This article by Ms. Chamlee-Wright left me with a strange feeling. First, she needed to establish that there was anything objectionable/racist about Sandra Seller's comments. And she hasn't done that, not for a second. Yet she launches into a long discussion on whether Sandra Seller's colleague should/shouldn't have immediately condemned her remarks. The author is assuming that Sandra Sellers said something very objectionable and racist and this is clear or can be taken for granted. But what did Prof. Sellers say? The readers deserve to know that before becoming complicit in the author's implicit (but clear) condemnation of Sandra Sellers. To know about what Sandra Sellers actually said and whether it is racist, please read this piece by John McWhorter
When I am chatting with my friend (and I am not aware that I am on camera), would I be racist if I make the following remark "a massively disproportionate amount of violent crime in United States is committed by black people". I don't believe so because I am pointing to a fact. A factual observation on its own cannot be racist. I might then go on to relate the high crime rate of black people to their socio-economic disadvantage and the brutal oppression that they suffered through most of American history, oppression that other ethnic groups did not suffer, at least not to the same degree. (or anywhere close).
Prof. Sellers could be a strong supporter of affirmative action for black people. Nothing in her remark suggests that she is not. If you make a factual observation, and if people subsequently claim that because you said X, you must believe Y - it is their fault, unless they are able to read your mind. This is Critical race Theory, interpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Get them fired as a knee-jerk reaction before they are given a chance to explain their remarks. And then condemn, ostracise and fire anyone who has a different way of looking at this incident or who do not agree 100% with your take.
p.s: I am not saying Prof. Sellers comments were entirely appropriate or diplomatic, they were not. But she thought she was speaking to a friend/colleague in private. Those conversations are fundamentally different because I don't have to prove to a friend who knows me well that I am not racist. Lot of things are usually taken for granted in those conversations.
I agree that John McWhorter’s piece is excellent; thanks for including the link for readers here. I didn’t get into the specifics of Sellers’ remarks in this piece, partly because Dr. McWhorter and others have already done so. But I appreciate the note that there is more complexity to what Professor Sellers said — in what she thought was a private conversation with a friend — than in the overtly offensive remark I heard from a gym employee thirty years ago.
I'm glad to hear you feel there is more complexity to what Prof. Sellers said, but I do feel the piece was seriously unfair to Sellers and Batson in simply assuming their conversation was offensive, inappropriate, etc. In addition to what has already been said by McWhorter and the previous commenter, I would just note that -- in addition to Sellers saying that she felt "angst" over the situation -- in the extended version of the video clip (which I can no longer find online), Batson says something like, "Yeah, you have to wonder -- is it unconscious bias on our part?" This strikes a very different tone from the letter of apology quoted in the piece, which was undoubtedly written under enormous pressure, and indicates that Batson wasn't shocked or offended in the moment, as the piece assumes.
Far from exhibiting racism or anything close to it, these two individuals were -- in what they thought was a private conversation -- expressing their concern and dismay over their observations that black students were doing less well in their classes than they hoped or expected. It seems to me they have been unjustly raked over the coals enough for that, without Persuasion adding to the outcry.
The problem for Sellers, Batson, and many others is the apparent lack of a good explanation for this situation other than one that blames black students who don't do well in law school classes (and as Sellers noted, of course, some do just fine). There is such an explanation, though, and it has to do with fundamental flaws in our K-12 education system. Those flaws are too much to go into in detail here (please read my book "The Knowledge Gap" for more!), but it's not just lack of resources or inferior teachers or any of the usual explanations. It's that our standard curriculum and approach to teaching doesn't line up with what science has determined about how learning works, with the result that the students who thrive in our education system are generally those who come in with the most advantages -- and they thrive largely despite the system rather than because of it.
Thank you for this feedback, Natalie, and for pointing me to The Knowledge Gap.
You are right, of course, that only Batson knows what was in his heart when he heard Sellers’ remarks. But my gut tells me that it was something like, “Wince! I wish she hadn’t said that.” Again, I don’t know if that was or was not Batson’s reaction, but I do know that human beings face moments like these all the time. It’s a feature (not a bug) of human conversation that we often need time and space (not to mention some measure of humility) to think through what should be said. My primary concern is that by punishing the Batsons of the world, we rob ourselves of these essential design principles of the good conversation. Again, thanks for offering me your thoughts.
"But this new wrinkle—the impulse to compel speech, and the resulting fear of being punished for not speaking up—is just as worrisome."
People in certain groups gain points with intense "virtue signaling;" others gain points saying vile things. They get the same "high," just on different ends of spectrum. Being kind and giving people the benefit of the doubt is very last century.
