By now you’ve probably read EllenBeth Wach’s post about why she left Secular Woman, including a claim she made that there was a campaign to get Ron Lindsay fired from his position as CEO of CFI and replaced with either Rebecca Watson or Melody Hensley. You’ve perhaps also read her second post showing “evidence” of this.
One of the pieces of evidence that she quoted was the following:
Honestly… I *do* want Lindsay gone. After everything, an apology just isn’t enough anymore. Lindsay will, at this point, do nothing but hurt the organization. At least… that’s what I think…
As I believe in taking responsibility for my words and actions, I would like to say that yes, this was me.
I made that statement because, at the time, I was still angry.
Of course, that is no excuse for posting this bullshit… and to be clear, I do feel that this statement I made was bullshit. I am very sorry I made it, because it is, in fact, untrue. I do not want Ronald Lindsay to step down. Indeed, as Stephanie Zvan points out in her post about it, I was one of many, many people who signed a letter asking for Ron to apologize, not “step down”.
Back on June 22, Ronald Lindsay apologized. Here is the text of his apology in full:
It has been a few weeks since I have said anything in public about the controversy over my remarks at the Women in Secularism 2 conference. As CFI announced via Twitter, this pause was to enable the board to have time to consider the matter. The board has issued its statement. It is now an appropriate time for me to make some remarks.
I am sorry that I caused offense with my talk. I am also sorry I made some people feel unwelcome as a result of my talk. From the letters sent to me and the board, I have a better understanding of the objections to the talk.
I am also sorry that my talk and my actions subjected my colleagues and the organization to which I am devoted to criticism.
Please accept my apologies.
My initial reaction, when I first read it, was lukewarm. But I warmed to it rather quickly, and have, in fact, been defending this apology since, including on CFI’s Facebook page, where I said this:
For me, this is good. This is a good first step and I’m actually looking forward to seeing how this pans out.
I was at WiS2.
I sat through that speech.
I hated it.
I read Rebecca’s blog response. I thought it was good. I read Lindsay’s response. He had to apologize.
He did. But not for that opening speech.
Then CFI’s statement which said absolutely nothing at all. It was the first time I ever really experienced reading words while feeling like I was staring at a blank screen. It was almost weird. Like… “there are words here, but I don’t understand what those words are supposed to be saying.”
And now we have this. So thank you Ron Lindsay. This is a great first step and it may very well be a path that wins back at least *my* support. The end-goal, for me, would be a WiS3, just like WiS2, all about feminism within the secular community, organized by Melody Hensley.
I like this first step. Is it perfect? No. Could it have been better? Yes. But it’s actually better than what I was originally expecting, and I think things can move forward from here.
That’s my take, anyways…
I am very grateful to read Ron’s apology, and while I grant that it’s not perfect, it is a great first step and I believe that we can now move forward into mending burnt bridges and putting out fires. News from CFI’s leadership conference suggests that Ron is actually listening and working to understand, and that is incredible, and makes me very happy.
So no. I do not want Lindsay to step down or be fired. I was wrong in saying that initially, and I apologize for it. I’m optimistic (albeit cautiously) about how this will progress from here, and I’m admittedly looking forward to watching it unfold, and even participating as it does.
So thank you, Ron, for this. And now we can move forward.
Commenting note: I’m quite interested in avoiding a blogging/comment war, on this post and elsewhere. Feel free to discuss and debate, but it will be done in good faith and respectfully/politely from both sides. Anyone who might have triggers will be respected as to those triggers, there will be no ad hominems, and please… temper your anger as much as is possible. If you find that you can’t, then it may be better to simply disengage from the conversation all together. And yes, I will be following my own advice, here…
Nathan Hevenstone
Atheism, Music, and More... 
“because, at the time, I was still angry” Okaaaay. As long as you used reason when you decided what to say and do based on your emotions
I have no idea what this is about, but I’m letting it through with one huge reservation: trolls are not allowed.
I admitted to being wrong. I thought that was clear.
Steersman… having taken some time to think on this, I’ve come this far:
I will grant that there was a campaign. You are right that there was a campaign.
I do not, however, accept that the campaign was specifically to get rid of Ron Lindsay. The campaign, to me, looks more like one to get some kind of action and response from CFI and Lindsay.
The campaign has so far failed with CFI, as they put out what has to be the most meaningless wall of text I have ever read in my my entire life. I did not know it was possible to write that many words and convey exactly zero meaning of any kind. It would be impressive if it wasn’t so infuriating.
But we did get an apology from Lindsay, an apology that I for one am happy with.
So okay… you and EllenBeth are right about there being a campaign… I just disagree with your assessment of the goals of that campaign, as I believe the only real thing those participating in the campaign agreed upon was that we wanted to see something… anything… especially an apology (which does seem to be the most popular goal of this campaign)… from CFI and Lindsay.
I wanted Ron to step down or be fired. I said so in my email to CFI. I’m sure there were people who felt as I did and those who didn’t. I sent the email as an individual and not as a part of an imaginary campaign. This apology changes things. It isn’t enough on it’s own to make amends for Ron’s behavior. But, it is a good start and you have to start somewhere. I’m cautiously hopeful.
Well, you are certainly to be commended for admitting to having some part in that campaign; would that more people had the courage, the “intestinal fortitude” to do likewise on that issue. As should be the case in several instances, for example here (1) where the guilty parties include Oolon and Lousy Canuck.
And that post of mine on M. A. Melby’s blog highlights the fact that both parties – all parties – to these discussions have a tendency, in whole or in part, to “repeating half-arsed lies over and over until they become lore”. Which, not surprisingly, tends to poison everyone’s well. However, as I think EllenBeth has suggested (2), the echo-chambers of several FTB and Skepchick blogs tend to be particularly fertile ground for such lies as there tends to be fewer opportunities to nip those lies in the bud before they do much damage.
One might suggest that you might want to, as a bit of “penance” for your part in that campaign, speak out about those rather problematic forms of behaviour where they’re likely to have the greatest impact.
—-
1) “_http://sinmantyx.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/fixed-that-for-you-skeptic-women/#comment-784”;
2) “_http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/06/23/walking-away-from-those-that-are-becoming-that-feminazi-stereotype/#comment-464”;
The people who did call for Lindsay’s firing have admitted it and taken it back, including, for example, Dana Hunter. So I’m not the only one.
I tend to view FtB as the better of all the networks involved in this, BTW.
What “campaign” are you talking about here Steersman? The one Ellen Beth says she never claimed was happening? You’re not helping her case by repeating the rumour.
The only campaign I saw was one to express displeasure with Lindsay’s speech and subsequent actions. A few people said they’d like to see him gone, but there was nothing like a campaign to have him replaced.
Campaign:
Regardless of whether she explicitly said the “c-word” or not, that is precisely what had been taking place. You really should take a close look at that “feminazi stereotype” post of EllenBeth’s and note in particular the tweets by Chris Clarke and Amanda Marcotte. A “campaign” doesn’t require some explicitly promulgated “declaration of war” to qualify as such – only a “series of operations pursued to accomplish a purpose”. Which several people – including Nate and Dana Hunter – explicitly engaged in.
Except that no one was actually taking part in it. I admitted that on a PRIVATE FACEBOOK GROUP meant for CLOSED, PRIVATE DISCUSSION, I said that I wanted Lindsay gone. I did not take part in any campaign to get rid of him. The only letter I signed was one asking for him to APOLOGIZE.
So, indeed, if there was any campaign, it was for Lindsay to apologize, not “go away”.
I think the whole “campaign to get Lindsay fired” myth is one that a bunch of people built from EllenBeth’s post. EllenBeth herself likely intended to say that there were people (including myself) who were asking for Lindsay to step down, and that much was true.
Also, no one ever denied that. It’s you and yours who created this whole conspiracy to get Lindsay replaced with someone like Rebecca Watson and Melody Hensley, based on the statements of a few people. There was never any such conspiracy.
Sorry, I hadn’t realized that you were referring to a comment of yours on that closed group. However, one might ask whether you’re in the habit of making statements just for the hell of it without trying to promote a certain course of action.
And I think you should take another look – a real close one; try removing your coloured glasses – at the definition for “campaign” and at EllenBeth’s “feminazi stereotype” post. Clearly a case of more than a few people energetically, if not nastily, pursuing “a series of operations” to “accomplish a purpose”, i.e., Lindsay’s firing.
