Amid an uproar
Ian Buruma has left the NYRB. It’s not currently clear if he was pushed or not.
Ian Buruma, the editor of The New York Review of Books, left his position on Wednesday amid an uproar over the magazine’s publication of an essay by a disgraced Canadian radio broadcaster who had been accused of sexually assaulting and battering women.
“Amid” – thus not ascribing causation. Careful.
After rumors about [the piece] began appearing on social media, it was published online last Friday, causing immediate furor, with some criticizing what they saw as a self-pitying tone, and soft pedaling of the accusations against him, which included slapping and choking, and had ultimately been brought by more than 20 women, rather than “several,” as Mr. Ghomeshi wrote.
In an interview last week with Isaac Chotiner of Slate, which was posted not long after the piece, Mr. Buruma, who was named top editor of The New York Review of Books in 2017, defended his decision to publish Mr. Ghomeshi’s piece, noting that while “not everyone agreed,” once the decision was made the staff “stuck together.”
In his interview with Slate, when pressed by Mr. Chotiner about the several accusations of sexual assault against Mr. Ghomeshi, Mr. Buruma said: “I’m no judge of the rights and wrongs of every allegation. How can I be?” He also noted that Mr. Ghomeshi had been acquitted and said there was no proof he committed a crime, adding, “The exact nature of his behavior — how much consent was involved — I have no idea, nor is it really my concern.”
That was the really infuriating remark. I think what he meant was that he’s interested in Ghomeshi’s take, regardless of how badly behaved he was, as opposed to general indifference to how violently he may have abused women…but that still leaves unanswered the question why take such an abstract interest in a guy accused of treating female human beings as things to manipulate for his own pleasure? Why be so interested in the man accused of abusing women and so shruggy about the women who say he abused them? Why do women always come in a very distant second?
I suppose Bari Weiss will do a think piece on the foolhardiness of believing what women say about all these talented men.
Was just coming to post about this.
It’s still amazing to me that they actually realized this was a sensitive enough issue to merit an editorial discussion, and yet the conclusion was to print it as is.
Remember how everybody more or less laughed off O.J. Simpson’s book “If I Did It”? It was absurd to think there was a big audience for a book that played cute about the only question anybody really cared about. I don’t know how you could think that there is a worthwhile article to be had from the perspective of one of these disgraced perpetrators that doesn’t even come clean about what the perpetrator claims.
What were we supposed to get out of the article? As far as I can see, it’s impossible to gain any real insight even into Ghomeshi’s personal experiences because he’s so coy about what he’s admitting to and what he’s denying. And that’s setting aside the fact that it’s highly unusual for a publication to allow one side to set forth his or her unfiltered, unquestioned account of disputed factual events without at least one of (1) fact-checking the claims; (2) doing it in the context of an interview where the interviewer at least brings up the contrary evidence; or (3) a disputing counter-piece.
Buruma’s failure wasn’t being insufficiently woke, or not adjusting to some new rules of journalism. This is basic, basic stuff — Buruma allowed his prejudices and fears and opinions of #metoo to cause him to deviate from standard editorial practice. To use the O.J. example again: it’s hard to imagine that Buruma would have approved a similarly vague piece from Simpson that expressed vague regrets for his behavior but indignation that he was wronged, without at least coming clean on what he is admitting to doing and what he still denies.
Hmm, I was under the impression that consent was a true/false thing. You either consent or you don’t.
Kristjan, that is only when someone consents. When the woman doesn’t consent, then it’s a very gray scale…everything a woman does, says, thinks, or wears says yes, even if the woman is clothed in a nun’s habit or a burka.
Funny thing is, they’ve done studies that show teenage boys know the difference between no and yes when they are in a controlled, laboratory setting. I suspect they know the difference all the time, they just don’t care. This is the culture where the majority of boys will state that they have never raped anyone, but a solid percentage will agree that they have forced someone to have sex with them. Still others will say they would not rape someone, but would be willing to force someone to have sex with them. This is not a nuanced question, but people try to make it into one. If a woman says no or does not say yes – no, it doesn’t have to be verbal; there are numerous ways in which someone can make it clear they want to have sex, but it’s a good idea to be very clear if there is any doubt – it is rape.
I think most of these apologists know that, but are uncomfortable with the idea, or maybe think there should be shades of guilt. In short, if you are not a stranger who leaps out of a bush pulling a knife or gun on a woman you do not know, it is not rape to them. And if that woman is not a virgin, or is drunk, or is dressed “immodestly”, they will usually still argue that it is not rape. Exceptions depend on skin color and wealth. Rich white guys never rape anyone. Poor white guys might commit stranger rape, but they can’t rape their wives or girlfriends, because reasons. Black guys so much as cast a glance, lascivious or not, in the direction of a white woman, it is rape. In Trumpworld, I imagine Hispanics can manage to rape white women in states far removed from where they are, where they have ever been, or ever plan to be, just by being in this country.