The result, from their perspective: a "stifling atmosphere" that leaves no room for "experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes"; one that makes "good-faith disagreement" impossible, punishes those who "depart from the consensus" and "makes everyone less capable of democratic participation."
I'm sure many of those who signed it believe they're taking a courageous moral stand with their screed, released, as it was, on the anniversary of so many historical moments associated with freedom of expression and defiance of convention: The posthumous acquittal of Joan of Arc for the crime of heresy in 1456; the radio debut of Elvis Presley in 1954; the nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor as the first female Supreme Court justice in 1981; and the ruling in 1992 by New York's Court of Appeals that women have the same right as men to go topless in public.
But while Thomas Chatterton Williams, who reportedly championed the effort behind the letter, has taken pains to point out how its signers represent a diverse cross-section of races, genders, sexual orientations and political perspectives, they also all have access to enormous public platforms and an outsized ability to project their personal opinions to the world. As a result, it's hard not to see the letter as merely an elegantly written affirmation of elitism and privilege.
Williams has acknowledged concern over the timing of this effort. But noting the bad timing does not excuse that it was, in fact, bad timing. As thousands die from coronavirus, these signatories are expressing concern over viral hashtags. As the streets fill with protesters shouting "Black Lives Matter," they're metaphorically shouting "Our Words Matter." As society becomes increasingly aware of the devastating impact of police brutality, these signatories have chosen to shift attention to an imaginary political correctness police.
Concerns over PC culture seem to have long been a preoccupation for the letter's ringleaders. Williams has previously written in the pages of Harper's about his concerns over the left's "fanaticism" and "totalitarianism." Mark Lilla, who according to the New York Times was involved in early conversations that sparked the letter, has spent much of the past four years denouncing efforts to bring diversity and inclusion initiatives to politics and calling for society to move beyond identity politics. George Packer, another early participant in discussions that led to the letter, has used his prestigious platforms at The New Yorker and The Atlantic to warn at length of how culture wars are threatening our children, in the form of privilege checklists, gender-neutral bathrooms and school integration.
In short, none of what's in the letter is new for the men cited by the New York Times as initiating the discussions from which the letter took form (and yes, all of them are men, and all but one are white, and the one nonwhite man, Williams, wrote a book about abandoning his Blackness in favor of a postracial self-image).
What's different no