It’s gone from a “campaign” to a “conspiracy” now? What’s next? Linking it to 9/11 and JFK’s assassination? But apart from that, what evidence do you have that I have done anything of the sort? You might wish to give some thought to what you’re saying rather than relying overmuch on “stream-of-consciousness” writing ….
I was wrong Steersman. I said as much. It is a bug of my personality that I often say shit I don’t mean, especially when I’m emotional (in this case, angry). My brain does not always work as fast as my mouth or fingers. It is part of why I am on a continued quest to seek professional therapy. I have a lot of personal issues and my anger is one of them.
BUT NO ONE WAS! Individual people had individual opinions as to what should happen vis-a-vis CFI and Lindsay. The vast majority (as evidence by most of the publically published letters) wanted, and got, an apology. Some of us did call for Lindsay to either step down or be fired. Most of us who did so walked our opinions back after giving it some thought and/or after this apology was published.
There was no organization. There was no behind-the-scenes movement. Nothing. It was individual people calling for individual actions.
If that’s a campaign then atheism is a religion.
You don’t think Chris Clarke’s “Dear Skeptic’s Movement: Yes, nonprofits really do fire [people]” wasn’t an effort to organize actions to do just that? You don’t think, considering its date of May 19, that it might have contributed to subsequent explicit calls for his firing? Speaking of stochastic terrorism ….
And how about Marcotte’s tweet: “Don’t stop yet. Write a strongly worded letter to the board saying if he is not fired …”? You don’t think that that might also be reasonably construed as an effort to organize actions?
If you don’t then I would say your coloured glasses are even darker than I thought possible – virtually the same as the blinders they put on horses to keep them on the straight and narrow.
Maybe your anger stems, in part, from realizing that you’ve been sold a bill-of-goods by FTBs and company.
If you think Chris Clarke and Amanda Marcotte have that kind of power, then I have a bridge to sell you.
And I say that as a fan of their’s, BTW…
So you’re telling us that Ellen Beth was saying that such a campaign existed. But she just said that was not her intention…
And no, I don;t think a few random comments on twitter, which is really all you’re pointing to, constitute a campaign.
Nathan said:
The success or failure of a campaign doesn’t change that some “set of operations” to reach some goal qualifies as that. Like, for example, not winning a basketball game doesn’t change the fact that playing basketball is what one was doing.
I might suggest more frequent recourse to the use of a dictionary.
A Hermit said:
And she also provided some quite detailed evidence of what might reasonably be construed as a “series of operations energetically pursued to accomplish a purpose”, i.e., a campaign.
Somewhat subjective, isn’t it? Somewhat dependent on which side of the fence you happen to be standing.
But from where I’m sitting it looks rather more than just “a few random comments on twitter” as it included explicit calls for “the replacement of Ron Lindsay” in the Secular Woman feature article which, one might suggest, may have been buttressed or motivated by comments in that Facebook group. It also included an explicit call for Lindsay’s “resignation” in the post by Dana Hunter. All backed up by withdrawals of support from various people including Christina and Watson.
That you fail to mention those other cases indicates you either didn’t read EllenBeth’s articles or you have your thumb on the scales.
So which is it Steersman? Ellen Beth tells us she wasn’t implying there was a “campaign.” You tell me she was.
I’m inclined to take her at her word. I’m sorry you can’t do the same.
A Hermit said:
Maybe I’ve contributed to the confusion surrounding this contretemps which is a bit of a “comedy of errors” by a lack of precision, but if you’ll look at EllenBeth’s comment above she says:
However, Nate has been talking of the “campaign to get Ron Lindsay fired”. Which is what I’ve been talking about. Which I’ve supported by quoting or referring to the substantial amount of evidence that EllenBeth provided here (1). But might take a look at this more-or-less last word (2) from her on that point, on that difference:
Seems to me that many of these problems creating these “great rifts” are due to carelessness in dealing with or recognizing those types of subtle differences.
—–
1) “_http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/06/23/walking-away-from-those-that-are-becoming-that-feminazi-stereotype/”;
2) “_http://mycatsaremygods.com/2013/06/23/campaign-to-replace-ron-lindsay-not-what-i-said/#comment-509”;
Thanks for the clarification; that makes more sense now. I still don’t agree that either sentiment constitutes a campaign but I see the distinction you’re making.
