| | Analyzing the Moral Case (Against Chris Sciabarra)
Short Form
This is my essentialized or condensed analysis of Diana Hsieh's essay, "Dialectical Dishonesty", which claims to prove "conclusively" Chris Sciabarra's fundamental dishonesty and broad immorality as a person.
I examine the evidence she offers for this very strong conclusion in three sections: (A) Evidence from Others, (B) Evidence from Chris' own words, (C) Overall Issues of Evidence and Proof.
Diana's essay presents the chronology of her personal and intellectual odyssey. She finds room to include others' negative assessments of Chris's scholarly work. But in an essay of nearly thirteen thousand words, she can only find room for direct evidence consisting in its totality of *four personal emails and a book preface*. (The indirect evidence is even thinner--I discuss it first.)
(A) Evidence From Others
1. Russian Radical book acknowledgements - Estate of Ayn Rand
Diana says, "Many of Chris' stories about ARI scholars seek to give a false impression of endorsement of him and his work." Despite the word "many", she only has one item:
"Perhaps the most striking example of that unjust appropriation of sanction was...thanking 'Leonard Peikoff...and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance to the current project' in the acknowledgements of The Russian Radical...When I asked Leonard Peikoff about this matter, he said that his only reply...consisted of a terse letter saying that he does not cooperate with biographers of Ayn Rand unknown to him." [3924]
This is an correspondence which occurred more than ten years ago. It would occur to a fair-minded person that innocent sources of confusion or discrepancy are possible in a situation of this nature. As the heir and voice of Ayn Rand and the copyright owner for all her works, Peikoff gets tons of mail. Multiply the average person's email inbox many times over. He couldn't see all of it but would need an assistant or secretary to filter, assess, and send routine responses out.
More importantly for Diana's credibility, consider what she excised from the above quote and why. Here's Chris's actual acknowledgment: "Leonard Peikoff, Diane LeMont, and the Estate of Ayn Rand for timely correspondence on several issues of historical and legal significance to the current project." Diana edits a list of three names A,B,C down to A,C. The effect is to make it seem as if only Peikoff, who -is- the Estate, had contact with Sciabarra. By including Diane LeMont, Sciabarra indicates receiving correspondence from her. By carefully omitting the name of Peikoff's secretary (certainly she didn't take out three words for space reasons in a 13,000 word essay where she hardly ever shortened anything else) Diana alters the meaning of what Sciabarra was saying, which is that there was more than one point of contact during his years of researching his book.
Diana proves that she can't be trusted and shows her lack of objectivity on this matter in several additional ways:
First, after Chris mentions that Peikoff and the Estate were compiling Rand's biographical data and would notify him if anything turned up about her college professor, Diana calls this "another fabrication" [start at word 4324]. But how does she know this? How does she know if there was one letter or two on different aspects of Sciabarra's research? There is the issue of not having total recall as well as Peikoff, like any busy person, not personally reading every email.
Second, Diana includes in her case for dishonesty "that Chris has never produced the correspondence that would so easily prove his claim." A number of obvious questions for Diana, who is an intelligent person: (i) How do you know he still has it this many years after completing the book and working on several more? People often purge even electronic files, and certainly paper. (ii) Did you ASK him if he had it before you wrote your attack? It's a sneaky, underhanded form of fake attack to fault someone for never producing something when it wasn't asked for. Or if there are legal reasons against releasing private correspondence of this kind. Or, most simply of all, writers who get a reputation for releasing private correspondence every time they are insulted or challenged by anyone of whatever standing may find some doors closed to them in the future with regard to confidential correspondence or research cooperation. [An issue that may come to haunt Diana in future years.]
[Note that Diana, unabashed, levels this as a repeated accusation against Chris -- that he doesn't offer her private material to exonerate him-- in regard to her other charges against him: "a certain devious pattern...[Chris] often omits the names of the ARI scholar(s) under discussion". But as we'll see immediately below, she considers it appropriate to withhold names and private communications when *she's* the one who is doing it.]
Finally, Diana's misscharacterization of Chris's preface: She puts the terms "endorsement" and "sanction" by Peikoff into Chris's mouth. Is that accurate? Not really -- I discuss this in the longer form of this article.
2. An unnamed scholar
Regarding scholars intimidated by ARI's money pressure, Diana says: "his only story about a particular scholar...consisted almost entirely of baseless distortions and outright fabrications"[1723].
There are a number of things wrong with this statement. First, how would she know it's the -only- story? Second, it can't be by her own admission: she already quotes -another story- from Chris and says she doesn't know who the source is: "I tend to agree with ARI on most things...I hope they don't notice that I dealt with you. That'll kill my one way of ever getting the job." [3056] Third: How could she -possibly- know to an absolute, moral certainty that Chris is lying?
And, most important, how does she know her source has "nailed it"? How does she know that whoever she spoke to is literally, precisely correct since she wasn't there herself? The other party might be mistaken or telling her what she wants to hear or embarrassed to admit something. And sometimes exact wording of what someone told you some time ago gets garbled when it passes through a retelling or an interpretation.
[I'll have more to say later on the issues of using indirect or second-hand evidence of this kind as proof.]
---------------
(B) Evidence From Chris
1. December 13, 2002
Chris said, "I am in discussion with several ARI scholars who are petrified of being 'cut of'" if they contribute to JARS."
Diana views this as central since she leads off with it in her indictment and discusses it for almost two dozen paragraphs: "Chris routinely told me false stories about scholars [358]...cowardly slaves to the purse-strings... [Chris is] making these blanket accusations of cowardice [1785]."
To rebut Chris, Diana offers her own experience: "none that I know...cave to pressure...I've seen no evidence...ARI exerts any such pressure...significant disagreements are resolved by rational argument [1569]
How does she know who caves in to pressure? Are they likely to admit that to her? Do they carry a little flag around or is she a mind reader?
In addition, Chris didn't say every single ARI person was intimidated or cautious. He said he was in discussion with *several*.
Diana says her insights into these people contradicts Chris's view. But does it? Diana is new to ARI circles. Why is she suddenly privy to the inner musings of all kinds of people who just happen to be the very ones who have had substantive dealings with Chris Sciabarra?
With regard to Chris's statements that he has actual correspondence from scholars on these matters which back up what he is saying, Diana wishes to deny that this could be possible beforehand and peremptorily --- without actually having seen the body of correspondence: "Most of the time...he merely summarized...often inventing, distorting, and exaggerating" [3233]. How does she know that multiple pieces of correspondence are false and or imaginary? Including those from people she is either not close to or on terms of intimate confidence with and, more important, those whose identities Chris never revealed. Does she have telepathy?
"Chris never presented me with any concrete evidence." [1569] Well, why would he? Would it be -appropriate- for him to reveal every single person who has ever corresponded with him? Is he likely to feel it necessary to provide a friend with proof of every factual statement he makes? And, finally, why would she be intensely suspicious about not having been shown it if she never *asked* for it?
2. Russian Radical book acknowledgements - Gotthelf
Diana argues that Chris says nice things about people in public but not in private. But she has only one concrete example of this, hardly a trend. She cites one professor (Allan Gotthelf - she does not give a single other concrete example). She says Chris acknowledges G's input in a book preface, while criticizing him privately. As if that were something horrendous and unspeakable. But it is customary in academic practice to acknowledge and thank anyone who had any role in a book, even if microscopic, as anyone who has looked at prefaces can see. And by the time the book is written, it is in fact possible if not likely that the author has forgotten the degree to which each of the literally thousands of people he spoke to helped in a major research project. One would be surprised to find -zero- inaccuracies in acknowledgements or footnotes. To make this criticism of Sciabarra even more ludicrous, he -did- take exception to some of professor G's views right there in the preface.
As for the issue of "pulling one's punches" by not using a preface to utter all one's negative assessments, the purpose of an acknowledgement section is to acknowledge. (In other venues, Diana herself "pulled her punches" with Chris on some of their disagreements over substantive matters and asked him to do the same on her blog.)
