Horror Writers of America President Lisa Morton announced on HWA’s Facebook page that David A. Riley is now off the award jury he’d been appointed to.
In regards to the situation involving David Riley, who announced on his blog that he would be serving on the Anthology jury: We’ve reached out to Mr. Riley, and both Mr. Riley and the HWA have agreed that it’s in the best interest of all for him to step down. Mr. Riley will be replaced on the jury immediately by Nicole Cushing. The HWA thanks Nicole for stepping up, and we would also like to thank everyone who has shared their opinion on this matter.
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts to your email.
We all know that Ridley is a racist. There is absolutely no way to pretend like something else. I will absolutely not believe people in any way who talks like this is something that happened 40 years ago when the person still spouts the same racism.
Also, I will in no way accept people just saying that “I don’t know what the National Front is” as if it wasn’t important. It is so extremely easy to look it up that there are no excuses for not doing so. To get a background to understand what this is about.
So lets stop pretending. Ridley was for 10 years a member of britains main racist party. He was an organizer of this white supremacy party. He stood for election based on a political program of white supremace three times. After that he moved to another openly racist organization, British National Party. A party that was deemed a nazi party by the european pariament as late as 1990. Whose party organizer Richard Edmonds himself described it as racist. Edmonds was later, in 1994, imprisoned after a racist attack where he cut up a mans face with a glass. This is the party Ridley supported.
As late as 2009, the BNP had rules that were against the Race Relations Act on three counts. And Ridley continued to endorse the party at this time.
So lets not pretend that this is old stuff. It is up to date. His racist views have continued for over 40 years now, well documented.
Any organization that thinks a person likes this is a good person to give a position of authority is an organization I hope goes down in flames. Or changes their ways. Thankfully, it seems like the latter happened.
So, by this logic, if I don’t buy books by X, I’m silencing that person. And I thought my TBR pile was big already.
Hampus
I don’t know who your post is directed at. If it is me then I will assure you that has not been and is not now my argument. If you go back to my original post in this thread you’ll find I wrote:
You’ll note I am not suggesting that the people who were blacklisted were not communists (though some weren’t) or even that the Soviet Union and its desire for global communism (preceded of course by a global dictatorship) was not a threat to the US. I was also not suggesting that the KKK has something politically, intellectually, or morally relevant to say. My point was that liberalism, at least as it was espoused in the US, argued that you had to protect their speech even if it was bad — especially if it was bad — because that protected speech that did have something politically, intellectually, or morally relevant to say. It is only by protecting those extremes that we preserve all the rest.
The argument by ‘conservative’ groups (by and large as I recognize there were exceptions) in the mid 1980s was that it was okay to socially, and sometimes legally, censor speech because speech had consequences and people needed to take personal responsibility for what they said and did. Liberals argued that speech should be free unless it was a direct and immediate physical danger.
Now however liberal groups feel as if they are in ascendancy and they are the ones talking about how speech has consequences and people need to take responsibility for what they say and do. Conservatives who feel as if they are in a disorganized route are the ones harping about keeping speech free from social and legal opprobrium. The problem is mores shift. Politics shift. I remember when Boris Yeltsin was going to transform Russia into a liberal democracy and was busily divesting Russia of its empire. Now Putin is in charge and he is a virtual gangster hell bent on resurrecting the Russian empire as an oligarchy. What is to say Trump or a Trump like figure won’t rise to the Presidency in the next 10 years? I know my concerns seem wholly alien to some HWA spat but as Thomas More said (in a play):
Liberalism shouldn’t be divesting itself of protections it should be building them up. Repeatedly people have claimed that what happened to Riley was of no consequence. After all it was an unpaid jurorship on a panel for a horror award. But look how agitated people became over this trivial matter. There were people actually talking about leaving the HWA and calling the group a den of racists over it. That smacks of something less than trivial.
My fear is that brick by brick we are setting ourselves up for a very nasty surprise when the worm turns. That was the point of my initial post.
This is a question of freedom of speech and assembly. To decide if a bigot is suited to be placed in a position of authority over those the person holds in contempt is not.
Do not confuse these issues. Because then you are discussing apples when the issue at hand is bananas.
And I’m very, very happy about people talking about leaving HWA, because that means they take the protection and safe spaces of minorities seriously. Even better now when HWA actually acted on their concerns.
AND IT IS FUCKING NOT TRIVIAL IN ANY WAY!
This is about who we want to feel welcome. Bigots or those that are attacked by bigots.
Hang on, are you saying people shouldn’t stand up to racists?
