The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Say Opera Houses Announce They "No Longer Engage With Artists That Support Israel,"
given what the opera houses view as Israel's improper control over the West Bank.
This hypothetical is of course based on the Metropolitan Opera saying "we can no longer engage with artists … that support Putin." Say that the Opera concludes that Israel's control over the West Bank is as bad as Putin's attempt to control Ukraine (and to occupy or annex parts of Ukraine). Therefore, if you publicly support Israel, we will fire you and no longer hire you, at least unless you're willing to publicly condemn Israeli actions.
I should stress that I view the underlying geopolitical actions (Russia's with regard to Ukraine and Israel's with regard to the West Bank and the Palestinians more broadly) as morally very different, but I imagine many view them as similar. (The Boycott Divest Sanction movement against Israel reflects that.) What would you say about the two decisions, the Metropolitan Opera's real one about Putin and the hypothetical one about Israel?
- They are similarly right. Arts institutions should refuse to engage with artists who take political positions supporting bad people, governments, and organizations.
- They are similarly wrong. Arts institutions shouldn't blacklist people simply because of their political beliefs, even ones that are unpopular and that the institution plausibly thinks are wrong.
- They are similarly neutral. Arts institutions should be able to decide whatever they please, both as a matter of law but as a matter of ethics. If they want to cut off ties with people based on those people's political beliefs and statements, fine; if not, fine.
- The Met's action is proper but the hypothetical Israel-related one isn't, but only because Putin is in the wrong and Israel is in the right. (That might indeed be many people's view with regard to boycotts of countries and of companies.) Blacklisting people who support bad countries (or people or actions) is good, and blacklisting people who support good countries (or people or actions) is bad.
- The Met's action is proper but the hypothetical Israel-related one isn't, but only because Putin is clearly in the wrong while Israel's control over the West Bank are at least something over which reasonable people may disagree. We shouldn't blacklist people who endorse such plausible views, but you should indeed be blacklisted if you support extreme views—you support Putin, you've supported Soviet Communism, you supported Castro or support the Chinese government (wait, where does that fall)?
- What a ridiculous hypothetical! The opera house probably has lots of donors who would stop donating if the opera house took what is perceived as an anti-Israel stance, and surely if the opera house started firing supporters of Israel. But the opera house probably has few donors who would do the same if the opera house stops dealing with Putin supporters. Only fools look for consistency here: Which views will get you fired and which won't is, and should be, just a matter of economic power.
I'd love to hear your views.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
EV seemed to think ‘blacklists’ of entertainers were no big deal. That was, of course, back when the Left seemed to have less power/proclivity to ‘blacklist’ people and they were more likely to be the targets of them.
https://volokh.com/posts/1137731877.shtml
Then you shut down the operas and seize their assets. The enemy gives no quarter should not expect any.
The fulminations of a fascist fool.
He’s also a big Trump fan, of course.
“It seems quite legitimate for consumers to withdraw their support of entertainers and to use their economic power to pressure others to withdraw their support. Groups have organized consumer boycotts of businesses that contribute to Operation Rescue, to pro-life candidates and ballot measures, and to Planned Parenthood; others have pressured businesses to stop advertising on conservative Sinclair Broadcasting. Consumer retaliation against entertainers seems equally legitimate when a celebrity supports a cause by using her fame, rather than a business supporting a cause by using its money. “
You mean that 16 years ago the prof wrote that it’s “legitimate for consumers to withdraw their support of entertainers and to use their economic power to pressure others to withdraw their support”, and today he wrote that “prominent cultural institutions should try to resist such pressure”?
I’m not sure that’s even inconsistent, let alone the big “gotcha” you seem to think it is.
The ‘cultural institutions’ is new, here he is on the same subject earlier today:
“I don’t support ideological blacklists, either, whether it’s of artists who back Putin, or who back the Chinese government, or who back Trump or Biden or Ocasio-Cortez. ”
“even if the Met’s actions—and similar actions by other institutions—are legal, I think they are a bad idea: they lead to more political divisiveness and hostility, less free and open discussion, and pressure to implement broader suppression in the future.”
If he, or you, want to hang your hat on the distinction that ‘oh, I just meant that *cultural INSTITUTIONS* shouldn’t ‘blacklist’ entertainers for their political positions, it’s totally ok for, say, radio stations, record labels, advertisers, movie studios, etc., to ‘blacklist’ entertainers for their political positions’ please, knock yourselves out, love to hear it. I for one love contortions and gymnastics displays!
I mean, MCI can drop Danny Glover, movie studios can drop Sean Penn, record stations and labels can drop the Dixie Chicks, but hey, they aren’t *cultural INSTITUTIONS* like an opera house dropping an opera singer for their political position! That’s totally not the same thing!
Sure. MCI can drop him as a spokesperson because of a political stance, but an institution that purports to recognize arts, like the Motion Picture academy, shouldn’t deny him an Oscar because of his political stance. Why is this hard?
So it really is a ‘high brow’ kind of thing? Record labels and radio stations, cancel entertainers all you want, but ‘important cultural institutions,’ no way Jose*?
There was no mention of that in his older post endorsing cancelling entertainers, sounds like a later made distinction to sell it as not a flip flop.
Also, the distinction makes little sense given his rationale in the earlier post “even if the Met’s actions—and similar actions by other institutions—are legal, I think they are a bad idea: they lead to more political divisiveness and hostility, less free and open discussion, and pressure to implement broader suppression in the future.” ‘Important cultural institutions blacklisting is bad because it leads to those things, but radio stations, movie studios and record labels blacklisting…doesn’t?
*And does that hold up? In his older post he specifically defends the case of Sarandon and Robbins who were disinvited from the National Baseball Hall of Fame, which purports to be a history museum and hall of fame, for their speech. Is that not an ‘important cultural institution’ but the Met is?
Literally two sentences after one of your quotes:
“To be sure, star performers trade in part on their reputations and goodwill. Some (though I expect only some) might prominently back certain causes in part to improve that goodwill; and sometimes the person or cause one backs might undermine goodwill. From a purely financial perspective, a producer might conclude that employing a now-unpopular star is a bad idea. But I think that prominent cultural institutions should try to resist this pressure, and should try to focus their audiences more on the art, than on the artists’ politics.”
Why not focus on what he actually said, than on what he “seemed to think”?
Also, it was 17 years ago. A lot of other things have changed since then other than just the increase of left-wing cultural power. And there are differences in the cases.
Personally, I was very much not a fan of the cancellation of the Dixie Chicks. But I don’t see how someone expressing sympathy for it, if that’s what Prof. Volokh was doing, locks that person in for all time into a position of never criticizing this sort of thing.
Did Prof. Volokh ever express support for boycotting the Dixie Chicks? I sure don’t remember it.
I left my substantive comment on the other thread.
Fortunately for the Met in this hypothetical, they aren’t Broadway. After all, “you can’t succeed on Broadway if you don’t have any Jews.” (Holy Grail musical)
Great line. Thanks.
I remember the squire who, after a while, admitted to being Jewish.
“Why didn’t you tell us this?”
“Well, it’s not the sort of thing you’d mention when surrounded by a lot of heavily armed Christians.”
As to what should happen: 2.
As to what does happen: 6.
… perchè egli è tanto discosto da come si vive, a come si doveria vivere, che colui che lascia quello che si fa per quello che si doveria fare, impara piuttosto la rovina, che la preservazione sua; perchè un uomo che voglia fare in tutte le parti professione di buono, conviene che rovini fra tanti che non sono buoni.
… because how one lives is so far distant from how one ought to live, that he who neglects what is done for what ought to be done, sooner effects his ruin than his preservation; for a man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil.
Is the West Bank not occupied? Isn’t’ that land NOT in the 1948 boundaries? I mean either it is occupied or not..which is it?
As far as I’m aware it is, and always has been, the official view of the State of Israel that the West Bank is occupied territory, with the exception of East Jerusalem.