For me the important thing here is that Lindsay has apologized, and the people who were asking for an apology have (mostly) graciously accepted. It’s time to more forward, not to look for more reasons to be angry at people by pushing narratives that misrepresent what most of us were asking for. A few people were angry enough to suggest the Lindsay should be replaced, some of them qualified that by adding “or apologize” (see Marcotte’s article for example) and many many more people were simply asking for an apology.
To go back now and pretend that the calls for replacing Lindsay were the main, or even a significant, part of that by combing through comments and tweets looking for the angriest examples to highlight is not going to help calm things down. If your goal is to create more hard feelings, on the other hand, that might be a useful strategy…
A Hermit said:
A fair point and a good question. While there is, no doubt, likely to be a spectrum of goals held by all of those with any type of “a dog in this fight”, my impression is that a significant percentage of those people would like to see, as Lindsay suggested in a tweet of his (3), a reduction in the acrimony which has tended to poison everyone’s well with an attendant reduction in the ability to work towards common goals.
And while I certainly think that that is a worthwhile goal in itself, I’m a little apprehensive that at least some people are starting off on the wrong foot. For instance, I think Zvan is to be commended for this (1) comment of hers which at least suggests a willingness to extend the scope of the discussion which seems to be a necessary precursor to finding some common ground on which those common goals depend:
However, it seems to me that some of the subtext throughout that post and even in that statement itself simply belies – at least casts a rather large shadow on – the warm fuzzies she seems to be trying to create there. And that seems to follow from the implication – and a fairly strong one – that only the CFI is going to be obliged, cap in hand, to “reach out on controversial topics”, to “talk more to people involved in the controversies”, to try to understand the roots and nature of the conflict.
And, in addition to Zvan, Christina (2), while she also genuflects somewhat in the direction of a new arrangement with her hypothesizing of “some forms [the actions by CFI] might take”, she also betrays a bit of an imperious attitude with her implication that only the CFI “messed up”.
All of which seems rather much like the feminists of FTB & Skepchick dictating to the CFI – and to the “secular and skeptical leadership” – precisely what its terms are. Not a particularly auspicious start to what, if it’s going to have any lasting influence, if it’s going to be anything at all, really should be more like a partnership.
But there is, I think, plenty of evidence to suggest that not all is sweetness and light and honourable dealing on the part of FTB & Skepchick & Company, and that they bear a not inconsiderable amount of the responsibility for the “conflict”, including for some of the rather nasty and intemperate responses to Lindsay’s speech and posts, and that they too need to be applying Zvan’s advice to themselves as well.
—-
1) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2013/06/23/apologies-are-hard”;
2) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2013/06/24/accepting-ron-lindsays-apology”;
3) “_http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2013/06/forward-pedaling”;
Does it help or hinder the process of reducing acrimony when people spread false narratives about alleged campaigns to get people fired?
Does it help or hinder that process when you read “subtexts” into other people’s comments instead of dealing with what they actually say? Yes Zvan et al have strong opinions and would like those opinions to be taken into consideration by the leadership of organizations like CFI. That’s not “dictating” anything to those orgs.
And frankly, it was Lindsay and the CFI that screwed up here; their critics didn’t create this situation, they dug the hole themselves.
A Hermit said:
Does it help or hinder the reduction of acrimony for people to deny the evidence that at least some people were engaged in that, particularly when there is a substantial degree of correspondence between the dictionary definition and the events in question? I know many over there in FftB-land are death-on-dictionaries, but refusing to address what they say only makes y’all look silly. And dogmatic. And pig-headed.
Particularly in light of such rather damning statements as this one from Amanda Marcotte (1):
Find it rather difficult to understand how people can’t see that as constituting a campaign.
That’s a bit of a laugh considering all of the “subtext” that many seem to have read into Lindsay’s speech and subsequent posts – starting with that “condescending behaviour” of Marcotte’s. To which you could add various comments in the same post about Lindsay “making a point in a disrespectful way”, of “talking down to [his] audience [in a way that was] offensive and inappropriate”.
I certainly don’t see anything there, apart from Benson’s suggestion of a dialog or debate “between Martha Nussbaum and Christina Hoff Sommers”, that even suggests that “Zvan et al” are prepared to consider that many in FTB/Skepchick have contributed to the “conflict”, or that the conceptions of feminism that they have been pushing are in any way less than the gospel truth.
