logo
繁体
繁体

签署一封将批评强权的行为定性为危险的公开信,并没有什么新意或勇气可言


编前:美国黑人乔治·弗洛伊德死于警察之手后,引起了全美国的反种族歧视运动,美国社会也进一步分裂,多数美国人支持抗议者,而特朗普则威胁对大体和平的示威者进行镇压。

在美国的知识界,这种分裂更严重,随着一些学者媒体人和名人因其错误言论受到广泛的批评,美国一些著名知识分子和文化人开始反弹,他们在《哈泼斯》杂志上发表一封公开信,认为美国目前存在一种“令人窒息的气氛”,限制了言论自由,但是签字的人中,不乏著名人物,哈里波特作者J.K.罗琳加入签名,也引起了更多轰动。

但是这封公开信的发表,和以前那封欧洲保守主义者的公开信一样,没有能经得住事实核查,最终都被发现其中模糊提到的事件并不是信中所谓侵犯言论自由,大多是因为一些本身在社会上很强势的名人和学者出言不逊,无端的伤害他人,不得不承担后果。

也正因为如此,这封信激起了更多人的反击。以下这篇文章,就是一位作者Jessica Valenti对那封信的回应。



几年前,我以前的高中发现自己卷入了一场关于着装规范的争论。女生们抗议他们认为是性别歧视的规则:禁止裸露肩膀和腹部,以及几乎完全针对女学生的违反守则处罚。不过,我印象最深的是校长的回应,他说:“有些事情会让人分心,我们不需要让学生分心,因为这里应该进行的是学习。”

但他说的是谁的学习呢?

当然不是那些被拉出教室、只是为了被迫换上超大号T恤的年轻女性。不,校长指的是男生。他担心女生的衣着和身体会分散他们的学习注意力。

学校从来不会去想,经常性地把女生拉出教室,也会分散她们的注意力,更不用说这是一种公开的羞辱了。女生的学习从来就不是学校真正的重点,这是对机构如何围绕他们认为最重要的人制定政策的完美例证。

这就是为什么当我读到《哈泼斯》上的公开信,谴责美国 “不宽容的气候 “和 “公开羞辱的时尚 “时,我首先想到的是,这些人是在保卫一个旧的着装规定。

这封信的署名者就像一个名人榜:政治名流、专栏作家、作家和教授——这些人拥有强大的发声平台,并能接触到大量的受众。而乍一看,这封信似乎是无害的——反对 “限制辩论”,或者希望 “保留善意分歧的可能性,而不造成严重的职业后果”,表面上都没有错。

但仔细一看,就会发现 “善意的分歧 “完全不是这样。比如信中提到教授们 “因为在课堂上引用文学作品而被调查”。我猜他们指的是加州大学洛杉矶分校的一位白人教师,他在课堂上反复使用n-word(注,指英语中对黑人的蔑称),同时引用马丁路德·金的话,即使在黑人学生要求他停止之后,他还是这样做了(俄亥俄州立大学教授Koritha Mitchell有一个了不起的播客,讲述了为什么老师不应该这样做)。学生们提出了正式的投诉,这是他们的权利,但在随后的媒体风波中,一直没有提到他们的言论自由。

哈泼斯的信中还提到编辑们 “因为刊登有争议的文章而被解雇”,这是指《纽约时报》编辑部编辑詹姆斯-本内特(James Bennet)的下台。信中没有提到的是,贝内特丢掉工作的原因之一是,他刊登了一篇专栏文章,其中发表了一位参议员主张对美国和平抗议者使用军事力量的言论——员工们指出,这篇专栏确实让黑人的生命处于危险之中——而且在发表前甚至没有看过。

谁在《哈泼斯》的信上签名与信中的内容同样重要。例如,伊恩·伯鲁马(Ian Buruma)在《纽约书评》发表了一篇戈梅西(Jian Ghomeshi)的文章后被解雇了。梅西是一名加拿大电台名人,曾被20多名女性指控性侵犯。伯鲁马后来在一次灾难性的采访中为这一决定进行了辩护,他说:“他的行为的确切性质——有多少是女性同意的成分——我不知道,也不是我真正关心的问题。”

以抨击 “安全空间 “为主业的《纽约时报》意见作家巴里·韦斯(Bari Weiss)最近被爆出,她向管理层举报一名黑人编辑,只因为她拒绝了喝咖啡的邀请。


艾米丽·约夫(Emily Yoffe)过去曾因多个专栏而受到反强奸活动人士的批评,最近她被《华盛顿邮报》的记者批评,因为她在一篇充满错误和偏见的文章中发表了自己被侵犯的故事。