I thought the official view is the land is disputed, not occupied. Otherwise, Israel would be in violation of the Geneva accords which it is a party to.
The official view of the state of Israel is that Judea and Samaria are disputed, not occupied. “Occupied” would mean that some other country has legal sovereignty over it. But there is certainly no other country that fits that description.
We should likely add another historical hypothetical involving Germany during WWII.
Taken together, the hypotheticals show this is a tough issue. On the one hand, perhaps whoever is right should prevail. But, who is right and how do we determine it? Given that difficulty, perhaps the answer is neutrality. But, that would leave a lot of people without jobs for their political views and that seems wrong as a matter of neutrality. So perhaps the answer is both are wrong. But, can that really be the case for supporters of Germany during WWII. Ugh!
I raised the WWII hypothetical on the other thread – specifically in the context of an actor openly supporting the holocaust. I would hope such a blacklist would be justified. But then, we should also be able to blacklist anyone supporting the ongoing genocide of the Uyghurs.
And if those blacklists are okay, wouldn’t blacklisting supporters of the leaders of the responsible countries also be okay? ie, if you can blacklist a Holocaust supporter, you should be able to blacklist a Hitler supporter. You can’t support Hitler and not support the Holocaust. Xi Jinping supporters do not appear to be safe from blacklisting if this logic holds.
I think blacklisting performers who openly advocate (literal) genocide and who support a regime currently engaged in just that is the right thing to do. So blacklist supporters of Nazi Germany in 1942? Absolutely.
If the public is split roughly 50/50 or even 70/30 on an issue, I think blacklisting is a generally a bad idea. As DWB points out, one good reason to avoid blacklisting in those situations is we just further divisions that threaten our culture of openness and tolerance, plus advocating such “censorship” just erodes what should be a norm against censorship and in favor of tolerance, even for bad or “immoral” ideas.
Here, I think the Putin situation is much closer to unanimity and sufficiently clear-cut abusive aggression that, not irrelevantly, is directly aimed at suppressing others’ free speech and other freedoms, that I am fine with the Met excluding Putin supporters. (I mean, if you advocate for a regime that blacklists people for their political views, you really can’t complain if you are blacklisted for that advocacy. Hoisted on one’s own petard and all.)
I don’t think I am comfortable with a super-duper majority as the vehicle for determining what is right.
Well, the “super-duper majority” as you put it is the concept on which the U.S. Constitution is based.
Also, there is no objective criteria on which these decisions can be made.
You personally being convinced that this crosses some threshold and also a very high percentage of the rest of the population thinks so too provides some additional reason to think you’re on the right track (the wisdom of cross, though, of course, witch trials among other examples of crowds gone evilly wrong).
The other part of that is just reality. If the vast majority of the population finds a particular position evil, the practicalities of the situation likely make the usual norms inoperable anyway. Absent that sort of overwhelming majority, we should emphasize the norms. And also in those instances where we, individually, think the political position is not so far outside the mainstream and is not contributing to an immediate crisis, even if a vast majority thinks so, we should be vocal about upholding the norms.
(This separates me from Eugene, I think the radio stations should not have cancelled the Dixie Chicks, they should have striven to uphold the norms of free speech, ditto Sarandon at the baseball hall of fame (though Eugene only said he though that was legal, he didn’t take an explicit stance on whether he thought it was “equally legitimate” as he did with firing entertainers as spokespeople and consumer retaliation.). Neither of their views were that far outside the mainstream and, moreover, they proved to be entirely right about the war in Iraq. I know people now who claim to have been against it, though they were for it. Which just goes to your point, even an 80/20 split silences voices who are right.)