And this: how is this anything other than ‘don’t go opposing racists now because you never know the time might come when racists might turn right around and oppose you?’ How is this not silencing dissent against racism because it has the temerity to be effective? Oh you’re only supposed to oppose racism so long as you don’t get in its way! Frown at it from the sidelines because their freedom of speech is more important than yours!
Or perhaps people are having difficulty with the idea that they weren’t protecting the free speech of racists, they were protecting the free speech of everybody, including the people who tell racists to fuck off, a group which overlaps heavily with the group that fought for that protection.
Darrell:
For someone not arguing about Riley, you say an awful lot about Riley.
As far as I can see there are two premises to start from for someone who disagree with the shunning of Riley:
1) There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in a person’s past or present behaviour that will make that person unsuitable for an award jury.
2) It is sometimes reasonably to disqualify people from being on an award jury, but Riley is on the right side of the line.
If you’re arguing from 1, then yes, you’re not arguing about Riley. It doesn’t matter what Riley did or didn’t do – either 40 years ago or last year. But as far as I can tell noone here is arguing that.
If you’re arguing from 2, then the argument is about Riley. Sure, you might be mainly interested in some principle like “the bar should be really, really high”, but you’re also arguing about how Riley places himself in relation to where you think the bar should be. And to participate in that, you must educate yourself on what Riley is being criticized of.
I can understand an argument that a party membership in the 1970s shouldn’t disqualify someone today. (I might even agree.)
I can understand an argument that the participation Riley did in NF in the 1970s doesn’t disqualify him, and that his support of BNP as late as 2009 shouldn’t disqualify him. (I disagree, but I can understand the argument.)
I can not, however, understand why people defend Riley by pretending that he was a passive party member in the 1970s and that the 2009 comments doesn’t exist. I get really itchy when I see people defend Riley based on being ignorant about his past – in particular when they seem to wilfully ignore information others give them. I struggle to see an honorable reason for that kind of argument.
Especially as they totally ignore that he remained in the party into the 80s.
This exercise seems to be like trying to put one Procrustean bed inside another.
Because this has nothing to do with the content of speech. The ACLU doesn’t defend the KKK because they believe that they have something important to say. They do it to defend the principle of free speech. Popular speech and ideas don’t need to be defended. I also didn’t say that you couldn’t/shouldn’t oppose racists. I said that you shouldn’t work to get them fired — unless there can be shown a direct connection between their speech/actions and their job.
For example, if Person X is a member of Legal Racist Political Group that really shouldn’t be cause to fire them. If Person X is at work espousing racist views or acting in a racist manner then they should be counseled and if their actions did not change then fired for creating a hostile work environment just as they would be for any other performance issue. If the issue was severe enough then they should be fired outright just as any other serious performance issue would be handled.
If you really don’t like Bernie Sanders because he is a ‘socialist’ I really don’t see how it is ethical to fire one of his supporters that works for you. You can swap out Bernie Sanders for Donald Trump and fascist if you’d like. Obviously said supporter might be fired for at work behavior that is linked to their political views.
When you fire someone because you don’t like what they said out of work or what party they belong to you are chipping away at a wall that in my opinion really shouldn’t come down. As a professional writer who was going to be a juror for a relatively prestigious prize I can certainly understand people reviewing Riley’s resume of prior written work to see if he is actually qualified to be a juror. I would argue there should be sunset on this review because is something he wrote 20 years ago really indicative of his skill as a writer now? By the same token I can certainly understand taking into account racist/sexist things that Riley has said as they have bearing on his role as a fair juror. Again I think that there should be a sunset on how far back he is going to be held accountable for and I think that he should be able to explain himself. That does not mean however that he should be given the position. If Riley has written anything like his Lovecraft essay within the last three or so years he’d be hard pressed to explain to me his change of heart and how he could be a fair juror. I would even argue if it was written while a member of the HWA he should be expelled dependent upon what the charter says.
I’ve said over and over that if Riley has done something directly relevant to his sole as a juror it should be taken into account. Where, to my mind, problems occur is when you start reaching way into the past, punish people for political speech, or punish people for speech/association that is not relevant to their job. I can see a recent sexist/racist essay or speech being relevant to his role as a juror. I can’t see him being opposed to the UK’s immigration policy being relevant.
The reason that I posted is that the HWA had previously indicated that they were satisfied that Riley could be a fair juror but that they would monitor the situation to ensure this was the case. Then people started calling the HWA a racist group (guilt by association) and things just got worse from there. In at least three locations (here, the HWA Facebook page, and a horror writers Facebook page) people that stood up for what they believed to be a free speech issue were then roundly mocked and called bigots. Again guilt by association. If you are not in lockstep agreement then you are a villain. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.
