Speaking of New Developments at ARI...

[9thdoctor]

I’m taking this latest production as conclusive evidence that Peikoff is totally isolated at this point, he has no one to use as a critical sounding board. If he does have anyone around him, they can’t even try to tell him that this piece is not going to convince anyone, and will only make the situation worse. So I’ve thought of a little musical tribute:

Continuing this musical tribute motif, here’s one for Comrade Sonia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk3mAX5xdxo

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That's an amazing document Peikoff authored.

I think he just threw the entire ARI board into discredit as caretakers of a serious organization.

What a mess.

Incidentally, I don't know McCaskey, but the few things I have read by him, he comes off as anything but an "obnoxious braggart" and a "pretentious ignoramus." Starting with the Amazon review. Frankly, from everything I have read about him, I admire him. He's an achiever in the finest sense of the word.

I admit, I don't mind Peikoff throwing "magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts" under the bus. They jockeyed for their positions by sucking up, so when they stopped sucking up, what should they expect?

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This strikes me as very strange. There are only eight ARI Board members left: Michael S. Berliner, Arline Mann, Yaron Brook, Carl Barney, Harry Binswanger, Peter LePort, John B. Ridpath, Tara Smith.

WSS,

Well, Leonard Peikoff is allegedly not on speaking terms with Harry Binswanger.

Who else is he not on speaking terms with?

It'd be better asked, Who is he on speaking terms with?

--Brant

[Selene]

This strikes me as very strange. There are only eight ARI Board members left: Michael S. Berliner, Arline Mann, Yaron Brook, Carl Barney, Harry Binswanger, Peter LePort, John B. Ridpath, Tara Smith.

WSS,

Well, Leonard Peikoff is allegedly not on speaking terms with Harry Binswanger.

Who else is he not on speaking terms with?

It'd be better asked, Who is he on speaking terms with?

--Brant

The other personalities and the voices in his head? Maybe he is attempting to communicate with Ayn's spirit...oh drat...that door was slammed shut by his premises...oh well onward into the void Leonard.

[Brant Gaede]

I was in Valhalla when they buried Ayn Rand. Why didn't Peikoff throw himself into the grave with her?

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

This strikes me as very strange. There are only eight ARI Board members left: Michael S. Berliner, Arline Mann, Yaron Brook, Carl Barney, Harry Binswanger, Peter LePort, John B. Ridpath, Tara Smith.

WSS,

Well, Leonard Peikoff is allegedly not on speaking terms with Harry Binswanger.

Who else is he not on speaking terms with?

Robert Campbell

There is no one I am not on speaking terms with.

[Rich Engle]

Well, Leonard Peikoff is allegedly not on speaking terms with Harry Binswanger.

Who else is he not on speaking terms with?

Robert Campbell

I leave him voice mails and he never calls back *sob*. I think that whole Nutty Professor/Alfred E. Newman/Peikoff thing I did might have set him off, the humorless bastard. So in my endless craving for Peikoff-strokes, I'll do it again. Immature adults are like little kids, see--they don't care if it is positive or negative attention, as long as it is attention. Right, Sonya?

THE TRANSMORGIFICATION, by Rich Engle

Edited November 11, 2010 by Rich Engle

[BaalChatzaf]

Guess who wrote the following: "If any of you believe that this makes me a dictatorial opponent of independence or free speech, then God help you, because reality obviously hasn't. And if, as seems possible, my detractors in this issue represent a sizable faction within the Objectivist movement whose spokesmen include magazine founders and PhDs with podcasts– then God help Objectivism, too."

Yes, you guessed it: Leonard "I Closed the System Before I Opened It," Peikoff. November 5, 2010. [see here http://www.peikoff.c...i-board-member/ ].

Here is what he says about LL and McCaskey's book review: "To sneer in a public setting at an epochal Objectivist book qualifies, in my judgment, as harm."

And to think that I had always considered Atlas Shrugged to be an epochal Objectivist book...

It is, thanks to Ayn Rand. Leonard P. or should I say Pope Leonard, has done as much to discredit Objectivism as the Catholic Church has done to discredit the better message put forth by the Carpenter from the Galeel.

