Re: OWNERSHIP: Open letter -- Wilde Report

["Norman G. Kurland" <thirdway@cesj.org>]

I totally concur in Rodney's highly appropriate and moderate response to Dan.
Dan should huddle with Deb Olson and John Logue on Rodney's suggestions, and
replace Keith Wilde and his bigoted "summary" of the Ownership Group's
discussions with someone who can be more impartial and disciplined in his
analysis of the discussions on binary economics.

Norm Kurland
Center for Economic and Social Justice

Rodney Shakespeare wrote:

> Dear Dan,
>
>     I did not say you were bizarre.  I said your response was bizarre.
>
>     You appear not to recognize that the allegations in the Wilde Report go
> well beyond the bounds of fair and reasoned discourse of the sort properly
> encouraged or tolerated by a university or foundation.  The Report's
> allegations are maliciously designed to discredit and ultimately destroy
> binary economics.
>
>     You have also misunderstood my reference to racist, homophobic and
> genocidic language.  I did not allege that such language was used in the COG
> Group but that language of similar immoral impact has been used in the Wilde
> Report.
>
>     By using phrases such as 'cult', 'secret doctrine', 'mysticism',
> 'religious sect' etc.,  Keith's hatred of binary economics has been
> libelously transferred onto proponents of binary economics and onto the many
> people who are willing to take it seriously and treat it with respect.  This
> is not only morally wrong but legally wrong, and the Ohio Center for
> Employee Ownership and Kent should have no part of it.
>
>     I notice that you have not denied that you (or a colleague) asked for
> Keith's Report to be withdrawn and rewritten.  Would you (or colleague)
> kindly answer the question -- did you, or did you not, ask for withdrawal?
>
>     Your paragraph about the nature of statements and rebuttals  misses the
> point that the Report is  libelous.  Like a racist or sexist document, a
> libelous document should never have been posted and, if it is posted, it
> should be explicitly repudiated.  Without that repudiation, it cannot be
> merely withdrawn or amended because the libel remains.  Moreover, those who
> allow the libel to remain are party to the libel.
>
>     In the circumstances, I think it is fair to remind you that, a while
> ago, there was a very clear demand for the withdrawal of Keith as Moderator
> of the COG Ownership Group and his replacement by somebody who was known to
> be acceptable to everyone.  But Kent did NOT ask for Keith's withdrawal.
>
>         Furthermore, a university is supposed to be a place of free and open
> inquiry  and so Kent has a special obligation to ensure a reasoned Report
> and to remedy malicious propaganda with a repudiation.
>
>     So now let's see how things are adding up:--
>
>     1.    Under the claim of avoiding endorsing or censoring you are
> seemingly prepared to have published under Kent's name spiteful propaganda
> against binary economics and a libel on its proponents;
>
>     2.  There was a majority request that the Moderator stand down.  There
> was somebody, acceptable to all, willing to stand as Moderator.  But Kent
> did nothing.
>
>     3.  No binary proponent was invited to the May conference.
>
>      4.    Should you be allowing Keith to rewrite his Report, you will have
> failed to repudiate the libel and thus be knowingly sustaining it.
>
>       5.    As things stand, Kent University seems not only intent on
> maintaining the libel but also intent on dishonoring the university spirit
> of free enquiry.   Your expression of neutrality ("we attempt to avoid both
> endorsing and censoring" ) is being apparently belied (perhaps unwittingly)
> by the impact of the actions and inactions of the Ohio Center.
>
>     Thus I found your response bizarre because, under most circumstances, a
> person in your position would not hesitate to repudiate the wrong, to set
> the record straight, and then to proceed in an evenhanded way.
>
>     However, if  the harm you and the Ohio Center for Employee Ownership are
> doing is indeed unintentional,  it can be undone simply and honorably by:--
>
>     a)    repudiating the the Wilde Report;
>
>     b)    removing Keith as Moderator;
>
>     c)    appointing a new Moderator who has the confidence of all and
> inviting that Moderator to write the report.
>
>  Sincerely,
>
> Rodney Shakespeare.