-criminals in its dragnet, fueling mass deportations of productive community members and the destruction of U.S. families,“ states the ACLU on its website .

Prior to the suspension of the program in 2014, ICE had released detailed case-by-case data about deportation under “Secure Communities.” However, following the reinstatement of the program in January, “ICE began refusing to disclose much of the information produced in its previous responses to TRAC’s FOIA requests,” writes TRAC in a June 8, 2017, press release.

In March 2017, Open the Government initiated a letter to the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, which was supported by a coalition of organizations dedicated to government openness and accountability, privacy, human rights, civil rights, and immigrant rights, including the Society of American Archivists. In the letter, the groups urged Secretary Kelly and Attorney General Sessions to address concerns stemming from recent executive actions on immigration and refugees. “The Executive Orders on immigration raise substantial concerns about privacy protection and government accountability. Public data allows the public to hold its government accountable – but that is only possible if government information is released in a complete, consistent, unbiased, and open manner.” Following this letter, TRAC filed an earlier FOIA suit in May 2017 charging Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with unlawfully withholding information related to ICE’s immigration enforcement actions and its interaction with other law enforcement agencies.

We will keep you up to date on the court’s decisions.

By Katja Hering

The Trump “Budget”

The Concerned Archivists Alliance joins with many other interest groups in opposing the ideological fantasy that Donald Trump has chosen to term a “budget”. The purpose of this post is not to discuss the budget as a whole, with the terrible impact it will have on the lives of millions of Americans generally, but to speak specifically against its effect on the cultural agencies of the Federal Government. Bear in mind that the costs to the taxpayer for these agencies is a miniscule percentage of the total federal budget, yet these agencies are crucial to ensuring the continuation of the American cultural economy.

 

This budget is, simply atrocious.

  1. It requests $42 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities. Not to fund its continuing activities, but to quote the budget justification, “to begin the orderly closure of the agency”.  In short, this budget terminates the NEH altogether.

 

The NEH has been operating since 1965, having awarded over $5.3 billion through more than 63,000 grants in its 52 years of operation. Those grants have gone towards enriching Americans’ exposure to and understanding of the humanities, from art to literature to film to history. It is an immensely valuable service to Americans and the cultural effects of its loss would be incalculable.

 

  1. It eliminates the $230 million budget for the Institute of Museum and Library Services. For the last 20 years, IMLS has done sterling work in providing support to museums and libraries across the country, helping to ensure that cultural institutions may expand and thrive. The funding that IMLS supplies allows libraries serving vulnerable populations to provide their patrons with informational literacy training and help them to gain job-related skills and/or employment. Our museums and library systems are justifiable points of pride in this country; they are among the best of what we can do and what we believe as Americans.  IMLS funding has been critical in maintaining those institutions. This budget treats those institutions as enemies, as obstacles to move aside in the name of nebulous “debt reduction” and ensuring the continued transfer of wealth to the rich.

 

 

  1. It eliminates the $148 million budget for the National Endowment for the Arts. The NEA since 1965 has provided over $5 billion in grants to artists and art communities across the nation to support theater, dance, music, literature, film, and arts education. It is one of the federal agencies that should make us the most proud to be Americans, because its existence demonstrates the commitment of a democratic government to preserving and building our national cultural legacy.

 

  1. It eliminates the $445 million budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. It is the 40th anniversary of the CPB this year, and in the last four decades it has worked to ensure universal access to quality educational television, primarily through distributing funds to more than 1400 locally owned public television and radio stations. Through both the Public Broadcast Service and National Public Radio, the CPB brings news, music, children’s educational programming, discussions of public affairs, and other important productions to every part of the United States. The CPB has educated, entertained, and enlightened generations of Americans, and if it is eliminated, we will be intellectually and culturally poorer for the loss.

~Jeremy Brett

A Statement to the Archival Community

January 15, 2017

Colleagues:

We are a diverse group of archivists who are deeply concerned with the current state of American politics based on the election of Donald Trump and the subsequent legitimization of his advisers’ and surrogates’ damaging views and policies.

The Core Values and Code of Ethics established by the Society of American Archivists note that “underlying all the professional activities of archivists is their responsibility to a variety of groups in society and to the public good… the archival record is part of the cultural heritage of all members of society.” The Core Values also note that, by “documenting institutional functions, activities and decision-making, archivists provide an important means of ensuring accountability.” As professionals committed to these values and as custodians of society’s historical records, we have a responsibility to ensure that what we do, and how we do it, benefits society as a whole, while holding public officials and agencies accountable. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to speak out when the public good is jeopardized by political action.

As information professionals, paraprofessionals, and information science students, we are devoted to equitable access to information, committed to the right of citizens to know what their government is doing in their name, and dedicated to the idea that a democratic society cannot thrive in an atmosphere of secrecy and oppression. Therefore, we stand wholeheartedly in opposition to any attempt by the incoming administration to violate these concepts.