That is what happens when possible beneficial movements turn into cults.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

The Pope has uttered his rancorous remarks on the kerfuffles, and now comes the ARI ukase. Why the long dragged out wagon train of silence till now?

From the Central Committee:

Dear ARI supporter:

On September 3, 2010, John McCaskey resigned from ARI’s Board of Directors on the condition that he be permitted to publish an e-mail Leonard Peikoff had sent to Arline Mann, co-chair of the Board. That e-mail was in fact published by Dr. McCaskey on his personal website.

What Dr. McCaskey published has caused a clamor—one continually reinvigorated by statements of “fact” and commentaries from a small group of people who lack the full context. Unfortunately, ARI’s Board of Directors did not foresee the extent to which this would happen. Our willingness to let Dr. McCaskey release Dr. Peikoff’s e-mail and our silence since the resignation have caused much confusion among our supporters and for that we apologize. So I am now writing to you, on behalf of ARI’s Board of Directors, to rectify the matter.

We realize that one cannot understand and evaluate what occurred at the Board level from a single e-mail, and we did not expect anyone to try to do so. Dr. Peikoff’s private e-mail was informal, unedited, and not written for publication. We regarded the events and discussions leading to Dr. McCaskey’s resignation, like many Board matters, as private and confidential to the organization. However, it did not remain so. We are now providing additional information that we hope will answer questions you may have.

To begin, Dr. McCaskey’s service to ARI’s Board and his considerable contributions to the spread of Objectivism, especially his creation of the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship (a separate organization affiliated with ARI) are recognized and appreciated.

However, in early August 2010, Dr. Peikoff raised the question of whether Dr. McCaskey should continue to serve on ARI’s Board. Dr. McCaskey had indicated that he did not and could not support a significant intellectual project funded by ARI and championed by Dr. Peikoff and ARI’s Board. The project, David Harriman’s new book, The Logical Leap, presents Dr. Peikoff’s ground-breaking theory of induction, and illustrates the theory’s essentials through an examination of the history of physics. In essence, Dr. Peikoff viewed Dr. McCaskey as having a serious conflict in this regard. The Board began a discussion of how to resolve the matter.

On August 30, 2010, Dr. Peikoff reiterated his views quite passionately in his e-mail (and also in subsequent conversations). In these communications, Dr. Peikoff presented the terms and timeline he expected ARI’s Board to meet in order to resolve the conflict. At all times, Dr. McCaskey’s unfavorable attitude toward this major ARI project and Dr. Peikoff’s view on the matter were the only issues, not any personal views Dr. Peikoff had about Dr. McCaskey’s moral character.

The substantive issue that Dr. Peikoff raised—whether a person who does not support a central ARI project should sit on the Board—was itself a very serious one. In addition, the Board had the practical, moral, and fiduciary responsibility to avoid needlessly damaging our important relationship with Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff founded ARI, served as its first Board chairman, and has continued to provide ARI with moral, financial, and practical support over the 25 years of ARI’s existence. As Ayn Rand’s heir, he has been very generous in giving Ayn Rand’s materials to the ARI Archives, with much more planned for the future. In these and many other ways, Dr. Peikoff’s ongoing support is important to ARI; we are certainly interested in hearing his thoughts and analyses, and we give them due weight in our deliberations.

As ARI’s Board deliberated whether Dr. McCaskey should remain on the Board, he offered to resign. (Note that there was no request made by anyone that Dr. McCaskey resign from the Board of Directors of the Anthem Foundation.)

ARI’s Board believes that the right outcome was reached—that Dr. McCaskey is no longer a Board member.

Let me turn now to some of the wild rumors and accusations that have been circulating. First, there was no attempt to quash Dr. McCaskey’s criticisms of The Logical Leap. To the contrary, Dr. McCaskey may now freely express his views about the book and has done so; he no longer has a conflict of interest given that his obligations as an ARI Board member have come to an end.

More widely, ARI is dedicated to fostering a rational, vigorous discussion of Objectivist ideas and of innovations based on them. Every day at ARI, we engage in a critical discussion of philosophical, cultural, and political issues—with our staff, Objectivist intellectuals and activists, and a range of non-Objectivist thinkers and educators. But, at the end of the debates, ARI presents one, consistent position on each issue that we’re prepared to take a stand on. ARI has done so since its founding, as a matter of basic policy. It is this consistency, and the high quality of our scholarship, that has set ARI’s work apart from the many voices in the culture.

