“What gives them the right to use their platforms to harass others into silence, especially writers with smaller platforms and less institutional support, while preaching that silencing writers is a problem?”The letter includes signees who opted not to leave their name – instead just putting where they worked or what type of job they do. The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. Over 150 people, including many journalists and writers, signed a response letter to Harper’s letter Friday following major criticism over the original one, which pushed for “justice and open debate.”“They write, in the pages of a prominent magazine that’s infamous for being “The signatories, many of them white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms, argue that they are afraid of being silenced, that so-called cancel culture is out of control, and that they fear for their jobs and free exchange of ideas, even as they speak from one of the most prestigious magazines in the country.”A longish response to the Harper’s letter. (CNN) - It's already being referred to as "the letter" -- a brief, but somehow still wordy missive, formally titled "A Letter on Justice and Open Debate," initially signed by 153 writers, artists, academics and journalists, and published by the venerable Harper's Magazine (it appeared online July 7 and will be printed in the October issue). But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes. As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes. A Letter on Justice and Open Debate. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy.

Whatever the arguments around each particular incident, the result has been to steadily narrow the boundaries of what can be said without the threat of reprisal. While we have come to expect this on the radical right, censoriousness is also spreading more widely in our culture: an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty. Actually, I’m going to assume that the signatories of the “Letter on Justice and Open Debate” were not all that concerned about some random guy losing his job for being a complete jerk. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and inclusion across our society, not least in higher education, journalism, philanthropy, and the arts. Friday’s response letter claims that the original letter’s “great concern” appears to be that “Black, brown, and LGBTQ+ people – particularly Black and trans people – can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially.”The response letter pushes back on claims from the original letter, including that: “editors are fired for running controversial pieces,” “books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity,” “journalists are barred from writing on certain topics,” “professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class,” a researcher was “fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study” and that “the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.”“In fact, a number of the signatories have made a point of punishing people who have spoken out against them,” the response letter reads. ... “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate.” CNN… We uphold the value of robust and even caustic counter-speech from all quarters. This one was headlined a more specific letter on Justice and open debate, and it reads in part their letter, meaning the first one seeks to uphold a stifling atmosphere and prioritizes signal blasting their discomfort in the face of valid. Institutions are listed for identification purposes only. More troubling still, institutional leaders, in a spirit of panicked damage control, are delivering hasty and disproportionate punishments instead of considered reforms. We are already paying the price in greater risk aversion among writers, artists, and journalists who fear for their livelihoods if they depart from the consensus, or even lack sufficient zeal in agreement.This stifling atmosphere will ultimately harm the most vital causes of our time.

We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org. This was due to fear “of professional retaliation,” according to the letter. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted.