![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yesterday morning's reading fed me deeply on issues of privilege and prejudice and free speech: the SF3/Wiscon decision to rescind Guest of Honor status for Elizabeth Moon (presumably in face of her prejudicial remarks regarding Muslims and her unwillingness to engage in discussion [1]), NPR's decision to terminate Juan Williams' contract in face of a prejudicial statement while appearing on FOX news [2], reflections over the beginning of the Supreme court case Snyder vs. Phelps.
The first two are more similar than the third because of organizational dynamics and clear rights. The third is a case of unclear rights, hence the Supreme Court appearance.
[1] http://sf3.org/2010/10/elizabeth-moon/
[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bobby1933's reflections yesterday were around an event that occurred over fifty years ago. Bobby notes the reactionary behavior which he termed, speaking power to truth. He concluded, "When truth is spoken to power, power makes the speaker pay."
It strikes me that in the fifty years, progressive values are gaining power. That a conference and a news organization can choose to distance themselves from persons because of prejudicial remarks shows a certain amount of power to exercise in defense of valuing all persons.
The greater dynamics, though point to power making the speaker pay. My understanding is that both Elizabeth Moon and Juan Williams both said things that weren't unusual. Indeed, many in the majority culture might say statements along these lines. I've read the transcript of Juan Williams' remark and will note that i can imagine people i know saying some variation of, "I saw someone i thought might be a Muslim on an airplane with me and i became anxious." I can honestly recognize that i would not be so articulate as to be able to immediately begin a deconstruction of the irrational fear of Other and the belief that one can mind read that one's clothing can identify one "first and formost" in a particular way. [3] Neither statement was framed as a speaking truth to power statement, but more of a "between us, there's some concerns" discussion. (If i'm misrepresenting Elizabeth Moon's blog post, please correct me.) The speaking truth to power is the organizations standing up and saying, these statements and associated behavior are not part of our values.
I don't now whether there's any Power that wants to make Wiscon/SF3 pay beyond having to sludge through comment overload. But clearly, the effort to defund NPR (however ineffectual such a effort would be) is a Power that wants to make NPR pay.
[3] How you know a Taqiyah from a Kufi and, honestly, a Kippah. How do you identify religious garb from cultural garb? And while i'm pretty sure my very petit sister in law could intellectually shred Juan Williams into teensy weensy little pieces, she's not going to do it on an airplane, but as a footnote in a legal review article.
The first two are more similar than the third because of organizational dynamics and clear rights. The third is a case of unclear rights, hence the Supreme Court appearance.
[1] http://sf3.org/2010/10/elizabeth-moon/
[2] http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130712737
bobby1933's reflections yesterday were around an event that occurred over fifty years ago. Bobby notes the reactionary behavior which he termed, speaking power to truth. He concluded, "When truth is spoken to power, power makes the speaker pay."It strikes me that in the fifty years, progressive values are gaining power. That a conference and a news organization can choose to distance themselves from persons because of prejudicial remarks shows a certain amount of power to exercise in defense of valuing all persons.
The greater dynamics, though point to power making the speaker pay. My understanding is that both Elizabeth Moon and Juan Williams both said things that weren't unusual. Indeed, many in the majority culture might say statements along these lines. I've read the transcript of Juan Williams' remark and will note that i can imagine people i know saying some variation of, "I saw someone i thought might be a Muslim on an airplane with me and i became anxious." I can honestly recognize that i would not be so articulate as to be able to immediately begin a deconstruction of the irrational fear of Other and the belief that one can mind read that one's clothing can identify one "first and formost" in a particular way. [3] Neither statement was framed as a speaking truth to power statement, but more of a "between us, there's some concerns" discussion. (If i'm misrepresenting Elizabeth Moon's blog post, please correct me.) The speaking truth to power is the organizations standing up and saying, these statements and associated behavior are not part of our values.
I don't now whether there's any Power that wants to make Wiscon/SF3 pay beyond having to sludge through comment overload. But clearly, the effort to defund NPR (however ineffectual such a effort would be) is a Power that wants to make NPR pay.
[3] How you know a Taqiyah from a Kufi and, honestly, a Kippah. How do you identify religious garb from cultural garb? And while i'm pretty sure my very petit sister in law could intellectually shred Juan Williams into teensy weensy little pieces, she's not going to do it on an airplane, but as a footnote in a legal review article.
Tags: