I firmly believe that the best response to speech that one disagrees with is to offer better arguments in refutation, not to silence people. But an open letter like this one in Harper's is pretty unpersuasive, to the point of being anti-productive. (1/n)
harpers.org/a-letter-on-ju…
harpers.org/a-letter-on-ju…
In part that's due to the particular group of signatories. Several of them are people I enormously admire. But others have themselves been involved in attempts to silence people they disagree with. And none of them is exactly lacking ways to have their voices be heard. (2/n)
More importantly, the letter declines to engage with substance, instead straw-manning the incidents they object to. We are told, for example, that "professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class." (3/n)
Surely that can't be literally true. Nobody objects to the very idea of "quoting literature" in a classroom. Presumably there was some specific quote that was being objected to. But we're given no information about that. (4/n)
This is not an innocent rhetorical strategy. It's likely I would agree with the signatories about most or all the examples alluded to. But by erasing the substance of the controversies, we are offered a simple morality play instead of real engagement. (5/n)
This is why phrases like "cancel culture" serve to obscure more than clarify. They shift what should be a principled debate over difficult issues to an exercise in proclaiming allegiances to one side or another in some kind of culture war. (6/n)
Let's be honest: most of the incidents referenced probably arise from people who are fighting against forms of discrimination such as sexism, racism, transphobia, etc. It's possible to pursue a bad strategy even in an honorable fight. (7/n)
But we're at a moment in history where the struggle against discrimination has a chance to make real progress. Along the way, people who don't see themselves as part of the problem may nevertheless be made to feel uncomfortable. (8/n)
That's something we have to accept as part of progress. Sometimes criticism goes too far, and e.g. someone is unfairly fired from their job. By all means, push back against that, explain the unfairness, make the case, use the force of reason. (9/n)
But don't deploy weasel words and sweeping generalizations to undercut the struggle for equality in the name of free discourse. The moment demands better of us than that. (10/10)
