I will only make a brief comment on this, because I don’t think it is really worth more than that.
In Berkeley, where I live, Richard Dawkins was invited to give a talk about his new book, Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. The sponsors of his talk, KPFA, a progressive radio station, decided to cancel the talk because of “abusive speech” by Richard Dawkins. This story has hit some of those frozen peach buttons, with Jerry Coyne declaring it “a terrible blow for free speech”.
The one and only time I ever saw Dawkins speak was at the very same venue, talking about another book he wrote, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. There are many things I find objectionable about Dawkins, but I am personally able to separate that from his science writing, which seems fine. So I don’t really agree with KPFA.
But geez, by turning this into a free speech issue, you’re making me take the opposite side! Obviously, the KPFA, being the sponsors of the talk, has a right to cancel their own talk. In fact, it would practically be a violation of KPFA’s free speech, if they were forced to sponsor a talk from someone they didn’t like. Also, doesn’t sponsoring talks cost them money or something?
People are always thinking of these issues in terms of the speaker’s free speech, but if anything, it’s about the inviters’ free speech. If speakers have a right to platforms, where are all my speaker invitations, and why isn’t anyone standing up for my free speech?
I would like to know this, too.
My rate is cheaper than Dawkins’.
Obviously, KPFA has a right to cancel their own talk. And just as obviously, Coyne has a right to criticize that cancellation, you have a right to criticize him, others to criticize your posting, etc. I have mixed feelings about Dawkins, but I think this particular cancellation was wrong, for two reasons.
First: they had previously invited him and he had altered his plans in order to attend. The time for them to perform their due diligence was *before* they issued the invitation. Once you’ve invited someone, there’s an obligation to follow through, absent extraordinary circumstances, and I don’t think there were those. In fact, cancelling the talk without first telling the speaker, as they did, is crass and unprofessional (whatever one’s taste in frozen peaches).
Second, their stated reason for cancellation seems pretty thin (and thus, worthy of criticism): they said that, through his “tweets and comments” on a religion, he had “offended and hurt” so many people. While Dawkins has issued some pretty dumb tweets in his day (“Dear Muslima,” anyone?), I’ve seen nothing that qualifies as “abusive,” and the rejection letter was devoid of any evidence supporting the “abusive” assertion.
And really, how could they have issued the original invitation and been unaware of the fact that Dawkins has criticized religion? It’s kind of his thing.
We don’t know what “abusive” comments KPFA was referring to, but I would strongly suspect it was no more abusive than comments that other KPFA speakers have made on diverse topics. I would like very much to know just what comments KPFA found so shocking as to induce them to violate professional and journalistic standards.
Yeah it doesn’t feel good that they cancelled a talk less than three weeks in advance. But I think it was ill-advised for Jerry Coyne to make it into a free speech issue. Free speech simply isn’t the relevant principle here.
Looking at KPFA’s past events, they have hosted at least one Dawkins talk before. They’ve also hosted Michael Shermer………
Right on, Siggy. Your take on FreezePeach is exactly right.
@bugfolder:
No.
When I perform public speaking, I’m given a contract. The contract will include provisions about cancellations or delays (initiated on either side).
The obligation to follow through is to follow through with whatever the contract says is required. If this cancellation breached the contract, then yes, they failed to live up to their responsibilities. If they didn’t breach the contract, then there is no obligation to “follow through” will having Dawkins in to speak. If Dawkins is worried about incurring expenses (including opportunity costs) because of cancellations, he can request specific provisions in the cancellation clauses of his contracts. He’s been doing this long enough that he knows cancellations happen. He has access to appropriate legal advice. He’s fine. If he was an unknown with little experience public speaking who didn’t know that such a cancellation was a possibility and was forced by his lack of prominence to accept whatever contract was handed to him by KPFA, that would be a different story and you might argue that KPFA was taking advantage of a power differential to jerk someone around without facing reasonable consequences (such as reimbursing the speaker for expenses already incurred, etc.).
Dawkins is not in that situation. Dawkins is about as far from that situation as one can be.
So don’t give me anything about an obligation to follow through. The obligations are spelled out in the contract. Show me a breach of contract and then I’ll happily concede KPFA failed to follow through.
This may show KPFA to be disorganized. This may even show KPFA to be divided with some in the organization in conflict with others. But your analysis is wrong.
CDRRFFToD&HH, we’re talking about two different kinds of obligations. Yes, the legal obligations are spelled out in the contract, but I don’t think anyone has claimed KPFA violated the contractual terms. I’m talking about professional standards of conduct, which KPFA has not lived up to.
Jerry Coyne has blogged posts against my own criticisms of some of his views on Israel and Islam but when I asked to be allowed to respond on his same blog he denied me the permission. This happened twice. Coyne is quite prepared to acknowledge venue limitations to free speech when it comes to his own space. — Neil Godfrey (Vridar.org)
#6
A contract only specifies legal obligations. Ethical/moral obligations do not disappear simply because of the presence of a legal contract.
No mention in this article of why Dawkins was actually cut: for “insulting Muslims”. If you are OK with this, then you are not serious about secularism.
I’m talking about professional standards of conduct, which KPFA has not lived up to.
Exactly what professional standards of conduct are you referring to here? What body could even set such standards?
@Polishsalami,
I don’t see how I could possibly decide I was okay or not okay with Dawkins’ comments on Muslims without actually knowing what the comments in question were. But I am not inclined to take KPFA’s view of the situation.