I expect that our readers have seen Brian’s public letter of resignation, as well as Charli’s personal take on all this and Steve’s  discussion of the perils and rewards of blogging. This is a choice that Brian made on his own recognizance, one that he announced to the other permanent contributors in an email exchange.
Many of the emails that I’ve received since Thursday have expressed some combination of puzzlement, anger, dismay, and unhappiness at the absence of a collective statement from the Duck of Minerva. The general argument is that a blog of the Duck of Minerva‘s “stature” and “reach” must take a collective stance on Brian’s most recent post and on concerns about a pattern of sexist content in his work.
Indeed, we have been having intensive and ongoing discussions about how to proceed. These discussions–which explain the prolonged period of relative radio silence on the specifics of the controversy–kept on returning to a basic point: the blog’s policies are inconsistent with the notion of “collective statement” about the content of a member’s posts. The relevant bullet-point reads:
We are not a magazine or a journal. Each blogger is an independent writer who is responsible for his or her own content and who produces it free of charge for the benefit of those who feel like reading it. There is no full-time paid editor. We do not censor or modify the substance of posts. I occasionally edit an already-published piece to ensure it conforms to style guidelines, such as font, font size, line spacing, and so forth. But that’s it. So if you want to provide specific feedback on a blogger or on a post, it is most appropriate to email that blogger directly or leave a comment in the thread [emphasis added].
The act of posting a collective statement about the content of a post would, for many members of the team, vitiate these propositions. The Duck of Minerva would no longer be the same entity that has grown and prospered over the past nine years. It might not survive such a transformation. It would lose much of the vitality and idiosyncrasy that have defined it for nearly a decade.
Over the next few days you may see additional individual contributors talk about Brian’s departure or his posting. As always, these individuals speak for themselves and not some sort of collective. As always, if you disagree with their posts, find them offensive, or whatever you should make that clear in comments or in emails.
What does all this mean going forward? I expect that you’ll continue to see the same kind of freewheeling content that you expect from us. I also expect some more attention to issues involving enhancing the position of women and minorities within the discipline. There’s clearly a lot of work to be done, and I’d be very pleased if The Duck of Minerva became a safe and productive place for grappling with these important concerns. I’ve long championed the powers of new media to, at its best, build bridges and create conversations, to provide educational and professional resources, and otherwise help build community. To my surprise, the Duck has enjoyed some success on all of these fronts.
I may have more to say in a later blog entry. I agree with Charli that Brian’s post crossed the line. Despite his mistakes and missteps, Brian shares the values I outlined above. He  came to the conclusion that resigning from the blog was a critical step in helping The Duck restore its credibility. After two years of blogging, that’s a hard decision to make. It is also a decision consistent with the Duck’s ethic of each blogger taking ownership of, and responsibility for, what he or she writes.
I’ll take the point, D — this is a variant of the ‘art museum’ argument: we just hang it up. And I think that point works; but I also think the blog’s stature has changed over the past decade — a testament to the good work y’all do and its drop-by-drop effect over the past decade. Does that change the ethics of the blog — if it’s not ‘insurgent’ anymore? I asked this of charli a few minutes back on her post. I think it’s worth thinking about — not my place to do so, since I’m not in the core group of writers…but as a sympathetic reader and sometime poster, them’s my .02.
This was a big part of the conversation. The outcome is what I delineated in this post.
Dan L, Dan’s right, but I want to actually engage this question and reframe it a little. Perhaps the right way to think about it is not whether a blog perceived as part of the IR establishment rather than an “insurgent” entity should have different standards, but rather what kind of blog we – want the Duck to become (or to remain). I use the term ‘we’ here to refer not just to the community of authors but also to readers. I suspect the freshness of the Duck’s perspective does risk changing over time as the crew becomes not more senior per se but more enmeshed in other disciplinary hats.
One thing that has occurred to me over time that was not part of our discussion this week is whether at some point it wouldn’t make *sense* for people like me who have been around for awhile to step aside and turn the ship over to a younger, edgier, more insurgent crowd – sort of a norm of self-imposed term limits on mastheads. It is one of the ways in which we as a discipline might address the question of inertia, first-mover advantage, and marginalization in the blogosphere. Obviously that is not the kind of thing that could be imposed at an institutional or discipline-wide level but would need to bubble up from the grassroots through the decision of a critical mass of individual senior bloggers to move on and make room. Of course that’s not really the way blogs work. But it’s an interesting question.
