October 29, 2009
To Everyone Concerned About Critical Thought and the State of the World:
Something very wrong is afoot among those one would expect to be among the greatest champions of critical thought and open exchange. On October 19, 2009, the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago (EHSC) rescinded their long-standing invitation for me to speak to their Society's weekly gathering on November 1, 2009.
I had been invited to speak on the topic of “Morality Without Gods” back in July and I accepted this invitation in good faith. I arranged to be in Chicago to give this talk because I believe it is of the utmost importance to open up discussion of the questions thrown up by the moral crisis of our times and because I believe I have a valuable contribution to make to this discussion. As testified to by the statements below, this is a view that is shared by many who have heard me speak, shared a platform with me, and who have interviewed me, whether they agree with all of my views or not.
EHSC’s decision to dis-invite me was based on gross mischaracterizations and distortions of my character and of the content of my intended talk. It was pushed through in contradiction to the Society’s own stated principles and in an atmosphere where fear and anti-communism were being aggressively stoked by some members of their Program Committee.
Their decision to dis-invite me is wrong. It is not in keeping with EHSC’s avowed principles, i.e. “We value the importance of living an ethical, responsible, and joyful life. We promote intellectual, philosophical, and artistic freedom, avoiding dogma and rigid creed.” (from “Who We Are-What We Value” mission statement of EHSC). And, this decision contributes very negatively to the current chill on intellectual and political discourse that challenges the status quo in the academy, the media, and beyond.
I have heard many reports of fear-mongering and anti-communist hysteria being whipped up among members in regards to the alleged harm I could bring to EHSC if allowed to speak. None of this was ever addressed to me in an open or aboveboard way. Rather, the Committee has repeatedly implied that there was something in the content of my proposed talk that was either different than what they had invited me to speak on or beyond the pale of reasonable discourse for their Society. However, the theme of my talk is precisely in keeping with the original theme they invited me to speak on (“Morality Without Gods”). [see my submitted description below]
The only time anyone from the EHSC Program Committee cited anything objectionable in my proposed talk, it was complete distortion and defamation. On October 21, 2009, I wrote to the Program Committee, setting the record straight and documenting just some of this. Here is an excerpt of that letter from me:
In any case, I feel it necessary to set the record straight. Kashyap [of the EHS Program Committee] wrote:
"On the first point, we are an inclusive humanist group. A talk that dwells on 'Christian fascists' and characterizes the leading moral problems facing the U.S. as depending critically on 'an influx of immigrants from around the world, [and] the entering of women into the workforce in the last generation' is not what we were expecting."
In fact, the description of my presentation clearly says we live in a time of moral crisis because "the stability and way of life of millions of people are being disrupted by the effects of imperialist globalization." I give examples of these huge fast-paced changes and instability in people's lives here and around the world as part of what is giving impetus to a resurgence of reactionary fundamentalist religion as people seek something solid, familiar and absolute in a time of such upheaval and change. Kashyap has pulled a snippet of my talk description out of context to imply that I blame society's moral crisis on immigrants and women joining the work force when my actual meaning was clearly just the opposite, including to counter the scapegoating and backlash that a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism engenders against these sections of our population.
Is there any who can read such a gross mischaracterization and inversion of the content of my planned talk and believe this dis-invitation was based on sound principle?
Instead of responding to any of the key matters of fact and principle addressed in my above quoted letter, or offering any honest objection to the actual content of my planned talk, the wrong decision to dis-invite me was then compounded and fortified. On Monday, October 26th, the Society as a whole allowed the Board of Trustees to shamefully reaffirm this decision on the same wrong basis in a hurriedly called meeting.
It matters little whether the broader membership sanctioned this dis-invitation due to blatant anti-communism or “merely” out of the desire to “preserve the unity” of the Society; the effect and the precedent remain the same. All too often these days, great moral wrongs are allowed to sit, and capitulation on matters of principle is excused in the name of “not disrupting unity” or that it is simply “too much work” to go up against the forces arrayed against what is just.
This calls to mind the line from Yeats, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.”1 Those times when it is most difficult to stand up for principle, those times when standing up for principle requires going against the grain and sometimes even sacrifice, are precisely the times when it is most required and can make the greatest difference. These days, there is all too much self-censorship and acquiescence to the curtailment of unconventional discourse in academic and intellectual life, in political discourse, and on matters of morality and ethics. The decision of the Society must be seen in the context of, and as contributing to, this broader chill and this is why it is unacceptable.
In their most recent letter to me, the Board of Trustees of EHSC wrongly invokes all sorts of procedural “rights” of their committee rather than addressing the content of my objections to their decision.
They write, “We do not censor programs, and it is clear to our members that speakers do not necessarily reflect the view of our Society. We do, however, have the right to choose the speakers who speak and the topics of their presentations. We have a Program Committee that conducts a process to determine the speakers and topics for our Sunday.”
However, it was not I who went to the Program Committee and insisted that they allow me to speak; they approached me. After conducting their established process, they invited me and published my name as an upcoming speaker in their October newsletter.
Further, the fact that it is the bureaucratic “right” of the Board of Trustees to reach the decision to dis-invite me does not make that decision morally right, any more than the “right” of California voters to ban gay marriage through made that decision morally or ethically defensible.
All suggestions on the part of EHSC Board or Program Committee, as made in their October 28th letter to me, that I would somehow endanger the “safe, peaceful, engaging” atmosphere of their Sunday program is merely further character slander. This behavior from any organization is shameful, but coming from a group that avows itself to be rooted in ethics and humanism it is disgraceful.
If the Society continues to proceed in this fashion and does not reverse its decision to dis-invite, it would be more appropriate to rename itself the “Un-Ethical Society for Anti-Humanism.”
In their October 28 letter, the Board of Trustees apologized for “any acrimony between the Ethical Humanist Society and [myself] that has transpired recently.”
However, the conflict that has arisen between EHSC and myself was never about feelings of “acrimony” but of profound matters of principle and ethics. I protest and condemn in the strongest terms their decision not out of feelings of personal acrimony or a sense of pride, but out of a firm commitment to matters of ethics and principle. Indeed, I do not believe I would be worthy of any platform to speak on matters of ethics or morality if I did not strongly object and condemn and call out such shameful behavior on the part of any organization.
I intend to fulfill my commitment to all who want to hear me speak. I will lead a workshop on the theme of “The Liberation of Women and the Emancipation of All Humanity” on Saturday, Oct. 31, 2-4:00 p.m. at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago, 7574 N. Lincoln Avenue in Skokie. Further, I will be available and prepared to speak to all and any willing to hear the content of my originally scheduled talk, “Morality Without Gods,” on Sunday, November 1st.
I believe this is the only ethical thing to do.
Sunsara Taylor
1 “The Second Coming,” by W.B. Yeats
ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION OF SUNSARA TAYLOR'S TALK TO EHS OF CHICAGO
“MORALITY WITHOUT GODS”
We live in a time of moral crises. These crises are NOT, as the Christian fascists like to constantly insist, because of “abortionists, the ACLU, homosexuals, and science instructors who teach evolution.” These crises exist because the stability and way of life of millions of people are being disrupted by the effects of imperialist globalization. Around the world: massive global migrations, the rise of a transnational sex slave trade consuming millions of young women and girls, the wars and widespread use of torture by the U.S., and the increased disparity between the obscenely wealthy and the billions who have been cast into desperation, poverty and disease with no hope of a decent life. Here in the U.S.: the loss of millions of stable middle class jobs, an influx of immigrants from around the world, the entering of women into the work force in the last generation, and the development of a violent and bigoted movement with Christian fundamentalism woven into its core.
Why have these changes led to a resurgence of reactionary fundamentalist religion here and all over the world?
How do we counter that with a secular morality of our own?
Sunsara has traveled the country and reported on the rise of Christian fascism. She has also written and spoken about the ways that U.S. imperialist wars and aggression and reactionary Islamic fundamentalism have reinforced each other, even while opposing each other. In this work she has drawn on the framework and themes developed by Bob Avakian, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, including in his pathbreaking book, Away with All Gods! Unchaining the Mind and Radically Changing the World. In this talk, Taylor will bring alive many of the themes spoken to by Avakian in Away With All Gods to answer these questions and to explore communist morality as a real and viable alternative: a morality rooted in, and serving as a guide to get to, a world without men oppressing women, without a handful accumulating vast wealth at the expense of the many, without white people lording it over people of color, without one country trying to run the whole globe, and a world where critical thought and the scientific pursuit of the truth, as well as artistic and intellectual ferment and the flourishing of individuality, are fostered.
STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF SUNSARA TAYLOR
[Letter sent to EHSC] To whom it may concern:
I write to express my great surprise, and disapproval, on learning that the EHSC has decided to rescind its speaking invitation to Sunsara Taylor.
While certain of her arguments may well be controversial, that is no reason whatsoever to decide against allowing her to make them publicly, under your auspices: on the contrary. It is because her arguments are challenging that she should be allowed to go ahead and make them, as originally planned--allowing others there to challenge them in turn, if those others should be so inclined.
Please reconsider your decision, which does just not reflect badly on your organization, but, if allowed to stand, will represent yet one more victory for "safe" opinion over full and vigorous debate.
Mark Crispin Miller
Professor of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University
October 24, 2009
I debated Sunsara in New York City on the topic of atheism and religion. We stand on separate sides, I as a seminary graduate and believer, she as a committed atheist. Sunsara was serious, respectful and thoughtful in our debate. Her voice helped two communities that often do not come together find common ground and further mutual respect.
Chris Hedges
Pulitzer prize-winning journalist & author of
War Is A Force Which Gives Us Meaning
Senior fellow at The Nation Institute
Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University
Oct. 17, 2009
Sunsara is a well-known speaker on a variety of issues. If you haven't seen her, I urge you to go on YouTube now. Yes, she may take stances you disagree with. But on the topic of morality without god, I would hope the society and Sunsara share viewpoints. That's what she is talking about and no doubt she'll do a great job of it. If you have concerns on her other stances, i feel they are irrelevant in this matter.
Hemant Mehta
Chair of the Secular Student Alliance Board of Directors*
Oct. 16, 2009
I hear tell that some persons are opposed to Sunsara Taylor's upcoming presentation. You may recall, I was on the program with her at Colombia College and I was surprised at the response she engendered among the several hundred young people present. I know that her presentation will add much to the conversation of your group. I believe that we should welcome opposing points of view because it is out of such interaction that we may find our way as a human community.
Bob Bossie, SCJ
Catholic order of Priests of the Sacred Heart
staff member, 8th Day Center for Justice, Chicago
Oct. 16, 2009
I have had formal and informal debates with Sunsara Taylor, and -- despite our disagreements on politics and philosophy - I have always found her a thoughtful voice of reason and an engaging public presence. She brings a different point of view to the conversation, and we need desperately different points of view to have a vibrant democracy
Massimo Pigliucci
Professor of Ecology and Evolution at State University of NY Stonybrook
Chair of Dept. of Philosophy - Lehman College
Oct. 17, 2009
As someone who's reported extensively on the Christian right, I've shared the podium with Sunsara on a number of panels and events, and I've also watched her hold her own on late night political talk shows. Sunsara is consistently open and frank about her convictions; she forthrightly and thoughtfully engages in political arguments and brings energy and passion to any discussion. Moreover, at this time of economic crisis, when many Americans are dumbfounded to hear that Wall Street is already in recovery while they suffer joblessness and foreclosure, Sunsara's critique of capitalism strikes me as an especially important perspective to have aired.
Esther Kaplan
Investigative Editor, The Nation Institute
Oct. 17, 2009
Project Censored at Sonoma State University has hosted Sunsara Taylor on two occasions and both times her talks were intellectual, stimulating and of significant importance to social justice both in the US and the world. I highly recommend her presentations as positive support for academic freedom and human equality.
Peter Phillips
Professor Sociology, Sonoma State University
President, Media Freedom Foundation*
Oct. 16, 2009
To Whom It May Concern,
It seems strange, not to mention sad, that one would have to begin any letter in this day and age with the following declaration: I am not now nor ever have been a member of any communist party. I say this because my expression of disappointment in the Ethical Humanists Society for canceling a scheduled talk by Sunsara Taylor of the Revolutionary Communist Party is not in any way linked to agreement with all of her political views (or, for that matter, her perspective on religion). None of that should matter. Your organization invited Taylor to speak. Taylor in no way tries to hide her views. It's simply inappropriate and unethical to rescind your invitation. The honest thing to do, of course, is to engage her; to disagree with her; to argue with her. Not to cancel her.
I happen to disagree with Taylor 's use of the term "Christian fascists." I've said as much to her. I understand that she's not using the term to cover all Christians. But I don't think it's accurate in almost any instance. So we have a point of disagreement, which has led to fruitful conversations. Likewise her Maoism; I don't share it. But in public events and in private conversation, I've learned from our disagreements.
I do share with Taylor a concern about the influence of fundamentalism and a conviction that it is ultimately at odds with basic social justice. But I'd be writing this same letter if, say, I heard that Pat Robertson had been invited to speak and then canceled. Ethical Humanists, especially, should adhere to a standard of transparency and open dialogue.
Sincerely,
Jeff Sharlet
Visiting Research Scholar, New York University
Contributing Editor, Harper's
Author, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power
I was very disappointed to read that the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago has announced the cancellation of a presentation by Sunsara Taylor on the topic “Morality Without Gods.” Since I conducted an hour-long interview with Ms. Taylor in April for Atheist Talk Radio in Minnesota , I am familiar with her views on a variety of topics of interest to humanists. I know her to be not only extremely articulate and well-read, but also civil in discussions with people of opposing views. She remarked during my interview with her that she is pleased when someone points out her errors, because if she is wrong about something she wants to know it.
I think that is model of critical thinking that should be honored by humanists. Yet too often atheist and humanist organizations are justifiably criticized as ideological appendages of the Democratic Party. While humanism should provide a common home to a wide variety of godless ethical reasoning, too often it merely parades the platitudes of American liberalism as universal values.
Have you presented other speakers who analyze morality as a product of class division, or describe a revolutionary morality that might emerge from the very practical struggle against all forms exploitation? Surely it is a topic of interest to a community of godless, secular ethics. If the Ethical Humanist Society cancels Sunsara Taylor’s presentation it will be difficult to understand as anything but censorship of a minority position within the humanist community.