President-elect Donald Trump has made a long series of statements and proposed policies at odds with our Constitution, our history, our system of law, and our international human rights obligations, and which are a direct affront and threat to justice everywhere. With specific respect to record-keeping functions, he has done the following:

  • He has pledged to introduce a discriminatory ban from Muslim-majority countries and has publicly advocated for a large-scale registry targeting Muslims in the United States, regardless of citizenship status and without taking into account that criminals are routinely tracked elsewhere as part of the existing justice system. Such a registry, which would single people out based merely on religious affiliation or national origin, would violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments as well as our long tradition of robust defense of civil rights and liberties.Historically, data collection has been used as a tool to support racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic policies. In light of this history, we are alarmed by and opposed to any proposals advocating for data collection as a tool of discrimination and persecution.
  • He has been revealed to have systematically destroyed thousands of emails, other digital records, and paper records, in the course of government investigations of his businesses and in defiance of the law. We have grave concerns that, as president, this pattern of behavior will put the documentary record of his administration at risk and will allow him, his staff and supporters, to avoid the accountability that federal records laws are designed to ensure.
  • He has lied repeatedly, in the course of his campaign and his transition. He has continued to avow these lies even when confronted with documentary proof. He has made harmful statements – for example, about millions of fraudulent Democratic votes in the recent presidential election, about the election being “rigged,” or that the recent CIA revelations about Russian influence over the election are really a Democratic plot — that demonstrate disdain for supportable truth as proven in records. As archivists, we are dedicated to the preservation of records precisely because they can be used not only to determine but also support evidence-based, nonpartisan conclusions.He has also demonstrated contempt for documentary evidence once actually presented to him, i.e. in denying CIA conclusions about Russian hacking, or in continuing to foster the discredited Obama “birther” myth. We are facing an administration led by people who do not feel bound to accept historical realities as documented in available evidence, even when that evidence is readily available and/or documents the very recent past. This troubling idea, that “there are no such things as facts” and that everything is a matter of opinion, goes against the fundamental tenets of the archival and historical professions.
    This concern for his inherent distrust of documentary evidence is shared by many of our colleagues and by members of the scientific community, who are working to secure and preserve data related to climate change, which they fear the incoming administration will seek to suppress or destroy.

As archivists and information professionals, paraprofessionals, and students we serve communities who want and need access not only to information but also to the richness of the American and international cultural record. We, therefore, have an obligation to protect our shared cultural heritage from abuse, misuse, and censorship or destruction. Based on this commitment and professional obligation, we are obliged to speak out, in the name of protecting our culture, our history, and the public good.

Therefore

  • We will not be intimidated, but will continue to provide equitable access to information.
  • We will not be prejudiced, but will continue to serve all our communities to the fullest extent of our abilities.
  • We will remain committed to protecting the fundamental right of people to know what their government is doing and why.
  • We will not act out of fear of elements of the incoming administration, but will continue to preserve the documentary record that holds our leaders accountable to law and justice.

Specifically,

  • We adamantly oppose the proposal by Trump adviser Kris Kobach to reinstate the failed National Security Entry-Exit Registration System (NSEERS) or a similar system. From 2002 until its suspension in 2011, NSEERS required registration of foreign nationals -nearly all Middle Eastern and Muslim– from certain countries as they entered the United States, as well as in-person registration of non-citizens from certain countries living in the United States. NSEERS was not only completely ineffective as a security measure, but was a blatant example of racial and religious profiling.While the Department of Homeland Security, based on an order by President Obama, deleted the published rules for the National Security Entry-Exit Registration in December 2016, we remain concerned that a similar system may be re-established. We are also concerned that the Trump administration will continue the practice to use large-scale data collection — including data collected under the DACA program–as a tool to enforce deportations.
  • We stand in support of those donors who are increasingly fearful that materials they submit might be used later by government agencies to profile and persecute individuals and organizations, as the Federal Bureau of Investigation did during the COINTELPRO programs between 1956 and 1972.
  • We support the continuation of the Open Government Initiative begun under President Obama, designed to encourage greater transparency in the federal government by giving Americans wider access to the decisions that their government makes and helping them to help ensure government accountability.
  • We encourage the immediate development of a professional support structure for colleagues who are working at federal agencies that may be under threat of being restructured or abolished, as well as archivists working with organizations under distress, such as labor unions.
  • We encourage improving the collective professional support for initiatives that are documenting the “now,” including human rights violations committed in the United States and abroad both before and after the 2016 election, as well as those documenting the growing anti-Trump administration movement, such as the volunteer initiative documenting the upcoming Women’s March on Washington.
  • We encourage ongoing issue-specific collaboration by the Society of American Archivists and regional archival groups with other national and international professional organizations, such as the ALA, the AALL and ARMA, to ensure that the archival, library and record management communities speak with a unified voice against the misuse or destruction of public records, while holding public officials and agencies accountable.

We pledge to remain vigilant in this moment of rapid change, seeking opportunities to put our skills and resources as archivists and information specialists to work as part of the resistance.

The authors’ and signatories’ references to their professional affiliations are for identification purposes only and are not intended to imply an endorsement by the institution.

Last updated 15 June 2017 at 5:00pm EST (UTC -5). 895 signatories.