Johan
For my part I don’t really care about Riley’s past. He has already been removed from the position and the HWA isn’t about to reverse that. I fully accept the consensus view that Riley is a bad actor (though if a post from 7 years ago is the latest evidence then I think we should all strive to be a bit more charitable). I also believe that the KKK is an evil organization and yet still argue that as long as they are law abiding they should be able to hold their sick little marches and their members shouldn’t be fired from their jobs unless their work behavior warrants it.
By way of example, I oppose the death penalty. My dad (a retired deputy police chief) has asked me on more than one occasion would I want to kill a person that killed my son or wife. My answer is, yes of course. That doesn’t however mean that the state should honor my desire and kill said murderer. By the same token, I would find it challenging to hire a known member (past or present) of the KKK but that doesn’t mean it would be right for a company to refuse to hire one.
Then why are you bringing that up? Because the only people who keep on bringing that up is those that say it isn’t relevant. I have no idea why people continue to bring up irrelevant things.
And though you continue to claim that you don’t know anything about Riley’s past, that you don’t care about it, you continue to talk about it as if you knew about it.
No, it isn’t based on one single post which you should know if you actually bothered to read what others wrote because they have given plenty of examples. It is because he continued to be an active supporter of a racist party with rules that were against the Race Relations Act on three counts.
That he for over 40 years had been a supporter of racist organizations.
Please, stop pretending that you don’t know this. It is getting ridiculous.
As I said, you’ve been saying an awful lot about Riley’s past for someone who don’t really care about it.
You either have to argue this from an extreme principle of “nothing in Riley’s past is relevant” – or you have to accept that you’re making statements about Riley’s past.
Riley has been an activist for white supremacism for 40 years. There is no reason to assume he doesn’t still hold the racist opinions he’s been advocating during those 40 years. If you want to dispute this, I suggest you provide some positive proof for your assertion instead of passive-aggressively saying that you don’t really know and aren’t interested in it.
As for the first part: This isn’t about holding marches. BNP exists and is not banned. Riley is free to march with them. But the rest of us are also free to not associate with BNP and Riley.
The second part is closer to the issue, but the way you phrase it make me wonder: If a KKK member applies for a management position where half the staff are non-white, is it acceptable to not hire him? Or is the only right thing to do to hire him, wait until his racism shows through in his work performance, and then fire him?
The ACLU doesn’t defend the KKK because they believe that they have something important to say. They do it to defend the principle of free speech.
You might notice that the ACLU is defending their right to speak, but not their right to be free from the consequences of their speech. The ACLU defends the right to speak free from government interference, but they aren’t out there arguing that KKK members can’t be fired by private employers for being KKK members. It has never been the position of classical liberalism that you are entitled to be able to say whatever you want, or hold whatever political positions you want entirely without consequences – only that the government isn’t going to take action. Everyone else is free to do take action in response, including fire you.
The problem with your argument is that your concept of free speech is limited: You seem to think that only one side on an issue gets to speak, and the other has to simply accept it. Riley is allowed to speak all he wants, no one disagrees with that. But to actually defend free speech, others get to speak back. You seem to disagree with that. The problem is, to actually defend free speech and free association, others get to decide if they want to associate with Riley or not – and that includes employers.
To say that an employer should not be allowed to fire someone because of their political positions is to infringe upon the employer’s rights of free speech and free association. To argue that people shouldn’t protest the hiring of a racist is to say that the free speech rights of the protestors should be limited. You can say what you want, but you have to live with the consequences of that choice. Otherwise you are saying that others don’t also have the rights of free speech and free association.
So if Amazon refused to sell his books would that concern you?
No. Amazon is a private organization. They get to decide what books they will sell and what books they will not. Amazon has the rights of free speech and free association.
What if his ISP refused to host his blog?
Still no concerns. His ISP is a private company and can decide if they want to host his blog or not. His ISP also has the rights of free speech and free association. Why should them exercising such rights be something that “concerns” me? Either they should have those rights, and be free to use them as they see fit, or they shouldn’t. Are you arguing that they should not have those rights?
You don’t think this campaign has an element of intimidation?
No.
You don’t think he’s going to be concerned about reception of his ideas from now on? Sales of his books? Will he feel the need to alter what he writes in his essays?
This is the natural consequence of living in a society in which others have free speech rights. The fact that this comes as a surprise to you is somewhat amazing. Taking a position has consequences, both good and bad. That’s actually a significant element of the “marketplace of ideas” underpinnings of the classical liberal support for free speech.