(As Eugene has pointed out in other contexts, being a performer in today’s world partially entails having a platform and relying on people wanting to see you perform. Last I checked, artists at the Met are entertainers, so he definitely seems to have been for backlisting before he was against it. See Section Ii.A. of the article to which Queen Amalthea linked above. Part of whether they want to pay to hear/watch/listen to you is the public position you take on contentious issues. If Eugene thinks “consumer retaliation . . . seems equally legitimate” and, following the logical chain, then it’s legit for entertainers’ employers to ditch them if they don’t like their publicly expressed views. Not that I necessarily agree with Eugene’s view. But he identifies a reasonable argument and that argument applies with equal force to the Met, though he apparently has either shifted his position in the past decade or so or, alternatively, he’s a hack who chooses his positions based on the ox being gored. If he’s not that, he should respond to Queen Amalthea and construct an argument for why it’s legit for radio stations to stop carrying the Dixie Chicks based on their publicly expressed political views, but not the Met to stop employing artists who support Putin. Now, maybe he meant only to limit his norm to artists who aren’t public about their support for Putin, but that’s not what he said.)
I’m kind of with Josh R that supermajoritarianism is what makes it a difference, but I also admit there’s definitely a line at which blacklists become acceptable, and I have no idea where to draw that line. (Some things are so obviously over it that I know it exists, somewhere).
However, a reason any form of majoritarianism would make me uncomfortable is because its easy for a *lot* of people to be very very wrong. If the Holocaust enjoyed majority or even super-majority support, a blacklist of its supporters would still be justified.
Gah, that got mangled in revision…
“I’m kind of with Josh R” in being uncomfortable “that supermajoritarianism is what makes a difference,…”
Maybe this is clearer: Supermajoritarianism is a necessary condition, not a sufficient condition.
Even if I think X is sufficiently bad that we should all condemn it and, as part of that condemnation, refuse to hire people who support X, I think I should at least have second thoughts about whether I am right and, also, whether the refusal will have the desired effect. Maybe it just weakens those who oppose X (by losing money including through retaliation by the substantial people who agree with X) and makes anti-X cause less palatable to those who would otherwise be convinced (or at least moved closer to anti-X. I think the boycotts of Israel might be achieving that sort of reverse effect, regardless of what I think about the merits.
Without supermajoritarianism, I think blacklisting is unlikely to accomplish any useful purpose, even in the worst case. Though, for extreme cases, there’s something to simply declining to participate, regardless of practical effect.
So, if your condemnation has supermajority support AND you think the cause is sufficiently evil that supporters should be socially and/or economically shunned, then by all means. But how to draw the line on what you think is too much, I can’t answer that. I think there is no calculus. Which is why I do think the wisdom of the crowd is relevant info, though hardly decisive. Even unanimous crowds are oft wrong. Burning heretics once had super majority support, so not sure you’d survive if you boycotted everyone in favor. Other methods are probably more effective and don’t you have some obligation to use the most effective means of eliminating an evil?
I fall somewhere between options 1 and 2.
It ought to be legal (for private persons, not government) to refrain from doing business with anyone, for any reason, with these two exceptions:
(a) If you publish or advertise particular rules (such as, I won’t ban you for political reasons) those should be binding. Violations of this should mean the forum is not acting “in good faith” as that phrase is used in Sec 230, in addition to possibly being actionable as fraud.
(b) If an industry (for instance, banking) is so regulated that it is impractical to find a more inclusive alternative when someone in that business discriminates against you, then the courts should give you a right to be served.
The first-resort remedy for discrimination by a person or business should be to publicize the fact and promote competing businesses, where they exist. If (b) applies then courts should be very open to changing that fact by striking down some regulations.
Having a right to act and that action being the right/moral thing are often confused.
Think very hard before you create a culture where half the country is at any given time punishing the other half for offenses real and imagined.
You just may find that you have created HELL on earth.
Are we not already there?
It can get a LOT worse!
At what print do tax exempt organizations risk their exemptions?
I’d say a little of 3, and a little of 6 with the caveat that “and should be” isn’t right. It *shouldn’t* be. But it is.
As a matter of law, I were emperor, support for a particular nations government isn’t equivalent to national origin discrimination, because it’s a view you hold, not something you are. So is religion, but that’s a whole underground megacomplex of rabbit holes. Nonetheless, presumably your support of your government’s actions shift with who’s in charge and what actions they take, so is far more malleable than religion in any case.
“Say that the Opera concludes that Israel’s control over the West Bank is as bad as Putin’s attempt to control Ukraine (and to occupy or annex parts of Ukraine).”
Be thankful the River Jordan’s West Bank is a thousand miles shorter than the Dnieper’s.
The hypothetical doesn’t mention if my money (in the form of non-profit tax exemptions, for example) is being used to wholly or partially support the artistic endeavor. If I am paying for the venture, I’d have to pick #2 — and be prepared to live with the consequences of that choice. Option #6 remains available as a weapon against both subsidized and non-subsidized ventures: I could always refuse to directly fund the venture (by withholding my donation or refusing to purchase good & services) and could solicit similar action by others.
Given that option #6 is always available, institutional blacklisting is merely a form of self-serving, self-aggrandizing virtue signaling. Interestingly, some comments above mention the holocaust yet fail to note that Chesterton and others who opposed eugenics were the ones blacklisted both here in the US and abroad: virtue is ephemeral and the Academy has repeatedly proven itself a poor arbiter of virtue.
(PS: I think it’s cool that the Machiavelli quote above triggers Google Translate for this page.)
I thought about discussing Eugenics more broadly. It would have required a lot of research effort to do it in any serious way, and didn’t seem necessary to make the point I wanted to make.
(My standard has nothing to do with how popular or unpopular the idea is, and I cannot commit to any particular brightline that would sharpen my standard. Some things are just so abhorrent that one should choose not to associate with them in any form – not just be able to choose, but should so choose).
3 but only if they don’t receive govt support, i.e. our taxes.
A private institution can obviously pick from whatever sources available at their own discretion.
However, they absolutely cannot “blacklist” anyone based on their private views if they receive public funds.
Playing the music of Richard Wagner in Israel
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2001/08/wagn-a01.html “Barenboim, who spent his teenage years in Israel, led the musicians in the performance of Richard Wagner’s “Overture to Tristan und Isolde” as an encore following the regular program. This provoked angry outbursts and denunciations from some members of the audience, and heavy condemnation across the Israeli political spectrum in the following days.”
It’s funny. MEISTERSINGER actually voices some opposition to the sort of thing the Nazis liked. They liked this one nasty monologue at the end, about foreign powers menacing German culture, but that bit has nothing to do with the rest of the opera, which is mostly about the danger of insular culture becoming stagnant and the need to be open to outside influences and take refreshment and guidance from them. It’s about a knight from a distant province, who comes to Nürnberg and enters a singing contest (the prize is the prettiest girl in town, with whom he has fallen in love at first sight). He sings beautifully, but he knows nothing of the rules of singing and composing which govern the contest. Everyone hates his first try at singing, except the main protagonist, the wise Hans Sachs, who says:
“Des Ritters Lied und Weise,
sie fand ich neu, doch nicht verwirrt;
verliess er unsre Gleise,
schritt er doch fest und unbeirrt.
Wollt ihr nach Regeln messen,
was nicht nach eurer Regeln Lauf,
der eignen Spur vergessen,
sucht davon erst die Regeln auf!”
If the Nazis wanted a Wagner opera to support their views, there were much better choices: LOHENGRIN, whose protagonist can unite the people and lead them to victory, but only if they follow him without questioning or trying to find out who he is and where he comes from. Also, the protagonists come to grief because of having failed to massacre their enemies after beating them: one whom they spared causes a disaster for them.
And SIEGFRIED is a real proto-Nazi thing: the principal villain is a dwarf, old, misshapen, and smelly, shuffling and blinking, over-educated but incapable, an obvious Jewish stereotype in the Nazis’ eyes, fully as bad as Fagin in OLIVER TWIST. The dwarf cannot accomplish his goal himself but must deceive and exploit an Aryan child-hero. The child kills the dragon and the dwarf tries to poison him in order to get the dragon’s treasure. Also, the dwarf cannot re-forge the broken sword which the child needs; the child forges it himself, and actually threatens to put the dwarf into the forge-fire if he gets in the way! (How could Wagner have known???)