George Francis Kane
Public Relations Officer for the Minnesota Atheists*
Oct. 25, 2009
Sunsara's smart, energetic and she's always gathering information from where the action is. Does she have an opinion? Sure but an exchange of views is what we believe in, right? I've featured her on my tv and radio programs on many occasions and always find her contributions valuable to the mix.
Laura Flanders
Host of GRIT TV on Free Speech TV
October 25, 2009
I have shared a podium with Sunsara Taylor several times and heard her speak many more times, in person, on TV, and online at YouTube. She is a dynamic, articulate, principled, passionate, lively, and important voice for reason, fresh and historically informed revolutionary ideas, and atheism.
I am surprised, based on the letter that you sent her disinviting her to speak at your November 1 event, that her description of her intended talk could have been so thoroughly misunderstood. I have presented at Humanist conferences myself in the past and found the gatherings to be stimulating and generous in spirit.
You write: “[W]e are an inclusive humanist group. A talk that dwells on ‘Christian fascists’ and characterizes the leading moral problems facing the U.S. as depending critically on ‘an influx of immigrants from around the world, [and] the entering of women into the workforce in the last generation’ is not what we were expecting.
“Second, instead we had been hoping that you could help us think about how moral, ethical behavior need not depend on a theistic outlook.”
It is clear not only from what she submitted as a description and also her very well-documented record, readily available as a speaker and writer in numerous fora, that she would in fact be speaking precisely to the questions you requested that she address and doing so in the most inclusive of ways, reaching out to those who approach the question very differently from her.
Sunsara in her description of her upcoming talk said: “We live in a time of moral crises. These crises are NOT, as the Christian fascists like to constantly insist, because of ‘abortionists, the ACLU, homosexuals, and science instructors who teach evolution.’ These crises exist because the stability and way of life of millions of people are being disrupted by the effects of imperialist globalization.”
Ms. Taylor is here contextualizing why we are in the midst of moral crises in this country. It sets the foundation upon which she will address the questions you wanted her to address. You asked that she help you “think about how moral, ethical behavior need not depend on a theistic outlook.” That is exactly what she intends to do.
I would be shocked if you did not rescind this extraordinary attempt to withdraw your invitation of July to have her speak. It would set an exceedingly bad example both for your organization and for the broader society. Now more than ever reasoned dialogue and lively exchanges of ideas are called for.
Sincerely,
Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, CalPoly Ponoma
Co-editor of Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney
Winner of the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award, the Nation Magazine’s Most Valuable Crusade Award
and Project Censored Award
National Steering Committee Member of the World Can’t Wait
To Whom It May Concern:
I have seen many of the emails regarding the controversy your organization has been in over Sunsara Taylor. It is ironic that an organization dedicated to the defense and promotion of critical thinking would be involved in such a controversy.
In 1989, FREE INQUIRY had a debate in the pages of its journal on libertarianism versus socialism. We have printed the writings of postmodernists, theists, and others with whom we disagree. That is why it is hard to understand why some members of your organization do not want Ms. Taylor to present her views to your group. Humanists and Ethical Culturists are supposed to be about unfettered free inquiry, if nothing else.
There are many different conceptions of humanism. Indeed, some people speak of "humanisms" just as some feminists speak of "feminisms." It is a mistake for anyone to believe that they have the one and only true conception of humanism.
Over the years, I have met people that believe that true humanism inevitably leads one to embrace socialism and reject capitalism. I have heard other humanists say that all humanists must reject socialism and embrace capitalism. I know of one humanist that defines humanism so cleverly that only anarchists can be said to be true humanists. (Surprise! He's an anarchist.)
All of these people are misguided. True humanists, Ethical Culturists, etc. should be primarily concerned with testing their ideas, listening to others, and learning to value the opinions of those with whom they disagree. Otherwise, why not just be religious?
By now it should be absolutely clear that your organization should allow Ms. Taylor to address your members. Please do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Norm R. Allen Jr.
Executive Director
African Americans for Humanism*
To Whom it May Concern:
Have we become so polarized in this society that we cannot respectfully listen to opposing viewpoints, especially ones that are as well informed and presented as Sunsara Taylor's are? I have heard Ms. Taylor on this subject, and as a matter of fact have added my own perspective to hers.
I can guarantee you that Ms. Taylor's presentation will be informative and will spark a much needed dialogue and give every one who attends much needed food for thought.
Sincerely,
Cindy Sheehan
Mother of Casey Sheehan, KIA in Iraq on April 04, 2004
October 16, 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
I've heard that, incredibly, you're considering rescinding an invitation to have Sunsara Taylor speak.
