I’m going to quote tweet since @thomaschattwill didn’t tag me in his original post. Thanks for your question, Thomas. My response follows.
First, this:
As to why my response op-ed focused on the signatories and their elite status and not on its content, I suppose one way of responding is to point out that the very purpose of recruiting 153 high-profile people to sign a statement is to utilize their elite status as leverage.
An alternative would’ve been to get 150 people with no platforms to co-sign; this is what petition sites like a change.org offer as a service, to provide a megaphone for those with small voices by aggregating them.
But of course, few people care about 150 “nobodies”; The Letter wouldn’t have gotten this kind of press without the JK Rowlings of the world on board. You’d need 150,000 or 1.5 million “nobodies” if you wanted to draw notice to your letter. You’d need scale.
Of course that‘s exactly what so-called “cancel culture” is—high-profile individuals fearing consolidated action of thousands of nobodies. Throughout history, voices without status have, more than not, been ignored. It’s only now in a time of amplification that they can be heard.
So the CONTEXT of your letter and its CONTENT are inextricably intertwined. How you chose to present the argument and who you invited to participate are essentially recapitulations of the argument itself: Well-voiced individuals calling the joined voices of the masses a threat.
You noted two things in coverage of the letter that I called out in my op-ed.
First, that the signatories were diverse. Yes, they were—in race, gender, orientation and to an extent, politics.
But the very fact that you emphasized their demonstrates that *diversity matters*.
First, that the signatories were diverse. Yes, they were—in race, gender, orientation and to an extent, politics.
But the very fact that you emphasized their demonstrates that *diversity matters*.
And in one key area, your signatories were NOT diverse. They’re all successful, wealthy, with enormous and virtually unfettered access to resources and platforms. They are the “uncanceled” and “uncancellable.”
They’re not street organizers or social activists. They’re not union leaders or crowdfunded creators. They’re not bloggers or social media personalities.
They’re people who’ve been blessed by establishment gatekeepers, not people who’ve built followings from the ground up.
They’re people who’ve been blessed by establishment gatekeepers, not people who’ve built followings from the ground up.
Is a time where literally anyone can be heard around the world more “illiberal” or “stifling” to debate (as the letter suggests) than eras where such voices would be entirely ignored in favor of those like us, and those who signed your letter?
And in regards to this moment, the second thing I called out in my op ed was that you acknowledged that now was perhaps an unfortunate time to publish this, with mass action for social justice and against state violence filling the streets.
I agreed.
I agreed.
In liberal society freedom of expression doesn’t just ensure the ability of high-placed persons to have unpopular opinions.
More critically, it protects the rights of large numbers of unknowns to protest the very establishment entities that grant high-placed persons their place.
More critically, it protects the rights of large numbers of unknowns to protest the very establishment entities that grant high-placed persons their place.
You cannot have freedom of expression without allowing “the mob” you fear to speak freely. Confederate statues will be brought down. Celebrities will he called out. Literary lights will be tasked for their opinions.
But the racist, sexist, oppressive foundations will be rocked.
But the racist, sexist, oppressive foundations will be rocked.
The real question that needs to be asked—of celebrated individuals like your signatories—is how we should respond to the seisms of these times, as they shake the pedestals on which we stand. How have the Bari Weisses, Jesse Singals, JK Rowlingses reacted in the face of criticism?
You can block, dismiss, ignore.
Or you can engage in reflective debate that doesn’t diminish opposing opinions, that isn’t defensive, that addresses and accepts counterpoint. You can apologize for harm, both direct and inadvertent. And if convinced, you can change your mind.
Or you can engage in reflective debate that doesn’t diminish opposing opinions, that isn’t defensive, that addresses and accepts counterpoint. You can apologize for harm, both direct and inadvertent. And if convinced, you can change your mind.
I have been subject to online brigading. I’ve received mass social media criticism.
It’s hard, and painful, and can be dangerous. But these risks are almost all due to failed features of these platforms and technologies, and not an abstract phenomenon of “cancellation.”
It’s hard, and painful, and can be dangerous. But these risks are almost all due to failed features of these platforms and technologies, and not an abstract phenomenon of “cancellation.”
I’ve tried to be humble in the face of critique. I’ve responded with civility to those who’ve attacked me with harsh language. A surprising number have responded in kind.
And when I’ve been wrong I’ve apologized. Not everyone accepts apology, but most see when it is sincere.
And when I’ve been wrong I’ve apologized. Not everyone accepts apology, but most see when it is sincere.
There was an incident in which I overstepped my bounds—launching a campaign to benefit Black woman candidates that ended up going viral.
Prominent Black women pointed out I was erasing existing groups already doing this—groups I hadn’t known of because I didn’t do my homework.
Prominent Black women pointed out I was erasing existing groups already doing this—groups I hadn’t known of because I didn’t do my homework.
I took down my campaign and redirected my efforts to supporting the most prominent of these organizations, @HigherHeights. I volunteer for them and donate time and money toward their essential efforts, and urge others to do the same.
It wasn’t the first error I made and won’t be the last. It wasn’t the first time I faced high volume criticism, and won’t be the last.
But I suggest those who signed the letter consider whether the real problem isn’t “cancellation,” but the way those in power react to criticism.
But I suggest those who signed the letter consider whether the real problem isn’t “cancellation,” but the way those in power react to criticism.
I’m glad that on this we agree. I hope we also agree that it is the place of those with greater access to set an example for those with less.
Happy to do so. State oppression has monstrous impact on free expression, and I and anyone else who supports freedom of speech should stand in defiance of these actual illiberal forces.
It also is not the same as “cancel culture” or “twitter mobs.”
It also is not the same as “cancel culture” or “twitter mobs.”
Honestly that’s the biggest issue I have with the content of the Letter, @thomaschattwill—that it fluidly conflates public critique with institutional suppression of speech.
I would have little issue with a letter just arguing institutions should adopt standards of due process.
I would have little issue with a letter just arguing institutions should adopt standards of due process.
I mean, no, not really—the letter is pretty clearly focused on the professional work of creators, literary writers and academics. And not all the famous individuals have “spotless reputations.”