Curious that JT Eberhard (2) isn’t quite as dogmatic on that score, and even criticizes the responses of a number of people, those of Christina in particular, to Lindsay’s speech. But I think more people should be giving some serious thought to this comment of his which seems to hit the nail squarely on its head:
Think “campaigns” for one, the “savaging” of EllenBeth for another. And among a great many other similar cases.
1) “_http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/24/accepting-apologies-and-moving-on/#comment-943454510”;
2) “_http://www.patheos.com/blogs/wwjtd/2013/06/ron-lindsey-made-mistakes-but-the-cfi-should-still-be-supported/”;
No one is denying that there were some calls for his resignation. This is another misrepresentation on your part. Yes, a few people, mostly in comments on blogs, said they’d like to see him go. But there was no campaign, and even Marcotte, whom you single out, was calling for a resignation or an apology.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/20/an-open-letter-to-the-center-for-inquiry/
And now that an apology has been forthcoming, and has been accepted, it seems rather petty to start retroactively mischaracterizing the justifiable anger and the demands for an apology as a “campaign” to get Lindsay fired.
I came late to this controversy and Googled Ron’s name to catch up. That perspective clearly makes it look like a campaign against Mr. Lindsay. There are posts critical of him from January and February from the same people screaming for his head just this last month.
I also found an insightful essay by Ron about shunning and responding to threats thereof. After reading it I understood why Mr. Lindsay still attended knowing he was going to get a hostile reaction.
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/on_shunning_fellow_atheists_and_skeptics/
I’ve come away from this controversy with a deep respect for Mr. Lindsay, I will be joining the CFI.
A Hermit said:
What is a “mischaracterization” is to talk of “justifiable anger” as the “justifiable” is the question in play and which has not at all, in the slightest, actually been proven. Something underlined, I think, by Nathan’s own apology.
You really should take a real close look at that post by JT Eberhard, in particular his comment (above) about “acting on that anger disproportionately”.
I think people who ere at that conference were justified in being angry, and it looks as if Lindsay is coming to that conclusion too since have has now apologized. Some of the reaction may have been disproportionate, that doesn’t mean the anger wasn’t justified.
Steersman… if the reasons for the anger over Lindsay’s opening remarks at the conference are lost on you, perhaps you should try reading my post Theistsplaining. I used a context that I think most atheists can agree with. No analogy, or metaphor, is perfect, of course, but it was the best I could come up with… I never claimed to be a good writer.
I do think it conveys the point pretty well, though…
And THIS is how it should work. NOT how Stephanie is doing it. I didn’t at any time claim there was a campaign to replace him with Melody or Rebecca. That is spin that is being put on what I wrote.
Sure you did. You kept saying you had evidence of people wanting him replaced with such and such, then you posted this drivel as if it proved something. At least people will know not to talk candidly around you anymore.
Maybe the slymepit was right about you, after all?
I’m kinda glad I don’t join these kinds of groups and don’t give a shit about the “atheist movement” anymore. (secularism is still an important issue)
“Lolzerz” that is a lol, because you actually don’t know what you are talking about.
and just curious. What exactly is the slymepit right about in regards to me and if they are, well, obviously they must be reliable then, and are correct about Stephanie, Ophelia and Rebecca as well.
Apart from the fact that Stephanie’s post is very good at clarifying things so that the pitters can stop saying there was a campaign to fire RL, it’s rich that you critiquie Stephanie when you’ve quoted stuff from a private group without asking permission which it’s a very sleazy and immoral thing to do at the least. You should be ashamed of that. If I were in that closed group, I’d never feel safe posting anything again.
Hmm, you might want to tell Stacy Kennedy the same thing then.
I think perhaps Stephanie was trying to say that your post ended up growing, elsewhere on the intertubes, into a conspiracy theory of a concerted, hidden campaign to get Lindsay fired. I don’t think she meant to say that it was you specifically who suggested that campaign… though I can’t speak for Stephanie, of course.
lolzerz and Eduardo… I appreciate you both here, but I’d ask that, on my blog, which I do intend, in general, as a safe space, triggers are respected, and there are some here. Thank you very much.