The results of being kind & less judgmental in the last century were more friendships & personal relationships. Now the results are fewer “likes”, “replies”, and/or followers.
There's circumstances when silence is the only prudent course - when responding risks a punch in the face or your barber makes an ignorant pro-Trump remark while shaving your neck. Not everyone is a well-trained diplomat.
We are now in a level-up economy, in which likes and retweets are cryptocurrencies and scale of reach has become an unofficial measure of GDP. Carefully selecting your foils and dunking on them at every opportunity is the name of the game, if you want to be a successful influencer-entrepreneur. Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn have nothing on algorithms when it comes to investment strategy. It pays to be provocative.
The author correctly focuses on the issue without the noise of introducing specifics of the comment(s)/response(s). Those would be separately controversial in many cases & not to the point.
Judging people by what they say (write) is one weakness. Judging people by what they don’t say (write) is a whole new exercise in futility & gamesmanship.
I agree with Emily Chamlee-Wright's argument as far as it goes, but in the current moment I don't think it goes far enough. Her example helps me say why. When I read about the Sellers/Batson "private" exchange that wasn't at all private, my first response wasn't, "hey, why didn't Batson give his colleague what for over her clearly racist assumption and comment?" Rather, my first response was: well, of course, she's distressed over the fact that in her experience a disproportionate number of students of color may struggle in ways that white Georgetown students don't. I shouldn't have to say that recognizing such a reality and worrying about it isn't racist. Here's the high-wire act educators now have to walk: knowing that education in the U.S. yields class and racial differences in preparation for jobs and higher education and being dedicated to ameliorating those differences so that all kids and young adults can flourish AND stating categorically that we see no such differences in our classrooms and that anyone who does see such differences is a racist who needs to be punished. In my view, what's needed now is less parsing of when anti-racist/classist/cishomotransphiles need to speak up and more acknowledgment of how deeply down the rabbit hole of denunciation we've already gone, perhaps irreparably. Batson's groveling apology just makes me deeply sad.
Ms. Sellers was fired for speaking the truth about the situation. Isn’t that the first step in solving a problem, naming it? Then asking why the situation exists. Then looking for solutions.
Addrienne Scott is on point. The silence=violence movement fizzled (thankfully) but it points down the darkest of roads. We seem to be driftinng towards denounciation of individuals for insufficient theatrical support of scripted opinions. Anybody who is not worried by this--or at least raising an eyebrow--should probably hit pause to diagnose their cognitive algorithm.
Can't help but notice that many of the loudest advocates for harshness and vindictiveness to "wrongdoers" are the same people condemning the American legal system as too harsh and vindictive. The other day (sorry, forgot where) I read someone calling for the death penalty for cops who murder.
I guess my problem with this article is that it doesn't go on to question the policy of firing people for breaking that taboo. Why not a reprimand or training? The other problem we are facing is a culture that is entirely too punitive. Firing people like this isn't justice either.
I've read that. I think it's interesting that Ezra Klein of all people ended up writing it. The culture he decries was partially validated by Vox, and he threw shade on people who told him that this is where things would head.
Anyone who equates silence -- or even speech -- with violence needs to get out more.
Beyond that simple observation, there's a pattern here at Persuasion: People argue for free speech and individual rights... up to a point. There's always a question -- often asked explicitly -- of "where do you draw the line?"
At that point, as the saying goes, "We've already established what you are; now we're just haggling over price." You've put yourself in the position of deciding what people should be allowed to say and/or what opinions they should be allowed to hold.
So let me counter that explicitly by saying that it's worse to be cruel than to be, say, racist. Professor Seller may have been racist (she wasn't, but let's posit it for the example); the people who got her fired were cruel. Having the opinion that other races are inferior is racist, but it's just an opinion. If it's wrong, it just joins all the other wrong opinions the typical person has -- it doesn't somehow pollute the noosphere. Cruelty has real, and pernicious, effects.
And because this is the Internet, where people typically can't, or won't, understand simple prose: Burning a cross on someone's lawn or refusing to serve him is both racist *and* cruel, and it's the cruel side that's the problem. And we had simple and effective fire-in-a-crowded-theater rules for speech, too, before we started policing people's opinions.
But a person who is genuinely racist (we both agree Prof. Sellers didn't say or do anything to fit that description) is more likely to engage in behaviour that is cruel - for example, denying a person a job or an apartment because she is from a different race. This form of cruelty was extremely common in American history and strong social disapproval of such views was one thing that made it much less common today. One way we express strong social disapproval of something is refusing to employ people who explicitly endorse such views. Maybe that seems cruel, but on balance, (perhaps) society is better off if there are some moral boundaries, even when it is hard to define such boundaries unambiguously. It is not that difficult to have some degree of consensus on such matters, and we did have that before the authoritarian woke movement started in American universities and media.
