Answers to Questions about “Justice for John P. McCaskey”
Because I have received many inquires about my statement regarding McCaskey, I’d like to answer some of the recurring questions here for the benefit of those who may also be curious about these issues but have refrained from inquiring. I may post additional questions and answers in the future. —Craig Biddle
What do you mean when you say that you “unilaterally” removed Yaron Brook from the masthead of TOS? Did you not even speak with him about the matter before doing so? If so, why?
“Unilateral” means “performed by only one side.” That I unilaterally removed Brook from the masthead means that I made the decision to remove him and that he did not. But this does not mean that I didn’t speak with him about it. Nor does it mean that he didn’t appreciate the gesture.
Three weeks before I wrote “Justice for John P. McCaskey,” I spoke with Brook and told him that I was considering posting something about the matter. He noted that my doing so would put him in a tricky situation. Whether he remained on or removed himself from the masthead, his choice would be interpreted as making a statement. Given everything he was going through, I did not want to put him in that position. I thought it would be unfair to effectively make him make a statement. So I told him that if I were to say anything publicly about the matter, I would remove him from TOS’s masthead myself in advance. Although he said okay, the decision was mine.
I did not remove Brook from the masthead out of spite. On the contrary, I removed him out of respect for him and in order not to worsen his awful situation. And he knows this.
Why did you post your statement just before you were to embark on a speaking tour for the Ayn Rand Institute?
The timing of my statement was unrelated to my scheduled speaking tour. I posted the statement on Friday, October 29 because by then I had had enough time to identify the available and relevant facts, to think through the issue, to decide whether I needed to make a public statement, to write up my thoughts, and to get a couple of days distance from the draft before finalizing it. Of course, I could have waited longer to post it, but I wanted to make my thoughts available to students of the Objectivist Academic Center, who were scheduled to hold a meeting regarding the Peikoff-McCaskey matter on the following Tuesday with staff of the Ayn Rand Institute. I’ve been told by a number of these students that they appreciated being able to read my statement prior to that meeting, so I’m glad I posted it when I did.
It is worth noting that objections to the timing of my statement would have been raised no matter when I posted it. (Imagine if I had posted it immediately after my lecture tour.) I think interested parties should concern themselves with the substance of my statement rather than its timing.
Why did you post your statement on your personal website rather than on TOS’s website? And if it is a personal statement, not a statement from TOS, why did you conclude it by saying that you removed Yaron Brook from the masthead of TOS?
TOS’s primary target audience is not Objectivists but active-minded non-Objectivists. Although many of our readers are Objectivists and are aware of and interested in this matter, many are not. I and the other people involved with the journal want to keep TOS focused on subjects that are of general interest to our readers, especially to our primary target audience. My statement about justice for McCaskey does not meet that criterion.
Although the statement is a personal statement, this fact does not eliminate the relevance of my removing Brook from TOS’s masthead. TOS is my journal, and the intended audience of this statement is Objectivists who likely want to know why I removed Brook from the masthead, so I included that point in the post.
Do you think McCaskey was morally warranted in releasing Peikoff’s email? Granted, Peikoff and the Ayn Rand Institute gave him permission to post it, but McCaskey could have refrained from doing so anyway. Should he have posted it?
Yes, McCaskey was morally warranted in posting Peikoff’s email, and, all things considered, I think he should have posted it. I am in full agreement with Paul Hsieh’s analysis of this issue.