What are the implications of this for individuals who work with ARI? It depends on the relationship involved. Is the person a Board member, an employee, a guest lecturer, etc.? For instance, a Board member cannot undercut ARI’s major projects; an employee may present publicly only ARI’s official position (when we have one), not his particular view; an ARI guest speaker must show that he maintains an appropriate understanding of Objectivism.

We are careful in selecting whom we will work with, including guest speakers. There are ongoing internal reviews, which consider any new developments. If a guest speaker exhibits views that are significantly at odds with ARI’s, or has poor methods of communication, or poor thinking skills as related to a specific topic, or just poor judgment, for example, we may not allow this person to appear on our stage. But we do not expect all Objectivists to agree with or adopt all of ARI’s positions; anyone is free to act and work independently of us. Contrary to the charges some are making, parting ways with someone from your organization who is not on board with a major project does not constitute censorship, authoritarianism, or being dictatorial.

If the controversy around Dr. McCaskey’s resignation has caused you to have doubts or reservations about ARI, please set aside the selective reports, slanted histories of old conflicts, and rampant speculation—and consider the actual facts. Take a look at ARI’s track record, its work and successes in promoting Ayn Rand and Objectivism, its mission, and its considerable achievements. ARI is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, and in the past 25 years, much of the necessary groundwork has been laid for ARI’s mission to succeed.

I, along with the ARI staff and the Board of Directors, deeply appreciate your ongoing support of the Institute. We look forward to working with you to achieve our shared goals.

Sincerely yours,

Yaron Brook

[Reidy]

I doubt that Peikoff and his minions have done much damage to Objectivism's image, because I doubt that any but the already-converted hardcore are aware of this.

Movies and fashion are known to be full of gossip, hostility and backbiting, and some people, in or out of these businesses, take it all very seriously. Most of us, though, simply want to see an entertaining movie or buy a decent-looking, well-fitting $35 shirt at Macy's. Strange as this may seem to us, that is just what people who buy Rand's books, perhaps after seeing Brook on TV or hearing a tip from Beck or O'Reilly, think of the Objectivist schisms. They don't think about them.

[Jonathan]

The Pope has uttered his rancorous remarks on the kerfuffles, and now comes the ARI ukase. Why the long dragged out wagon train of silence till now?

From the Central Committee:

...However, in early August 2010, Dr. Peikoff raised the question of whether Dr. McCaskey should continue to serve on ARI’s Board. Dr. McCaskey had indicated that he did not and could not support a significant intellectual project funded by ARI and championed by Dr. Peikoff and ARI’s Board. The project, David Harriman’s new book, The Logical Leap, presents Dr. Peikoff’s ground-breaking theory of induction, and illustrates the theory’s essentials through an examination of the history of physics. In essence, Dr. Peikoff viewed Dr. McCaskey as having a serious conflict in this regard. The Board began a discussion of how to resolve the matter.

Did it occur to any of the board members that addressing McCaskey's criticims might be the best way to resolve the matter?

...More widely, ARI is dedicated to fostering a rational, vigorous discussion of Objectivist ideas and of innovations based on them.

Where might we find examples of ARI representatives addressing criticism of Objectivist ideas (and of Peikovian or ARIan ideas that are not technically part of Official Closed System Objectivism)? Where might we find the ARI's "rational, vigorous" response to the content of McCaskey's criticism of the Harriman book?

J

[william.scherk]

Where might we find the ARI's "rational, vigorous" response to the content of McCaskey's criticism of the Harriman book?

Yup. The answer being that the Single Vigorous And Authoritative Voice Of Reason hadn't uttered a peep until Brook's discursion. They sat on their hands and let things fester.

What irks is that Harriman becomes a New Holy Person. How the heck did that happen? How did Harriman become Arbiter Magnificus between physics and philosophy? How did he manage to climb up to Mount Untouchable?

So now the 'Hsieh Party,' itself only marginally less orthodox than the Org, is about to choose to step away from the lure of ARI appointments and support and lectureships and so on.