奥利维亚·努齐刚刚写了一篇谄媚的
讣告
,一个以骚扰一位主要黑人记者和他的家人而闻名的女人。

当然还有J.K.罗琳,她最近利用她的相当大的发声平台来推动顽固的想法,认为要揭穿关于跨性别女性的神话,同时把自己打扮成一个女性权利的捍卫者。

我还可以继续说下去。问题是,附在这封信上的不少人——这封信的作者把自己说成是对言论自由的客观辩护——都是那些急于为自己的不良行为和偏执找借口的人。(也有我尊敬的签名者,自从这封信发表后,身为变性人的《纽约时报》专栏作家詹妮弗·芬尼·博伊兰(Jennifer Finney Boylan)已经道歉,并在推特上说她不知道还有谁在信上签名)。

事实是,我们正处于一个政治上的关键时刻,言论自由确实正处于危险之中,但却不是以这封信所概述的方式。美国人目睹了成千上万的抗议者走上街头,抗议警察的种族主义暴力,却遭到催泪弹和殴打。一段又一段视频显示,明确表明自己身份的记者被打、被拖走、被打翻、被逮捕。

去年美国图书馆中最受质疑的书是什么?一本关于变性儿童的童书。

对于这些不公正的行为——对自由表达的侮辱——签名信上那些很有能量的思想家们在哪里?

这些有权势的人似乎只关心自己的言论自由。他们希望能够畅所欲言而不需要承担任何后果;他们把自己描绘成受害者,即使他们拥有比任何批评他们的人更多的体制和制度上的权力。

正如《华盛顿邮报》的卡伦·阿蒂亚所说,“这关系到谁的思想、观点和表达值得保护。”

归根结底,所谓“取消文化 ”是一个充满噪音和愤恨的术语,毫无意义。这当然不是关于言论自由的问题。

毕竟,一个被捕的记者从来没有被称为 “取消”,一个因投诉性骚扰而被行业拒之门外的妇女也一样。

我们都明白“取消 ”这个标签的真正含义,指的是一个权贵被追究了责任。这个词是为了把同情心重新集中在那些已经拥有特权和影响力的人身上——无非是为了更方便的维持现状。

但是,要求人们为自己的言行负责并不是侵犯言论自由。而且,签署一封将批评强权的行为定性为危险的公开信,并没有什么新意或勇气可言。



原文作者:Jessica Valenti

原文链接:https://gen.medium.com/cancel-culture-is-how-the-powerful-play-victim-e840fa55ad49
原文标题:‘Cancel Culture’ Is How the Powerful Play Victim

A letter published in ‘Harper’s’ mistakes critiques of the powerful for the silencing of free speech



few years back, my old high school found itself embroiled in a controversy over dress codes. The girls were protesting what they believed were sexist rules: bans on bare shoulders and midriffs and code violations that almost entirely targeted female students. What I remember most, though, was the response by the school principal, who said, “Some things are a distraction, and we don’t need to distract students from what is supposed to be going on here, which is learning.”

But whose learning was he talking about? Surely not the young women who were being pulled out of class just to be forced to change into oversized T-shirts. No, the principal was referring to the boys: He feared the girls’ clothing and bodies would distract from their learning.
It didn’t occur to the school that routinely pulling girls out of class would be a distraction — not to mention a humiliation — because the girls’ learning was never really the point. It was a perfect distillation of how institutions center policies around those they deem most important.

That’s why an old dress code was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the public letter in Harper’s decrying America’s “intolerant climate” and “a vogue for public shaming.” The letter’s signatories read like a who’s who: political luminaries, columnists, authors, and professors — people with powerful platforms, and access to large audiences. And at first glance, the letter seems innocuous — there’s nothing wrong with being against “the restriction of debate” or wanting to “preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.”

But a closer look shows the “good-faith disagreements” are anything but. The letter mentions professors being “investigated for quoting works of literature in class,” for example. What I assume they’re referring to is a white teacher at UCLA who used the n-word repeatedly in class while quoting Martin Luther King Jr. even after Black students asked him to stop. (Ohio State University professor Koritha Mitchell has a terrific podcast episode on why teachers shouldn’t be doing this.) The students made a formal complaint, as is their right, but there’s been no mention of their free speech in the ensuing media furor.

The Harper’s letter also mentions editors being “fired for running controversial pieces” — a reference to the ouster of New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet. What the letter doesn’t mention is that Bennet lost his job for, among other things, running an op-ed section that published a senator advocating the use of military force against peaceful American protesters — a column that employees pointed out literally put Black lives in danger — and without even having read it before publication.

Who signed the letter in Harper’s is just as important as what’s written in it. Ian Buruma, for example, was fired from his job at the New York Review of Books after he published an essay by Jian Ghomeshi — a Canadian radio personality who had been accused by more than 20 women of sexual assault. Buruma later defended the decision in a disastrous interview where he said, “The exact nature of his behavior — how much consent was involved — I have no idea nor is it really my concern.”

