At last someone who is prepared to take on the left leaning institutions like the BBC, universities, arts bodies, ... those one would expect to be able to demonstrate some critical thought!
A Scriptovisualist's Blog: Thoughts about art, science, technology, engineering, business and the most pressing matter of our time – transitioning to a sustainable way of living. To receive blogs by email use the subscribe facility below:
Thursday, 16 July 2020
Wednesday, 8 July 2020
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
The following letter appeared on the Harper's Magazine web
site on July 7th 2020. As an author and writer I fully agree with the sentiments expressed
in this letter. I reproduce it here in my blog to increase awareness of the
letter’s existence along with this appeal: that people stop labelling others as
racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. for making comments about these matters that
do not conform to the dogmatic and ideologically driven political correctness that is stifling
debate, freedom of speech and the open sharing of ideas, all of which are fundamental
to a liberal democracy. Those who demonstrate the illiberality mentioned in the
letter, who attack others with the aim of undermining their credibility, or who
seek to rewrite history, are just creating the circumstances that will lead more
decent people to support those like Trump. To coin a phrase - a plague on both
your houses!
Here is the web link to letter along with its signatories: A Letter on Justice and Open Debate
A Letter on Justice
and Open Debate
July 7, 2020
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org
The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine’s October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)