So that The Single Correct Line can carry forth . . . so that the Church Remains Magnificent.

What a choice.

[Robert Campbell]

Most of us, though, simply want to see an entertaining movie or buy a decent-looking, well-fitting $35 shirt at Macy's. Strange as this may seem to us, that is just what people who buy Rand's books, perhaps after seeing Brook on TV or hearing a tip from Beck or O'Reilly, think of the Objectivist schisms. They don't think about them.

Peter,

Of course, most people don't think about Objectivist schisms.

And most of those who read and enjoy Ayn Rand's novels never become denizens of Rand-land.

All right, but let's turn the question around.

Did the Ayn Rand Institute produce Ayn Rand's novels? Obviously it didn't.

Did it produce any of the nonfiction that she published during her lifetime? Obviously it didn't.

How many of the works that have actually been produced under the sponsorship of the Ayn Rand Institute have sold as well as Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal?

Now, suppose that the Ayn Rand Institute had collapsed in 1989 after the Kelley schism. Or that Leonard Peikoff and Ed Snider and the rest had thought better of the idea back in 1985, and never started ARI.

How would Rand's books be selling today?

What percentage of the present-day consumers of Rand's writings have needed Leonard Peikoff or Yaron Brook or any of the lesser ARIans to get them to pick up and read?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Although it is far more temperately worded than Leonard Peikoff's last broadside, I don't think Yaron Brook has done himself or his fellow Board members any favors with this new statement.

The discerning reader might, after all, be inclined to ask how a book that many of ARI's close followers have yet to read ever became a "central project" or a "major project" of the organization.

Wasn't Leonard Peikoff's say-so necessary and sufficient for The Logical Leap to be taken up as "central" or "major"?

In any event, we have confirmation from Brook that Peikoff started trying to run John McCaskey off the ARI Board in early August. The perfunctory, kiss-ass reviews on amazon.com—Allan Gotthelf on August 11, Harry Binswanger on August 23—arrived after Peikoff started raising hell. And Harry Binswanger is himself a member of the ARI Board.

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

From the Central Committee:

Yaron Brook

I think Brook has played the awful hand he’s been dealt as well as it can be played. Following the hyperbole and hysteria of Peikoff’s utterances, this piece finally treats the reader with respect. I think this alone will change minds and retain donors. Also, one little detail: he doesn’t include any links to the relevant documentation. Small wonder there. Rather than repeat myself, here’s a link to my evaluation, mutatis mutandis for Brook.

Edited November 11, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Starbuckle]

"...an employee may present publicly only ARI’s official position (when we have one), not his particular view..."

--Yaron Brook

"...we engage in a critical discussion of philosophical, cultural, and political issues—with our staff, Objectivist intellectuals and activists, and a range of non-Objectivist thinkers and educators. But, at the end of the debates, ARI presents one, consistent position on each issue that we’re prepared to take a stand on...."

--Yaron Brook

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."

--not Yaron Brook

[Reidy]

Brook is correct in saying that as long as you take your employer's money the honest course of action is to do what your employer pays you to do (mutatis mutandis for board members rather than employees) and that if your honor or independence clash with this, the honest course of action is to quit and be independent on your own time and at your own expense. Rand deals with this at length in her novels and essays.

What Brook misses is that ARI was wrong in this case and that the clash was one that ARI created.

[algernonsidney]

Dear ARI supporter:

.............

If the controversy around Dr. McCaskey's resignation has caused you to have doubts or reservations about ARI, please set aside the selective reports, slanted histories of old conflicts, and rampant speculation—and consider the actual facts. Take a look at ARI's track record, its work and successes in promoting Ayn Rand and Objectivism, its mission, and its considerable achievements. ARI is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year, and in the past 25 years, much of the necessary groundwork has been laid for ARI's mission to succeed.

I, along with the ARI staff and the Board of Directors, deeply appreciate your ongoing support of the Institute. We look forward to working with you to achieve our shared goals.

Sincerely yours,

Yaron Brook

Dear Yaron Brook:

That's an interesting piece of advice. I have definitely been taking "a look at ARI's track record, its work and successes in promoting Ayn Rand and Objectivism, its mission, and its considerable achievements." And this alone was reason enough to withhold any and all support from ARI even before McCaskey left the ARI board.