Side issue: At one point, Diana criticizes Chris withholding names and information by saying he's not 100% consistent: Sometimes he betrays confidences himself when he names particular scholars he has critical things to say about. But the whole point here is that he thought he was talking privately to a friend. He's not using her to 'spread' this information, else he would not have asked her to keep it in confidence. This is in fact one valuable thing knowledgeable friends and mentors can do, especially in a small academic or intellectual circle where jobs are few and contacts important. Give you tips on people and situations to avoid in your careerm, as well as those to seek out.
3. strong criticisms and personal attacks
Chris's language gleaned from a mere handful of emails: son of a bitch, coward, Comrade Sonia, hidden view of homosexuality, dogmatism, sucking up. I discuss these (and Diana's misstatements regarding them) in more detail in my longer form of this essay. For now, I'll just note that strong criticisms and personal attacks constitute a difference of opinion (or a difference of data, or simply angry insults). Not dishonesty. So they are not really part of her case.
In my view, these quotations are a smokescreen. Diana only puts them in to get the reader angry at or to lose respect for Chris. And including them is thereby an offensive and logically inappropriate form of emotional manipulation.
If she had a case she wouldn't need them.
---------------
(C) Overall Issues of Evidence and Proof
Consider first the overall issues of evidence and proof that would be relevant in judging people's statements. Particularly in private conversations and communications. One thing that would be relevant is context. Diana does not give us entire emails, but pieces of them. Sometimes one judges something differently if one see the whole. Nor does she say a single word about the -other- 99% of the well over 400 emails. Presumably in many of these, or even in the parts of the emails which were snipped out, Chris would look more conscientious, measured, and thoughtful and that would affect our judgment of him. (Otherwise she wouldn't have had him as a friend for so long...or have said several years ago he was the most moral man she knew.) Why were so many emails exchanged between them and what were they about? Did Chris normally discuss "movement" issues in other more thoughtful ways than to express contempt or insults?
Let's consider some additional questions of what constitutes proof or evidence in judging people in this case, starting with proof from Chris's words and then proof from others. And finally the "take away" evidence for outsiders observing all this.
--Proof from Chris--
1. Level or care of statement.
We've seen problems with every one of Diana's pieces of "hard" evidence so far. But there is a deeper issue in *the very use of private conversations* as proof of immorality in a situation like this: No one writes a perfect first draft, and emails are normally a first draft. When someone writes for publication and more formally he takes greater care to edit his words, to get them exact, to not misstate. That is why one should (unlike Diana) only takes public, polished writing as reflective of a considered position.
We need what personal communications provide. We need to be able to not have to edit and re-edit out comments with every person all the time. And we expect people who know us to insert the needed context or simply disregard certain less considered or more extreme or 'colorful' remarks. And, again, not hold us to them years later. Look at your own emails. Personal communications are often going to be more informal, colorful or over the top, allowing more "emotional release", often written off the cuff. People receive tons of email. If they polished every line they could never keep up a correspondence.
2. Thinness of the evidence.
That's all you got?!?!
If there is a repeated pattern, you ought to be able to actually show one. If emails are representative (and not merely a witch hunt for the single worst thing you can find), then you ought to be able to come up with damaging material in more than a fraction of one percent of a years long correspondence. Diana tells us she spent a month--she pored through well over 400 emails. And send out an open appeal fishing for still more pieces of evidence of Sciabarra's viciousness. ("I must see exact quotes from Chris' e-mails, in context and dated.") And all Diana was able to come up with is one correspondence from way back in 2002. (Then she has to jump to 2004 and 2006 to several insulting or hostile ones of strong criticism or personal attack.)
Had she found something in his considered, formal, published writings that indicates proof of dishonesty (as opposed to intellectual disagreement) she surely would have offered it since she is smart enough to know that is more probative than personal emails.