Jeremy Brett, Cushing Memorial Library and Archives, Texas A&M University
Anna Clutterbuck-Cook, Massachusetts Historical Society
Hanna Clutterbuck-Cook, Francis A. Countway Library/Medical Heritage Library
Katharina Hering, National Equal Justice Library
Melissa Laney, Consulting Archivist
Laura Taylor, University of New England
Jessica E. Johnson, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sarah Quigley, Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library, Emory University
Traci Drummond, Southern Labor Archives, Georgia State University Library
Laura Starratt, Society of Georgia Archivists
Anne Graham, Turner Sports
Rebecca Elder, Rebecca Elder Cultural Heritage Preservation
Terry Baxter
Stephanie Bennett, Wake Forest University
Karen Feeney
Laura Smith
Pamela Hopkins, Digital Collections and Archives, Tufts University
Jennifer Lyons, Archivist, Harvard University
Andrea Belair
Marieke Van Der Steenhoven
Susan Edwards
Angela Curran, Archivist
Dan Golodner, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Katherine Griffin, Massachusetts Historical Society
Susan Pizzolato, Director, Mattapoisett Free Public Library
Veronica Martzahl
Angela Swift Texas State Library and Archives
Sarah Heim
Caitlin Christian-Lamb
Melissa Torres, University of Houston–Downtown
Bobbi Rahder
Elizabeth Russell, Raymond H. Fogler Library, University of Maine
Jennifer Hale, Perkins School for the Blind
Judy Farrar, Claire T. Carney Library Archives/UMass Dartmouth
Raney Bench
Adrienne Naylor
Rachel Cohen, Mount Ida College
Brooke McManus
Steve Duckworth
Wendy Hagenmaier
Kate McManus
Lauren Meyers
Martina Podsklanova
Armando Suarez, Kennesaw State University
Leslie Rowell, Old Stone House Museum – Brownington, Vermont
Kristy Sorensen
Danielle Russell, Women’s March on Washington Archives Project
Vincent Novara
Barrye Brown, College of Charleston/Avery Research Center for African American History and Culture
Sarah Barsness
Kathryn Santos, California State Railroad Museum Library
Noah Geraci, University of California, Riverside
Helice Koffler
Natalie Bond, University of Montana Mansfield Library
Marita Klements
Carolyn Runyon
Megan North
Travis Hedges Williams
Ashley Levine
Amanda Lanthorne, San Diego State University
Jessica Holden
Deborah Torres
Lara Friedman-Shedlov
Elizabeth Howe Librarian/Archivist, Western Maryland Room, Washington County Free Library
Shana Aue
Amanda Leinberger
Luciana Duranti, Association of Canadian Archivists
Claudia Willett, Archivist, Boston University
Katie Blumenkrantz, Archives, Cooper Union Library
Megan McShea
Nicole Laflamme
Ellen M. Ryan, Eli M. Oboler Library, Idaho State University
Brigette Kamsler
Seth Dalby, Society of American Archivists
Eve Neiger, Yale University
Kelly Francis
Yvonne Loiselle, New Orleans Public Library/Louisiana Division – City Archives
Courtney Dean, University of California, Los Angeles
Kira Brennan, University of North Texas
Ellie Broughton
Camille Mathieu, Jet Propulsion Laboratory Archives
Arielle Vaverka, ‘Ulu ‘Ulu Digital Archive
Nicolita Garces, Consuelo Foundation
Anne Frantilla, Archivist
Robin Margolis, UCLA MLIS Media Archives
Erin Hurley, Archive of Recorded Sound, Stanford University
Virginia Dowd
Eliana Ruiz
Nami Kitsune Hatfield, June L. Mazer Community Archivist
Robert Edwards, Former archivist, barrister & solicitor
Patricia Delara
Jennifer McDaid, Norfolk Southern Corporation
Kit Messick
Courtney Lam
Leslie Schuyler
Cindy Mediavilla, Library Consultant
Melissa Bowling
Allyson Eddy Bravmann
Traci Patterson
Caitlin Coon, Densho
Nancy Loe, California Polytechnic State University
Christa DeVirgilio
Hilary Barlow
Beverly Ingle
Elise Thierry
Marsia Painter
Lindsay Zarwell, film archivist
Caroline Donadio, NY Transit Museum
Jodi Goodman, New Bedford Free Public Library
Elizabeth Nielsen
Katy Rawdon
Allie Whalen
Lori Taniguchi
Kyle Courtney
Lara Maestro
Sally Barkan
Jessica Tai
Heather Williams
Jessica Tai
Susan Etheridge, UCLA Film & Television Archive
Jennifer Allen
Licia Maria Hurst
Rebekah Taylor
Judith Kearne,y Association of Hawai’i Archivists
Katherine Fisher
Claire Williams
Randall Jimerson, Western Washington University
Stephanie Smith
Rachel Bergquist, University of British Columbia
Randa Cardwell
Sangmin Lee, Korean Association of Records Managers and Archivists Jessica Abson
Kate Wells, Providence Public Library
Lindsey Loeper Archivist, University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Michael Aday, Librarian-Archivist