As someone who has recently very much enjoyed a hiatus from blogging for family and research productivity reasons I can say that it felt surprisingly healthy to me to stop thinking about how to express myself and instead focus on absorbing others’ bright ideas, especially the fresh and sometimes unheard ones coming from newcomers to a space. When I think about it, that’s actually kind of the same thing Brian was trying to say about conferences.
Thanks for this reply and the other one, DN & CC. The point I’d want to press is, however, that if both the blog and the bloggers have grown in stature, then the freewheeling nature of discussion — even if it feels the same to the ‘old crew’ that’s engaged in it — will feel rather different to its readers. Junior folks tend to model themselves after senior folks — we take on the affects and the voice of those whom we admire till our own voice emerges, and as a part finding that voice: some semesters in grad school I wrote (or, rather, tried rather embarrassingly to write) like Bill Connolly, other times like Dan Deudney, Jane Bennett or the philosopher Paola Marratti; other times like Patrick J., Alex Wendt, Colin Wight, Joan Tronto, or Dan N, or Ido as I stumbled toward a project. Switch out the proper nouns, that’s a fairly common experience, I’m guessing. Sometimes — as the Lake post today (nice, btw!) points out, we do this not through personal acquaintance, but through the ‘distant medium’ of texts… and so the texts take on a life of their own. Scroll through the comments on your post or any of the others, and you’ll find folks saying ‘well, I’m a young blogger/scholar, and I find it very encouraging to hear this voice because it sounds so much like the one I hope to create for myself…” You’ll also find folks saying (perhaps rather less ingenuously) that they _hate_ that voice…though they may tend, for ideological/political reasons, to couch that in the language of a false universal (“free speech! feminazis! tigers and bears!”) rather than copping to old-fashioned Nietzschean ressentiment. But they are symptoms of the same thing.
That’s, I think, where the seniority issue lives — or anyway, the chunk of it I was trying to make clear. Our “inner Foucault/Bourdieu” will/should tell us that there will be no violence-free discourses (neither in the academy nor in politics, for the academy is _in_ politics, especially as we move away from astronomy and math toward questions of public policy). This means you’re stuck, unless you want to stop writing; and what good would that do? Even if you wanted to pass along the blog to some young fresh faces, that would still have a different character than building it up from the ground.
What’s the upshot of all this? I don’t really have an answer other than the partial ones you have already found yourselves. First, that the things which old-fashioned liberals and habermasians get right — transparency, ethical accountability etc. — you need to embrace as best you can, even when others use those as ‘openings’ to beat you up with (scroll down!). Second, where the old-fashioned pragmatic virtues apply — read widely, look for common denominators, appeal to common values, value consequences as much as means and methods, etc. — embrace them. Third, and again, you all know this, the former two will never entirely solve the problem…and nothing can. For that last bit, what I can offer you is that as one of your readers, I understand this problem too. I’m probably not alone in this; so there’s a ‘we’ out there: one that respects what you’re trying to do, and appreciates what you have done.
You know sometimes music has a really good take on these issues. Here’s my .000002 cents worth on this, or to put it another way, be the best version of yourself you can be, nothing more, nothing less:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pg2np37JNEg
Why are the ‘younger’ assumed to be edgier and more insurgent? If we are going to talk about, sexisms, racisms, and other forms of exclusion isn’t this verging on ageism? Asked by someone who’s cleary ‘age(d)’, but still (I hope) maintains a sense of humour! :)
Why are the ‘younger’ assumed to be edgier and more insurgent? If we are going to talk about, sexisms, racisms, and other forms of exclusion isn’t this verging on ageism? Asked by someone who’s cleary ‘age(d)’, but still (I hope) maintains a sense of humour! :)
Junior/senior =/= older/younger. I believe I am slightly older in than most of the ducks…but went to grad school later in life, got my first appt later. Older in chrono-years; younger in weber-years.
“What does all this mean going forward?”
Well of course it means cowering in abject fear of this blog’s politically correct commentariat of the feminists left’s division of thought control.
I’ve got you linked up, Dan: “Professor Brian Rathbun Pulls ‘Intellectual Jailbait: Networking at APSA’ at Duck of Minerva.”
https://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/professor-brian-rathbun-pulls.html
And you agree that Prof. Rathbun “crossed the line.” Well kudos to you. Way to go on standing up for the “independent writers” who are “responsible for his or her own content” at the blog.