First, you're assuming you can reliably identify someone who is "genuinely racist", which I'm not inclined to believe.
Second, you assume that someone who is "genuinely racist" is so likely to engage in cruel behavior as a result that she should be punished preemptively, like the "future crimes" division in "Minority Report". Generally we only punish people for things that they've actually done, which I believe is a valuable restraint on our part.
Third, kicking these people out of their jobs, homes, classes or whatever might well reduce the amount of racist cruelty in the country. And forcibly resettling housing-project residents to reservations out in the hills would probably reduce crime (if you think that's a ridiculous example remember the Freakonomics claim that crime went down twenty years after Roe v. Wade because many criminals simply weren't born, so the idea that the removal of certain types of people from society would improve it already has currency). I don't think I have to explain why we don't do things like that.
Refusing to hire someone, or even firing someone, because you don't like his views is fine. It's your business. Make it Democrat-free if you like. However, public institutions, which many schools are, don't get to do that, and encouraging an employer to fire someone is still a mean thing to do. Especially over a thought-crime. Especially over a private conversation. Especially when you can't really be sure of a net benefit.
Maybe society would be better off, but one of the things that we don't do is hurt people who haven't *done* anything wrong for the betterment of society. See above.
And consensus on something like this is a very dangerous thing. It means that if I don't believe as the majority does I can be punished for it regardless of anything I *do*.
" Yet increasingly, readiness to condemn seems to be what people expect of themselves and others. As we demand that people have ripostes at the ready, it means we’re entering conversations armed, our words sharpened, weaponized. Like jacked-up warriors, we’re almost disappointed if we don’t encounter something worthy of condemnation."
Who is this "we" you speak of? I personally don't have a hyper sensitivity to expecting people to condemn things, particularly things that are not even deserving condemnation. I don't feel like either of those people should have lost their jobs for what they said -- or didn't say -- ; based on the clip I watched; it is insufficient to make a judgement about whether the comment was racist or whether, moreso, that Sellers is. And, I also don't even think all forms of "racist" expressions are good reason for a person to be fired from a job. Not all racism is equally bad, and how we socially punish should be calibrated to that diversity. In my mind, the people who advocated punishing them based on that clip and without any meaningful investigation are guilty of a sin. Don't worry though, I'm not going to try to get them fired from their job because of it.
"Of course, there are circumstances when the failure to condemn is itself a legitimate target for condemnation. The former president’s failures to condemn white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 and those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 spring to mind. He had time and a cadre of advisers to help him think through what he might say. As a person with tremendous political power and cultural influence whose words might have prevented violence, he had a moral duty to condemn.
But in our daily conversations as ordinary citizens, we can afford a more forgiving standard. In fact, we need a more forgiving standard if we are to rebuild the social trust that has been in such sharp decline."
Trump finds his way into the strangest of political discussions these days. I'd just like to point out that you can dislike Trump but still do your due diligence of validating some of the most easily and commonly invalidated propaganda before repeating it as if it were fact. Trump did not "fail to condemn" either white nationalists after Charlottesville or the rioting at the capitol. Albeit, I'd argue that his overall response regarding the capitol was deplorable.
"If we shift our posture to a more charitable interpretation and proportionate response, if we expect our fellow citizens to act with decency and honor, we will likely lose the sharpened edge that gives us ready access to reproving barbs."
Except for with Trump supporters right?
I'm curious; when will Democrats begin to condemn the Democratic Party for covering up its legacy of slavery? Many Democratic politicians are now beginning to propose an investigation into reparations for slavery -- are they finally going to uncover the truth that the Democratic Party is responsible for fighting the war to keep it and nursing the KKK, which was responsible for plundering and warring on black people for 100 years after the Republican Party emancipated them? How about the Democratic Party pay for reparations? It's their debt. It would be a crime to have them move that debt to innocent people in the form of using taxes to pay for it--taking the income of first generation Indians to pay off the slave debt of the Democratic Party. Justice for American slavery will not move forward until Americans finally hold the Democratic Party responsible for its war for slavery.