Diana Bowers-Smith
Steve Ammidown
Katrina Burch
Aliza Leventhal, Sasaki
Jana Mabee, Simmons College
Erin Faulder
Eira Tansey, University of Cincinnati
Erin Lawrimore
Rachel Appel
Kate Crow
Brad Houston, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Joe Carrano
Jennifer Bolmarcich, Simmons College
Mark Matienzo, Stanford University
Sari Mauro
Luis Hernandez Olivera, Asociación de los Archiveros de Castilla y León
Ellen Show, Archivist
Peter Nelson, Phillips Exeter Academy
Barb Morley Kheel Center, Cornell University
Kelly Hanus
Joshua Zimmerman
Rachel Sietz
Valerie Gillispie, Duke University
Kathy Bohlman, Archivist, Safdie Architects
Marcella Bungay, Stanier Simmons College (2001) Beta Phi Mu
Asher Jackson, Fitchburg State University
Erin Dix
Björn Klein, Research Assistant, University of Goettingen, Germany
Liam Hogan, Independent Scholar
Allison Peters Jensen
Liza Harrell-Edge, The New School
Jolene Beiser
Sara S.
Whitney Olthoff, Archivist
Bailey Hoffner, Archivist
Alison Clemens
Chessie Monks-Kelly
Laura Kitchings
Supriya W., SAA
Karla Irwin
Matthew Farrell
Julie Schweitzer
Ian Janssen, University of Delaware
Kate Thornhill
Marie Wheaton
Sonia Pacheco, New England Archivists, Society of American Archivists
Carolyn Hansen, University of Cincinnati
Josue Hurtado
John Anderies
Allyson Glazier, University of New Hampshire- Manchester
Rebecca Morin
Mehrdad Kermani
James Eason, University of California, Berkeley
A.L. Carson, Lied Library, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Anjanette Schussler, Minnesota Historical Society
Rose Chou, American University
Josephine Ragolia, Huston-Tillotson University
Alexandra Cauley, Student, University of Washington iSchool
Lea Osborne
Jan Blodgett, Davidson College
Adrienne Harling
Amanda Moreno, University of Miami Libraries
Michael Besozzi, Seattle Art Museum
Douglas Johnson, University of California, Los Angeles
Theresa Smith, Collections Manager
Rachel Foote, Archivist
Libby Coyner
Amy Bishop, Iowa State University
Hannah King, Stevens County Historical Society
Elspeth Olson, American Bookbinders Museum
James A. Jacobs, FreeGovInfo.info
Michael Flug
Marta Crilly, Boston City Archives
Tamara Gaydos
Joan Ilacqua, Francis A. Countway Library/The History Project: Documenting LGBTQ Boston
Kate Ehrig-Page, Archivist
Aimee Ergas, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Elena Colon-Marrero
Joan Gandy
Cheryl Beredo
Kate Papageorge-Schneiderman
Chris Burns
Jan Hilley
Dara Flinn, Rice University
Brenda Mitchell-Powell, Archivist and independent scholar
Leah King
Grafton Kevan, Archivist
Andrea Tarnawsky
Rebekah Kim
Jennifer Pickens, Archivist
Patricia Markley
Mike Intranuovo
Dyani Feige
Peter Gunther
Emily Gonzalez, Cambridge Historical Commission
Jeannie Chen
Meg Hixon
Lea Osborne, New York Public Library
Elizabeth England, Johns Hopkins University
Chris Tanguay
Celia Caust-Ellenbogen
Michelle Caswell, UCLA
Lucas Buresch
Elaine Lin
Phoebe Bean
Logan Tapscott
Christy Li, Asia Art Archive
Vanessa King
Deborah Richards
Katie McCormick
Vicenç Ruiz, Associació d’Arxivers – Gestors de Documents de Catalunya
Susanna C.
Brenda Gunn, The University of Texas at Austin
Sheila Joy, Seminary Archives, Gettysburg Seminary
Meagan Kellom, Minnesota Historical Society
Jessica Bennett, Virginia Union University
Wendy O’Brien, Richmond (NH) Public Library
Kira Dietz
Cheri Crist, George Eastman Museum
Sammie Morris
sara pedrosa
Dana Gerber-Margie
Amy Cooper Cary
Carrie Schwier, Society of American Archivists
Sara Shutkin
Jenny Lukomski, Congregation of St. Agnes
Kaitlin Hackbarth
Hannah Jellen, Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library
Sharon Guthrie, Rice University
Holly McGee, Getty Research Institute
Eva Garcelon-Hart, Henry Sheldon Museum of Vermont History
Kate Hill
Gurudarshan Khalsa, Stanford University Libraries
Meagan Doyle
Gabriele Carey, Carey Archival Services
Jonathan Pringle
Joseph McManis, Museum Professional
Andrea McManis, Higher Education
Cailin Cullen
Aaisha Haykal
Melissa Hubbard, Case Western Reserve University
Amy Wickner
Gavin Do, Archivist
Margaret Smith, Archivist, Episcopal Church in CT
Ellen Belcher, CUNY Archivist
Tyler Cline, University of Wyoming
Laura O’Keefe, Cataloging & Special Collections, New York Society Library
Carol Johnson, Archivist, Not For Profit
Viveca Robichaud, Special Collections Library, University of Notre Dame
Dawn Schmitz
Beth Bilderback
Samantha Cross, Archivist
Lily Troia