In a decent world, the bloggers here would have simply accepted the good Professor’s apology and moved on, kept blogging, learned some lessons, etc. But no. Obviously a blood penalty was required to appease your anti-free speech commissars.
But you say you might blog more on this? I should hope so. Perhaps you might headline your next post, “An Invitation to Professor Rathbun to Return to Duck of Minerva.”
There’s a very common fallacy in your argument: that the exercise of free speech — or, in this case, of independent blogging — is somehow inconsistent with the rights of others to criticize you. In fact, they could not be more consistent.
Brian knows that I think he crossed a line. Brian *thinks* that he crossed a line. Brian resigned on his own recognizance. I am not in the least surprised that you disagree with his decision–both because of your politics and what you choose to do on your own blog–but you’re best course of action is to take it up with him, not me.
It’s not inconsistent, Dan. Professor Rathbun’s decision is the logical outcome of a culture of intolerance. One simply can’t say the wrong things, or make a mistake, without being sacrificed on the PC altar. It is a question of free speech, because the same culture of intolerance among this blog’s commentariat has real world consequences, for example, the decision of the Government of Great Britain to ban bloggers Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer because they criticize Islam.
And where do I say that one shouldn’t be criticized? It’s the content of the criticism that’s embarrassing. It should be rebutted not appeased. And while Professor Rathbun’s decision is his own, everybody’s down with it, you, Charli, and I guess Steve, although I haven’t read his post yet.
Boy, folks around here are really standing up for principles! I love political science. What a stalwart cadre of bold and fearless public intellectuals!
This looks to me like nothing more than the argument that Brian’s post was appropriate and he should still be blogging here (“the content of the criticism is embarrassing”).
You can make that argument all you want, but (1) don’t pretend that you’re making a different argument and (2) understand that Brian resigned of his own volition, and therefore your disagreement over the appropriateness of that response is with him, not with me.
Where do I say the content is “appropriate”? Frankly, I doubt that’s something I would have written. But he was making a metaphor. Are you or your readers going to argue there’s no such thing as “sluts”? Maybe that’s an ugly word? So, let’s there are “easy” women. Or even “easy” girls? Maybe such hypothetical women/girls are hypothetically easier to approach? Isn’t that the kind of argument we’re talking about, because personally I’m not really into sucking up to Robert Keohane or whoever? But if I did, especially if I was trying to make “the sale” so to speak, I’d no doubt feel pretty sh*tty (or, “slutty,” to use that awful word).
This is to say, then, what is verboten on this blog? Ugly, intemperate speech is still speech. Professor Rathbun did not threaten anyone. He did not demean an individual. He made a metaphor on how scholars must prostrate themselves to the demands of networking. Was it bad? Okay, sure. He apologized. Great. We learned something. But no! Flay the transgressor! Draw and quarter him!
Maybe your next post should be about what’s not going to be acceptable at the Duck? “Metaphors potentially offensive to the tender sensibilities of our feminist scholars not allowed.”
The problem with using the kinds of metaphors that Professor Rathbun used in his post is that they introduce a set of power dynamics into a discussion that have the effect of limiting the free exchange of ideas. If we think of speech as more than simply individual expression but as a dialogue among a group of individuals, then employing power-laden rhetoric has the effect of making speech less rather than more free by (often unintentionally) creating unequal power relations among the participants in a dialogue. In other words (and in contrast to what you suggest above), a robust defense of free speech should reject rather than tolerate the ill-advised use of sexist metaphors in a discussion.
I read your post, Charli. Yes, you “disagreed” with his choice to leave, but then you write things like this:
“That said, a certain amount of vitriol on comments threads of academic blogs has less to do with what or how an author writes than with the fact that they are writing something that challenges a particular viewpoint in ways that make people uncomfortable.”
I’d argue the problem is not Professor Rathbun. The problem is complete intolerance for “a particular viewpoint” that may “make people uncomfortable.”
No one has a right not to be made uncomfortable. Indeed, being made uncomfortable is necessary to learning, for then individuals are forced to come up with a better arguments. Professor Rathbun pulled the post. Professor Rathbun apologized. Professor Rathbun then resigns from the blog for something that he already removed and for which he already apologized?
Nope. Does not compute.
Is anyone around here going to stand up for the vigorous exchange of ideas, even uncomfortable ideas?