I had the opportunity to meet Sunsara Taylor when she appeared as part of our parody church show, "The Best Church of God." The show, which has been repeatedly acclaimed by critics, was graced with her presence, intelligence and good humor last spring. While I don't necessarily agree with every single aspect of Ms. Sunsara's politics, I was very, very impressed with her intelligence, sense of fair play and attractive and positive demeanor. Our "church" pretends to ally itself with the most extreme of conservative views, and she rebutted our nonsensical (yet Biblically "sound" arguments) brilliantly, with a serious recitation of facts but also with tremendous good humor. Our audience enjoyed themselves thoroughly, not only because of our comedy skills, but also because they saw a lively, well-thought-out and entertaining exchange of ideas from every onstage.
If dishonor your entire organization by rescinding Ms. Taylor's invitation to speak, you are not only doing a disservice to your cause and your organization, you are denying the public and your members the opportunity to hear from one of the most intelligent, dynamic and original voices in the country today. Please do not make that mistake! Allow Sunsara Taylor to speak on November 1st.
Regards,
Darren Stephens
"Pastor Dave Shepherd" of The Best Church of God
Chicago, Illinois
www.bestchurchofgod.org
To Whom it Concerns,
I am writing to express my strong support for allowing Sunsara Taylor to speak as scheduled at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago meeting November 1st. Sunsara Taylor has valuable, intelligent perspectives to share on ethical issues and severe challenges that face our world today, and her speech should be welcomed, not censored.
Please allow a diversity of helpful perspectives to inform your program.
Sincerely,
Prof. Taigen Dan Leighton
Theology Department,
Loyola University Chicago
Oct. 26, 2009
To EHSC:
I was shocked to learn that a group of people at EHSC have waged an unprecedented effort to rescind your fine organization's invitation to Sunsara taylor to speak on "Morality Without Gods." It is a disappointing surprise to find that some in the EHSC are wallowing in the irrational fear and hatred whipped up by Joe McCarthy and other right-wing lunatics in the 1950's and '60s and the resurgence of this nonsense by the ghoulish remains of the Republican Party in response to the election of America's first black president.
As you know, the author, entertainer and great American secular humanist Steve Allen was a victim of America's right-wing hysteria during the dark days of blacklisting. Steve, who was honorary chairman of my campaign committee when I was a Democratic party candidate for the California State Senate, had been hurt so badly he went to great lengths to assure that he would never again be labeled a "communist," "communist sympathizer" or "pinko" by those vicious, un-American people who had brought him down decades earlier. In this respect, he was like a shell-shocked soldier. Even so, he had a strong commitment to free speech, free discussion and free exchange of all points of view. I think Steve would be as shocked and disappointed as I am today to learn of your decision to prevent your membership from hearing Sunsara Taylor.
My first encounter with Ms. Taylor was at the atheist conference in Burbank early this month where she revealed what a beautifully gifted orator she is. I was impressed with the depth of her knowledge and her ability to excite and energize her audience. Her speech was as entertaining as it was informative and the audience loved her. I met and talked with her afterwards and I am convinced she is a brilliant, sensible, responsible and informed person. I cannot imagine how ignorant, fearful or hateful anyone would have to be to want to prevent others from hearing this
intelligent, well-informed and articulate woman.
As I am sure you are aware, our nation is burdened with ignorant people who will not accept evolution no matter what, who still believe that the sun orbits the earth; who claim the world is only 6,000 years old; who think, "English was good enough for Jesus, so it's good enough for me;" who want the "government to stop messing with Medicare;" and who cannot explain the differences between capitalism, socialism, communism, our democratic republic, or even the differences between the state of New Mexico and the nation of Mexico. Denying the free exchange of ideas is what caused this sorry condition.
I am hopeful that you will reject the decision by the small minority of people in your organization who want to prevent Sunsara Taylor from sharing her knowledge with your full membership. I am hopeful that you will reject the efforts of those who still channel the ghost of Joe McCarthy and affirm the critical thinking and intellectual openness the EHSC is known for by re-inviting Sunsara Taylor to speak. Please don't cave in under the objections of the few who value ignorance over knowledge.
Thank you for considering my request,
Charles W. Belser
Author of "Larry the Penguin Searches for the Meaning of Life"
Ms. Taylor brings a perspective to the arena of ideas which aids one's critical thinking ability. While one may or may not agree with Ms. Taylor's views, she passionately presents her ideas and thoughts. Her presentation helped to spark a spirited debate on our campus. Our students benefited from the debate. One should always be open to listen to divergent thoughts because it helps to test and strengthen our own points of view.
Dr. Michael R. Williams
Director, Black Studies Program*
Cleveland State University
Oct. 26, 2009
To whom it may concern at the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago re the Workshop this Saturday and Sunday morning talk;
Reading the twisted and backward representation of Sunsara Taylor's presentation sent me into waves of outrage and nausea, which were only stopped upon reading the numerous letters written in her support. It is those letters that gave me some hope for our country which seemed on a slippery slope due to your actions.