Jennifer Whitlock, Rochester Istitute of Technology
Jennifer Douglas
Rodney Carter, Archivist
Alex Toner, University of Pittsburgh
Kellee Warren, Society of American Archivists
David Sherman
Ellen Holt-Werle
Kara Evans, Archivist
Patricia Sides, Willard Library
Ms. Alison Stankrauff
Gillian Dunks
Ryan LaFerney
Cara Mooney
Tim Walsh, Canadian Centre for Architecture
Astrid Drew
Katrina Vandeven
Jona Whipple
Victoria Maches, UCLA, MLIS student
Victoria Arel Lucas, Society of American Achivists, SDSU
Mr. Memo Cordova
Debra Schiff, Archivist
Sharon Mizota
Victoria Dale, MLIS Archival Student
Ashley Vergara, UCLA
William Casari
Elizabeth Love
Randall Bowman, Elon University
Margaret Jessup
Caitlin Rizzo
Katrina Schroeder
Laura Morris, Joan Mitchell Foundation
Celeste Brewer
Kathleen Banks Nutter, Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College
Jennifer Rasmussen
Sharon Cheslow
Millie Gonzalez
Ed Summers, University of Maryland
Jill Tatem
Dana Lamparello, Senior Archivist, Chicago History Museum
Nancy Taylor
Nancy McGovern, Society of American Archivists
Rena Schergen
Ciaran Trace
Laurie McFadden, Alfred University
Tom House
Julie Snyder
Jennifer Meacham, IHM Sisters Archives
Sarah Dorpinghaus
Lucy Putnam, Archivist, Glenmary Home Missioners
Emma Gibbons
Katie Howell
Nadia Dixson
Edith Serkownek, Kent State University
Dennis Riley
Margaret Breidenbaugh, Intern, Cincinnati Museum Center
Elizabeth Novara
Brandon Pieczko
Michelle Sigiel
Brandon Pieczko
Mary Anne Hamblen, Rakow Research Library
Meghan Kennedy
Jenny Manasco, Certified Archivist
Barbara Williams, Georgian Court University
Chris Prom, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Phil Runkel, Marquette University
Alexa Hagen
Alissa Zawoyski
Johanna Russ
Rachel Searcy
Amy Lucadamo, Archivist
Monika Lehman
Andy Steadham
Meghan Courtney
Giordana Mecagni
Elizabeth Mc Gorty, Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation
Courtney Yevich Tkacz
Barbara Anne Beaucar, Archivist
Jasmine Jones
Maggie Schreiner
Kira Baker
James Latturner Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Godwin
John Wolbrecht, CRM
Jamie Nelson
Liz Caringola, University of Maryland, College Park
Rebecca Hankins
Bergis Jules, University of California, Riverside
Joshua Myers, Architectural Archivist
Alexandra McGee
Jennifer Barton, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dan Gillean
Courtney Mumma, Archivist
Yolanda Bustos
Cassie Schmitt
Alexis Braun Marks, Eastern Michigan University
Ms. Sarah Lester
Dave Shearer
Cassie Findlay, SAA, ASA, ARMA, ICA
Christine D’Arpa, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Charlie McNabb, Community Archivist
Chela Scott Weber
Amelia Holmes
Kate Sousa
Beth Autin
Rosemarie Romano, New York Library Association
Philip Jern, Library User
Liam Sullivan, Processing Archivist, Harvard University
Benjamin L. Clark, Managing Curator, Boys Town Hall of History & Father Flanagan House
Jessica Steytler
Claire Stewart
Stefanie Caloia
Michael Starks Public Librarian
Margaret Heilbrun, Former Library Director, New-York Historical Society
Lucy Ross
Anna St. Onge
Annalisa Moretti
Melanie Meyers, The Center for Jewish History
Patricia Galloway, The University of Texas at Austin
Margot Note, Archivist & Records Manager
Elizabeth Dunham
Cynthia Ghering
Robin Alariomy
Amy Brunner
Katie Sloan
Christine Karatnytsky, The New York Public Library
Maura Smale, NYC College of Technology, CUNY
Samantha Hines, Peninsula College
Talia Wooldridge, Visual Researcher Society of Canada
laura jessup
Susan Woodland Certified Archivist
Ms. Suzanne Guerra
Jessica Geiser, UC Riverside
Lisa Hooper
Victoria Palmatier, Simmons SLIS
Bethany Anderson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Erin Sanders
Sabrina Ponce, Information Science student
Mary McCreadie
Tanya Zanish-Belcher Wake Forest University
Marian Matyn Clarke Historical Library, Central Michigan University
Annemarie van Roessel, New York Public Library
Brian Rogers
Shannon Supple, University of California, Berkeley
Jill Vassilakos-Long Librarian, Special Collections and Archives, Cal State San Bernardino
Jane Rothstein, The Temple-Tifereth Israel Archives
Hillel Arnold, Rockefeller Archive Center
Cynthia Ghering
Sarah McLusky
Mary Silverstein
Prudence Doherty
Virgilia Rawnsley
Jacqueline Rider
Leigh-Anne Yacovelli Director, Union Library Company of Hatboro
Mary Albee
Heather Carroll
Annette Campbell
Cristela Garcia-Spitz
Sarah Sanfilippo, Southern Vermont College