What an astonishingly simplistic post. First, Democrats are quite aware and to my knowledge have not tried to hide under a rock about the reality of the southern Democratic Parties maintanance of slavery 150 years ago. But to claim the boundary between support/imposition and opposition/emancipation is as “clean” as: all 19’th century Democrats on one side and all 19th century Republicans on the other, shows a shallow understanding of the countries history. Emancipation was the first human step by a brave but also politically calculating President determined to keep the Union together, to turn a corner on centuries of subjugation and massive economic exploitation for the benefit all BUT those enslaved. Not just all Democrats or Republicans...but all who benefitted economically, to scratch the surface. The reparations discussion is a complex one with all sorts of possible solutions and implications. I couldn’t pretend to know the best way to address it. But I do know this. It doesn’t simplistically land on one parties head or the others.
I appreciate your attempt to defend the Party of Slavery from its past crimes. Your response is a prime example of what my comment was pointing out.
"Democrats are quite aware and to my knowledge have not tried to hide under a rock about the reality of the southern Democratic Parties maintenance of slavery 150 years ago."
Your knowledge about the Democratic Party's lies about their past is clearly incomplete. Perhaps you should begin your investigation simply by going to their official website.
From their "who we are page" -- and at the top of their timeline:
"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you’ll see why we’re proud to be Democrats."
That is correct, the Democratic Party claims that they have led the fight for civil rights for more than 200 years -- you know, when they were fighting their war for slavery. Their timeline begins at 1920. Almost 100 years after when their history actually began. Quite literally, they are rewriting their own history. And, apparently, you are unaware of it. As I suspect many Democrats are.
Actually the civil war was quite "clean" in its division between Democrats -- the south, and Republicans, the north. There were no Republican representatives in the south fighting for slavery. And the vast majority of politicians in the north that supported the war and later the 13th amendment were Republican. Only a minority were Democrats. And that includes Andrew Johnson, who took the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated by a Democrat. Andrew Johnson proceeded to take reparations that were given by Republican general William Sherman away from black people who were newly emancipated. For the 13th amendment, every rep who voted nay was a Democrat -- and that was in the north.
While the Republicans were not all abolitionists, the politicians who were abolitionists were Republicans. While Lincoln was more motivated to keep the union together than he was to emancipate black slaves, he still viewed slavery as a moral evil -- and had there not been Republican abolitionists, slavery may not have been abolished.
And yes, it does simplistically land on the Democratic Party's head: they fought a war to keep it going. The Confederacy was compromised of Democrats The Union was led by the Republican Party. And the statistical representation of congress and how they voted for the 13th amendment at the time proves this. 600,000 people died in that war. And the Democratic Party then took the reparations given by Republicans and fought to oppress the civil rights granted to black people by the Republican Party following that war. To argue otherwise is just swallowing the propaganda by the Party of Slavery. I am not a Republican, and the Republican party has been guilty of atrocious things, such as being the primary architect of the Iraq War, but it deserves the acknowledgement that it fought a war that ended slavery and the Democratic Party fought a war that attempted to extend slavery.
The reparations discussion isn't that complex; its only complex because Democrats want to defend the Party of Slavery from its crimes because it is now politically convenient for them that the Party of Slavery does not lose the power and wealth it acquired from its crimes. Democrats don't want to risk losing power and wealth, even if that power and wealth is derived from slavery and racial terrorism.
If the Democratic Party were perceived just like any organization is perceived, say like Exon Mobil, there would be no question about the moral culpability of its past behavior. If Exxon Mobil fought a war to keep people enslaved 150 years ago, they would still be liable for the damages, and the fact that Chevron did some racist things 100 years after, but still no where near as atrocious as what Exon Mobil did, would not relieve Exxon Mobil of that debt nor would it make Chevron responsible for what Exon Mobil did.
You should read their lie again, and perhaps reconsider your defense of them.
"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights."
If reparations are owed to the descendants of American slaves, they are owed by the Democratic Party moreso than any other entity or person. That the Democratic Party is now attempting to place the moral blame for the legacy of slavery on innocent Americans when they are most responsible is an abomination. But not surprising, given their history. Don't be a part of that history by defending it -- condemn it.
I'm all for Democrats continuing to be Democrats, just do so while "speaking truth to power" and holding the party they are loyal to accountable. I haven't witnessed that yet though. Unless we count myself as a Democrat, as I did vote Democrat most of my life and even knocked on doors campaigning for Obama for 3 months in 2008. Although... I consider myself just independent.