Being concerned about the reception of his ideas means that free speech is working. Being concerned about the sales of his books means that free speech is working. Feeling the need to alter things he writes in the future means that free speech is working. All of those things means that he’s taken a stance, and others have expressed their opinion on that stand, and taken actions based upon their opinion of that stand. Riley’s ideas have lost in the marketplace of ideas, and now he suffers the consequences of that loss. That’s how free speech works.
Hampus
I was asked to go look at a 2nd thread and did so. This point was used as an example of his bigotry.
I was asked to go look at a 2nd thread and did do. Several points were made and I’ve tried to incorporate them as I’ve been accused on occasion from wandering from the point of the discussion. I also am subscribed to the HWA Facebook page and was formerly a subscriber of a horror writers page and comments were made about Riley. I followed a link to his blog which looked like the sort of fiction that I don’t read so I assumed that was why I’ve never heard of him while several people on this forum seem to have followed him for years. It could be that as a UK writer he doesn’t get published often in the US or maybe his career is in decline. At any rate I’ve been assuming he is a fairly obscure author.
I never said it was. Please read what I write as opposed to what you want me to write. Some of this is inside baseball as until this evening I’d never heard of the National Front and have no idea what the Race Relations Act is. As I’ve repeated ad nauseam if Riley is a criminal he should be prosecuted and jailed. If the National Front is a criminal or terrorist organization it should be shutdown and its members prosecuted.
I will repeat: I fully accept the consensus view that Riley is a bad actor (though if a post from 7 years ago is the latest evidence then I think we should all strive to be a bit more charitable) I said he is a bad actor. I said dependent upon the HWA charter it might be he should be expelled. I said if he has recently written anything akin to his Lovecraft essay (one of the examples posters provided) then I would be hard pressed to make him a juror on the jury panel.
What seems to be utterly unacceptable to you is that I believe that there should be a pseudo statute of limitations on how far we can mine his (and by his I am talking about anyone’s) writings/actions. I assume that if he is a racist and misogynist he will regularly engage in racist and misogynistic acts and we won’t have to go back years and years to find them. At one point I had roughly 1,400 people that reported up through me. Bad people do bad things all of the time. That’s why they are bad people. I didn’t have to search several years into an employee’s HR jacket to cobble together things to fire them over. Counseling rarely worked for people who engaged in racist speech at work (meaning they kept on keeping on) and they were fired within several months — sometimes faster than that dependent on what they said/did.
It is quite likely that Riley has written/said a over a dozen things in this year alone that would disqualify him for the juror role (maybe people even posted some of them). I simply didn’t see them and so I refer back to the handful of instances that I recall. An area of concern for me is people will say something like “as late as 2009”. Well to me that is 7 years ago. If an employee had been brought to my attention for a possible promotion and someone warned me, “well 7 years ago he . . .” I’d ask for something more recent. I hope anyone would. Again in the other thread there is very likely a list of recent concerns.
Darrell, may I kindly suggest that you consider the law of holes?
Johan
The title of the thread is Riley Off HWA Award Jury. I fully admit that I wander frequently around the topic but I really do try to at least stay near point. However I would be more than happy to discuss the whole matter in the abstract.
Quoting Wikipedia (I know, right?): In psychology, passive-aggressive behavior is characterized by a habitual pattern of passive resistance to expected work requirements, opposition, sullenness, stubbornness, and negative attitudes in response to requirements for normal performance levels expected of others. Most frequently it occurs in the workplace where resistance is exhibited by such indirect behaviors as procrastination, forgetfulness, and purposeful inefficiency, especially in reaction to demands by authority figures, but it can also occur in interpersonal contexts. I’m not being passive-aggressive. I am arguing a philosophical point and I am hesitant to label people when they themselves aren’t engaged in the conversation.
Let’s say that the KKK member is a current employee who is up for promotion. If there is nothing in said employee’s file that indicates that they are a poor performer (write ups for harassment would be an example of this) and their manager recommended them then yes I would promote them if their performance and interview warranted it. I would also be clear about my my expectations and would coach them and fire them if their performance warranted it. Many times over the years people have asked me if I was satisfied with their performance (apparently I am not that great of a carrot manager). My response has always been that they will be very clear if I have a performance concern with them and there won’t be any ambiguity as to my level of happiness. My tenured employees would verify that. I think it is unfair for people to be unclear until their appraisal if their manager is dissatisfied with their performance.