Sincerely yours,

Chris Baker

[Starbuckle]

Reidy writes: "Brook is correct in saying that as long as you take your employer's money the honest course of action is to do what your employer pays you to do..."

That's true in a general way, but with provisos that undercut ARI's claims here. There was never any need, nor has it ever been advisable or right in any respect, for ARI to require public unanimity from its associates on philosophical or cultural positions, especially in light of the fact that it is outfit whose philosophical allegiance declares the importance of arriving at conclusions independently. What's necessary is much more limited; and respecting the intellectual integrity and independence of ARI associates could have been part of the mission instead of set up in conflict with it.

Because of this demanded "public unanimity," for example, nobody operating under ARI auspices can ever quote Kelley or Branden in a favorable way, even when their work is directly relevant. Whether there was an explicit ban on this or everybody just happens to function in lockstep out of deference to/fear of Peikoff/ARI, it's one small consequence of this notion that there must be a unitary public face in presenting the philosophy.

If you have an organization devoted to a particular political reform, e.g., citizen initiative rights, you wouldn't want spokesmen publicly disputing each other about whether, e.g., onerous new signature gathering requirements for ballot question petitions are or are not a bad thing. There may be many mission-specific questions like that with respect to which the officers have to be on the same page if they are to be successful publicly. I don't know how presidential press agents manage without their brains exploding.

But what is the mission of ARI all about if implicit in it is the notion that people can or should hold--or PRETEND to hold--exactly the same positions on vast array of philosophical, cultural, political questions?

The mission was wrong from the get-go. (See Kelley's Truth and Toleration.) And yet another proof is that we still being given no inkling about exactly what it is, aside from Peikoff's personal pique, about McCaskey's critique of the historical accounts in Harriman's book that makes it so disastrous to the understanding and promotion of Rand's ideas. One possibility: the principals sharply disagree about how malignant McCaskey's reasonable criticisms are, or even whether they are malignant at all. And given the requirement of public unanimity on important questions, if the organizational unanimity cannot be reached, the only possible solution is public silence. How does that incarnate any of the virtues of reason that Rand talks about?

Edited November 12, 2010 by Starbuckle

[Jonathan]

"But, at the end of the debates, ARI presents one, consistent position on each issue that we’re prepared to take a stand on."

What's the old "Demotivators" saying, "None of us is as dumb as all of us"? Seems appropriate here -- "If all of us on the Board know even less about a given subject than Lenny does, and then someone who actually knows what he's talking about is constructively critical of Lenny's ideas, our default position is not to do any heavy intellectual lifting and to learn enough to consider the merits of the criticism, or to thank the critic for saving us from embarrassment, but to side with Lenny because we're his little bitches. He owns us."

J

[BaalChatzaf]

"But, at the end of the debates, ARI presents one, consistent position on each issue that we're prepared to take a stand on."

What's the old "Demotivators" saying, "None of us is as dumb as all of us"? Seems appropriate here -- "If all of us on the Board know even less about a given subject than Lenny does, and then someone who actually knows what he's talking about is constructively critical of Lenny's ideas, our default position is not to do any heavy intellectual lifting and to learn enough to consider the merits of the criticism, or to thank the critic for saving us from embarrassment, but to side with Lenny because we're his little bitches. He owns us."

J

At the risk of sounding Grim and Morbid I ask the question: Must L.P. first die in order for Objectivism to live?

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think it is a fair question.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited November 12, 2010 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

"But, at the end of the debates, ARI presents one, consistent position on each issue that we're prepared to take a stand on."

What's the old "Demotivators" saying, "None of us is as dumb as all of us"? Seems appropriate here -- "If all of us on the Board know even less about a given subject than Lenny does, and then someone who actually knows what he's talking about is constructively critical of Lenny's ideas, our default position is not to do any heavy intellectual lifting and to learn enough to consider the merits of the criticism, or to thank the critic for saving us from embarrassment, but to side with Lenny because we're his little bitches. He owns us."

J

At the risk of sounding Grim and Morbid I ask the question: Must L.P. first die in order for Objectivism to live?