This article by Ms. Chamlee-Wright left me with a strange feeling. First, she needed to establish that there was anything objectionable/racist about Sandra Seller's comments. And she hasn't done that, not for a second. Yet she launches into a long discussion on whether Sandra Seller's colleague should/shouldn't have immediately condemned her remarks. The author is assuming that Sandra Sellers said something very objectionable and racist and this is clear or can be taken for granted. But what did Prof. Sellers say? The readers deserve to know that before becoming complicit in the author's implicit (but clear) condemnation of Sandra Sellers. To know about what Sandra Sellers actually said and whether it is racist, please read this piece by John McWhorter
https://johnmcwhorter.substack.com/p/so-there-was-a-law-professor-at-georgetown
When I am chatting with my friend (and I am not aware that I am on camera), would I be racist if I make the following remark "a massively disproportionate amount of violent crime in United States is committed by black people". I don't believe so because I am pointing to a fact. A factual observation on its own cannot be racist. I might then go on to relate the high crime rate of black people to their socio-economic disadvantage and the brutal oppression that they suffered through most of American history, oppression that other ethnic groups did not suffer, at least not to the same degree. (or anywhere close).
Prof. Sellers could be a strong supporter of affirmative action for black people. Nothing in her remark suggests that she is not. If you make a factual observation, and if people subsequently claim that because you said X, you must believe Y - it is their fault, unless they are able to read your mind. This is Critical race Theory, interpret everyone's words in the worst possible light. Get them fired as a knee-jerk reaction before they are given a chance to explain their remarks. And then condemn, ostracise and fire anyone who has a different way of looking at this incident or who do not agree 100% with your take.
p.s: I am not saying Prof. Sellers comments were entirely appropriate or diplomatic, they were not. But she thought she was speaking to a friend/colleague in private. Those conversations are fundamentally different because I don't have to prove to a friend who knows me well that I am not racist. Lot of things are usually taken for granted in those conversations.
I agree that John McWhorter’s piece is excellent; thanks for including the link for readers here. I didn’t get into the specifics of Sellers’ remarks in this piece, partly because Dr. McWhorter and others have already done so. But I appreciate the note that there is more complexity to what Professor Sellers said — in what she thought was a private conversation with a friend — than in the overtly offensive remark I heard from a gym employee thirty years ago.
I'm glad to hear you feel there is more complexity to what Prof. Sellers said, but I do feel the piece was seriously unfair to Sellers and Batson in simply assuming their conversation was offensive, inappropriate, etc. In addition to what has already been said by McWhorter and the previous commenter, I would just note that -- in addition to Sellers saying that she felt "angst" over the situation -- in the extended version of the video clip (which I can no longer find online), Batson says something like, "Yeah, you have to wonder -- is it unconscious bias on our part?" This strikes a very different tone from the letter of apology quoted in the piece, which was undoubtedly written under enormous pressure, and indicates that Batson wasn't shocked or offended in the moment, as the piece assumes.
Far from exhibiting racism or anything close to it, these two individuals were -- in what they thought was a private conversation -- expressing their concern and dismay over their observations that black students were doing less well in their classes than they hoped or expected. It seems to me they have been unjustly raked over the coals enough for that, without Persuasion adding to the outcry.
The problem for Sellers, Batson, and many others is the apparent lack of a good explanation for this situation other than one that blames black students who don't do well in law school classes (and as Sellers noted, of course, some do just fine). There is such an explanation, though, and it has to do with fundamental flaws in our K-12 education system. Those flaws are too much to go into in detail here (please read my book "The Knowledge Gap" for more!), but it's not just lack of resources or inferior teachers or any of the usual explanations. It's that our standard curriculum and approach to teaching doesn't line up with what science has determined about how learning works, with the result that the students who thrive in our education system are generally those who come in with the most advantages -- and they thrive largely despite the system rather than because of it.
Thank you for this feedback, Natalie, and for pointing me to The Knowledge Gap.
You are right, of course, that only Batson knows what was in his heart when he heard Sellers’ remarks. But my gut tells me that it was something like, “Wince! I wish she hadn’t said that.” Again, I don’t know if that was or was not Batson’s reaction, but I do know that human beings face moments like these all the time. It’s a feature (not a bug) of human conversation that we often need time and space (not to mention some measure of humility) to think through what should be said. My primary concern is that by punishing the Batsons of the world, we rob ourselves of these essential design principles of the good conversation. Again, thanks for offering me your thoughts.
"But this new wrinkle—the impulse to compel speech, and the resulting fear of being punished for not speaking up—is just as worrisome."
People in certain groups gain points with intense "virtue signaling;" others gain points saying vile things. They get the same "high," just on different ends of spectrum. Being kind and giving people the benefit of the doubt is very last century.
This is a great point. If you haven’t already read it, I recommend the book Grandstanding: The Use and Abuse of Moral Talk by Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke. https://www.amazon.com/Grandstanding-Use-Abuse-Moral-Talk/dp/0190900156/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=Grandstanding&qid=1619519354&sr=8-2
Thank you! I'll read it!
