Author: Jim Geraghty Via National Review
Closing out the week: The Harper’s letter calling for freedom of expression demonstrates that no one is ever “woke” enough, and that any institution that tries to make peace with the perpetually aggrieved eventually becomes dysfunctional; the value of Hamilton as a litmus test of the limits of cancel culture; Colin Powell throws a lot of cold water onto the “Russian bounty” story; and a warning about whether we are staying on top of the potential threat of terrorism.
In case you missed it, a whole bunch of big names, mostly on the left side of the political spectrum, signed a letter defending freedom of expression, declaring:
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 Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a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.
The majority of the letter’s signers can be characterized as progressives; many conservatives would argue they were pretty far to the left: Margaret Atwood, author of The Handmaid’s Tale; Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem, Zephyr Teachout, Randi Weingarten of the American Federation of Teachers, and Sean Wilentz. There are a handful of letter-writers who could be characterized as right-of-center — Francis Fukuyama, David Brooks of the New York Times, David Frum of The Atlantic.
Another signee was J. K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, who is now apparently a progressive enemy because she believes that transsexual men-turned-women are distinct from biological women. Her critics are finding it infuriatingly difficult to “cancel” the woman who is arguably the most famous and successful author in the world.
The letter generated exactly the phenomenon it decried; Vox contributor Emily VanDerWerff wrote a letter to Vox management — and publicly posted it for all the world to see — that the decision of her colleague, Matt Yglesias, to sign the letter “makes me feel less safe at Vox and believe slightly less in its stated goals of building a more diverse and thoughtful workplace . . . Matt’s signature on a letter like this makes it do make my job slightly more difficult, as would-be readers do mistake my position for his.”
(Oh, really? Someone else at your publication having a different opinion makes readers mistake that colleague’s position for yours, huh? Try working with Conrad Black on one side and Jay Nordlinger and Kevin Williamson on the other and see how often your views get mischaracterized! My day just isn’t complete until I’ve been accused of being a MAGA-head drone and a NeverTrump extremist in the same hour.
What VanDerWerff is complaining about isn’t a decision by Yglesias, it’s a reality of political journalism — lots of people don’t really pay attention to what you’ve written in the past, and you’re lucky if they have a vague sense of who you are and what you believe. I’m fairly certain people have had entire conversations with me believing that I’m Jim Treacher, Jim Pethokoukis, or Jim Scuitto — although thankfully, not Jim Acosta. It’s a good day when I’m not mistaken for Jim Beam.)
VanDerWerff characterized the letter as “ a broadside against many disadvantaged communities, but it is _particularly_ a broadside against trans people..” Click through and read it for yourself. The only mention of “trans” is in the word “transgressions.”
The furious denunciation and blatant mischaracterization worked in some cases. Author Jennifer Finley Boylan retracted her signature, declaring: I did not know who else had signed that letter. . I thought I was endorsing a well-meaning, if vague, message against internet shaming. I did know Chomsky, Steinem, and Atwood were in, and I thought, good company. The consequences are mine to bear. I am so sorry.”
Vox’s foreign editor, Jennifer Williams, reacted: “The Harper’s letter is revealing a deeper issue: Do we judge opinions/arguments on their merits or on who makes them? Does signing a letter mean you endorse the letter? Yes. Does it mean you also endorse the opinions of those who also choose to sign it? That’s the question here.” In other words, if you sign a letter, and someone else you’ve never met, and maybe even have never heard of, signs the same letter, are you endorsing all of their other opinions?
To most people, that is idiotic. By this standard, all vegetarians have signed on with Hitler. (Yes, yes, Hitler ate meat every now and then, and apparently most self-described vegetarians have the same lenient perspective.) Full Article @ National Review