Carrie Allmendinger
Katherine Madison
Kristin Kniffen Streng
Kendra Meyer
Rena Schergen
Rachel Howell
Timothy Binkley, C.A.
Jennifer Palmisano SAA, ARMA, ALA
Brynn White
Caitlin Haynes
Jean Traster, Archivist, Methodist Records
Helen Linda, Records Analyst
Kathryn Kramer, Archivist, C.M. Russell Museum
Kelly Besser, Processing Archivist
Brian Hackett
Samantha Harris, Smith Library of Regional History
Elena Cordova
Mary Ann Gschwind, Archivist
Monica Howell
Gail Erwin, Volunteer in Archives, San Joaquin County Historical Society & Museum
Amie Mack, Archivist, Crossroads School for Arts & Sciences
Jessica Crouch
Tracy Jackson, Duke University
Madeline Moya
Katherine Wisser, Simmons College
Lauren Menges Chapman University
Lloyd Dennis
Becca Smith. Archivist
Erin Steckel
Margaret Turman Kidd
Dominique Luster
Katie Varney
Charles Wood, Retired Clinical Social Worker
Marilyn Wood, Retired Teacher
Ms. Kim Schroeder Ms.
Darla White
Louis Jones, Wayne State University
Bonnie Chaix
Stephanie Chace, SAA
Caryn Radick
Mr. Kent H. Roberts
Erin Patterson
Traci West, Dallas Baptist University
Ms. Rebecca Robinson
Carole Bono
Diana Wakimoto, California State University, East Bay
Janice Dennis
Kimberly Kennedy, MIT
April Anderson, Illinois State University
Lily Weitzman
Blynne Olivieri
Nathalie Wheaton
Jennifer Landry, Archivist and Curator
Yuki Hibben, Virginia Commonwealth University
Alexandra Orchard
Celeste Short
Samantha Wolter
Karen Pavelka
Elizabeth Flecther
Caitlin Birch, Rauner Special Collections Library, Dartmouth College
Joanna Groberg Georgetown University
Laura Hoff
Rachel Van Unen
Kate Pauquette, University of Texas
Cynthia Frantsen
Heidi Kelly
Mattie Dugan, Student, Wayne State University
Colleen Bradley-Sanders
Mark Prindiville
Judi Lane
Sally Brazil, Archivist
Blake Spitz, UMass Amherst
Melissa Gonzales
Natalie Dykstra, Hope College
Susan Dodgson, Retired
Judith Robins
Jennifer Wright
Cecilia Tsai, UCLA-Department of Information Studies
Ammon Dennis
Lindsay Anderberg, Poly Archives, NYU Libraries
Zachary Brodt, University of Pittsburgh
Zachary Enright
Alyssa Loera, UCLA Library
Sean Parke, University of Hartford
Elizabeth Skene
Jock McDonald
Hannah Yang
Javier Garibay, Loyola Marymount University
Jarrett Drake, Princeton University
Cara Bertram, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Adam Speirs
Laura Streett, Vassar College
Jennifer Brancato
Liz C. Phillips, University of California, Davis
Rakashi Chand, Massachusetts Historical Society
Tamar Zeffren
Alexandra Bush, Massachusetts Historical Society
Marika Cifor, UCLA
Angel Diaz, Archivist
Olivia Mandica-Hart
Megan Sheffer Evans
Cherry Montejo
John Bondurant, Digital Archivist, Cushing Memorial Library and Archives, Texas A&M University
Sylvia Bly, Wayne State University
Kylie Harris, GLIFWC
Matt Balcer, Leo Burnett Worldwide, Inc.
Christiana Dobrzynski, Bryn Mawr College
Danelle Orange, College Archivist
Pamela Flanagan, librarian
Martha Tanner
Andy McCarthy, New York Public Library
Christopher Arena, New York Public Library
Alexandra Dolan-Mescal
Stacey Lavender, Ohio University
Jamie Castaneda
Tammy Woodward
Kelly Bolding
Jessica Storm, Digital Preservation Manager
J.E. Molly Seegers, Archivist for Electronic Resource Management, Brooklyn Museum
Sam Winn, Archivist
Holly Geist, Denver Water
Amy Schindler
Kelli O’Toole
Grace Hansen, University of Texas
Ann Marie Wieland, Archivist
Alyssa Grieco, University of Texas Harry Huntt Ransom Humanities Research Center
Jane Williamson
Ted, Queens College / CUNY
Mike Malloy
Terri Gavaga, Kahoolawe Island Reserve Commission
Julia Kim
Sherri Goudy
Marcus Robyns, Northern Michigan University
Bethany Taufiq
Susan Illis Consulting Archivist
Katherine Bennett Na
Geke Van de Kamp, Archivist
Lucia Flores, San Jose State University
Grace Lile, WITNESS, NYU
Sarah Leu
michelle p.
Mary Pettengill
Rebecca Fraimow
Danielle Kaltz
Jaimie Fritz
Erik Nordberg
Elizabeth Ungemach
Richelle Brown, Cumberland County Public Library & Information Center
Rebecka Sheffield, Simmons College
Sarah Haug
Sarah Struble, Boston University, Mugar Library
Kathryn Wright
Cyndi Keilin
Carolina Menenses, Metadata Technician, University of Miami
Carolyn Haines, Librarian
Kelly Kress, University of California, Los Angeles
Ginny Flegel
Jeff Katz, New York Public Library
Nora Epstein, MLIS, MLitt
Elizabeth Kelly, Loyola University New Orleans
Hailey Galper
Katie Allen, SLA member
Troy Eller English, Walter P. Reuther Library, Wayne State University