The results of being kind & less judgmental in the last century were more friendships & personal relationships. Now the results are fewer “likes”, “replies”, and/or followers.
There's circumstances when silence is the only prudent course - when responding risks a punch in the face or your barber makes an ignorant pro-Trump remark while shaving your neck. Not everyone is a well-trained diplomat.
We are now in a level-up economy, in which likes and retweets are cryptocurrencies and scale of reach has become an unofficial measure of GDP. Carefully selecting your foils and dunking on them at every opportunity is the name of the game, if you want to be a successful influencer-entrepreneur. Warren Buffett and Carl Icahn have nothing on algorithms when it comes to investment strategy. It pays to be provocative.
The author correctly focuses on the issue without the noise of introducing specifics of the comment(s)/response(s). Those would be separately controversial in many cases & not to the point.
Judging people by what they say (write) is one weakness. Judging people by what they don’t say (write) is a whole new exercise in futility & gamesmanship.
I agree with Emily Chamlee-Wright's argument as far as it goes, but in the current moment I don't think it goes far enough. Her example helps me say why. When I read about the Sellers/Batson "private" exchange that wasn't at all private, my first response wasn't, "hey, why didn't Batson give his colleague what for over her clearly racist assumption and comment?" Rather, my first response was: well, of course, she's distressed over the fact that in her experience a disproportionate number of students of color may struggle in ways that white Georgetown students don't. I shouldn't have to say that recognizing such a reality and worrying about it isn't racist. Here's the high-wire act educators now have to walk: knowing that education in the U.S. yields class and racial differences in preparation for jobs and higher education and being dedicated to ameliorating those differences so that all kids and young adults can flourish AND stating categorically that we see no such differences in our classrooms and that anyone who does see such differences is a racist who needs to be punished. In my view, what's needed now is less parsing of when anti-racist/classist/cishomotransphiles need to speak up and more acknowledgment of how deeply down the rabbit hole of denunciation we've already gone, perhaps irreparably. Batson's groveling apology just makes me deeply sad.
Ms. Sellers was fired for speaking the truth about the situation. Isn’t that the first step in solving a problem, naming it? Then asking why the situation exists. Then looking for solutions.
John McWhorter nailed it, as usual.
Addrienne Scott is on point. The silence=violence movement fizzled (thankfully) but it points down the darkest of roads. We seem to be driftinng towards denounciation of individuals for insufficient theatrical support of scripted opinions. Anybody who is not worried by this--or at least raising an eyebrow--should probably hit pause to diagnose their cognitive algorithm.
Can't help but notice that many of the loudest advocates for harshness and vindictiveness to "wrongdoers" are the same people condemning the American legal system as too harsh and vindictive. The other day (sorry, forgot where) I read someone calling for the death penalty for cops who murder.
The Steven Wright quote "I'd kill for a Noble Peace Prize" comes to mind.
I guess my problem with this article is that it doesn't go on to question the policy of firing people for breaking that taboo. Why not a reprimand or training? The other problem we are facing is a culture that is entirely too punitive. Firing people like this isn't justice either.
Yes, I think that’s a slightly different but equally important issue. Ezra Klein actually had a good New York Times column on that last week: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/18/opinion/cancel-culture-social-media.html
I've read that. I think it's interesting that Ezra Klein of all people ended up writing it. The culture he decries was partially validated by Vox, and he threw shade on people who told him that this is where things would head.
Anyone who equates silence -- or even speech -- with violence needs to get out more.
Beyond that simple observation, there's a pattern here at Persuasion: People argue for free speech and individual rights... up to a point. There's always a question -- often asked explicitly -- of "where do you draw the line?"
At that point, as the saying goes, "We've already established what you are; now we're just haggling over price." You've put yourself in the position of deciding what people should be allowed to say and/or what opinions they should be allowed to hold.
So let me counter that explicitly by saying that it's worse to be cruel than to be, say, racist. Professor Seller may have been racist (she wasn't, but let's posit it for the example); the people who got her fired were cruel. Having the opinion that other races are inferior is racist, but it's just an opinion. If it's wrong, it just joins all the other wrong opinions the typical person has -- it doesn't somehow pollute the noosphere. Cruelty has real, and pernicious, effects.
And because this is the Internet, where people typically can't, or won't, understand simple prose: Burning a cross on someone's lawn or refusing to serve him is both racist *and* cruel, and it's the cruel side that's the problem. And we had simple and effective fire-in-a-crowded-theater rules for speech, too, before we started policing people's opinions.
