A few weeks ago, this newspaper and many others across the country after a racist diatribe by its creator, Scott Adams. Reactions to that decision appear to form a bit of a on popular cultural and political discourse right now. Let me start by saying the response from readers was overwhelmingly positive. I won’t dwell on the few hateful notes I received; most other comments fell primarily into a few camps. Here’s a view into my email in-box. Some readers were free speech absolutists and argued we, as a newspaper, should never punish someone for their expression of ideas. “Glad to see that The Oregonian no longer supports free speech,” one wrote. “You canceled Scott Adams because he voiced his opinion. Do you know the definition of irony?” Others made the case that because the transgression did not involve Adams’ strip, we should not take action against the cartoonist. “History is replete with examples of artists who created great works while at the same time espousing views or committing behaviors that were abhorrent to many of their fans,” a reader argued. “Separating the art from the artist is a task that’s been going on for a long time.” Another group quickly labeled the move “cancel culture” or blamed me for being “woke.” “This is just another example of bowing down to the woke society and your fear of retaliation from the left community if you step on their toes,” a man wrote to me. “Thanks for being the poster girl for woke culture,” another said. “Enjoy the embarrassment.” Poster girl was joined by “hysteria,” “hissy fit,” “your panties in a knot,” and similar sexist barbs. I am not sure my correspondents were even aware of this theme, but I surely was. A few commenters, especially early on, tried to argue Adams’ comments were taken out of context or that he was simply misunderstood. A few fixated on the Rasmussen Reports poll that he mentioned when he made his vile comments. “You are bowing to racist interpretation of out of context commentary,” a reader wrote. Another said, “I do not recall reading in The Oregonian about the Black, anti white poll that set Scott Adams off.” That’s because, I replied, it wasn’t newsworthy. Rasmussen is not a polling firm that I would rely on. “During the Feb. 22 episode of his
YouTube podcast ‘Real Coffee with Scott Adams,’ he referenced a Rasmussen Reports survey that had asked whether people agreed with the statement ‘It’s OK to be white.’ Most agreed, but Adams noted that 26% of Black respondents disagreed and others weren’t sure.” But there is important context some readers may not know. That phrase “was popularized in 2017 as a trolling campaign meant to provoke liberals into condemning the statement and thus, the theory went, proving their own unreasonableness,” “White supremacists picked up on the trend …” The statement is fraught with meaning beyond the surface words. A few readers mentioned censorship (I call it editing). “Now I expect you to censor anything else I should not see, hear or read. That is, until The Oregonian goes out of business. Then what am I going to do for censorship?” Another reader said I should have educated people about true censorship, which is the government suppressing information from citizens (prohibiting the reporting of ship movements in wartime is the classic example). “Dang, you had the perfect opportunity to talk about what censorship actually is, but you failed to do so,” he said. A half-dozen or so brought up and argued we had a double standard. “I find it ironic that on the day you announce that you will no longer publish ‘Dilbert’ cartoons, you did however print a ‘Doonesbury’ strip that one would likewise say might be pushing the boundary toward
racism. The character in question was wondering about Jan. 6 and what would have happened if the rioters were black,” this reader wrote. “Trudeau ‘aka’ Doonesbury is spewing the same nonsense that you say Scott Adams is and I feel you need to call him out too.” The question of would have been different had they been Black has been a matter of The subject is fair game for Garry Trudeau’s long-running strip, which specializes in political satire. Other readers simply argued “Doonesbury” should be canceled for “hate speech” against conservatives. In all, I heard from about 250 of you. Almost everyone got a personal response from me. While I am dwelling on the people who disagreed with the cancellation, just to give a sense of the range of reaction, I’ll remind you that more than 80% of the responses I received were grateful and supportive. Many simply said, “Thank you.” And one woman addressed the current divide we live in today: “I’m not sure when being kind, tolerant, encouraging, and accepting became ‘woke’ and when ‘woke’ became a pejorative,” she said. We could all do with more civil discourse and, to those who filled my email in-box with thoughtful commentary, I thank you.