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
suggestedthat 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 thearticle 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
ffensive, 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
|