But a person who is genuinely racist (we both agree Prof. Sellers didn't say or do anything to fit that description) is more likely to engage in behaviour that is cruel - for example, denying a person a job or an apartment because she is from a different race. This form of cruelty was extremely common in American history and strong social disapproval of such views was one thing that made it much less common today. One way we express strong social disapproval of something is refusing to employ people who explicitly endorse such views. Maybe that seems cruel, but on balance, (perhaps) society is better off if there are some moral boundaries, even when it is hard to define such boundaries unambiguously. It is not that difficult to have some degree of consensus on such matters, and we did have that before the authoritarian woke movement started in American universities and media.
First, you're assuming you can reliably identify someone who is "genuinely racist", which I'm not inclined to believe.
Second, you assume that someone who is "genuinely racist" is so likely to engage in cruel behavior as a result that she should be punished preemptively, like the "future crimes" division in "Minority Report". Generally we only punish people for things that they've actually done, which I believe is a valuable restraint on our part.
Third, kicking these people out of their jobs, homes, classes or whatever might well reduce the amount of racist cruelty in the country. And forcibly resettling housing-project residents to reservations out in the hills would probably reduce crime (if you think that's a ridiculous example remember the Freakonomics claim that crime went down twenty years after Roe v. Wade because many criminals simply weren't born, so the idea that the removal of certain types of people from society would improve it already has currency). I don't think I have to explain why we don't do things like that.
Refusing to hire someone, or even firing someone, because you don't like his views is fine. It's your business. Make it Democrat-free if you like. However, public institutions, which many schools are, don't get to do that, and encouraging an employer to fire someone is still a mean thing to do. Especially over a thought-crime. Especially over a private conversation. Especially when you can't really be sure of a net benefit.
Maybe society would be better off, but one of the things that we don't do is hurt people who haven't *done* anything wrong for the betterment of society. See above.
And consensus on something like this is a very dangerous thing. It means that if I don't believe as the majority does I can be punished for it regardless of anything I *do*.
" Yet increasingly, readiness to condemn seems to be what people expect of themselves and others. As we demand that people have ripostes at the ready, it means we’re entering conversations armed, our words sharpened, weaponized. Like jacked-up warriors, we’re almost disappointed if we don’t encounter something worthy of condemnation."
Who is this "we" you speak of? I personally don't have a hyper sensitivity to expecting people to condemn things, particularly things that are not even deserving condemnation. I don't feel like either of those people should have lost their jobs for what they said -- or didn't say -- ; based on the clip I watched; it is insufficient to make a judgement about whether the comment was racist or whether, moreso, that Sellers is. And, I also don't even think all forms of "racist" expressions are good reason for a person to be fired from a job. Not all racism is equally bad, and how we socially punish should be calibrated to that diversity. In my mind, the people who advocated punishing them based on that clip and without any meaningful investigation are guilty of a sin. Don't worry though, I'm not going to try to get them fired from their job because of it.
"Of course, there are circumstances when the failure to condemn is itself a legitimate target for condemnation. The former president’s failures to condemn white nationalists in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017 and those who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6 spring to mind. He had time and a cadre of advisers to help him think through what he might say. As a person with tremendous political power and cultural influence whose words might have prevented violence, he had a moral duty to condemn.
But in our daily conversations as ordinary citizens, we can afford a more forgiving standard. In fact, we need a more forgiving standard if we are to rebuild the social trust that has been in such sharp decline."
Trump finds his way into the strangest of political discussions these days. I'd just like to point out that you can dislike Trump but still do your due diligence of validating some of the most easily and commonly invalidated propaganda before repeating it as if it were fact. Trump did not "fail to condemn" either white nationalists after Charlottesville or the rioting at the capitol. Albeit, I'd argue that his overall response regarding the capitol was deplorable.
"If we shift our posture to a more charitable interpretation and proportionate response, if we expect our fellow citizens to act with decency and honor, we will likely lose the sharpened edge that gives us ready access to reproving barbs."
Except for with Trump supporters right?
I'm curious; when will Democrats begin to condemn the Democratic Party for covering up its legacy of slavery? Many Democratic politicians are now beginning to propose an investigation into reparations for slavery -- are they finally going to uncover the truth that the Democratic Party is responsible for fighting the war to keep it and nursing the KKK, which was responsible for plundering and warring on black people for 100 years after the Republican Party emancipated them? How about the Democratic Party pay for reparations? It's their debt. It would be a crime to have them move that debt to innocent people in the form of using taxes to pay for it--taking the income of first generation Indians to pay off the slave debt of the Democratic Party. Justice for American slavery will not move forward until Americans finally hold the Democratic Party responsible for its war for slavery.