Now let’s posit that the KKK member is someone from off of the street and for some bizarre reason they relate their membership to me. I would set my expectations during the interview and ask if they could meet them. One of those expectations would be treating their direct reports and co-workers fairly and in an unbiased manner. If I was satisfied with their response and the rest of the interview, criminal background check, drug test, and reference checks (and assuming that they were otherwise qualified) I would hire them. To be honest, in 20 years nothing quite like that came up. I have had to fire people for unremitting at work religious proselytization on three different occasions but religion is a protected class so I wasn’t able to not hire someone simply because they were an Evangelical.
In general I don’t think it is appropriate or healthy to fire or not hire someone because you think that they are immoral. I had a married direct report once who was having an affair that I fired. But it wasn’t because I thought that it was scummy and immoral to be cheating on his pregnant wife. I did it because he was having an affair with one of his direct reports (also married) and this raised not only legal jeopardies but was also against policy and was resulting in favoritism which is how I got involved. I prefer HR decisions to be made solely on what occurs at work.
¨
WELL FOR BLOODY HELL, IF YOU HAVE READ THE OTHER THREAD AS YOU CLAIM, YOU HAVE GOTTEN EXAMPLES FROM 2011 WHERE HE SUPPORTED A FASCIST ORGANIZATION DIRECTLY AFTER IT ASSAULTED A MOSQUE.
Darrell, that may be fine for you. But A) you weren’t making this decision and B) this wasn’t an HR decision.
The Horror Writers of America are completely free to disassociate themselves from a member and leader of a racist organization. Full stop.
Otherwise, you’re arguing that HWA doesn’t have exactly the same rights to free speech and free association that Riley has. And frankly, that’s dishonest arguing.
And even if this was an HR decision, belonging to and leading a racist organization isn’t a protected class. Any HR department in the US (I can’t speak for Britain) could fire him on those grounds if they wished.
Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences. Speech has consequences.
@Johan P
Ah, but that’s a popular opinion, and Darrell, transgressive dissident that he is, is practising what he preaches, and is standing up for the unpopular viewpoint.
Sometimes the road less travelled is less travelled for a reason
Aaron
No, that is not my argument. I honestly don’t understand how you could think that it is.
Person at work says something racist -> person is coached and/or fired.
Person off work says something racist -> people decide that they don’t want to socialize with said person.
Person on or off work says something to incite violence -> said person is arrested, prosecuted, and fired. Not necessarily in that order.
Yet somehow (at least in the US) we infringe on the employers free speech and free association when it comes to race, skin color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, etc. and most people don’t have an issue with that — actually in my experience a significant number of lower level managers have a big problem with not discriminating on basis of pregnancy.
I actually assumed you wouldn’t have a concern about this. I brought it up because of your laser like focus on the jury panel being unpaid. I don’t think anyone in this debate cares that it was unpaid so I couldn’t understand why it was a sticking point. My guess is that many/most people would prefer that Riley be unable to sell his books through either social or government pressure — probably a combination of the two. At least that has been the final outcome when I’ve had discussions with people about subjects like this in the past.
Since people want Riley (and others like him) sanctioned I don’t understand why they don’t admit that they want racist/misogynistic speech criminalized — or at minimum to carry civil liabilities.
Hampus
For God’s sake. I claimed that I made a cursory review. I then said that there were doubtlessly examples that I didn’t see — maybe some of them of more recent vintage. Then I said something to the effect of several time people have brought up a specific date that isn’t all that recent.
What part of I agree with the consensus view that he is a bad actor don’t you understand?
No, that is not my argument. I honestly don’t understand how you could think that it is.
Because that’s the argument you’ve been making. You want Riley to be able to speak without any consequences flowing from his speech. The only way that is possible is if you prevent others from exercising their rights to free speech and free association.
Yet somehow (at least in the US) we infringe on the employers free speech and free association when it comes to race, skin color, religion, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, disability, etc. and most people don’t have an issue with that — actually in my experience a significant number of lower level managers have a big problem with not discriminating on basis of pregnancy.
And somehow we don’t have similar restrictions based upon a person’s political positions. Have you ever stopped to wonder why? Have you ever wondered why political speech isn’t a protected class and those other ones are? Because, based on your comments in this thread, it seems like you have not.
I actually assumed you wouldn’t have a concern about this. I brought it up because of your laser like focus on the jury panel being unpaid. I don’t think anyone in this debate cares that it was unpaid so I couldn’t understand why it was a sticking point.