I would distinguish between “boycotting” a group of people en masse — Russians, Israelis, etc. (which is what BDS is all about) — and “refusing to engage” with someone based on their specific, individual statements / acts. Here’s an example:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/10/22/Actress-Vanessa-Redgraves-lawsuit-trial-against-the-Boston-Symphony/5422467265600/
I disapprove of the former. The latter seems to me more defensible.
(Of course, where the law is concerned, as long it’s a private entity doing the “boycotting,” I’d let them do as they like — laissez faire, as the French say.)
I would say you hypothetical 5 comes closest to articulating the correct rule of decision.
A liberal society is one where (1) private actors do have the legal right to discriminate against other private actors based on their controversial views, but where (2) a wide variety of controversial viewpoints is tolerated within the public sphere, and (3) there is a strong societal norm that private actors will not use their power of discrimination to shut down the debate between those wide variety of views; but where (4) we recognize that there will be imperfect decision-making around the margins of what counts as legitimate debate, and (5) we hope that many independent actors making imperfect decisions will, on average, produce something acceptable.
Some extreme viewpoints will necessarily be ostracized because no one will want to associate with the few people who hold them. It will be to the good that not every crazy idea gets a share of the spotlight, and it will be good that the government isn’t the one deciding what is in and what is out. But, in general, it is also good that viewpoints that are held by a significant number of people are put out there to be debated. Because if many people hold a view, it is unhealthy for society not to debate it. Nonetheless, there won’t be uniformity. People will disagree about where to draw the line, especially because some will care more or less about certain views. This is also to the good, because some amount of variation and volatility should make it possible for norms to evolve.
Where I disagree with EV’s formulation is that the question is not whether one view or the other is objectively more reasonable. The question is what place it has in society. (For instance, segregation is undoubtedly a great evil, but if you live in a segregated society, you have to let segregationists speak in order to convince people to change their minds.) And the question is to what degree private actors who disassociate with the holders of a controversial view are trying to effect the removal of that view from legitimate debate.
As to the facts of the instant case, I think it is clear that, whatever view you have about Israel’s occupation of Palestine, supporters of Israel’s current policies are well within the broad range of popularly-held views. If a venue that is generally open to a variety of art excludes someone for pro-Israel views, that is very troubling. It suggests an attempt to “win” a debate by shutting out the opposition.
It is a lot less clear that pro-Putin views are within the broad swath of popular discourse. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. If one venue excludes someone for pro-Putin views, that is not as troubling because it is not as clear that it is an attempt to short-circuit a debate that would otherwise be happening. Nonetheless, that decision might become more troubling if more venues follow, such that it seems like a general prohibition is developing, suggesting both that this is not an idiosyncratic decision, and that its purpose is to shut down views that would otherwise get a hearing.
Independently, it might be more troubling if it turns out that the person who expressed pro-Putin views holds them faintheartedly, or as a result of political necessity. It doesn’t seem all that great to punish someone harshly for something if they had little choice in.
Semi-related, what do the various “Citizens United” sides* think about using corporate assets to express this political message?
*yes, I know this is not the CU case, but that’s the accepted shorthand for corporate political speech.
The Met makes its decisions on what it thinks its donors and audiences want, not on what is right.
(The same is true of Planned Parenthood’s decision to take Margaret Sanger’s name off one of their clinics. There is nothing offensive about any of her beliefs, except to people who hate contraception. Her record of writings, actions, and speeches contains no trace or spoor racism whatsoever, and she opposed abortion. But some of her big donors are ignorant woke-ies.)
OOPS I meant some of THEIR donors – PP’s — are ignorant woke-ies.
And I left out an “of”. “…no trace or spoor OF racism….”
So Sanger’s endorsement of the Eugenics movement doesn’t give you pause?
(Even accepting that Sanger wasn’t a racist eugenics booster, she still promoted eugenics itself, and it’s problematic on its own terms).