A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[John Bailey]

This is a gross generalisation but the old 'we need more robust
debate!' complaint tends to come from people in positions of power or
who are used to being heard without question, at about the point when
their voice is beginning to be questioned or is simply ignored.
Claiming you're being censored or cancelled or deplatformed is a
terrific way of shutting down conversations and silencing critics,
rather than engaging with their criticisms or bolstering your own
arguments. Rowling is obviously the most current case, with defenders
using the 'now now, let her speak' defence as if utterances are
without consequence.
Of course there are many voices that are seldom heard and are used to
not being heard, but I doubt they were invited to sign an open letter
in Harper's.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 4:41 AM Laura Kelber <laurakelber at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I loathe a number of the signers but agree with the content. I was glad to
> see Zephyr Teachout's signature. The more progressives who sign on, the
> less reactionary it becomes.
>
> If even signing this modest document carries the threat of excommunication,
> then the contents matter.
>
> The editor states that this will be printed in the October issue of the
> magazine, so the signature list is in flux. I suspect that most
> progressives won't have the guts to sign. The centrists and reactionaries
> on the list are preaching to their own choir and don't have to worry.
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 11:03 AM Jonathon Hunt <jhuntstl at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't have a job right now and am exhausted after spending my day
> > yesterday getting people out of jail who were violently arrested for
> > protesting police violence, but after I rest a bit I may make time to read
> > the letter as I am sure the letter signed by David Frum raises some oh-so
> > important points about free speech.
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:57 AM Gary Webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ***Paul Beatty lol not the dude from Deliverance
> > >
> > > Sent from my iPhone
> > >
> > > > On Jul 8, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Gary Webb <gwebb8686 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone read Kanye’s interview:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/randalllane/2020/07/08/kanye-west-says-hes-done-with-trump-opens-up-about-white-house-bid-damaging-biden-and-everything-in-between/#488b548047aa
> > > >
> > > > I kind of missed the whole Kanye thing. Some younger friends are fans,
> > > and I’ve read some very esoteric social media discussions about his
> > albums.
> > > I probably disagree with about 99 % of what he says, but I admire his
> > > spirit. The whole interview kind of reads like Ned Beatty’s The Sellout.
> > > >
> > > > The birthday party lol... but it would be foolish to underestimate him,
> > > in 2016 this would be dismissed as laughable nonsense... in 2020 he gets
> > an
> > > interview in Forbes... in 2024?
> > > >
> > > > Sent from my iPhone
> > > >
> > > >>> On Jul 8, 2020, at 7:25 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >> It is.
> > > >>
> > > >> Like all those political purity tests I read about in the "bad'
> > > movements
> > > >> of history, LOL.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:15 AM Mark Thibodeau <jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com
> > >
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> I know that one of the signers taking her name off is a trans
> > advocate,
> > > >>> for whom the presence of JKRowling and Jesse Signal probably
> > represent
> > > a
> > > >>> bridge too far (causing her to demand that her name be removed AND
> > beg
> > > her
> > > >>> Twitter followers to please forgive her for the incalculable damage
> > > that
> > > >>> affixing her name to such a diabolical document has no doubt already
> > > >>> wrought upon The CommunityTM.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> It's all just so ridiculously lunatic.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Jerky
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, 7:06 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Agree, Hasty and virtually ad hoc..and FOR intellectuals in the
> > PUBLIC
> > > >>>> SPHERE--see Habermas---
> > > >>>> and academic sphere mostly. I doubt if he was asked.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> What is so unexpectedly infuriating is how contentious this has
> > > already
> > > >>>> become, Matty
> > > >>>> Yglesias has been complained to his mannagement about BY A
> > > COLLEAGUE....??
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> A couple other "liberals" are now regretting they signed because of
> > > some
> > > >>>> non-liberals (it seems) who signed, which
> > > >>>> is kinda self-refuting, no?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:37 AM Mark Thibodeau <
> > jerkyleboeuf at gmail.com
> > > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> i dunno... the list of signatures is actually kind of small, in my
> > > >>>>> opinion.