What an astonishingly simplistic post. First, Democrats are quite aware and to my knowledge have not tried to hide under a rock about the reality of the southern Democratic Parties maintanance of slavery 150 years ago. But to claim the boundary between support/imposition and opposition/emancipation is as “clean” as: all 19’th century Democrats on one side and all 19th century Republicans on the other, shows a shallow understanding of the countries history. Emancipation was the first human step by a brave but also politically calculating President determined to keep the Union together, to turn a corner on centuries of subjugation and massive economic exploitation for the benefit all BUT those enslaved. Not just all Democrats or Republicans...but all who benefitted economically, to scratch the surface. The reparations discussion is a complex one with all sorts of possible solutions and implications. I couldn’t pretend to know the best way to address it. But I do know this. It doesn’t simplistically land on one parties head or the others.
I appreciate your attempt to defend the Party of Slavery from its past crimes. Your response is a prime example of what my comment was pointing out.
"Democrats are quite aware and to my knowledge have not tried to hide under a rock about the reality of the southern Democratic Parties maintenance of slavery 150 years ago."
Your knowledge about the Democratic Party's lies about their past is clearly incomplete. Perhaps you should begin your investigation simply by going to their official website.
From their "who we are page" -- and at the top of their timeline:
"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights. We are the party of Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, FDR, and the countless everyday Americans who work each day to build a more perfect union. Take a look at some of our accomplishments, and you’ll see why we’re proud to be Democrats."
That is correct, the Democratic Party claims that they have led the fight for civil rights for more than 200 years -- you know, when they were fighting their war for slavery. Their timeline begins at 1920. Almost 100 years after when their history actually began. Quite literally, they are rewriting their own history. And, apparently, you are unaware of it. As I suspect many Democrats are.
Actually the civil war was quite "clean" in its division between Democrats -- the south, and Republicans, the north. There were no Republican representatives in the south fighting for slavery. And the vast majority of politicians in the north that supported the war and later the 13th amendment were Republican. Only a minority were Democrats. And that includes Andrew Johnson, who took the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated by a Democrat. Andrew Johnson proceeded to take reparations that were given by Republican general William Sherman away from black people who were newly emancipated. For the 13th amendment, every rep who voted nay was a Democrat -- and that was in the north.
While the Republicans were not all abolitionists, the politicians who were abolitionists were Republicans. While Lincoln was more motivated to keep the union together than he was to emancipate black slaves, he still viewed slavery as a moral evil -- and had there not been Republican abolitionists, slavery may not have been abolished.
And yes, it does simplistically land on the Democratic Party's head: they fought a war to keep it going. The Confederacy was compromised of Democrats The Union was led by the Republican Party. And the statistical representation of congress and how they voted for the 13th amendment at the time proves this. 600,000 people died in that war. And the Democratic Party then took the reparations given by Republicans and fought to oppress the civil rights granted to black people by the Republican Party following that war. To argue otherwise is just swallowing the propaganda by the Party of Slavery. I am not a Republican, and the Republican party has been guilty of atrocious things, such as being the primary architect of the Iraq War, but it deserves the acknowledgement that it fought a war that ended slavery and the Democratic Party fought a war that attempted to extend slavery.
The reparations discussion isn't that complex; its only complex because Democrats want to defend the Party of Slavery from its crimes because it is now politically convenient for them that the Party of Slavery does not lose the power and wealth it acquired from its crimes. Democrats don't want to risk losing power and wealth, even if that power and wealth is derived from slavery and racial terrorism.
If the Democratic Party were perceived just like any organization is perceived, say like Exon Mobil, there would be no question about the moral culpability of its past behavior. If Exxon Mobil fought a war to keep people enslaved 150 years ago, they would still be liable for the damages, and the fact that Chevron did some racist things 100 years after, but still no where near as atrocious as what Exon Mobil did, would not relieve Exxon Mobil of that debt nor would it make Chevron responsible for what Exon Mobil did.
You should read their lie again, and perhaps reconsider your defense of them.
"For more than 200 years, our party has led the fight for civil rights, health care, Social Security, workers’ rights, and women’s rights."
If reparations are owed to the descendants of American slaves, they are owed by the Democratic Party moreso than any other entity or person. That the Democratic Party is now attempting to place the moral blame for the legacy of slavery on innocent Americans when they are most responsible is an abomination. But not surprising, given their history. Don't be a part of that history by defending it -- condemn it.
I'm all for Democrats continuing to be Democrats, just do so while "speaking truth to power" and holding the party they are loyal to accountable. I haven't witnessed that yet though. Unless we count myself as a Democrat, as I did vote Democrat most of my life and even knocked on doors campaigning for Obama for 3 months in 2008. Although... I consider myself just independent.