JAMA Editor Fired After Questioning Structural Racism

We have been talking efforts to fire academics who voice dissenting views on various issues including an effort to oust a major economist from the University of Chicago in addition to a top linguistics professor at Harvard and a literature professor in Penn.. The cancel culture has also expanded into museums, book publishers, and other forums such as intellectual exchanges.
While JAMA is allegedly independent from the American Medical Association (AMA), the AMA composed in a statement it had been”deeply troubled” and”angered” by the podcast and announced that”this podcast and tweet are somewhat inconsistent with the policies and perspectives of AMA.”
The conservative site The Daily Wire has a copy of the since-deleted podcast. Throughout the episode, Livingston reportedly asked Dr. Mitchell Katz the following question:”Given that racism is illegal, how can it be embedded in society that it’s deemed structural”
Katz then explained how atomic racism can attest itself. Livingston then followed up by noting

“I feel as if I am being told I am a racist in the modern era because of this whole thing concerning structural racism, however what you’re discussing, it is not so much racism as far because there are inhabitants, it’s much more of a socioeconomic happening, that have a hard time getting out of the location because of their surroundings. Plus it is not their race; it is not their color; it’s their socioeconomic status. It is where they are.”

Katz seemed to agree with all the socio-economic point.
There’s a lot there to unpack and people of good faith can disagree with all the socioeconomic viewpoint. That is the purpose of such forums to enabling different perspectives and a debate on problems facing society. I disagree with all the comments and I’d be interested in a market on the problem. There has been a time when such controversial discussions were welcomed as a stage for discussion. This isn’t that time.
The podcast triggered the typical demands for conclusion and condemnation.  Instead of simply present arguments against the point, critics desired Livingston fired. What is most disconcerting is the loudest observing the termination were professors that rejoiced in the notion that someone could be fired for expressing an opposing viewpoint.
For his role, University of Southern California Michael Cosimini demanded to understand how such perspectives could ever have been allowed to be submitted.
We discussed how commentators and companies frequently involve a national conversation on race. However, people that have opposing perspectives of underlying causes and controversies are subject to both cancelling campaigns. The end result is closer into a diatribe than a dialog. If we are to have a meaningful talk about race, we must tolerate opposing viewpoints.  Indeed, the statements made on the podcast would provide a excellent chance to confront such views directly and to challenge the socio-economic asserts. Canceling Livingston only reinforces the already overwhelming pressures on faculty members and many others to not voice such dissenting views.
Like this:Like Loading…