> > > >>>>> Small enough that I don't consider the lack of Pynchon's name (or
> > > >>>>> Delillo's, or Vollmann's, or Price's, all of whom have actually
> > > >>>>> contributed
> > > >>>>> pieces to Harper's in recent years) to be particularly noteworthy.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> For what it's worth, I agree with the general sentiment of the
> > letter
> > > >>>>> AND I
> > > >>>>> wear antifa t-shirts tees (figuratively... I don't actually own any
> > > >>>>> sloganwear),
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Cheers!
> > > >>>>> yer old pal Jerky
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:24 AM Kai Frederik Lorentzen <
> > > >>>>> lorentzen at hotmail.de>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> So many smart people signed this necessary letter, --- Pynchon
> > > didn't.
> > > >>>>>> Was he just too lazy? Didn't they ask him? Or does he really wear
> > > >>>>>> 'antifa'-t-shirts?
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> + Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful
> > > >>>>>> protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue
> > > demands
> > > >>>>>> for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and
> > > >>>>>> inclusion across our society, not least in higher education,
> > > >>>>> journalism,
> > > >>>>>> philanthropy, and the arts. But this needed reckoning has also
> > > >>>>>> intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments
> > > that
> > > >>>>>> tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of
> > > differences
> > > >>>>> in
> > > >>>>>> favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first
> > > development,
> > > >>>>> we
> > > >>>>>> also raise our voices against the second. The forces of
> > illiberalism
> > > >>>>> are
> > > >>>>>> gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in
> > > >>>>> Donald
> > > >>>>>> Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance
> > > must
> > > >>>>>> not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or
> > > coercion—which
> > > >>>>>> right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic
> > > inclusion
> > > >>>>>> we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the
> > intolerant
> > > >>>>>> climate that has set in on all sides.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a
> > > liberal
> > > >>>>>> society, is daily becoming more constricted. While we have come to
> > > >>>>>> expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading
> > > more
> > > >>>>>> widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue
> > for
> > > >>>>>> public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex
> > > >>>>>> policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. We uphold the value
> > of
> > > >>>>>> robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. But it
> > is
> > > now
> > > >>>>>> all too common to hear calls for swift and severe retribution in
> > > >>>>>> response to perceived transgressions of speech and thought. More
> > > >>>>>> troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked
> > > damage
> > > >>>>>> control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments
> > > instead
> > > >>>>>> of considered reforms. Editors are fired for running controversial
> > > >>>>>> pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity;
> > journalists
> > > are
> > > >>>>>> barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated
> > > for
> > > >>>>>> quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for
> > > >>>>>> circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of
> > > >>>>>> organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy
> > > mistakes.
> > > >>>>>> Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result
> > > has
> > > >>>>>> been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without
> > > the
> > > >>>>>> threat of reprisal. We are already paying the price in greater
> > risk
> > > >>>>>> aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for
> > their
> > > >>>>>> livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack
> > > sufficient
> > > >>>>>> zeal in agreement.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital
> > causes
> > > of
> > > >>>>>> our time. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive
> > > government
> > > >>>>>> or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power
> > and
> > > >>>>>> makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. The way
> > to
> > > >>>>>> defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by
> > > >>>>> trying
> > > >>>>>> to silence or wish them away. We refuse any false choice between
> > > >>>>> justice
> > > >>>>>> and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. As writers we
> > > need
> > > >>>>> a
> > > >>>>>> culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and
> > > even
> > > >>>>>> mistakes. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith
> > > >>>>> disagreement
> > > >>>>>> without dire professional consequences. If we won’t defend the
> > very
> > > >>>>>> thing on which our work depends, we shouldn’t expect the public or
> > > the
> > > >>>>>> state to defend it for us. +
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > > --
> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> > >
> > --
> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
> >
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l