Sorry if that offends anyone, but I think it is a fair question.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Nothing now to do with him, frankly. It was Ayn Rand who did the real damage and all else is inertia. She never got the morality in the politics right, seeing politics mostly as a derivative while the Objectivist Ethics itself lacks enough empirical oomph and justification. Thus she blew off the libertarians and all others who lacked the requisite purity leaving Objectivism in its jejune state. Interestingly, it took Shayne and his new book on rights for me to see this clearly. He went a little too far but in such cases it's much better to go too far than to come up short. Go back to the Founding Fathers. They got the rights right but screwed up with the creation of the Republic. Once Americans had their Constitution and Bill of Rights they seem to have forgotten all about it, thinking their rights had been institutionalized and thus protected forever and ever. Anyway, they won the war and eventually lost the peace, literally and figuratively, starting with the Whiskey Rebellion and continuing to this day. Not one justified war in over two hundred years. Not one. The only possible exception being the Barbary pirates, if you want to call that a war. That means the Revolutionary War wasn't justified either except for people who like kicking ass. Few talk about the imperial impulse that has always informed what America is all about, right at its center, and how the Brits tried to rein it in but only succeeded in fomenting rebellion and bankrupting France creating in its turn the Reign of Terror and the Napoleonic Wars.

--Brant

all the Constitution really did was institutionalize ass-kicking, and we are now getting our own asses kicked by our great and glorious government

Edited November 12, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[BaalChatzaf]

Nothing now to do with him, frankly. It was Ayn Rand who did the real damage and all else is inertia. She never got the morality in the politics right, seeing politics mostly as a derivative while the Objectivist Ethics itself lacks enough empirical oomph and justification. Thus she blew off the libertarians and all others who lacked the requisite purity leaving Objectivism in its jejune state.

--Brant

I think that is right. Rand permitted herself to become a den mother to a group of defectives. In doing so, she enabled and exacerbated their defects. Unfortunate. The philosophy has so much good material buried within it, I hope there is some way of extracting it a putting it to good usel.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Robert Campbell]

One "Saul" has taken Yaron Brook's letter apart on NoodleFood.

http://blog.dianahsieh.com/2010/11/aris-statement-on-mccaskeys-resignation.html#comment-96462014

I think he has it exactly right. Brook is being slickly evasive, in the cause of damage control.

Here's the whole thing.

Robert Campbell

Here are the main points of Yaron's letter, with commentary:

1. McCaskey resigned on the condition that he publish an email.

2. What McCaskey published has caused confusion.

3. That confusion has been increased by other people.

4. We are sorry that we allowed McCaskey to publish that email.

Notice that Yaron completely ignores the fact that Peikoff issued an ultimatum to the board that they must boot McCaskey or that he would go (and presumably take the Estate of Ayn Rand with him).

Yaron's presentation here also sidesteps having to deal with McCaskey's statement--that he asked for something to explain his (forced) resignation and was surprised that Peikoff offered him that letter.

The way Yaron presents it is that McCaskey somehow came across the letter and offered to resign if only he could have the pleasure of posting a letter that made arbitrary accusations against him.

Notice, too, the phrase "what McCaskey published" in place of "Peikoff's letter." When people aren't being clear, there's often a good reason why. In this case, it allows Yaron to place the blame on McCaskey for publishing it rather than having to deal with the unjustified accusations made by Peikoff in that letter (and which caused the uproar by being so arbitrary and negative).

Finally, after slyly criticizing people for trying to bring facts together in order to make sense of the resignation or for following Objectivism and commenting that unjustified accusations have no merit, Yaron goes on to say that the Board apologizes for allowing McCaskey to publish the email.

Moving on:

5. We realize that noone can understand or evaluate what occurred at the Board level from one email.

6. We did not expect anyone to try to do so.

7. Peikoff's email was informal, unedited and not written for publication.

8. We regarded what led up to McCaskey's resignation as private.

9. Because it did not remain so, we are now providing additional information.

Notice that Yaron makes the subject of this what occurred at the Board level--as opposed to whether John McCaskey deserves a spot in hell, has said all the things Peikoff asserted he said or implied, and so on. (That's not necessarily wrong, given the context of this letter, but it's a definite switch from what a lot of donors and supporters are concerned about.)

