[PEN-L:11181] Re: On censorship

[djones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (rakesh bhandari)]

>patience and toleration and then exercised your responsibility.  Otherwise,
>what is the point have having a moderated list at all?  If, rather than
>sexism, Karl had expressed equally damaging racism, would those who have
>spoken in favor of allowing him to remain continue to be so inclined?  Karl
>and others like him have many venues on the Internet to spew their hurtful
>vituperation.  This list does not have to be one of them.

But, Michael E, Maggie hasn't yet asked for protection from Karl. As I do
think it is an important question how racism *and forms of anti-racism*
contribute to social divisiveness and irrational social analysis, I was
looking forward to a deep discussion about the nature of feminism.  For
example, in my dept, there is a simple refusal by many grad students to
engage systematically people like Robert Epstein, the Chicago libertarian
law professor, and Yehudi Webster, the iconoclastic author of The
Racialization of America, because they are both opposed to race-based
remedies (though for very different reasons). Webster argues that
race-based remedies can only reinforce the system of racial classification
and the pernicious realist theory of races upon which it is based. For this
reason, he argues against race-based remedies despite whatever advantages
they may really bring. I have offered a criticism of his argument in my
disseration, but I was helped immeasurably by engaging with it. I was
hoping there would be some productive consequences from a critical
investigation of feminism. And for this reason, I oppose the ban on Karl
(though I think his being booted from marxism-international for violation
of its post limit is more than legitimate). It would seem to me that the
only reason to ban Karl would be that everyone who disagreed with him would
not take time to answer him systematically--leaving Maggie with all the
work.

All the best,
Rakesh