A Letter on Justice and Open Debate

[Mark Kohut]

The Human Stain, allusion intended.

On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 7:25 AM Kai Frederik Lorentzen <lorentzen at hotmail.de>
wrote:

>
> 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> <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> <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> <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> <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> <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> <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> <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
>
>
>