New York Times opinion writer Bari Weiss, who has made a career for herself railing against “safe spaces,” was recently outed for reporting a Black editor to management just because she declined an invitation for coffee. Emily Yoffe, who has been criticized by anti-rape activists for multiple columns in the past, was recently taken to task by a Washington Post journalist for publishing the story of her assault in a piece riddled with errors and bias. Olivia Nuzzi just wrote a fawning obituary of a woman known for harassing a leading Black journalist and his family. Then of course there’s J.K. Rowling, who recently used her considerable platform to push forward bigoted ideas and debunked myths about trans women while fashioning herself a defender of women’s rights.

An arrested journalist is never referred to as “canceled” nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment.

I could go on. The point is that a good number of the people attached to the letter — which presents itself as an objective defense of free speech — are those eager to excuse their own bad behavior and bigotries. (There are also signatories I respect; since its publication, New York Times columnist Jennifer Finney Boylan, who is trans, has apologized and tweeted that she didn’t know who else had signed the letter.)

The truth is that we are in a political moment when free speech is in danger, just not in the way this letter outlines. Americans have watched as thousands of protesters have taken to the streets to demonstrate against racist police violence — only to be tear-gassed and beaten. Video after video shows journalists, clearly identifying themselves as such, being hit and dragged, knocked over and arrested. The most challenged book in American libraries last year? A children’s book about a trans child.

Where is the free speech outrage, the letter signed by powerful thinkers, over these injustices?

The only speech these powerful people seem to care about is their own: They want to be able to say whatever they want without consequence and to paint themselves as the victims even as they wield more institutional and systemic power than anyone criticizing them. As the Washington Post’s Karen Attiah put it, “This is about whose ideas, opinions and expressions are worth protecting.”

At the end of the day, “cancel culture” is a term full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. It’s certainly not about free speech: After all, an arrested journalist is never referred to as “canceled” nor is a woman who has been frozen out of an industry after complaining about sexual harassment. “Canceled” is a label we all understand to mean a powerful person who’s been held to account. It’s a term meant to re-center sympathy on those who already have privilege and influence — a convenient tool to maintain the status quo.

But facing consequences for what you say and do is not a free speech violation. And there’s nothing new or brave about signing a letter that characterizes criticism of the powerful as dangerous.

关注加美必读,了解更多



加美必读万元征文:

记录你我生活,书写华人故事


盖饭内容工场招聘


如果你是人在北美的留学生,华人,特别欢迎你加入我们的北美编辑团队,为我们提供各类型的内容。


你提供内容既可以是外国媒体报道的中文版本内容,也可以是针对某个新闻事件自己表达的观点,还可以是对某个热门话题的见解与分析。你关注的领域既可以是特朗普与美国枪击案,也可以是卡戴珊炫富与汤姆汉克斯献血。我们都欢迎。


我们支持线上签约与远程办公,你宅在家里也能参与到我们的内容制作过程。


内容方向:国际资讯、娱乐资讯的编译稿件、自主撰写稿件。

工作模式:签约固定供稿或按稿计酬皆可;确认工作职责后在家办公线上沟通。


岗位要求:

1、有一定外语翻译能力,能看懂外媒基本报道或纠正机翻错误。

2、对国际新闻、海外娱乐新闻比较感兴趣,有一定文字表达能力。

3、对国内用户的兴趣点比较了解,知道国内的人喜欢看什么。

4、责任心较强,成稿能做到事实准确,文通字顺。


岗位待遇:高于行业平均水准,注意薪酬均以人民币发放。


有兴趣可发简历至job@17getfun.com。


请注明您关注的方向:国际资讯or海外娱乐


 



  • 北美留学、移民、海外生活读者交流群请先加小编微信ID:yiqijianada 转发必读文章并截图,验证后可入群。

  • 商业推广需求请发邮箱:fuchao@17getfun.com


ps:推荐同时关注“加拿大和美国必读”的小号”加美必读”,以防失联。



点击关键词,看更多资讯


加  拿  大百万移民计划 | 孟晚舟引渡 | 小升初

                安省教育 | 富二代绑架 | 魁北克闹独立

美       国美国失业潮 | 北美留学生报 | 漫威上气

                中国黑客 | 高校丑闻 | 赵思雨 | 档案造假

华       人微信候选人败选 | 抑郁症 | 新闻造假

                 张扣扣 | 染香往事 | 压榨华人 | 刘强东

留学移民孩子留学全家移民 | 互联网高管移民

                 出国留学 | 好移民职业 | 雇主移民造假

其       他国人健康 | 超级真菌 | 山东学伴 | 眼保操

                 野鸡大学 | Costco | 制药丑闻 | 圣母院