Read the post again. That’s exactly what Charli was doing.
Except that she was also insisting that discomfort be expressed substantively, respectfully, and not through the use of sexualized smears or ad hominem attacks. I realize that you and she part company on that last.
Except that she was also insisting that discomfort be expressed substantively, respectfully, and not through the use of sexualized smears or ad hominem attacks. I realize that you and she part company on that last.
I’ve attacked no one ad hominem in this thread, and Charli’s no “Angel” — she’s definitely not above smearing ideological opponents:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2010/08/there-goes-my-dreame
And no, that’s not what “Charli was doing.” Her post is basically one long discourse on bloggers not doing the horrible — HORRIBLE!! — thing that Professor Rathbun has done.
None of you folks have addressed the point, which is that you won’t stand up to disgusting intolerance against speech that doesn’t toe the disgusting collectivist line.
You’re embarrassing yourself by trying to compare your own work, which routinely demeans women intentionally, to Brian, who inadvertently made a mistake. He also quickly retracted, apologized and took responsibility, whereas you defend your right to treat your female colleagues and students with degradation and with the kind of creepy disrespect Charli was responding to in her sardonic post you just cited. IMHO, Brian is ten times the man you are and way funnier besides.
Actually, you’re embarrassing yourself, with the fallacy of argument by deflection.
You can’t stay on point because you don’t have a rebuttal. Academic feminists are like robots, and their “sexism” allegations obviously get them very far, with folks like the good Professor throwing himself under the bus faster than you can say “free contraceptives”!
Indeed, within my argument is the idea that Prof. Rathbun has nothing for which to apologize. He has a right to his own ideas. If you don’t like them, don’t read them. Leave. Your screams of “DEGRADATION” are as common as they are lame. Feminists are filled with incredible hatred. It’s pretty sad.
Your statement “feminists are like robots” sounds kind of like derisive name-calling to me, and I’m not sure that kind of talk belongs on this blog. But I’ll give you a chance to substantiate that claim with some logic or evidence. For starters, I’d be interested to know what your definition of a “feminist” is and your definition of a “robot.”
“Feminists are like robots” is a statement and comparison. It’s also an opinion. Seems to me that if one disagreed they’d say, “No, feminists are incredibly diverse in their opinion and welcome robust debate.” And keep in mind I’m responding to someone who attacked me rather than respond on point.
Since you can’t even define your terms much less back up your opinion with any logic or facts, I really can’t take this conversation seriously. It sounds to me that you’re just using the terms “feminist” and “robot” pejoratively. I’m not sure this veers far enough into disrespect to warrant comment moderation, but I’m also not going to spend my time on a discussion where my opponent can’t even define his terms or allow me to choose for myself how to express my disagreement. I need to make sure my teenager is in bed, and focus on what’s happening in Syria. Thanks for visiting our blog.
Well, what are you, Charli? A “liberal feminist”? “Radical feminist”? “Standpoint feminist”? “Postmodern feminist”? “Socialist feminist”? “Marxist feminist”? “Post-colonial feminist”? “Separatist feminist”? No doubt there’s a few other varieties, although I don’t expect you’re a “Queer feminist.”
For me “feminists” are essentially radicals and Marxists, so you know where I’m coming from. See R.S. McCain’s recent essay:
https://theothermccain.com/2013/08/12/why-does-lesbian-saraalcid-want-to-help-more-women-kill-their-babies/
And how many interpretations are there for robot? Seriously, you want me to define robot? A robot’s a robot? A machine. An automaton. Feminists — and I mean radical feminists — are robotic in their lockstep ideological program, which in my experience features extreme hostility to men and anything masculine.
No matter, though. You’re prevaricating, looking for a way to exclude my comments here as “name calling” or “disrespectful.” I’m not being disrespectful. I’m being honest. But fine. I understand your response as in the same frame that forced Professor Rathbun from the blog. If anyone upsets the doctrines and shibboleths of the feminists, out they go. It’s intolerant and totalitarian. And those are my opinions. Not attacks and not pejorative.
Donald,
I’ve addressed your comments at my own blog. https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2013/08/21/who-wants-to-live-in-the-ghetto.html
While you seem to be correct in the political orientation of censorship around here, I think the broader context is important, too.
You and Donald appear to be getting worked up about nothing, which is ironic (given the circumstances)
I’m not “worked up.” I’m cracking up how easy it is to find leftist academics substantiating the outside world’s (and the funding world’s) criticisms of political science.
