On the October issue:
American Re-education
To the Editor:
The trend that Christine Rosen writes about in “You Will Be Re-educated” (October) is a major step backward in race relations and fits the aims of the hard left to the detriment of the whole nation. The leftist manipulation of facts and feeling can prosper only in the most dysfunctional areas of our society, namely academia and politics.
While we cannot discount the damage and scars left by slavery and racism, the solution is not wrongly blaming a race and a culture. Our efforts should be directed toward encouraging individuals to seize the opportunities available in the most free and prosperous society in the history of the human race.
Robert L. Turner
Rockaway Pt., New York
To the Editor:
Hearty kudos for Christine Rosen, who outlined the dire societal stakes raised by anti-racism. Its nostrums would spell the end of America.
Already, dissenting voices are being silenced, with self-censorship, questionable peer review, and forced confessions becoming the rule. Orwellian language manipulation has subtly shifted public speech, turning “equality” into “equity” and stigmatizing universal virtues, such as industriousness and civility, as supremacist vices. As it stands, the race-mongering mob has taken control of the public square.
Richard D. Wilkins
Syracuse, New York
To the Editor:
A hopeful thought on Christine Rosen’s article: Anti-bias programs that use coercion or compulsion to harass, degrade, or punish white employees or students because of their alleged white privilege or presumed complicity as beneficiaries of “structural racism” are very likely to violate provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law forbids discrimination on grounds of race in employment or in programs receiving federal assistance.
Donald L. Horowitz
James B. Duke Professor of Law and
Political Science Emeritus
Duke University
To the Editor:
In her essay “You Will Be Re-educated,” Christine Rosen clearly explains the impact of the cancel culture dictated by identity politics. There are, we should remember, ways to combat the program that Rosen describes.
Freedom-loving Americans can be proactive when dealing with the bogus narrative of racism promoted by anti-American racialists. When an “anti-racist” attempts to humiliate you with unfounded accusations of privilege, fight fire with fire. Shred their contradictions with energy and reason.
Also, we should never bow to the anarchists. Instead, we must assert our belief in the overall goodness of America as an exceptional nation that is already diverse, generous, and filled with promise for those who play by the rules.
“Diversity training” must be resisted. Despite the dangers to one’s grades or employment status, people must oppose this indoctrination until resistance to it brings cancel culture to an end. It would be helpful here if parents got involved in their children’s education. This would mean attending PTA and school-board meetings to find out what is being taught.
All thoughtful Americans must fight tooth and nail with spiritual fortitude to get rid of our dystopian identity politics.
Christian P. Milord
Fullerton, California
Christine Rosen writes:
Robert L. Turner observes astutely that much of the anti-racism re-education effort focuses on the feelings of participants and their emotional experience, rather than the facts about how far the country has come with regard to race relations. I agree that this is a step backward rather than forward, as elevating “emotional safety” and individual “lived experience” above all other factors nearly always ends up allowing the loudest (and most ideological) voices in the room to prevail. It also makes free and open debate more difficult.
Richard D. Wilkins is correct to highlight the many ways in which language has been manipulated to serve the ideological agenda of anti-racism; it is a favored tactic of ideologues and one that too often goes unnoticed until it is too late to correct. Once words such as “equity” replace traditional ideas about “equality,” for example, it becomes that much easier to supplant ideas about equality of opportunity (which most people support) for equality of outcomes (which most understand is an impossible goal). Once the term “anti-racism” is ubiquitous, race color-blindness becomes more difficult to defend. Such things are not merely semantics; words shape the way we understand complex issues.
I am grateful that both Donald L. Horowitz and Christian P. Milord offer some optimism about combatting the anti-racist agenda. Mr. Milord is correct to encourage employees to question any overly broad or unsubstantiated claims made during mandatory diversity trainings on the job, for example. Rational, respectful debate is still possible, but only if people who are skeptical of anti-racist claims are willing to ask questions, challenge ideological claims, and speak up rather than self-censor.
Pandemic Mistakes
To the Editor:
A note on “The Precautionary Paradox,” by James B. Meigs (October): The mistake made regarding both the Challenger disaster and the COVID-19 pandemic is the assumption that extrapolation (estimating effects beyond the scope of available data) is no more risky than interpolation (estimating effects within the scope of the available data). The decision to launch the Shuttle at 32C when all available data pertained to higher temperatures was an extrapolation. So was the decision, in the absence of confirming data, to eliminate airborne transmission from the list of possible modes of COVID-19 infection. When lives or livelihoods are on the line, the consequences of a negative outcome from the risks of such extrapolation should weigh heavily on decision-making organizations.
Jon Lachman
Jupiter, Florida
James B. Meigs writes:
I appreciate Jon Lachman’s letter. Astronomer Carl Sagan is sometimes credited with the aphorism “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” though the phrase actually originated much earlier. In any event, it’s a concept that decision makers in high-risk fields should take to heart. Just because there’s not much evidence of risk doesn’t mean the risk isn’t there. As you say, sometimes the safest course is to admit that our knowledge has limits—and plan accordingly.
Faith and Evil
To the Editor:
Abby W. Schachter’s article was stunning (“Walking on Shabbat After a Massacre,” October). A dose of valuable thinking by a Jewish woman with a crystal-clear concept of truth. Gmar chatima tova.
Aviva Fort
Jerusalem, Israel
To the Editor:
Abby W. Schachter’s essay about the Tree of Life nightmare brought me to tears and encouraged me to be mindful of the need to be more faithful to my Christian practice of Sabbath observance. I take this as God’s nudge. While I am a faithful Church attendee, after lunch, the day becomes much like any other.
Thank you for this wonderful article. I feel very blessed by your publication.
Carol Powell
Meadville, Pennsylvania