Marissa Stape Simmons College
Kayleigh Hinckley
David Bliss, University of Texas at Austin
T-Kay Sangwand, UCLA
Nancy Picchi, Librarian, MSLIS, retired
Jessica Tanny
Emily Atkins
Heather Mumford, Public Health Archivist
Benedict Chatelain, Associate Archivist, Longwood University
Elizabeth Zerwekh
Michelle Light
Fran Darling, Retired Educator – LIS from U of W
Laura Jacobs, Archivist, Interim Library Director, University of Wisconsin-Superior
Rebecca Bakker
Nicola Mantzaris
Natalia Pietrzykowski
Holly Smith
Jen Dell
J. Christina Smith, Boston University Libraries
Elizabeth Sullivan, Archivist, Wilkes University
Michael Babinec, Northwestern University
Judy Ng
Michele Lamorte
Hannah Silverman
Patrick Midtlyng, Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University
Amy McDonald, Duke University
Bonnie Gordon
Michele Combs, Special Collections Research Center, Syracuse University
Lyndsie Guy, New York Public Library
Stacey Chandler, Archivist
Colin Harnsgate
Jessica Keener
Anna
Allyson Smally
Kathryn Dennett
Heather Moran
Sebastian Modrow, Special Collections, Syracuse University
Leah Edelman, Tufts University Digital Collections and Archives
Kelsey Duinkerken
Karen Downing
Ann Rosentreter
Kate Herbert, Archivist & Librarian
Scott Cline, Archivist
Alessandra Affinito, Library Information Assistant, New York Public Library, Chatham Square Branch
Christine Lyons, Archivist
Julie May
Jackie Dean
Jessica Sedgwick
Martha Parker, SAA, REFORMA
Heidi Anoszko, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Molly Whiteside, MLIS Graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Kaitlin Beer, Library Information Specialist
Robert Lay, University of North Texas Libraries
Christina Zamon, SAA, SGA
Greta Suiter
Anastasia Matijkiw
Kure Croker, Loyola University New Orleans
Katie Rojas, Archivist
Sofía Becerra-Licha
Alex Krensky
Anna Kephart, College of Southern Maryland
Elizabeth Shulman, Durham County Library
Morgan Jones-King, SC Archival Association
Laura Kitchings
Talya Cooper, The Intercept
Claire Williams, Student, University of British Columbia
Karen Bailor
Brendan Higgins, Boston Conservatory at Berklee
Trish P.
Elisha Davies, Cazenovia Public Library & Museum
B. Parris
Jessie Hopper
Cynthia M. Orozco, East Los Angeles College
Kristin Law
Sara Mannheimer
Colleen Daw, Graduate of the UNC School of Information and Library Science
Sara Janes, Lakehead University
Sophie Roberge
Beaudry Allen, University of California, Santa Barbara
Lindy Smith
Sandy Rodriguez, University of Missouri-Kansas City
Derek Long
Sara Seltzer
Beth Morgan, Special Collections Librarian & Archivist, Centre College
Emily Minehart, GG+A
Michelle Sweetser
Kelly Haydon, Bay Area Video Coalition
Kathy Rose O’Regan, Moving Image Archivist
Greer Martin, Illinois Institute of Technology
Kristin Lipska
Rick Prelinger
Dave Lewis
Megan Lewis, Duke University
Sarah R. Sherman
Kevin O’Neill
Tom Mullusky, Thomas Edison State University
Jessica Lydon
Kristin MacDonough, Video Data Bank
Rachel Esser
Rachel E. Winston, The University of Texas at Austin
Kait Dorsky
Rachel Mattson, XFR Collective
Lynette Stoudt
Jonathan Farbowitz
Hannah Palin, University of Washington Libraries, Special Collections
Daniela Lozano, Harry Ransom Center
E. Mahaney
Mary Jo Fairchild
Jennifer Coggins
Kelly Davis, MLIS Student, University of Pittsburgh
Amanda Hill
Katie Womble, South Carolina Archival Association
Marie Stickney
Elise Dunham, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Ms. Catherine Oseas
Elaine Wong, Academic librarian
Taylor McBride
Michele Speck
Amanda Axel
Shonnie Finnegan, Univ. at Buffalo Archives, Emerita
Eunice Liu
Elizabeth Szkirpan, The University of Oklahoma
June Reich
Christy Lau, New York Public Library
Pamela Vadakan, California Preservation Program
Bryn Hoffman, California Audiovisual Preservation Project (CAVPP)
Shannon O’Neilk
Alyssa Young
Audrey Lengel
Christy Lau, New York Public Library
Stacey Erdman, Beloit College
Rumyana Hristova, Evangel University
Yvonne Ng
Jennifer Hecker
Anna Kresmer, Jacobus tenBroek Library, National Federation of the Blind
Mary Kosta, Archivist
Christine Schmid Engels
Tanya Arant
Chip Calhoun
Christo Datini, Corporate Archivist
Mimi Bowling, Consulting Archivist
Elizabeth Terry, Archivist, Salem UMC, St. Louis
Kathryn Pardo
Stanley Flood, NJEA, AEA, SAG/AFTRA
Annalise Berdini
Meg Morrissey, Corporate Archivist
Sarah Wade
Alison Stankrauff
Sammie Morris
Rachel Vagts, Berea College
Amanda Demeter