Donald, you are very welcome to express your ideas here as long as you do so respectfully. I appreciate that you’ve refrained from ad hominem attacks here today, and I assume Kiera was referring to things you’ve written previously.
To answer your substantive question about how things work at the Duck, please read my post where I dwell at length on how we balance free speech privileges with a general sense of trust as a community and informal advice to individuals on how to manage fallout. We’re not that different from other group blogs: bloggers can write what they want and commenters can express outrage if they do so respectfully. We don’t censor posts. We collectively vet guest posts for content and style. We are as;o free to express our own opinions about posts to on another, sometimes with which I’m sure as a free speech libertarian you wouldn’t disagree. We do our best to do so respectfully. When we screw up we apologize.
On the comment threads, we do exercise some ‘censorship’: we reserve the right to collectively decide what constitutes disrespect and delete comments. We think this is fair especially considering that commenters often hide behind pseudononymity so do not have the same incentives to self-censor that our bloggers do; also because frankly it’s our blog and we get to define the parameters of the discussion just as you would in your house.
So honestly if you want to have a meta-theoretical discussion about anything it should probably be about the social construction of ‘respect’ as it applies to the deletion of comments at the Duck. Since that is the one place where we actually really do censor at times. But of course, that would require you take constructivism seriously, so…
Well, thanks for the response Charli. But I don’t have a problem with deleting comments. I hate trolls. That’s not what I’ve been talking about, however. Clearly folks can’t seem to respond to my main criticism, which is that you’re drowning in awful political correctness. Closed-mindedness is not a virtue, and PC closes minds. You know what people say, “the solution to harmful speech is more speech.” Unfortunately at the Duck it’s to shut down objectionable speech and crucify the apostate.
Would you care to respond to these points specifically?
I already have responded to them. Duck bloggers have neither shut down speech nor crucified anyone. It seems you really want this to be true, but it’s just not. End of story.
Please point me to the post or comments where you have specifically responded to the argument that Prof. Rathbun’s a victim of extreme intolerance for divergent views, in particular the use of metaphors that were deemed totally unacceptable according to the rules of political correctness. No one seems to substantiate the point. But that’s the 800 pound gorilla here. It’s a very ugly feature, a cultural feature that’s ruining free exchange in America. Frankly, I expect more from esteemed political scientists.
“Her post is basically one long discourse on bloggers not doing the horrible — HORRIBLE!! — thing that Professor Rathbun has done.”
I am mystified as to how anyone could read Charli’s post that way. It even had the word “solidarity” in the title and was filled with praise for Brian and regret that he was leaving. It emphasized that everyone makes mistakes, and pointed out that some of the commenters too went overboard in their outrage. It looks to me like you are twisting her words to try to make a point.
I’m not. I read the post. I’m boiling it down to its essence. But really? “Everyone makes mistakes?” True. We are all human. So, the Duck crucifies the Prof. Rathbun anyway? He then apologizes and then later resigns. That’s past atonement. That’s banishment. The problem is not the commenters. It’s the freedom-killing culture of correct thought everyone so far has refused to discuss. That’s what needs to change. Y’all might start by bringing back Prof. Rathbun.
It sounds like you feel very strongly about all this. I too am sorry Brian chose to leave. Goodnight.
For Donald Douglas to pose (sorry, I can’t think of another verb) here as a defender of reasoned discourse against what he calls a “lynch mob” must appear somewhat laughable to anyone who has ever glanced at Prof. Douglas’s own blog, where — unless things have changed there in the past few years, which I very much doubt — he routinely insults and vilifies those with whom he disagrees. For Prof. Douglas, this whole thing is just another opportunity to attack those nasty ‘leftists’ whom he rails against constantly. I wonder if he is familiar with the expression “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Can I just point out that not all ad hominem arguments are fallacious. If they were then appeals to the social construction of knowledge or the sociology of science would also fall under the same critique. As E.H. Carr put it, if you want to know the history you need to know the historian. And the same form of argument underpins most poststructuralist/postmodernist and standpoint epistemologies. The only escape from an implicit ad hominem factor is a radical objectivism that facts are facts are facts and require no interpretation. Once interpretation is accepted, then some aspect of the interpreter is inferred if not explicitly theorized. I’m a white male middle aged (maybe old) Marxist(ish) if it helps.:)
Dan,
Two questions.