Because it doesn’t matter. The position is a volunteer position that isn’t even really a “position”. You’ve been trying to muddy the waters on this since the beginning by talking about people “losing their jobs” and by conflating the actions of a private organization with the ACLU litigating issues related to government decisions. Even in your most recent comments you’ve been trying to compare this situation with your experience working as a manager. I suspect this is because you know that if you tried to argue based upon just the basis of a private organization declining to retain someone in a volunteer position, you wouldn’t get any traction at all.
My guess is that many/most people would prefer that Riley be unable to sell his books through either social or government pressure — probably a combination of the two.
Your “guess” is wrong. That seems to be part of your problem. You keep thinking people want the government to do something to Riley, when pretty much everyone in this conversation has said exactly the opposite. Given that people have said that Riley is free (and should be free) to espouse his racist doctrine without government interference several times in this thread, one has to wonder about either your reading comprehension capabilities or your honesty at this point.
Since people want Riley (and others like him) sanctioned I don’t understand why they don’t admit that they want racist/misogynistic speech criminalized — or at minimum to carry civil liabilities.
Because they don’t. Your inability to grasp the difference between private organizations taking action and government imposed penalties gives you an extremely warped view of how free speech works.
No. Amazon is a private organization. They get to decide what books they will sell and what books they will not. Amazon has the rights of free speech and free association.
I said I wasn’t going to get involved in the racism issue, but there are a couple of problems with the arguments I’m seeing here. First, the HWA wasn’t allowed free speech and free association with Riley. They were persecuted and bullied until he stepped down. This infringes on their rights to work with whoever they want to.
Second, the current political structure sees certain type of racism as transgressive and remains blind to others. I’ve brought up the question of the black feminist a couple of times and people have refused to look at the question. Multiculturalism as a policy has targeted certain kind of transgressive speech, for example racism against POC, but allowed or encouraged others. This means that people who have become accustomed to the policy think nothing of attacking white males for racist speech, but are blind to racism against white men. In the current climate, people tend to be blind to racism based on skin tone, as well, and the tendency to discriminate against individuals for being too light as not being a true person of color.
So would this same community have even noticed if a woman was practicing misandry? Or if a black volunteer was targeted because of not being black enough? Would there have been the same outcry? If not, then there’s something wrong with the system.
Other people exercised their right of free speech to argue that putting Riley in this position was a horrible decision, and announced that if that decision was not reversed, they would exercise their right of free association and disassociate themselves from HWA.
Exactly what person on what jury in regards to SFF are you talking about? If you can’t give an example, it is completely unnecessary to derail the discussion.
I said I wasn’t going to get involved in the racism issue, but there are a couple of problems with the arguments I’m seeing here.
Well, I can’t say that I’m at all impressed with your analytical skills.
First, the HWA wasn’t allowed free speech and free association with Riley.
Yes, they were. They could have stayed with Riley. They would have simply had to accept the consequences of their association with him. That’s how free speech works. Your problem is that you don’t actually seem to understand how free speech works. Free speech does not mean “freedom from consequences”. It, in fact, means that you have to deal with the consequences of your speech and of your actions.
They were persecuted and bullied until he stepped down.
No, they weren’t. Other people exercised their free speech rights to criticize HWA for their decision to place Riley on one of their juries. Nothing forced HWA to decide to listen to those criticisms. Having the right to make a decision does not mean you have the right to be free from criticism for that decision. Your choice to characterize people exercising their free speech rights to criticize the HWA as “persecuting and bullying” HWA demonstrates that despite all of your hand-wringing about it, you don’t actually believe in free speech.
So would this same community have even noticed if a woman was practicing misandry? Or if a black volunteer was targeted because of not being black enough? Would there have been the same outcry?
If people were to protest such a decision, then the organization in question would have to decide if they wanted to listen to such criticisms or not. That’s how free speech works.
For my part I don’t really care about Riley’s past. He has already been removed from the position and the HWA isn’t about to reverse that
Again, it is unclear that he has been “removed.” The announcement says that he stepped down through mutual agreement. You’re still taking the stand that they made this decision willingly and weren’t bullied into it by a group of people jumping on the “racism” bandwagon.
Other people exercised their right of free speech to argue that putting Riley in this position was a horrible decision, and announced that if that decision was not reversed, they would exercise their right of free association and disassociate themselves from HWA.
This isn’t free speech. It’s coercion.
Exactly what person on what jury in regards to SFF are you talking about? If you can’t give an example, it is completely unnecessary to derail the discussion.
I’m not going to call out anyone here. Your inability to identify reverse racists within the community is a symptom of the problem.
OK, Lela-
Let’s pretend I’m a member of HWA. I strongly disagree with their decision to put this member and leader of a racist organization on the Jury panel.
