A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

Wed Jul 15 11:25:15 UTC 2020

Since you mention the NYT ...

+ ... But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons 
about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of 
resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to 
a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has 
emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth 
isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known 
to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has 
become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform 
have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become 
a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to 
satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious 
public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.**I 
was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first 
rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing 
molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant 
bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a 
Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m 
“writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be 
friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character 
are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead 
editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be 
rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while 
others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times 
employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no 
fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work 
environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know 
that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on 
inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the 
public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders 
have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my 
courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper 
should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the 
truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a 
liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, 
or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making 
it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security 
(and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is 
a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has 
become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme 
selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new 
orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives 
in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as 
it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would 
now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a 
piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social 
media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it ... +

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Am 09.07.20 um 22:33 schrieb rich:
> good explanation for why Pynchon didnt sign. everybody so angry
>
> curious there were no really humorous quarantine stories featured in the
> NYTimes magazine 'fiction issue' this week. so serious our current slate of
> established writers.
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:32 PM Mark Kohut<mark.kohut at gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> I say everyone should ask to sign it....You in?
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 7:03 PM John Bailey<sundayjb at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> --
>>> 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