The fact that there is nothing in the published words a man would stand by - and should actually be judged on by a fair-minded person - is enormously significant. The extreme thinness - and nature - of Diana's evidence and on the basis of which she would cast mud on the entirety of a man's life and character is the most damning and suspicious thing about it.
It's the smoking gun -- not about Chris Sciabarra. But about Diana Mertz Brickell Hsieh.
3. The missing context.
In being asked to judge from a distance based on edited material, we know nothing of whether or not the accused said anything which qualifies, alters, or even completely retracts the things Diana quotes. Either before or after; in the same email or on another occasion. For example, Chris once said he wished to withdraw some insults or personal accusations, saying he was just venting. Sometimes what we are not shown is just as relevant as what we are shown (just like Diana's editing out Diane LeMont's name). We don't know what else was said in the other 99% of all this correspondence.
I would not trust anyone bitter and angry at someone to be the best judge of what context to supply or omit. I'd need to see it for myself if I wanted to make a further judgment. Given the rest of our analysis of this essay, I would say Diana -in particular- is not someone I would trust to be fairly giving me every piece of information. Or giving me anything favorable to Chris. She has certainly not done so in this essay.
--Proof from Others--
We've discussed the anonymous scholar. But here are some related considerations which would apply even if Diana belatedly were to come up with new second hand sources:
1. Probative status.
Is it anecdotal evidence? How long ago did the incident happen? Was it informal, approximate, or "in passing" comment? How good is the precise, word-for-word recollection of the source? And in how much detail was he willing to sit down and discuss it with Diana? Did the source -himself- get that from Chris? I've been around Objectivist gossip for years and what strikes me is that the quality, level, and reliability has seldom been much greater than gossip in a workplace.
What is the context? Diana decides a month ago to write this piece and calls up or emails a bunch of people. How close is this to a formal, scientific research project? What is the sample size and level? How many people even bothered to respond or have an anecdote? What is the number, representativeness, and depth of the interactions they have had with Chris? Do they even know him and would he confide in them?
2. "People I trust."
Diana's assurances on this score are based on what? How long has she known them? Is she a long-known and trusted person that people will feel comfortable "telling all" to? Especially negative and detailed 'dish' along with substantive proof and long discussion to someone like her whom they hardly know? Diana has a small circle of people she has gotten to know well in Colorado where she lives, but are they people who have contact with Chris.
Are the people Diana knows well actually people who are also in Chris's circle or that he has contact with? Are they people with whom he would be likely to have contact on the level of passing on personal confidences and so are they likely to have direct knowledge of the matters at issue? Or are they people who are passing on something said to them, which makes it at best third hand by the time it gets to Diana and fourth hand by the time it gets to us?
--Proof addressed to Outsiders--
Finally, if something is first hand evidence or proof for Diana (or second hand), it is second (or third) hand by the time it gets to readers or outside observers. Someone may have direct proof that a friend or trusted person lied to them. But that does not constitute proof to -us-. We don't know if a mistake was made. We don't know the person making the claim is infallible (as opposed to dishonest or unreliable or careless with accusations - or simply factually mistaken). We still would have to wait for evidence we can evaluate independently. Or might just conclude: My friend is generally reliable, so be wary in the future of this guy.
Diana claims to be proving it all to us through several emails and prefaces, which is written evidence. That can be a form of proof that is not secondhand (unlike her use of unnamed scholars). But you can decide for yourself after reading this analysis whether Diana's essay in fact constitutes proof. Or is riddled with either overstatements and errors or dishonesty.
My conclusion:
1. Diana has not offered a shred of proof of Chris Sciabara's lying or immorality (or even manipulating the truth slightly) in -any- of the individual emails or prefaces she has offered us.
2. And certainly not on the still wider claim that he is systematically dishonest.
3. Or even more broadly, on the still more sweeping claim that her essay has "conclusively demonstrated" he is a deeply immoral person.
4. Her claim that she has conclusively proven something of this nature to the outside observer is irresponsible and further undercuts her credibility and our sense that she understands what constitutes proof.
|
|