As a humanist, the outrage that a humanist society which purports to be based on reason denying any person a place to speak I was reminded of a Thomas Jefferson quote I took as a motto as a child:
"I have sworn, upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against any form of tyranny over the mind of man. "
Censoring the presentation of Sunsara Taylor is just such a tyranny, one that all freethinking people should decry. And especially at this time in history when critical minds are under siege in academia and women's bodies are under siege from the society at large. Her workshop on the Emancipation of Women and the Liberation of all human beings, is necessary. I happen to believe that the only way towards such liberation is through women's liberation, and I would be curious to know what you and Ms Taylor would have to say.
A discussion of Morality without Gods is simply key, especially when it comes from such an engaging speaker as Sunsara Taylor. Thomas Jefferson was speaking ironically about that altar, as I hope you know.
The Society should immediately extend its invitation to speak and its apologies to Sunsara Taylor, and to the rest of us. I was in the Free Speech Movement 45 years ago this Fall, and have been involved in its reunion Conferences. You should know that our student body representatives to our top committees had people for Goldwater and Ayn Rand to people way left of Sunsara Taylor. That is the point of free speech. As adults you should do no less.
I can also say as a nationally recognized speaker for 3 decades that no one cancelled my talks without proper payment of my fees and out of pocket expenses and profuse apologies. It happened twice, once because I was preempted by Charles and Diana of England when touring Canada and the American group really could not help the situation. It was not pre-censorship of the content of what I had to say, and believe me it was controversial in its day!
Sincerely yours, and I expect a reply
-- Laura X, founder/director of the former
National Clearinghouse on Marital and Date Rape
Women's History Library, Berkeley , CA
* for identification purposes only
Sunsara Taylor writes for Revolution Newspaper and sits on the Advisory Board of The World Can't Wait


Salon.com
Comments
What are they afraid of?
2. I agree with most of the causal assertions in the first paragraph of Taylor's synopsis of her intended presentation to EHS of Chicago, particulalrly those that disparage christian fundamentalism in the US. However, those asserations are at best pedestrian, and can be read in Franks Rich's columns in the NYTimes and myriad non-intellectual pundits publishing in tradional and new media alike. Certainly nothing new, profound or insightful.
3. Her last paragraph touting communism as the solution reeks of thinking from the 1930's, a pre-Stalin, pre-Mao, pre-Warsaw Pact utopianism that reality has long since annihilated, except perhaps in a miniscule enclave of academics (I don't know if Taylor is an academic.)
4. Had I been an audience invitee at this conference, Taylor's inclusion as a speaker may well have caused me to cancel my flight and hotel reservations in the interest of squandering money on the trite.
Caracalla: You ask if I'm sympathetic to dialectical materialism.
I certainly am a materialist in the philosophical sense. And I also can't see how we can really understand the world without dialectics, given that without "up" there would be no "down," without "in" there would be no "out," without silence there would and could be no sound, without "blank white space" these letters in black here would not be either visible or have any meaning at all, just as emptiness cannot be imagined without matter. In short, I find that it is impossible to perceive the world without dialectics. Dialectics describes what is, and how change is both possible and inevitable.
So, yes, I'm sympathetic to materialist dialectics. Not only am I sympathetic, I would describe myself as a materialist dialectician. I use it to understand and interpret phenomena, ranging from sports to politics, from history to drama.
Christian fascism is a rising threat to civil life in this country. Yes, people such as Frank Rich have written and continue to write about this. Let me, however, focus on just one of the differences between Rich et al and what Sunsara would have said: the affinity and essential mirror similarities of Christian fascism and Muslim fanaticism and the fact that an alternative to supporting either reactionary side exists. This is very different from what nearly any other pundit is offering. That you think at this point that such an alternative is utopian is your prerogative. That others do not share such a view is also their prerogative. This view has a right to be heard and vitally so since the battle between the two reactionaries of Christian fascism and Muslim fanaticism is tearing up the world.
It is abject cowardice and when your own stated priciples cant stand even the possibility of being challenged. And they call themselves an "Ethical Society?"
I am a member of the EHSC and was like you, initially a supporter of Sunsara Taylor.
I don't know if you are aware of what has transpired since your letter of support but I wanted to give you the history of all that has transpired.
Our Sunday speakers are chosen by a committee of nine people. In July, at one of the committee member’s request, Sunsara was provisionally invited to speak on a topic of morality without gods on November 1. The formal invitation was withheld until the committee was provided with a written description of her talk.
The formal description was finally received on October 13. Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed. Sunsara was contacted about adjusting her talk to fit what the committee originally thought they were getting. She understandably refused to adjust her talk. The committee decided by a vote of 7 to 2 to cancel Sunsara as a speaker and the cancellation, with apologies, was emailed on October 19.
(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed)
From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s “speech in exile” on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people.
One plain clothes police officer from the Skokie police department was at the society the morning of November 1 because some members felt threatened by the fact that Sunsara would not commit to not disrupting the Sunday program. We had no idea what a Sunsara Taylor inspired protest would entail so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.