Traci West
Derek Potts, DePaul University
Shira Peltzman, Digital Archivist
Hilary Walczak
Laura Buchholz
Lauren Algee
Heather Halliday, New York Public Library
Brian Wilson
Paige Roberts
Elizabeth Parker
Jackie Esposito
Rayna Andrews
Linda Montalbano, Archivist
Shannon Wilson
Karen Castanes
Elizabeth Loch, Archivist
Laura Newsome, Winthrop Group, Inc.
Eleanor Craig, Sisters of Loretto Heritage Center
Nancy Heywood
Nick Pavlik
Elaine Engst
Katherine Duvall
Rachel Miller, Center for Jewish History
anne sexton
Lauren Aquilina
Hilary Swett
Dereck Cram, Wayne State University School of Library and Information Science
Danielle Butler, Archivist
Mitch Cota, University of Texas at Austin
Peter Blasevick, The Pingry School
Brenda Marston
Charlotte Lellman, Simmons College student
Patricia Harding
Alyssa Carver, Penn State Special Collections, 2016 IMLS-RBS Fellow, and formerly The Center for Jewish History
Elizabeth Kammerer
Heidi Butler
Daniel Major, Wayne State University
Justin Mottier
Tomaro Taylor Vela
Melissa Gohlke
Lindsay Sheldon
Kerri Anne Burke
James Cogswell, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office
Elizabeth Fox-Corbett
Cheyenne Stradinger, University of New Mexico
Anne Mansella
Rachel Harrison, Center for Jewish History
Genna Duplisea
Megan Miller, Chemical Heritage Foundation
Anne Mar, Occidental College
Eli Chartkoff, Special Collections, Occidental College Library
Dale Ann Stieber, Special Collections & College Archives, Occidental College
Sivan Siman-Tov
Diana Banning
Saida Largaespada, UCLA
Joanna Perez, Librarian/Archivist, Blizzard Entertainment
Syeda Aziz
Diana Ruiz
Margaret Mason, Syracuse University
Daria Labinsky
Jessica Venlet
Leah Kerr, Archivist
Katie Quirin
Eugenia Kim
Meredith Cherven-Holland, Archivist
Allison Spies, Archivist
Lisa Petrillo, Florida Institute of Technology
Candace Parker
Dorothy Carroll, Charles Stuart University
Tara Laver
Daniel Hartwig, Stanford University
Maggie McNeely, University Archivist, Brandeis University
James Kelly, News Staff Writer, Retired
Amy Vilz, University at Buffalo
Amy Pickard, Buffalo & Earie County Public Library
Elizabeth Benn
Kelly Wooten, Duke University
Lee Davy, Australian Society of Archivists
Chris Johnson, Local Government
Keri Thomas-Whiteside
Abigail Hundley, Conservator, Queensland State Archives
Margaret Smith, Archivist,  Special librarian. Episcopal Church in CT, New England Archivists, SSA,      National Episcopal Historians and Archivists, HSEC
Ariadne Rehbein
Erin Matson, Museum of Contemporary Art Chicago
Gregory Whitmore, University of Washington
Peter Higgins
Lauren Goodley, Texas State University
Nancy Noble, Librarian
Rachel Thompson
Brenda Howitson Steeves
Katharine Rapkin, Georgia Historical Society
Karen Murphy
Andrew Cook, Australian Society of Archivists
Roberta Cowan, Australian Society of Archivists
Mary-Jacque Mann
Jessica Jones, The Museum of Right
Hannah Cox
Karla Grafton
Margaret Pember
Crystal Rodgers, Labor Archives of Washington, University of Washington Libraries
Jaime Ganzel
Maggie Hoffman Student, Simmons College
Jill Anderson, Archivist
Susan Mills
Mathew Brock, Librarian
Amanda Duke
Lacey Legel, Multnomah County Library, Portland Emerging Archivists
John Bence, Stuart A. Rose Manuscript, Archives, and Rare Book Library
Alex Saint
Brady Kal Cox, Abilene Christian University
Sara Chetney
Jessica Salow, University of Arizona MLIS Graduate Candidate
Jade Finlinson, UCLA
Katie Blank
Rachel Miller
Jenifer Becker
Joy Enomoto
James Kelly, Retired Staff Writer
Barbara Bikman, Retired
Antal Posthumus, Recordkeeping Advisor, National Archives of the Netherlands
Lisbit Bailey, Archivist, Poet
Boy Gerrits, Archivist
Hilary Clifford
Toni Boykin
Thomas Pascual, Archivist
Susan Tucker
Susanne Belovari, University Achives, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Caitlin White, MSLS Student – UNC Chapel Hill
Janet DeVries, Librarian/Archivist
Chiara Mezzadri
Katie Salzmann
Manuela Costa, Audiovisual Archivist/Research Fellow, Helsinki
Sandrine Guerin
Rae Hoyle, MSLS student, University of North Carolina School of Information and Library Science
Vitalina Nova
Graham Stinnett
Jessica Farrell, Curator of Digital Collections, Harvard Law School

As of 15 June 2017 this statement will no longer be updated with additional signatures.
Thank you to all who signed! And for all the work you continue to do to #resist.
Please visit our blog for more information and opportunities to take action!