About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What happened?  Why the rift?

In another post someone mentioned that if campus groups aligned with Solo Youth, they could lose their support with ARI.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that SOLO is just an open community for objectivists of all stripes. Will I be excommunicated for hanging out with the wrong crowd here? 

As an individual, I do not agree with everything out of ARI as evidenced in one of my first posts on involuntary contributions.  I don't agree with everything said on this forum either, but I do feel accepted nonetheless.  I won a Golden Globe (atlas icon) as the Aviator was collecting its own Golden Globes.  I see that as a good omen.


Post 1

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 6:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You won't be "excommunicated" from here because of any ARI connection, but I can't guarantee the reverse. Our first SOLO Yahoo moderator was told by ARI he had to choose between them & us, though he was given a year to think about it! Faced with the loss of ARI resources for his university O/ist club, he chose ARI (where his real sympathies lay anyway).

Linz

Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, January 22, 2005 - 8:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Katdaddy,

Allow me to share the incident that prompted my comments on the other thread.

I started Space Coast Objectivism Promoters and Explorers (SCOPE) back in January 1999 as a community based club and listed it at TOC since ARI did not support community clubs.

When I took some classes at University of Central Florida (UCF) back in 2002-2003, I decided to work with ARI to start a campus Objectivist Club there.  Most of the work fell on the shoulders of myself and a full time student who stood staunchly by ARI.  He eventually graduated and I struggled to find new leadership in fall 2003 with little success.  I had some ambitious plans to invite speakers and so forth to generate interest and requested a commitment from ARI for them.  Their campus coordinator, Matt Ludin, sent me this reply:
I had a meeting with my managers today regarding your request.

We discussed a couple of items relating to your club's affiliation with ARI.

For the following reasons, ARI is discontinuing its support of the UCF Objectivist Club effective immediately.

First, there has been concern with the status of your club as to whether it is affiliated with the school as a student club.  As you know, ARI does not and cannot support any club that is not officially recognized as a student club run by students. It appears that your club lacks both a student leader and student membership.

Second, it has been noted that your club is listed on The Objectivist Center's site and has had links with various other Libertarian groups/organizations. ARI is not affiliated with these groups. We do not regard them as being in line with the goals of the Ayn Rand Institute or of Objectivism.

In light of these matters, we can no longer list your club as being supported by ARI.
This incident does not stand isolated but represents typical policy actions of the ARI.  Granted, they have the right to do this, but I question their wisdom.  Linz and Joe can share other stories.  I have much gratitude to them for creating and sustaining SOLO.  I recently changed SCOPE to SOLO Florida to synergize our efforts and updated the listing as such on the TOC site.


Luke Setzer


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 11:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What happened?  Why the rift?
I was a long-time "ARI" Objectivist. Maybe I still am one but I've been ostracized by Harry Binswanger for something along the lines of not calling David Kelly evil (frankly I don't really understand what the reason was, but it had something to do with the fact that I thought I should be able to buy whatever books I wanted, David Kelly's or Kant's; Binswanger evidently thought this violated his "Loyalty Oath"), so it kind of puts a damper on things.

Anyway, the rift seems to center on Peikoff's "Fact and Value" vs. Kelly's "Truth and Toleration." Anyone who associates with, or apparently, who buys Kelly's books without apology (even just one, as I did), is anathema to ARI. I think ARI principals think they are acting under the premise of "don't sanction evil" - they consider Kelly dishonest and evil, and therefore won't sanction him.

The problem I see is that these principals demand that others (e.g., me) come to the same conclusions they did about Kelly. I devoted enough time to the matter to be able to conclude that Kelly's confused about some things, but I reject any demand that I evaluate him morally before buying his books and as a condition for being on an ARI-sanctioned list like HBL.

For me this issue wasn't about Kelly, but about the virtue of independence. Granting that ARI principals are right about Kelly, I think they are wrong to push people into choosing sides. Choosing sides justly requires careful analysis and evaluation, not just about who is right and who is wrong, but about what the consequences of that should be. Even a good thinker would have to devote considerable time to this, let alone someone new to Objectivism who's just figuring things out. (That's leaving aside the intrinsicists, who can rationalize faster than you can say "Ellsworth Toohey"). It's at best presumptuous on their part to demand from all their associates that they look into this Kelly/Peikoff thing in detail and swear allegiance to ARI against the Evil David Kelly as a condition for remaining associated with them. I'm reminded of some of Linz's favorite words, but I'll have the good taste to refrain from writing them.
I don't agree with everything said on this forum either, but I do feel accepted nonetheless.
Relative to Objectivism, there are some truly whacky things said in this forum. That's what happens when you let just anyone come in and post.

There's something to be said for non-paranoid forms of quality control, and for lists intended only for serious Objectivists. That's not what Solo is, and that's fine (it's obviously not immoral to have a wide-open forum), but the other kind of list is fine too, and it's the kind I prefer.


Post 4

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 4:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne wrote:
it had something to do with the fact that I thought I should be able to buy whatever books I wanted, David Kelly's or Kant's; Binswanger evidently thought this violated his "Loyalty Oath") 

How did Binswanger find out which books you were buying???


Post 5

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 5:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How did Binswanger find out which books you were buying???
Why the incredulity?

It came up in a conversation I was having with him that I'd bought one of Kelly's books. He was quick to point out that buying the book was a violation of his Loyalty Oath, that I should have borrowed the book from the library or bought it used instead.

Of course I didn't interpret his Oath that way originally. I think there may be a number of people on the list who do not consider themselves constrained in that way (an acquaintance of mine who is on the list was surprised when he'd heard what happened). If he wants to preserve the integrity of his list he should probably expand on what he means a bit.



Post 6

Sunday, January 23, 2005 - 8:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne wrote:
It came up in a conversation I was having with him that I'd bought one of Kelley's books. He was quick to point out that buying the book was a violation of his Loyalty Oath, that I should have borrowed the book from the library or bought it used instead.
Would he approve of the new online SOLO Moogul system as a legitimate library from which to borrow controversial materials?  I doubt it.

Retail versus wholesale -- good grief, that falls between you and your accountant and not anyone else.


Luke Setzer


Post 7

Monday, January 24, 2005 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Shayne wrote:
Why the incredulity?
It came up in a conversation I was having with him that I'd bought one of Kelly's books.
Ok, I thought he did a background check on you. :)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.