From: <jricole@my-dejanews.com>
Subject: Re: Bahai Dialogue Magazine
Date: Thursday, May 13, 1999 6:50 PM
Actually, the horse's mouth in this instance is Steve Scholl, whose
account of the suppression (that is what it was) of
Dialogue magazine by
Kazemzadeh and Henderson can be found at:
https://www.bcca.org/services/srb/archive/970101-970228/0992.html
I append it below.
This issue wasn't only that "A Modest Proposal" was rejected for
publication by the NSA's "review" process. It was that it was
made the
basis for a set of false charges against the editors of planning to
engage in "negative campaigning." Since they submitted the piece
for
Review, this seems ridiculous. Kazemzadeh stood up at the National
Convention in 1988 and delivered one of his typical, long-winded
paranoid attacks on the editors. As Scholl notes, anyone who knows
anything about Baha'i publishing would know that after that it was very
difficult to imagine publishing the magazine any longer. Baha'i
publishing requires the NSA's cooperation, and the NSA is in a powerful
position to badmouth a publication and so discourage Baha'is from
reading it.
The "Modest Proposal" was a set of polite suggestions for
improving
community functioning. Its title was ironic, drawn from Swift's essay
in which he suggested eating Irish babies as the solution to a number of
problems. The babes of *Dialogue* had no idea they were dealing with
Aristocratic Lords who would eat *them*.
cheers
Juan Cole
"The Modest Proposal"
--
Re: Dialogue thread on SRB
White Cloud Press (sscholl@jeffnet.org)
10 Feb 1997 21:06:04 -0700
Dear Friends,
I have been informed of some of the posts on this list re: Dialogue
magazine and the article "A Modest Proposal." It seems to me
that several key issues remain unclear and, in some instances, the actions
taken by the Dialogue editorial board have been misrepresented. Let me
attempt to clarify.
1. The article "A Modest Proposal" was a collective effort
by a fairly wide group of Baha'is in the Los Angeles area, mostly members
of the Dialogue staff but a number of others joined in the consultation
process that helped develop the article. The article's primary author was
David Langness, who developed an initial draft, presented it to the
Dialogue staff and interested friends. This led to a second draft that
became the working paper that was submited to the NSA for review under the
full title: "A Modest Proposal: Nine Recommendations for the
Revitalization of the American Baha'i Community." We sent this
working draft to the NSA even though we realized it was not in final form.
2. At the same time I sent the draft to the NSA for their review, I
sent it to seven outside readers to solicit their feedback. To my
knowledge none of these individuals were national convention delegates.
However, it might be of interest to know who they were. They included Aux.
Board members, the head of a permanent Baha'i school, senior NSA staff,
two Baha'i scholars, a couple of national committee members. In short, I
circulated it to prominent Baha'is who were either on the NSA payroll or
close to the NSA--not a bright move if we were planning to take over the
NSA! In doing so we sought their feedback to improve the article, to help
us make it better and more acceptable to the Baha'i administration and the
community at large. Most of the outside reviewers responded positively to
the project and offered criticisms to the draft for improving it. None of
these prominent and deepened Baha'is contacted me saying they felt we were
engaged in any kind of negative criticism or improper action.
3. Once the NSA read the article they reacted in a rather extreme
manner. In an attempt to better understand their concerns and to work with
them in a spirit of cooperation, we met with two NSA members to go over
the article line by line. These NSA members were very open and frank and
expressed their concerns and explained how certain wording or specific
proposals would be interpreted by the NSA as confrontational, or, in some
instances, our initial proposals were, in fact, matters that should be
addressed to the Universal House of Justice. We agreed to adopt every one
of the suggestions of the NSA members, and Dialogue editor Sidney Morrison
was asked to prepare a final draft for the NSA. At this meeting, it was
emphasized by the NSA members that they understood the positive spirit and
motivations of the Dialogue staff in preparing the article, that the
proposals, as they were to be modified based on this consultation, were
important and should be circulated within the community. It was even
suggested by the NSA members that it is these kinds of ideas that should
be circulated to the national convention delegates.
4. Based on this positive meeting, I contacted the Office of the
Secretary in Wilmette and suggested that if the revised article met with
the approval of the NSA, we would be happy to provide national convention
delegates with a copy of the article. I did not expect this to be
approved, but in light of the positive response we received from two NSA
members, I thought it was a long shot worth asking about.
5. Shortly thereafter I was accused by the NSA of circulating the
article to dozens and dozens of delgates in an attempt to engage in
"negative electioneering" and to attack the NSA. In fact, to the
best of my knowledge only two delegates saw the draft of "A Modest
Proposal," and these two were Los Angeles area members of the
Dialogue editorial and advisory boards. On hearing this charge, I
submitted to the NSA the extent of the circulation of the draft and the
cover letter I sent to the outside readers. In my letter to outside
readers there was no indication of this being a "dissident
manifesto" or any kind of subtle attempt to undermine the authority,
or malign the integrity, of the NSA.
