To our Members and our Community,
We owe you an apology, and we offer it without reservation, for how we have communicated, and failed to communicate, since July.
For nearly four months, many of you asked serious questions in good faith and received silence, or worse. Accounts of community members who raised legitimate concerns were restricted on our social channels. Ukrainian colleagues withdrew from a conference they had every right to feel at home in, and we made no public comment. However it was intended, we understand that our silence read as indifference. It was not indifference, but it is on us to show that, and this statement is the beginning.
Why were we publicly silent? Because from July onwards the Association was acting on written legal advice, received at every step, that public comment on the merits of a live dispute, in any direction, would expose the Association, individual Board members, our speakers and our hosts to serious legal risk. Following that advice while a conference involving hundreds of people was weeks away was, we believe, the responsible course. Failing to tell you that we were constrained, and failing to acknowledge the people in front of us while we stayed silent, was not. For that difference, we are sorry.
On the decision itself, we want to answer, as plainly as the law allows, the question we have been asked most: what standard was applied?
The proposal in question went through ATypI’s established peer review and was scored by independent reviewers, as every proposal is. Our selection process has never screened participants by nationality or country of residence, in either direction, and it did not do so here. When the request to remove the speaker was received on July 11, the Board convened within days and sought written legal advice before deciding anything. That advice was clear: removing a speaker on the basis of professional work for institutions of their own country, or on the basis of comments by a colleague or business partner, would have carried a serious risk of unlawful discrimination under the law of the country hosting the conference, with consequences for the Association and for individual Board members. The Board was therefore not in a position lawfully to take the action requested. We will always follow the laws of each locality in which we operate, and that is the standard that will apply to every participant, from every country, in every comparable case. It is not an endorsement of any person or company, and it is not a judgment on the concerns raised, which we recognize are grounded in a war whose human cost, including members of this community, is beyond dispute.
We also recognize what these months have exposed. Our Code of Conduct governs behaviour inside ATypI spaces and is silent on everything outside them. Our social media moderation went further than removing abuse. Our communication failed under pressure. So, concretely:
First, we have reviewed our social media moderation (in fact by July 12 we had restored the accounts that should not have been restricted). Criticism of ATypI is not abuse, and it will not be treated as abuse. Our processes have changed such that it will not happen again.
Second, this month we will open a consultation of our Members on participation standards, the scope of the Code of Conduct, and our presentation selection procedures. It will address whether, when and how statements, actions and affiliations outside ATypI spaces should affect participation inside them. It will address how we should distinguish between an individual’s own conduct, their institutional affiliations, and the actions of the government of the country where they live. The consultation will be conducted outside the context of any named case, so that the framework it produces is clear, consistent and applicable to everyone, from every country. By November 30 we will publish the process and timetable, including how members of the wider community can take part, and the resulting recommendations will be brought to the Board.
Third, we will report back as the work proceeds, not only at the end.
Fourth, we want to hear from you now, before the consultation begins. You can write to the Board directly at board@atypi.org. Every message will be read by Board members and later shared with those participating in the policy consultation.
ATypI is not a large institution. It is a volunteer-run nonprofit that has spent the years since the pandemic rebuilding its finances, operating without an executive director, with conferences organized by colleagues alongside their day jobs. None of that excuses what we have described above; we say it only so you know you are talking to colleagues, not a faceless institution.
ATypI exists to bring the world’s typographic community together across borders, on professional and academic ground. We have heard, clearly, that many of you feel we lost sight of the community we exist to bring together. The consultation, and how we conduct ourselves from here, is how we intend to earn your trust back .
The Board of Directors, ATypI