He resigns, but not with any grace:
Rev. Bruce Shipman resigned from his post as priest-in-charge of the Episcopal Church at Yale on Thursday two weeks after his remarks in a New York Times letter garnered national media attention for their alleged anti-Semitism.
In an Aug. 21 letter responding to Emory professor Deborah Lipstadts Aug. 20 New York Times essay titled Why Jews Are Worried, Shipman put forth his idea that Israels actions in Gaza contributed to growing anti-Semitism in Europe. He added that stalled peace negotiations and Israels occupation of the West Bank were also factors. As a result of the piece, Shipman faced a wave of criticism from those who accused him of making anti-Semitic statements. [DB: That's not quite all his letter said, or why people were troubled by it.] In an email to the News, Shipman said he resigned because he could not garner sufficient support from his board to survive the adverse publicity.
Within hours of the publication of my letter there was an avalanche of angry email that continued for several days, Shipman wrote. It was ugly and accompanied by harassing telephone calls to my home The message to many will be that bullying tactics succeed.
Of course, we should condemn anyone who harassed Shipmanthough I dont see how angry email constitutes either harassment or bullying; phone calls to the house are a different story. But given that Shipman himself acknowledges that he resigned because he could not garner sufficient support from his board to survive the adverse publicity, the harassment is not, in any event why he resigned. He made remarks that many people interpreted as apologizing for European anti-Semitism; people, including me, criticized him for it; and his superiors decided that they didnt want to be associated with his remarks. This is whats known as freedom of speech, and a churchs right to decide who it wants as its chaplain, not bullying. If the church had ignored criticism from me and others and kept Shipman, the result would have beendisappointment and perhaps a bit of additional criticism. Some bullying. Note, by the way, that his was an unpaid position, valuable to Shipman because it gave him additional prestige, which is why he signed his controversial letter with his title of Episcopal chaplain at Yale. If the Yale Episcopal Church would rather have someone who is not dragging its reputation through the mud through apologies for racism, who can blame it?
And speaking of apologies for racism, even I, who tends to be rather cynical about the motives of the far left, have been taken aback at the extent to which many alleged progressivesthe same people who hurl accusations of racism with abandon at people they disagree withhave defended Shipmans initial remark, and more recently various remarks of Steve Salaita, that in the formers case apologized for anti-Semitism based on Israels actions and its patrons acquiescence, and in the latter case did that plus also wrote that by linking Jewishness to support for Israel, Hillel and other Jewish organization justified anti-Semitic discourse. (Its perfectly reasonable to criticize that remark and say that Salaita should still get the job at Illinois on academic freedom grounds, or, for that matter, to argue that one or even a few offensive quotes hardly provides a full measure of a man. Its not at all reasonable to claim that when Salaita says something justifies anti-Semitic discourse, he wasnt actually saying that it justifies anti-Semitic discourse. [UPDATE: KC Johnson has an excellent piece on the Salaita controversy; I may not have another opportunity to link it, so here it is.)
With regard to Shipman, a typical dialogue in blog comments here and elsewhere went like this. A. Shipman claimed that Israel is responsible for European anti-Semitism, and implied that Jews have some obligation to criticize Israel if they want to alleviate anti-Semitism. I think anti-Semites are responsible for anti-Semitism, just like anti-black racists are responsible for racism. B. What Shipman was doing was criticizing Israel, and you just dont want anyone to criticize Israel. A. Im not talking about Israel. The article that Shipman was responding to was about growing anti-Semitism in Europe. The proper response to that is to condmen anti-Semitism, not bring up Israel. B. You just dont want to talk about the fact that Israel is murdering children in Gaza. A. What does Gaza have to do with anti-Semitism in Europe? European Jews arent Israelis. Shipman can talk about Israel all he wants, but should a progressive clergyman, if he cant bring himself to condemn Jews being attacked on the streets of Paris, at least not blame Jews for it? B. Hes not blaming Jews, hes blaming Israel and its fiercest supporters. A. But that means, in practice, a Jewish-run country, and mostly Jewish supporters, no? Anyway, how about you just say, Regardless of how I feel about Israel, I condemn European anti-Semitism, and thats what Shipman should have said, too. Can you just say youre against European anti-Semitism, full stop? B. Sigh, another Zionist troll.
This has persuaded me that for a lot of progressives, their self-identification as anti-racism activists is a charade. Instead, they are against racism when it suits their broader political agenda. They think that opposing anti-Jewish racism, at least when it comes from Islamists or the left, will undermine their anti-Israel agenda, so they are not interested in opposing anti-Jewish racism. (Or, as in the case of one recent column in the Guardian, they may condemn anti-Semitism in Europe, and then ultimately blame the far right exclusively, because thats where the serious anti-Semitism is, and besides, we need to be defending supporters of the Palestinian cause from smear and slander.) And indeed, going beyond the issue of anti-Semitism, its been pointed out that self-described progressives have attacked Sarah Palin, Katherine Harris, and others in blatantly sexist terms, there have been racist attacks on Clarence Thomas, Michelle Malkin, and other non-white conservatives. Crickets chirping.
Undoubtedly, there are also lots of progressives/liberals/leftists who sincerely oppose racism in all its forms. But if you only oppose racism when you think such opposition will advance your broader political agenda, and ignore/apologize for/justify or even participate in racism when that seems more politically advantageous, you are not actually against racism, you are someone who pretends to be against racism.
UPDATE: For the record, I absolutely concede that a lot of conservatives and libertarians also ignore racism when they think acknowledging it would undermine their political goals. This doesnt make them racists, and it doesnt make people on the left racists when they do the same thing; it just means that they value other political/ideological goals over a consistent opposition to racism. But my sense is that a consistent, vigilant, outspoken anti-racism is much more likely to be a part of a progressives self-perception than a conservatives, which is why it seems noteworthy when one sees evidence of this among progressives.
See the original post:
Volokh Conspiracy: Shipman out at Yale, and a comment on those who only pretend to be against racism