1. Who owns this blog?
2. Did he/she/they “recommend” or “suggest” that Brian resign?
1. I pay for hosting, which I (mostly) make back through referral links to Amazon. A few of us have administrative privileges with the host and within WordPress in order to keep things running. But there’s no “owner” in the sense of someone who exercises executive authority.
2. No. It came from Brian.
In the sense that taking down the original post “came from” Brian?
Or in a different sense?
IIRC you’ve previously said you recommend that he censor his views. Is my recollection correct?
Yes, Dan, is that correct that you’ve previously recommended that Professor Rathbun “censor his views”?
Is so, that would deviate from the points raised in the post, individual responsibility, etc.
No, it would not deviate from “individual responsibility, etc.” to give an opinion when a colleague asks for it. Why on earth would you think that it would?
Look, if he asked you whether he should take it down, you might have said, “That’s not my determination to make.” Then it would definitely have been an individual decision. But that’s really not the point of my critique. it’s the larger point, as noted, that your commentariat encapsulates the trends on the left and in academe to extreme ideological closure and intolerance for difference, especially intolerance for the utterance of language that’s ostensibly been removed from discourse through some Orwellian speech cole revisions.
It’s happening. Everyone is so sensitive, and over what? A blog post?
Now Prof. Rathbun’s excommunicated from your blogging community. That’s pretty sad. Isn’t there some cost/benefit calculation that might have made, somewhere? Because this is sub-optimal in terms of the institutional mission and history of the Duck. Rathbun blogged here for two years, is a widely published Associate Professor, and he was tossed to the side and smashed like a bug.
Again, it’s about speech. It’s worth standing up for it, and perhaps Rathbun needed some support and solidarity on that score.
I’ve got a suggestion: why don’t you ask Brian how he feels that he was treated? Or you can spin fantasies about the process. Your call.
Sadly that won’t help. Donalde Douglas doesn’t actually listen to or care about the facts. For example: https://americannihilistblog.blogspot.com/2011/06/professor-donald-douglas-is-envious-of.html
I don’t need to “ask Brian how he feels.” He’s told us right here: https://www.whiteoliphaunt.com/duckofminerva/2013/08/dear-readers.html
Look, you might have guessed I’m trying to crack the epistemic closure around here. How far is this blogging community willing to go to protect diverse opinions? It’s a simple question. And it deserves a decent answer, because as journalist Robert Stacy McCain has observed, “‘Duck of Minerva’ Blog Declares War on Colorful Metaphors!”
https://twitter.com/rsmccain/status/370298323153866752
So at this point we’ve established this blog is your property, Brian was a guest here, and his host gave an “opinion” as to what he should do with that property.
Do you hold this very libertarian view when it comes to employment law as well?
No. We haven’t established any of those things. We have established that I pay for hosting. These are not equivalent concepts. I’m sorry if this is difficult to understand. I honestly have no idea what, if any, legal status our arrangement has. Nor does Brian.
Now, all of this would be an interesting thing to find out. My suspicion is that hosting does not confer ownership of content, otherwise a large number of professional publications would be in a lot of trouble. However, finding this out would have no practical implications for the discussion, because the accusation you are making is entirely dependent upon whether Brian believed that I exercised authority over him.
I’m really tired of this conversation. I will answer factual questions, but I’m not going to argue over second-order interpretations. If you want to talk about whether it was appropriate for Brian to resign, that’s fine. If you want to talk about whether it was appropriate for me to recommend and for Brian to pull the post, that’s your business (and I’ll note that the authors of the Duck of Minerva have now all agreed that we will *not* pull posts once a comment is up). If you want to debate whether Brian deserved the attacks he got, that’s fine with me.
I have said all that I am going to say on the matter: I thought that his post was over the line, when asked I recommended that he take it down; Brian was under no pressure that I am aware of to resign; Brian is a good friend, an excellent scholar, and someone with important things to say about the field. I am sad to see him leave the Duck.
And no, I will not release private correspondence among members of the Duck of Minerva. This isn’t the IRS, the FBI, or discovery during a breach-of-conduct suit. This is a *blog* made up of academics who volunteer their time. And, frankly, I’ve already wasted enough of my own time on this kerfuffle since last Thursday.
Taxdp,
Not only do we not think of the blog as Dan’s property, Brian was not a guest. This is a useful distinction that may be lost on readers. Guest bloggers are guests. They blog short-term, at our invitation only, are expected to post frequently, and don’t get looped in to policy discussions. Permanent contributors join the community permanently, unless they decide to leave. It’s kind of like tenure. Once in, we make decisions – like who to invite to guest post or whether to establish a rule that people can’t pull posts once comments start – collaboratively through deliberation. There is no mechanism for removing a permanent contributor, least of all because we don’t like something they wrote.
But nor would we force a contributor who felt the need to leave to stay just because we were worried that we might be accused of censorship. We might encourage her/him to stay. We might talk him/her through pros and cons. But the choice is the blogger’s. Simply put, we care more about following our actual principles of deliberation and respect for one another’s choices than about how things look to others. I hope this makes sense to you.
Not only do we not think of the blog as Dan’s property, Brian was not a guest. This is a useful distinction that may be lost on readers. Guest bloggers are guests. They blog short-term, at our invitation only, are expected to post frequently, and don’t get looped in to policy discussions. Permanent contributors join the community permanently, unless they decide to leave. It’s kind of like tenure. Once in, we make decisions – like who to invite to guest post or whether to establish a rule that people can’t pull posts once comments start – collaboratively through deliberation. There is no mechanism for removing a permanent contributor, least of all because we don’t like something they wrote.
But nor would we force a contributor who felt the need to leave to stay just because we were worried that we might be accused of censorship. We might encourage her/him to stay. We might talk him/her through pros and cons. But the choice is the blogger’s. Simply put, we care more about following our actual principles of deliberation and respect for one another’s choices than about how things look to others. I hope this makes sense to you.
Charli,
Thank you for the considerate reply.
With one quibble (the method you outline leads to “respect for one’s pleasure or displeasure in anothers choices”, not “respect for one anothers choices”), you’ve been very clear and forthright here, which has been missing in this conversation.
I do not know the extent to which selectively removing his post(s), and the comments of others, played a roll in discussion the “pros and cons” with Brian, but your comment was also one of the very few that addressed this. Which in my opinion was the worst part of Brian’s actions.
Anyway, thank you for spending time with me on this. I appreciate it.
1. This isn’t complicated and I’m not playing word games. To my knowledge, no one asked Brian to resign.
2. Brian asked me if I thought that he should take down the post. I said “yes.” It was not the first time that someone has taken down a post here, and certainly not the first time that Brian has taken down one of his own posts, although the permanent bloggers have now agreed to a new procedure as outlined by Charli in her post.
3. If you think that giving my honest opinion to Brian when he asked for it is an act of “censorship,” then [gratuitous reference to “idiots” removed in an act of self-censorship]. The most you could say is that I recommended Brian “self-censor” when directly queried.
Dan,
The whole concern here is your point (1) — the suspicion is that you are playing word games thru a meaning of “asked” that is particular to your conversations.
Would you and Brian be willing to share your email exchanges on this issue?
Bob Woodward?
Dude, lay off. What’s up with all this incredible hostility? Brian wrote a post and got a lot of disproportionate flak for it. Dan didn’t much care for it. It blew up into a big s–tstorm in ways that nobody cared for. Brian decided to step away from the blog, as it was causing him too much grief. Enough said. Move on. I wished he hadn’t felt like he needed to, as did others, but it was his decision. Leave it at that.
Hey Josh (“dude”?),
I’ve repeatedly asked for an apology for Brian’s hurtful and offensive post. None has been provided, least of all by Brian, in spite of Brian’s own statement that he’d remove offensive material.
There’s been a weird desire to avoid addressing the issue, most especially by Dan N.
To the extent that Brian was a deceptive hypocrite I’m glad he’s no longer blogging here, but the way his “resignation” was handled was the weirdest departure from a blog I’ve ever seen, and I’ve been actively blogging for 8 years.
Brian’s apology not enough? Do you need a personal apology? I have no idea who you are, given the anonymity of your blog and thought with your references to pimps etc. that you must be a guy. Maybe not. Actually, I don’t care. It was a weird situation. And your continued pressing for more details including internal emails was itself strange.
Hey Josh,
I’m not going to comment on the conclusions you have or not made about me.
But no, Brian’s never apologized for his hurtful and offensive post. Not to me, not publicly, not (as far as I know) in private correspondence with anyone else.
Agreed this situation is really weird.