Under the Buis version of Free Speech, what should I do about that?
This isn’t free speech. It’s coercion.
Yes it is free speech. That’s how free speech works. People get to express themselves and make decisions, and then others get to express themselves and make their own decisions. Your problem is that you don’t actually like free speech and free association, so you call people who choose to exercise those rights “bullies” and claim their actions are “coercion” when they are not.
If people were to protest such a decision, then the organization in question would have to decide if they wanted to listen to such criticisms or not. That’s how free speech works.
Criticism isn’t the same thing as harassment and bullying.
I’m not going to call out anyone here. Your inability to identify reverse racists within the community is a symptom of the problem.
So you don’t actually have an example, and are just making shit up because it is convenient for your anti-free speech crusade.
Criticism isn’t the same thing as harassment and bullying.
No one has been harassed or bullied. You just hate free speech.
A lot of this pseudo-liberal hand-wringing over how Riley was treated can be boiled down to the First Geek Social Fallacy, i.e., “ostracizers are evil”.
I’m gonna lay down my gauntlet and argue the reverse: ostracizers are good. A community with no boundaries, where anyone can just walk in and lay claim to its resources regardless of their attitude or behavior, is the social equivalent of a person without a functioning immune system. The community needs to set boundaries, make judgments about how someone is disqualified for membership, and enforce those boundaries fearlessly.
When the community in question is a state with the power to tax and imprison, it’s appropriate to be as permissive as possible, and to be judicious in enforcement. We no longer live in a country where having a Democrat as President prevents Republicans from getting jobs in the post office, and that’s a good thing. But voluntary societies like the HWA are not states-in-miniature, and we should not be looking to the state as a model for how they should discipline themselves.
So why is it a bad thing when an employer fires someone just because they’re black? Because oppressing black people is evil.* The racism, not the ostracism, is the thing to oppose. And one excellent way to oppose racism is by not giving avowed racists positions of honor and prestige.
(If Riley were, say, a copy-editor working in the bowels of a publishing house, and the worst thing he could do to a black author was to complain about where that author put their commas, I might have some sympathy for him.)
*I suppose oppressing white people would also be evil, if it ever happened.
Let’s pretend I’m a member of HWA. I strongly disagree with their decision to put this member and leader of a racist organization on the Jury panel.
Under the Buis version of Free Speech, what should I do about that?
You’re asking a question about activism. You could consider it none of your business. If you feel very strongly about it, then you should send a polite note calling their attention to his past writing on the subject and let them decide whether they want to remain associated. Note that in this case they stated that they did want to remain associated, but they were bullied until they changed their minds.
My question in return is: Would you also feel this strongly about racism against white men? Would you feel strongly about racism against a person of color who was persecuted for their light skin tone? If you can’t see this, or if you wouldn’t care enough to get involved in these cases, then your own prejudice is showing.
I’m not going to call out anyone here. Your inability to identify reverse racists within the community is a symptom of the problem.
So you don’t actually have an example, and are just making shit up because it is convenient for your anti-free speech crusade.
I don’t want to name examples because this is transgressive speech and I don’t want to be harassed and bullied about it. This is how free speech is suppressed.
I will provide an example of skin tone persecution. Zoe Saldena was recently attacked as “not black enough” to play Nina Simone in the recently released biopic. Because of this outcry, a large group of people trashed the film without even seeing it. She was personally threatened.
Do you consider this an example of free speech?
@Darrell
“Let’s say that the KKK member is a current employee who is up for promotion. If there is nothing in said employee’s file that indicates that they are a poor performer ….Now let’s posit that the KKK member is someone from off of the street and for some bizarre reason they relate their membership to me. I would set my expectations during the interview and ask if they could meet them. One of those expectations would be treating their direct reports and co-workers fairly and in an unbiased manner…”
Instead of long-winded digressions into a hypothetical that has only tenuous relations to the real-life case we are actually discussing, suppose we posit something more relevant? IIRC, you are a lawyer. Suppose your client is a POC and one of the prospective jurors is publicly known to be a member of the KKK – and not just an “I-went-for-the-beer-and-barbecues” member, but a member who has made real-life efforts to be a high officer Kleagle in the KKK, and who has made efforts to attempt to impose KKK principles on the community at large by running for office under the promise to put those principles into practice.
As a lawyer, would you exercise the right you have to object to that juror on the grounds that there is reason to believe the KKK member may not be impartial toward your client? Or would you decide that this KKK member’s right not to have his feelings hurt and his livelihood POSSIBLY suffer by not participating in the temporary position of juror trumps the right of your client to impartial judgement?