When Sunsara, her cameraman and 20 plus followers showed up on Sunday they were asked not to enter the building, they ignored this request but no action was taken by the society and they entered private property.
After entering the building and our auditorium, Sunsara started to give her speech and her camera man started taping. They were asked to stop and let us continue our event in our building repeatedly. They refused and it is then that we asked the single plain clothes officer for support.
When the cameraman acted aggressively toward the police officer he called for backup on his radio. Uniformed officers responded to that call. This man continued to resist police attempts to get him out of the building. It finally took five police offers using mace to subdue him. One police officer was injured.
What you do with this information is of course entirely up to you, but I thought you should be aware.
Respectfully,
Evan Kane
Yes, people do need to be aware. Facts matter.
It's important to set the record straight about what actually happened on Sunday at EHS:
I'm reprinting a comment posted by Carla on PZ Myers' blog this morning:
"Back to the facts of what actually happened:
The EHSC did NOT set up a separate space for Sunsara to speak on Sunday morning. A disaffected member of the EHSC did. From what I heard, that member was truly disgusted and plans to (or has) quite the EHSC. Anyone that suggests that the EHSC graciously set up a separate venue for Sunsara is either misinformed or dishonest.
Then, as for what actually happened on Sunday morning. Sunsara showed up, as she clearly stated that she would, to give the EHSC the chance, up to the last minute, to do the right thing. Then, as she had stated that she would, she left and gave a very well-received talk in the private home of the (former) member of the EHSC.
There was NO REASON for the police to have been called in advance. Sunsara did not approach the microphone, she did not disrupt services, she was NEVER ASKED TO LEAVE OR TO STOP SPEAKING. She made a brief announcement (about a minute) calling on the members of the EHSC to get the minutes of their Board's last meeting and the email's that argued for disinviting her -- so that they could see for themselves that this was NEVER about "process" or "acrimony" (which is how the Board was spinning things) and always about over anti-communism (which is very blatant in the meetings and emails, which the members have a right to request). That is ALL SHE DID.
Further, the camera man was NOT violent in any way. He was simply filming. Silently. He was piled on by five police, cuffed and THEN maced.
Read that again: he was cuffed and THEN maced.
Finally, if you actually take a look at how much Sunsara's words have been intentionally distorted by some members of the EHSC (which she documents in her Open Letters to the EHSC -- which, by the way, they NEVER addressed the substance of), and if you consider that despite Sunsara's clear statement that if the EHSC did not reverse their decision to dis-invite her, that she would leave and give her talk elsewhere and YET THE EHSC STILL called the police before she even arrived and moved their Sunday school and had whipped themselves into a self-created frenzy... Then it makes PERFECT SENSE that Sunsara would want what she actually did (and what she didn't) say and do at the EHSC that morning to be documented. SO NO ONE COULD DISTORT IT.
But, in what is actually quite revealing a move, the President of the EHSC never asked Sunsara to leave or to stop speaking, nor did he ask the camera-man to leave. He simply told the police to go after him and then they did.
Even judging from the EHSC President's actions, what Sunsara was doing was not a big problem. BUT, having a clear record of what she was doing, that proved that what she was saying was well-reasoned and exposed a LOT of dishonesty and political censorship on the part of the EHSC Board, WOULD BE A PROBLEM for the image of the EHSC. So, he singled out the camera man.
If he didn't have anything to hide or distort, if Sunsara had actually been doing something that was out of keeping with reasonable and ethical behavior in the face of such a shameful and dishonest and politically driven dis-invitation, then he would have been eager to get Sunsara out of there and keep the camera-man documenting every second of it -- not the other way around."
Evan K. - I'm going to respond to two statements in your account of the events.
You said:
"Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed...
"(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed)."
I have read the entire email sent to Sunsara from the EHAC disinviting her. The substance of that letter is contained in my comment above in my email to the EHAC. Your characterization that her talk didn't fit into the expected parameters of the invited talk does not square with the reasons given by EHAC for withdrawing their invitation to her. As I state in my letter above and as Sunsara stated, her talk was a) so grossly mischaracterized by EHAC as to constitute dishonesty and b) she would have spoken precisely to the topic and in the manner that she had originally indicated. This was clear from her original and subsequent description. And it would have been both in the spirit and to the letter of that which the EHAC in its letter disinviting her indicated they had wanted from her in the first place.
You write further:
"From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s 'speech in exile' on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people."
What compromise did you expect from her other than to not speak at the forum that your organization originally asked her to speak at? Exactly why do you say that she wasn't compromising on anything? What was there to compromise on? You say that the only thing that she could not do was speak at the November 1 event. What else was there besides this for her to "compromise" upon? The speech in exile she did, the workshop on October 31st she did, and, moreover, the "speech in exile" at a home wasn't arranged by the EHAC. It was offered by a member of EHAC on their own on their own individual initiative and, according to Diane, that member has resigned from EHAC in apparent protest over EHAC's decision to disinvite Sunsara.