PS: Dan N’s doublespeak here has made him an extremely unreliable source of information, given the circumlocutions he’s been using. The obvious implication is that he in some way asked/requested/whatever euphemism. Brian to leave, but felt the need to cover that up. That’s the weird part.
Charli’s response (also above) has none of these problems:
@tdaxp: What in heaven’s name are you talking about? B.Rathbun’s post ‘Dear Readers’ contains the phrase “for which I am deeply sorry.” That’s an apology, obviously. And Dan N. has not engaged in doublespeak; his replies to you have been clear. Your comments here are divorced from reality.
LFC, the last two sentences in your post are humorously at odds ;-)
RE: the earliest lines, I’ve repeatedly explained to Brian, both in the comments here and at my own blog, what is so hurtful and offensive about his writing. He’s apologized for none of it.
https://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2013/08/17/pimp-gets-bitch-slapped.html
If you read txdap’s linked blog post, you’ll find that he is offended that Brian thought better of his ill-chosen metaphor and framing for his post (i.e., the apology, not the original post), since those horrible bitchy feminists have absolutely no sense of humor (at least that’s how I read his post). I suspect that Brian was not fully aware of some of the subtexts of his jokes (jailbait refers to underage girls who were just asking to be raped because they are just TOO SEXY for a dirty old man to resist, ala Roman Polansky, the poor oppressed artist, and every woman in American was warned as a child NOT TO ACCEPT CANDY FROM MEN when she was a child, since offers of candy is a common way for child molesters to groom their targets). Brian has already admitted cluelessness, so I can forgive him his ham-handed attempt to be funny. I can only hope that people like txdap and Donald are merely similarly clueless, because the other option is that they find child rape to be totally hilarious. Surely that’s not the case, and this is just an another bit of failed agitprop.
@tdaxp: But you didn’t think Brian’s original post was hurtful and offensive. In fact, you thought the criticisms were unwarranted. I can’t help but deduce that your sole interest here is is fermenting discord; don’t ask me why, I’m post-Freudian, But there’s some weird, not so nice implications about your posts on this issue. One day, maybe a long time in the future they’ll come to light. If Carlsberg did predictions this would be one.
“Disproportionate flak”? What would proportionate flak be in this case?
I try and try, but I just don’t see what’s wrong. Brian wrote that he
felt like a slut. He gave advice while describing a transition in his
career that now makes him feel like a pimp daddy. It’s clear by the
comments everyone understands his use of taboo words is an attempt to be
funny and that he is not, in fact, a pimp daddy.
Am I just
desensitized? Brian looks to me like a snowflake in blizzard. Let me
show you the number of hits… https://bit.ly/1d2ARO8
I guess it turns out Hafner-Burton is right about naming and shaming being strategic….
I confess that I have not followed every twist and turn in the saga of Professor Rathbun’s recent posts, but have read enough to understand the controversy and hurt they generated. I do think they were ill-considered and (unintentionally) offensive. As for his decision to resign, I line up with Charli in disagreeing with and respecting it, though with slightly different reasons for both.
The bloggers involved in the Duck are in community with each other and with their readers. I like to think of the relationship between the Duck and its more frequent readers (excluding here the trolls and those who come clearly to smear rather than to think together) as a community of friends, in the Aristotelian sense. For Aristotle, the best kind of friend is the one who challenges us in order to make us better in some meaningful way. That means that we accept our friends’ blunders with a kind of loving care, and that they accept our challenges in the same spirit. From this perspective, neither Professor Rathbun nor his readers have been especially good friends to one another. The sometimes unbridled anger, ridicule and derision heaped upon Professor Rathbun does not befit a friend; but neither does the decision to remove oneself from a space of criticism, and thereby not only shrink from the challenges of friends, but also from the challenge to make *them* better. This is not a matter of courage or cowardice, but of what it means to be in a certain kind of relationship–that of friends–to others and to oneself.
I am not sure exactly what Charli and others mean when they say that they “respect ” Professor Rathbun’s decision to resign, but I take such respect to mean more than acknowledging that it was his decision to make. I respect the decision as a matter of conscience: What strikes me powerfully about the resignation post is that it makes no reference to either Duck policies or to broader norms of rectitude. Rathbun resigned, it seems to me, because–though perhaps this is overly dramatic–he could not live with himself if he didn’t. To know oneself in that way, and to have the resolve to act upon such self-knowledge is, to me, a quality that is worthy of respect indeed.
I think the Duck needs a ‘Like’ button….:)