If you sat back and said, “Yeah, well, that whole political campaign thing was thirty years ago, and he hasn’t actually said anything racist publically since 2009…” (pushing aside note thrust urgently at you) “…fine, 2011, details, whatever. I’m sure he’ll manage to be objective NOW,” and pass that juror without objection, IMO you’d be a freakin’ awful lawyer. You’d be doing your client, yourself, and even the community at large a disservice.
The current case is similar, IMO. It is in the HWA’s interest to give the public impression that their award winners are judged impartially. It is certainly in the competitors’ interest that the HWA make every effort to ensure that it IS impartial. To seat Riley as a juror with a presumption of impartiality even though he has made abundant PUBLIC statements and taken PUBLIC actions showing clearly that he may not be impartial, the HWA would be doing itself and its award competitors harm. They would be doing themselves this harm in order to defend Riley’s imaginary right to be protected from the consequences of public statements and public actions he took – one of the consequences being publicly judged as unlikely to be impartial in a jury.
If you’re saying that the HWA should do themselves this harm to protect Riley – your stance is just incomprehensible to me.
You’re asking a question about activism. You could consider it none of your business.
Sure, people have the right to choose not to say something.
If you feel very strongly about it, then you should send a polite note calling their attention to his past writing on the subject and let them decide whether they want to remain associated.
Oh, so just polite notes. How very nice for you. What if I choose to express my free speech in means other than polite notes? Is that okay?
Note that in this case they stated that they did want to remain associated, but they were bullied until they changed their minds.
They weren’t bullied. You seem to think that any time someone says they don’t want to continue association with an organization that chooses to put someone like Riley in a position of responsibility is “bullying”. That’s denying others their right of free association. You simply hate that people are able to make decisions you disapprove of. In short, you actually dislike the idea of free speech and free association.
Lela E. Buis on April 15, 2016 at 8:03 am replied:
So it’s free speech if I send a private polite note but bullying if I write a pissed off note in public?
It’s free speech if I ask them to change their mind. But if they decide not to change their mind in response to my private polite note, it’s bullying to ask them to reconsider?
Free speech does not simply constitute the freedom to “send a polite note”.
If the Nation of Islam sponsored an award for fiction that best illustrated their beliefs about the evil and inferiority of white people, I would not want to be associated with that award. In other words, I would treat the Nation of Islam pretty much the way Riley’s opposition threatened to treat the HWA.
I don’t want to name examples because this is transgressive speech and I don’t want to be harassed and bullied about it. This is how free speech is suppressed.
I think you’re lying about having examples.
I will provide an example of skin tone persecution. Zoe Saldena was recently attacked as “not black enough” to play Nina Simone in the recently released biopic. Because of this outcry, a large group of people trashed the film without even seeing it. She was personally threatened.
And yet someone, the film was made. She still starred in it. Almost no one takes the reviews that trash the biopic on these grounds seriously. For those that do take them seriously, they provide useful information. People get to express their opinions on matters, even if they do it in a way that you dislike. That’s free speech in action. I’m sorry that you hate free speech.
It’s free speech if I ask them to change their mind. But if they decide not to change their mind in response to my private polite note, it’s bullying to ask them to reconsider?
I do think it’s bullying to send “pissed off” missives after someone has considered and stated that they wish to remain on a certain path. Threatening a boycott is an activist strategy.
And yet someone, the film was made. She still starred in it. Almost no one takes the reviews that trash the biopic on these grounds seriously. For those that do take them seriously, they provide useful information. People get to express their opinions on matters, even if they do it in a way that you dislike. That’s free speech in action. I’m sorry that you hate free speech.
This isn’t about reviews. It’s about calls for POC to boycott the film. Please read about the controversy here and let me know if you think this is racism.
I don’t want to name examples because this is transgressive speech and I don’t want to be harassed and bullied about it. This is how free speech is suppressed.
I think you’re lying about having examples.
Your blindness to this kind of racism is an example of your own prejudice.
I want to return to something Nicole said earlier:
Yes. Whether a view is “political” or “religious” or “aesthetic” or whatever doesn’t really matter for a purpose like Stoker judging, if the view in question makes it unlikely that the person will fairly judge work by people in a category the person regards as innately inferior. (Or, I guess, innately superior.)
Lela E. Buis:
Do you have an example of a person in authority in the SFF community who has committed this racism? Please name names. If you can’t, please stop trying to derail the discussion.
Also, could you please tell us who in the Science Fiction & Fantasy community you say harassed Zoe Saldena? If you can’t name a name, again, stop derailing the discussion.