His statement that the Board did not expect anyone to try to understand an event such as this within the context that they could is telling. He cannot mean by this that the Board assumes Objectivists know the onus of proof principle, that it applies in this case, and that Peikoff's unjustified, arbitary accusations have zero epistemological worth. After all, that would apply only to the letter itself.

If what occurred at the Board level is the subject, it likely means that ARI did not expect Objectivists to understand why someone who has done so much for Objectivism resigned immediately and was given only a statement full of arbitrary accusations to explain to others why. If this is so, what low level of their supporters this assumes!

Did anybody notice the lack of respect that Peikoff treated the Board with in his letter? It is not addressed to people of reason--and, in fact, I commented on this when someone tried to justify Peikoff's manner with an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged in which Dagny cites her authority in getting an unreasonable person to do what she wants. Now that Peikoff has made clear he hates and wishes ill will to roughly 40% of the board his treatment of them makes more sense. But the cause of ARI's actions remains unclear. I certainly hope there's not a pyramid of condescension from the top levels of ARI on down to its supporters "below."

On a different issue, notice that Yaron says Peikoff's letter was informal, unedited and not written for publication. So what? Are arbitrary accusations OK if written in private? Are appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks fine so long as they're not written down and edited for publication? This is not a defense of that letter, nor the subsequent one, it is a cop-out from having to deal with what they contain.

(Incidentally, apart from being irrelevant, it's dishonest if Yaron or anyone applies the above standard to Peikoff and then justifies McCaskey's treatment by Peikoff, the Board, and many so-called Objectivists based on his tentative thoughts in a private forum on a new philosophic issue.)

Finally, Yaron points out that the Board regarded the resignation of a member as a private matter, including the reasons why. Then he says that because it did not remain private, this letter hopes to answer questions.

Just a quick point: Of course this issue did not remain private! Does it take a genius to know that when a top board member resigns, friends of that person, and students, and donors will want to know why? Is it too much to look forward 10 minutes and see that offering Peikoff's letter as a statement to the public for why someone resigned will make this into a public issue as soon as it's posted and could do nothing less?

I can't accuse the Board of being that concrete-bound, nor of wanting simply to escape responsibility for the action--putting it "on Peikoff" so to speak--but come on. At least there's some reason not to think that all members of the Board are like this given "the timeline" that Peikoff offered (which is discussed below).

10. McCaskey's contributions "are recognized and appreciated."

11. However, Peikoff raised the conflict of McCaskey serving on the board given disagreements over a significant project of ARI's.

12. Yaron calls disagreement with this a "serious conflict."

13. Yaron describes Peikoff's email as passionate and says he provided the board with terms and a timeline in which to make a decision.

14. McCaskey resigned and the ARI thinks that was a good outcome.

Notice first the presence of the passive voice. McCaskey's contributions "are recognized and appreciated" by whom? Yaron doesn't say; the passive voice allows him to slyly not do so (although this could just be poor writing).

If the Board did appreciate McCaskey, perhaps they would have given him a letter praising him for his many accomplishments, saying that due to what they held was a serious disagreement regarding one project he was going to resign, and wishing him well in the future. Of course that didn't happen.

They instead gave him Peikoff's letter as sole explanation and, importantly, not once has a single board member come forward and said "I know that letter seems to condemn him morally, and Peikoff's subsequent letter definitely does so--while calling him a braggart and an ignoramus to boot. Well, I do not regard him as such and, out of justice to someone I respect, I feel obliged to say so."

Next, Yaron calls Logical Leap a significant project of ARI's and says that McCaskey's disagreements with parts of it are a "serious conflict." I would call a "serious conflict" one where a board member disagrees with a part of Ayn Rand's philosophy, but that's for every donor to decide--including, of course, Peikoff.

By the way: Did anyone catch what Yaron's description of Peikoff's email as passionate allows him to do? It allows him to sidestep again or perhaps slyly justify its contents while conceding just a little to critics of the letter. Meanwhile, saying in a very general way that Peikoff gave them "terms and a timeline" allows him to state a truth without having to say that Peikoff issued an ultimatum and an hour and a half to decide (assuming Arline Mann is in New York). This is the kind of stuff you'd expect from a politician--not the head of ARI.