6. These documented *facts* always seems to get lost in the accounts
by those who criticize our actions and assume to know our motivations. A
proper understanding of the sequence of events is crucial to reaching an
accurate assessment of the affair and of the motives of the disputants. It
deals with the old Watergate question: what did they know and when did
they know it? The NSA was informed very early on that we did not circulate
the article to delegates. A full month before they denounced the Dialogue
staff at national convention and circulated their accusations of negative
electioneering and attempting to sway the delegates, they had all the
information from us about who the article had been sent to along with my
cover letter to the outside readers. I have requested the NSA or UHJ to
provide any evidence of this accusation, to bring forth even one delegate
who I sent the article to let alone the "dozens and dozens" of
delegates I supposedly contacted according to the NSA. They have yet to
respond with any contrary evidence to support their charges.
7. Consequently, I disagree with Susan Maneck when she says things
like:
>Apparently
>action was initiated against these Baha'is under the mistaken
premise
>that they had distributed the article to delegates prior to the
>Convention.
While others have their opinions, it is my feeling that the National
Spiritual Assembly had to be aware that we were innocent of these charges
and I feel that they somehow misled the Universal House of Justice, the
convention delegates, and the general community due to what I personally
perceive as false accusations.
8. In one post on this list it was noted that Dialgoue was never
commanded by the Baha'i institutions to cease and desist publication. This
is true, but reveals a rather unsophisticated understanding of how Baha'i
publishing operates. It seems to me that modus operandi of the NSA re:
Dialogue was to make it clear to the American Baha'i community that we
were a renegade "dissident" group attempting to subvert the
administrative order via our campaign of negative criticisms. This was
done by sending out the letter to all Aux. Board members and assistants
disparging our work followed by an open denunciation of the editors by the
NSA to the national convention delegates. Furthermore, members of national
committees, national center staff, and prominent Baha'is were warned not
to have any association with the editors or to write for the magazine. It
is my understanding from national center staff that at least some of the
Dialogue editors were designated "internal enemies of the faith"
and that a blacklist was circulated in high Baha'i circles. In a closed
system such as the Baha'i faith, which is a very small community where
most information is spread via gossip and backchannel communications, this
is the prefered method for marginalizing unwelcome views and those who
hold them. There was no need to officially ban the magazine when the
magazine could be shut down by more delicate and PR-friendly forms of
control. This campaign was, indeed, effective, and we realized that in
such a hostile environment it was impossible to carry on with our work.
The closing of the magazine was devastating to the staff.
9. I would like to remind the members of this list that Dialogue
followed all the established policies and guidelines for Baha'i
publishing. Every article dealing with the Baha'i faith was first approved
by the NSA's review committee. Prof. Maneck is correct that our work was
carefully monitored and scrutinized. I find it unfair for Baha'i
institutions to demand that we submit to censorship and then condemn our
publishing program as an attack on the integrity of Baha'i institutions
for publishing materials that the official review agency approved. You
just cannot have it both ways. I am grateful to Prof. Maneck for
emphasizing that "A Modest Proposal" was never published and
that all the hub-bub was over an article that had been properly submitted
for review and was still in the review stages. As I noted in an appeal
letter to the Universal House of Justice, if the NSA had honest concerns
about the title, the listing of a the collective authors names, or any
content, all they needed to do was present their concerns to us. If they
found the title offensive, we would have changed it. If they did not like
a listing of all those involved in the creation of the article as
co-authors, we would have dropped the names and run it under "From
the Editors" or whatever they suggested.
10. Finally, when I was a Baha'i, I sought in many ways to resolve
these issues with the Baha'i institutions, quietly, privately, and in a
spirit of openness and reconciliation. But reconciliation requires two
parties to come together to seek understanding and healing. Following a
meeting in Wilmette in 1987 with the NSA, I expressed my hope that we had
put behind us any misgivings regarding each others' motives and that we
find a way to work together for the good of the faith. I invited the NSA
to suggest a publishing project for Dialogue to work on that would be of
assistance to them. I invited every member of the NSA to phone me at any
time with any concerns they might have about the magazine. I invited every
member of the NSA to contribute an article to the magazine. I suggested
that a meeting between the NSA and the Dialogue staff be held at the Bosch
School as this would provide an opportunity to spend some relaxed time
together in prayer, consultation and fellowship, so that we could come to
know each other in a friendly fashion and seek ways to resolve issues and
create a sincere love and appreciation for each other. Each and every one
of these attempts at reconciliation initiated by me were met with silence.
I trust that these comments are useful in helping those trying to
follow this discussion.
With best wishes, Steve Scholl
--
Steven Scholl White Cloud Press PO Box 3400 Ashland, OR 97520
Phone/fax 541-488-6415
-
Juan Cole, History, U of Michigan, jrcole@umich.edu
https://www-personal.umich.edu/~jrcole/bahai.htm
Buy *Modernity and the Millennium: The Genesis of the Baha'i Faith* at:
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0231110812/002-4036721-8058448
Homepage
|