"institutional leaders ... are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces" ie people on the internet are a bit like Putin..great piece!
Why is this letter an example of what they feel is happening? But your response is what is actually happening? Why not the other way round?
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial due to the (well-documented!) increasing polarisation that is prevalent in our society today. Studies show that since 2008 the divide and intolerance for those on the other end of the political spectrum has been increasing. That is why I would argue that they are facing a moment of trial; individuals are quick to dismiss other people without truly rebutting their argument (as you have done here and instead merely insisted what was written in the letter was false). This has been seen on college campuses on many occasions, where protestors insist that a speaker will harm them and make them feel unsafe, effectively stopping the speaker from being heard. Surely it is the duty of academic institutions to allow free discourse and challenge one another's arguments?
A new set of moral issues would, I believe, infer to the growing desire to publicly shame any wrongdoing anyone has done. Whilst I am all for calling out consistently poor behaviours or challenging ideological views, is it really morally right to bring up something someone has done in the past, even if this is not a reflection of who they are now?
I think you have misinterpreted the article if you truly believe the issue is with being challenged for their beliefs. The issue instead lies in how these beliefs are challenged. For instance, with regards to JK Rowling - I take no issue in people challenging her viewpoints and rebutting these in a factual and reasonable manner. But to instead shut her down and call her a TERF without really arguing against anything she has said.
I doubt any of the people that signed this letter are arguing that you cannot criticise any of their ideas. Instead (and what I took from the letter) is that we should be able to have an open dialogue about differing opinions, without others assuming that you hold extreme views and thus deserve not to be heard.
I recommend reading The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt (one of the signatories). This book is a deeper analysis of the issue from a social psychological perspective with an abundance of examples to argue his case - too many to fit into a short letter.
We don't know the details of the authors contract in that case.
Companies that have a product to sell have to "protect their brand."
If they feel that the Rowling letter was transphobic (which it was) and does not fit with their brand then anyone under their employ who supported it could be asked to retract their support (which is what I imagine the first step was).
Should that be refused then a company will always protect itself over the life of an employee. That's just how companies work.
"institutional leaders ... are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces" ie people on the internet are a bit like Putin..great piece!
Why is this letter an example of what they feel is happening? But your response is what is actually happening? Why not the other way round?
Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial due to the (well-documented!) increasing polarisation that is prevalent in our society today. Studies show that since 2008 the divide and intolerance for those on the other end of the political spectrum has been increasing. That is why I would argue that they are facing a moment of trial; individuals are quick to dismiss other people without truly rebutting their argument (as you have done here and instead merely insisted what was written in the letter was false). This has been seen on college campuses on many occasions, where protestors insist that a speaker will harm them and make them feel unsafe, effectively stopping the speaker from being heard. Surely it is the duty of academic institutions to allow free discourse and challenge one another's arguments?
A new set of moral issues would, I believe, infer to the growing desire to publicly shame any wrongdoing anyone has done. Whilst I am all for calling out consistently poor behaviours or challenging ideological views, is it really morally right to bring up something someone has done in the past, even if this is not a reflection of who they are now?
I think you have misinterpreted the article if you truly believe the issue is with being challenged for their beliefs. The issue instead lies in how these beliefs are challenged. For instance, with regards to JK Rowling - I take no issue in people challenging her viewpoints and rebutting these in a factual and reasonable manner. But to instead shut her down and call her a TERF without really arguing against anything she has said.
I doubt any of the people that signed this letter are arguing that you cannot criticise any of their ideas. Instead (and what I took from the letter) is that we should be able to have an open dialogue about differing opinions, without others assuming that you hold extreme views and thus deserve not to be heard.
I recommend reading The Coddling of the American Mind by Jonathan Haidt (one of the signatories). This book is a deeper analysis of the issue from a social psychological perspective with an abundance of examples to argue his case - too many to fit into a short letter.
I feel I've said what I need to say in the piece. Yes, action and speech are different.
We don't know the details of the authors contract in that case.
Companies that have a product to sell have to "protect their brand."
If they feel that the Rowling letter was transphobic (which it was) and does not fit with their brand then anyone under their employ who supported it could be asked to retract their support (which is what I imagine the first step was).
Should that be refused then a company will always protect itself over the life of an employee. That's just how companies work.