​Dr. Carla Hayden
Librarian of Congress
The Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20540

1 February 2020

Dear Dr. Hayden,

The Concerned Archivists Alliance is a loose and diverse collective of archivists, archival students, and other information professionals that came together in January 2017 in reaction to the election of Donald Trump. 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.

Speaking as archivists and librarians, we are deeply disturbed and disappointed to learn about the Library of Congress’ decision in 2019 to abandon the exhibition of a large photograph of 2017 Women’s March demonstrators because that photograph included images of protest signs critical of Donald Trump. That decision, which you approved, was described in the Washington Post story “It wasn’t just the National Archives. The Library of Congress also balked at a Women’s March photo” (January 31, 2020).

In light of the recent revelation that the National Archives and Records Administration blurred out Donald Trump’s name as well as references to the female anatomy in a Women’s March image for an exhibit of its own, news of the Library of Congress’s decision is particularly troubling. NARA and the Library of Congress are our premier national cultural institutions, ideally devoted to the fearless pursuit of truth and the full, accurate representation of history to the American public. Taken together, these incidents suggest an emerging pattern in which our national cultural institutions are attempting to preempt charges of partisanship from the current executive administration for documenting popular dissent.

Library spokeswoman April Slayton said in an email that ‘when the enlarged print of Carroll’s photograph was produced, it became clear “that the vulgar language and political content was not appropriate for the Library’s exhibit.” She said profane language was visible on one of the signs and would have been at eye level for children.’ This answer is unsatisfying for several reasons. First, we note that the original photographer, Kevin Carroll, claims that he was not informed about these supposed concerns regarding vulgarity. More importantly, Carroll reports that LoC Senior Exhibition Director Betsy Nahum-Miller explicitly told him via email that his photograph “has some other features that we know will be a problem politically and therefore need to be replaced. There were a couple of anti-Trump messages that appear very clearly in the image.” It appears the decision was made so late, and in such an ad hoc manner, that Carroll’s name still appears in the credits of some exhibition literature.

Nahum-Miller’s comments are troubling. As we said in our open letter to NARA on January 18, our job as archivists and librarians is to preserve and present the documents that make up the historical record, not to alter them in order to appease a particular administration or authority. As librarians, our duty is the same. We have a critical responsibility to the public to provide information that is accurate and does not protect the name or reputation of a particular politician or party.

In rejecting the original photograph chosen for the exhibit, the Library rejected for public attention and consideration one of the central motivations for the 2017 Women’s March. In its decision, the Library (as we noted with respect to NARA) attempted to make political protest appear apolitical and thus made a troubling political decision. As your colleagues in the information field, deeply invested in the reputation and centrality of the Library of Congress, we request that the Librarian of Congress pledge publicly never to use these kinds of political considerations in exhibition decisions again. We ask that the Library thoroughly review its relevant decision-making procedures for inclusion of documentary materials in exhibits to ensure that political decisions will not interfere in exhibition decisions in the future this does not reoccur in the future.

Sincerely,