Since my last reporting, the debate regarding Alexandra Korolkova’s presence at ATypI Sharjah has not died down. In a Typedrawers comment, the former ATypI president,From 2004 to 2007. Jean François Porchez, echoed calls for transparency.Porchez, 2026.

The full thread provides a good overview of the situation, with perspectives offered by all parties, including ParaType CEO Anna Yakupova.Yakupova, 2026. Boris Melnichenko, an exiled Russian sociologist, shared his insights on ParaType’s involvement in the Russian war economy and their far-right associations,Melnichenko, 2026. drawing from his ethnographic research in Russian design communities following the invasion of Ukraine.Center for Russian, Caucasian and Central European Studies, n.d.

The 72nd ATypI conference was hosted at the University of the Arts Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. Photo: ATypI.

ATypI’s statement

The Sharjah conference concluded on Sunday 31 October. The following Tuesday, a public statement was posted to the ATypI website and to their newsletter subscribers.AtypI, 2026a.

According to the statement, Korolkova’s submission had been “peer reviewed and scored independently”, raising no flags in the process.Ibid. Predating the open letter by almost two months,Korchevska-Tsekhosh et al., 2026. the earliest request to remove Korolkova was apparently received on 11 July. Within days, the board had gathered to discuss the matter.Ibid.

Later the same month, ATypI member William Montrose delivered a separate complaint and was informed by e-mail that the vote to keep Korolkova’s lecture in the program was unanimous.W. Montrose (personal communication, 4 November 2026) If the matter was already concluded in July, it is unclear why ATypI needed ten days to respond to the same question in September.

In its statement, the board ascribes their actions to legal advice:ATypI, 2026a.

Legal background

A 2003 defamation lawsuit to the rate of 18 million dollars might go some way in explaining ATypI’s defensive handling of the situation.Berry, n.d.

Arguing that their identification “in the ATypI discussion group as a seller of pirated fonts” had “defamed them and their home-based business”, the plaintiffs sued ATypI, its board members, and individual designers who had expressed their opinion in the group. The case was finally settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, with ATypI sponsors putting up the bulk of the settlement.Ibid.

“During the course of the lawsuit”, John D. Berry writes, the current director ”arranged for ATypI to be incorporated in the United States as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation and the Board agreed to acquiring directors’ insurance going forward, to protect the officers and employees of the association.Ibid.

These insurances does not appear to have provided ATypI with the necessary protections in the Korolkova case.

In a multi-post Mastodon thread, Christine Bateup, a New York lawyer and co-founder of Frere-Jones Type, speculates that the board feared the act of removing Korolkova would expose them to criminal liability under UAE anti-discrimination law.Bateup, 2026a.

If this is the case, ATypI appears to have put themselves in an impossible position – an assessment shared by their former vice-president, John Hudson, who argues that ATypI’s “lack of policies to handle the situation and then, by their own explanation, getting trapped within a decision and unable even to discuss it means that they messed up.”Hudson, 2026.

ATypI’s statement raises some serious questions:

• Is the board fine with its president, a UAE resident, being unable to speak freely on political matters?

• How will the organization deal with censorship at the next conference, which is apparently scheduled for Bejing in 2027? Amnesty’s 2025 report paints a bleak picture of the human rights situation in China, any mention of which is unlikely to pass the prior approval of publication required by their government.Amnesty International, 2025.

• Or, as Christine Bateup puts it: “How is deciding to host a conference in an even more repressive, authoritarian state a responsible decision of the Board in light of what happened in the UAE? […] did it all come down to money and offers of help from within China? If so, where is this money coming from?”Bateup, 2026b.

The ATypI board have offered a deadline for providing answers to some of these questions. By 30 November, they promise to “address whether, when and how statements, actions and affiliations outside ATypI spaces should affect participation inside them” and how they will “distinguish between an individual’s own conduct, their institutional affiliations, and the actions of the government of the country where they live”.AtypI, 2026a.

Unless more answers are provided, this is unlikely to satisfy dismayed members.

Public response

On the day of their public statement, ATypI’s Instagram account shared a video where participants of the conference displayed their national flag. Unsurprisingly, the inclusion of a Russian flag, enraged commenters.ATypI, 2026b.

Alisa Matienko proudly presenting the Russian flag in an Instagram video posted by ATypI on the same day of their public statement. Photo: ATypI.

Ukrainian designers who continue to endure Russian bombing raids do not appear overly convinced by ATypI’s attempt to deescalate.Korolevtseva, 2026. Oleksandra Korchevska-Tsekhosh – the Ukrainian ATypI Delegate – writes that she is yet to “[receive] a response in the email thread through which the formal submission was made.”Korchevski, 2026. Oleksii Salnykov, founder of the Kyiv-based design collective Kultura, accuses AtypI of failing to “address the ethical substance of the case” and “hid[ing] behind vague legalistic language”.Salnykov, 2026.

The response from the broader type design community, summarized by John Hudson, largely echoes their concerns:Hudson, 2026.

Sponsors still silent

While the ATypI board have provided a statement, the conference sponsors, which includes a number of type foundries such as FounderType, Morisawa, Font Bureau, and Typetogether, as well as reputable institutions like the University of Reading and the Type Directors Club, still maintain their silence. There is no indication of legal risk on their behalf.