15. Because of Peikoff's support in the past, now, and hopefully in the future, the Board was "certainly interested" in hearing his thoughts and gave them "due deliberation."

I think ARI should definitely be interested in Peikoff's thoughts and give them due deliberation. Such terms, however, paint a picture of Peikoff giving reasons to the Board and the Board discussing them over time in a careful manner. I personally don't know how "due deliberation" is possible within the hour and a half that Peikoff seemingly gave them, nor how many Board members could even be gathered together on the phone that fast.

Regardless, I hope ARI is not interested in any arguments that are made without reference to facts, which make assertions about what one of them is thinking (without even having bothered to talk to that person), and which rely on statements like "Do you know who I am?"

Moving on:

16. Nobody tried to quash criticism of Logical Leap.

17. Now that he's not on the board, that "conflict of interest" is gone.

18. ARI seeks to present a consistent position on Objectivism or innovations based on it.

19. This consistency and its quality set ARI apart from others.

Yaron says that nobody tried to quash criticism of Logical Leap and seemingly as proof points to McCaskey's ability to now say whatever he wants about the book--under a salvo of arbitrary insults provided by Peikoff and insinuations that he's a Kantian (or a supporter of one) provided by Harriman.

More interesting here is Yaron's statement that McCaskey no longer has a "conflict of interest." This term usually means that a person who has a chosen obligation to act for the benefit of a company or person exploits his position for individual gain. Nobody has offered any facts or proof even suggesting that McCaskey had such a conflict.

So, where is the conflict? Is it between what he sees as the truth and what ARI sees as sunk costs and the work of a large donor? Is he supposed to not point out discrepancies in a work that ARI is sponsoring because that would create an inconsistent message from the organization?

There are many questions here relating to what actually is in the long-term best interests of ARI and the obligation of Board members to follow that. I, for one, think consistency with the facts is important and not necessarily consistency with what other people at ARI are saying.

Yaron evidently thinks different. He says that ARI seeks consistency as an organization, and more, that "this consistency and the high quality of our scholarship" is what sets ARI apart from other voices. (!) But being consistent is not a virtue, unless one is talking about being consistent with facts.

(ARI is standing out now for demanding consistency on an issue not even a part of Objectivism proper, but that's another issue.)

It's a shame I have to even write this but, Yaron, if you're reading this, do you know what makes ARI's voice stand out from other voices in the culture? Ayn Rand's revolutionary ideas! Her defense of this world, the primacy of existence, her defense of reason and of selfishness and of laissez-faire capitalism! In fact, it is these very ideas that supporters primarily pay ARI to promote--not consistency with new applications of them that aren't even a part of Objectivism.

20. Board members cannot undercut major projects.

21. Employees can publicly only support ARI's official position (when it has one)

22. Guest speakers must show that they maintain an appropriate understanding of Objectivism.

23. If they exhibit poor thinking skills, inconsistency with ARI, poor judgment, and so on they won't appear on a stage funded by ARI.

24. We are not dictatorial and are not censoring anyone.

Leaving aside whether areas outside of Objectivism should be "major projects" of ARI, pointing out historical inaccuracies no more "undercuts" them than editing an editorial (or offering suggestions) so that it's historically correct "undercuts" their media project.

Skipping over the part about supporting ARI's official position, the statement about guest speakers is typical for the entire letter. It's an attempt to smear someone as having an inappropriate understanding of Objectivism or any other number of the bad qualities listed without ever saying why Craig Biddle's talks in particular were cancelled.

Again, you'd expect this sort of thing from a politician--not from a man of reason who works at an organization charged with promoting Objectivism.

Finally, few people (if any) are saying that ARI censored anyone or is being dictatorial. This sweeps aside the valid criticisms and concerns, along with the legitimate questions that many ARI supporters have raised.

25. ARI thanks you for your ongoing support.

I always find such statements manipulative. In any case--as there can be a non-manipulative way to take that--I'll just say in closing that going forward ARI will get the support from me that it deserves: none.

[PDS]

Robert: it sounds like Saul should change his name to Paul. He has seen the light.