Your comment here is like saying that workers who have been laid off and their jobs sent overseas should "compromise" by accepting their fates willingly and not raising any fuss over it.
Since it is clear I will never be able to answer your questions to your satisfaction I am wondering if maybe you could answer two questions for me?
1. What part of the U.S. Constitution gives individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression?
2. How is not wanting to hear a chaotic mess of verbal diarrhea in a private gathering censorship, but repressing comments on blog posts, like Sunsara does, not censorship?
I curiously await your answer.
I am on my way to class, so I can't answer this fully, but I will say this for now:
On what basis do you claim that Sunsara suppresses comments on her blog?
Also, you claim to have supported Sunsara's invitation, yet you now refer to her as responsible for "a chaotic mess of verbal diarrhea." I find it odd that you would do this if you did in fact support her speaking originally.
I will listen to just about anyone once and the great thing about the EHSC is when you here someone speak there you get to ask questions. And guess what! I heard Sunsara speak at the EHSC. It was Saturday and I got to ask her questions. (Really sounds like she was censored doesn't it).
After listing to her feeble attempt at defending the communist movements that end up jailing and murdering people for their speeches and writings while at the same time decrying that her rights are being violated, I decided she was full of crap. As a free thinker I feel inclined to change my mind when new evidence presents itself.
So I have a few moments to respond further to you now.
1) You said "How is not wanting to hear a chaotic mess of verbal diarrhea in a private gathering censorship, but repressing comments on blog posts, like Sunsara, does, not censorship?"
I asked you to explain why you were claiming that Sunsara was censoring people's comments.
Your response: she hasn't set up for comments on her blog and the You Tube video of her in question doesn't allow comments on it.
This is your damning evidence of her censoring people? This is almost too ludicrous for words.
2) You write: "I used to take everything that World Can't Wait said at face value but if these are the type of critical thinkers that are employed there, I will have to start thinking twice about their claims too."
You shouldn't take anyone at face value. I don't take anything from WCW at face value, and I'm on the national steering committee. WCW doesn't want people to take what we say at face value. We want people to use their critical and rational capacities and look into the evidence and on that basis make wise decisions. People can't play their full role in society if they do what they do and believe what they believe on the basis of not investigating and being skeptical and critical. We stand for people using their minds.
Your characterizations of the events and people here are not consistent within themselves (some of which I have already pointed out). They are also not consistent with someone who is an ethical humanist. You have either chosen to willfully misrepresent what Sunsara did and said at EHAC and what the cameraman did and said, or you have taken others' versions of events at face value. That is too bad.
Really? Why don't you try and use words for a simpleton like me. Please put into words why it is not hypocrisy that Ms. Taylor trespasses on private property to make a point but on the same issue we can't even respond to her criticism of us on her blogs? PLEASE, I am trying to understand.
And PLEASE, show me what part of the U.S. Constitution gives individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression?
And as for World Can't Wait, my point was that I thought that they at least always spoke honestly and truthfully, unfortunately on this point you have proven me wrong.
YouTube videos and personal blogs are not routinely set up for comments. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The fact that sometimes they're not isn't a sign of censorship. That is why your juxtaposition of them with the EHAC event is silly. Moreover, anyone somewhat familiar with Sunsara's activities would know that she routinely engages in back and forth dialogue with all kinds of people, ranging from reactionaries like Bill O'Reilly and others such as Christian fundamentalists to libertarians, anarchists, middle-of-the-road to liberals to radicals and revolutionaries. It is part of the whole point of her perspective and passion that you can't get to revolution and you can't make a revolution without broad engagement by people and active debate and dialogue.
You write: "PLEASE, show me what part of the U.S. Constitution gives individuals an absolute right to enter and remain on private property to exercise their right to free expression?"
What Sunsara did at EHAC has already been discussed and debated in this comments thread. You have set up a strawman argument that isn't really on point.
"And as for World Can't Wait, my point was that I thought that they at least always spoke honestly and truthfully, unfortunately on this point you have proven me wrong."
How I have proven to you that WCW doesn't always speak "honestly and truthfully" I don't know. I will say this: WCW cannot achieve its objectives if it misrepresents material facts because the whole point of it is to arouse people's consciousness and consciences to act as informed citizens of the world.
Those of us who are members of WCW do so because we believe in this, not because it is financially rewarding (the very opposite since we devote our time and money to it) and not because it is easy or safe. It is not easy and it is not safe to stand up against the crimes of your government.
What Sunsara, in particular, does is extremely brave and altruistic.
It is one thing to disagree with someone, as you do with Sunsara, and it is, of course, your right to do so. But it is quite another thing to malign her and misrepresent what she did and what happened.
Thank you for correcting my stupidity, now I understand.