John Derbyshire fired from National Review.
Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the publication where John Derbyshire served as a contributing editor, announced this evening that “Derb” would no longer be writing or editing for NR. Derbyshire recently published, in a webzine called Taki’s Magazine, a disgusting piece that amounted to a tutorial on being racist, which I wrote about this morning.
“His latest provocation, in a webzine, lurches from the politically incorrect to the nasty and indefensible… Derb has long danced around the line on these issues, but this column is so outlandish it constitutes a kind of letter of resignation. It’s a free country, and Derb can write whatever he wants, wherever he wants. Just not in the pages of NR or NRO, or as someone associated with NR any longer.”
The question is this: Is it enough? And why didn’t he do it earlier? Does the firing of one help make change for all?
About Joanna Schroeder
So, is the explanation for this firing basically, “yeah, he’s always been racist but until now his writing has only been a little racist”?
Joanna,
You ask “is this enough?” I don’t see what else could or should be done though. What did you have in mind?
Okay, credit where credit’s due: that is a firmer and more condemnatory firing than I expected it to be. Rich Lowry has exceeded the level of expectation I set for Rich Lowry, which is a bit like breaking the high jump record in the earthworm class.
This comment exemplifies why I have a hard time taking liberal media sources any more seriously than I take Fox News.
If you are openly contemptuous of your opponents, then how can you claim to have objectivity yourself?
“The question is this: Is it enough?”
As Chuck asked, enough of what?
“And why didn’t he do it earlier? Does the firing of one help make change for all? ”
If, by change, you mean that people will feel intimidated into remaining silent rather than voicing unpopular opinions, it probably will, at least among those who have enough of a conscience and a concern for their reputation to care. Those, by the way, are the ones whose minds have some hope of being changed. The hardcore haters and know nothings will continue to spew their vitriol.
Punishing people for holding and voicing unpopular or “incorrect” opinions is poor policy. The truth or falsehood of such opinions can only be established by engaging in open dialogue, free of ad hominems and emotionalism. You won’t convince everyone, but (optimist that I am) I still believe that reason and facts will win out in the end.
No doubt. But this doesn’t mean that Derbyshire should able to voice his opinions at the NRO. Derbyshire hasn’t been silenced—he’s still a contributor at Taki’s Mag and other outlets. He’ll continue to express his views—just not as a member of the NRO.
Personally, I’m a bit sad to see Derbyshire go. His views are things that a fair number of conservatives say among themselves when no one else is listening. His error was in publishing them for all to see.
Keeping him employed at the NRO would have been the honest thing to do.
Reason and facts can only win out in the end by the persistent promoters of irrational hogwash losing, and it helps for them to lose in loud public ways. Derbyshire and Lowry have been collaborators in such promotion at NR for a long time, but apparently Lowry now considers it to be in the moral or business interest of NR to cut that link and provide a public explanation for it. Not really my business to judge that decision…
However, in general: ideas don’t deserve special privileges just because they are unpopular and/or politically incorrect and/or at odds with objective reality. Being fired from a publication with a political focus that is operated as a private business might be considered a punishment, but it’s hardly poor policy for such a publication to fire people based on their ideas. Should Derbyshire be banned from publication in all media for all time? That’s not even a serious question, but the answer is of course “NO!” He can write whatever he wants and publish it by any means he can manage, but he just can’t carry the title of being a NR editor with him to do so any more, and there’s a strong chance that fewer people will bother reading him any more. That is part of reason and facts actually winning.
Thank you for this, Bill. I think you stated this more clearly than me, and I’m grateful.
Every one of the white people spewing their outrage here follows Derbyshire’s rules. That is why Derbyshire is so illuminating. You are all such blatant hypocrites.
I must say that I think you’re dead wrong here. We all walk into the world everyday with prejudices. Some try daily to battle those or at least have an open mind and be willing to change.
So many of the things on Derb’s list I would never do, or even think of doing. I think most people here would agree.
You can justify your racist thinking (to yourself, the rest of us dont buy it) by telling yourself that you’re not the only one, and that reinforces the point Iade in my first article on this subject. But to say that we all secretly feel the same as you is just downright self delusion so that you don’t have to face the truth about the fact that this type of behavior is racist.
Sorry for the typo, I’m on my phone.
Defending the right to spread poisonous race messages is the same as defending the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater.
In Canada or Europe, they hew to that conflation. Not in America, though.
Falsely shouting “fire” in a crowded theater is an interesting idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater