 |  |  |  |  |
| Read the current Monday Report below! |
The ULA Monday Report!
This week's report by G. TOD SLONE
Editor of The American Dissident, a literary journal of critical thinking
An American Poet
Censored by the
Academy of
American Poets
A Case Study in
American Censorship
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that
it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing
generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than
those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose,
what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier
impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current
conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by
challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is
the removal of all censorships. There is the whole case against
censorships in a nutshell.
—George Bernard Shaw
Of all entities eager to wield the sword of censorship,
America’s academic and literary institutions are by far the most
shameful and perhaps even the most prolific in that endeavor.
Over the years, as a professor and poet, I have tested the waters
of free speech in the academic and literary milieu and,
unsurprisingly, have become persona non grata and otherwise
despised by professors and poets. Almost always, the excuses have
abounded for limiting free speech far beyond its constitutional
limitations. In one such “test” (i.e., experiment in free speech),
I’d written a 20-page essay on that very phenomenon, that is, on
testing the waters, incorporating into it many of the excuses and
naming those who’d evoked them. Over a period of five years, the
essay was constantly revised to include new data and sent to over
50 academic and quasi-academic literary journals. Not one of
those journals would publish it. Most would not even comment.
Eventually, the essay was published by two different non-
academic journals, one paying $150 honorarium (see
www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm).
More recently, yet another “test” confirmed the hypothesis
that free speech and expression, as well as vigorous debate—
cornerstones of democracy—were disdained, to say the least, in
the academic and literary milieu. The origin of, or initial
inspiration for, that “test” was a group email sent out by Gloria
Mindock, editor of Cervena Barva Press, announcing:
Simon Perchik is Guest Poet of the Month for the Academy of
American Poets'
Simon Perchik is Guest Poet at: Poets.org
You may "speak" with Simon about poetry/art/life (or any other
subject that interests you), his tastes are eclectic!
You can submit your poetry or comments to Simon and he'll
respond online in their chat. Visit the below link to get there:
http://www.poets.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12040
Check it out. I hope some of you will take this opportunity. Simon
is a great poet and person.
Having nothing better to do for the day, I decided to examine
the forum. It was the first time I’d ever visited an Academy
forum. The name Simon Perchik rang a bell, much like that rung
by other poets voraciously sending their poems in the hope of
fame. So, who was Perchik? In the words of the forum moderator
Larina Larwar:
Simon Perchik is an attorney whose poems have appeared in
Partisan Review, The New Yorker, and elsewhere. Family of Man
(Pavement Saw Press) and Rafts (Parsifal Editions) are both
scheduled for publication 2007. For more information, including
his essay “Magic, Illusion and Other Realities” and a complete
bibliography, please visit his website at
www.geocities.com/simonthepoet
The websites authored by poets were almost always and
inevitably embarrassing, as in “I am the greatest,” because their
focus was almost always the poet in question… and nothing else
but—no particular ideas, no originality, just self-vaunting.
Perchik’s site was typical in that sense and began with "Perchik
is the most widely published unknown poet in America..."
The forum page included poems and an essay by Perchik, as
well as a few entries made by other individuals and the
moderator. The first several verses of the first poem were the
following and more than enough to discourage me from reading
the rest:
Even the colors are anxious, carried
as if its new home above ground
would skimp the way all rows use dirt
cut in two with nothing in between
–you suddenly bring it a darkness
use one hand to comfort the other
though you’ve done all this before
have no faith in mornings :clumps
that want only to forget, just lie still […]
“These representative poems, Mr. Perchik, are poetic gems!”
wrote participant Ike Vallon. “They are haunting, mysterious,
mystical and powerful.” “Simon is very interested in
conversation about this essay,” wrote moderator Larwar.
“Whether you agree or disagree, I encourage you to post your
thoughts about it here.” Thus, I dared post an opinion, not
laudatory, but rather in disagreement:
The poem is tedious, unoriginal, and utterly lacking in RISK. It is
the kind of poem no doubt favored by established-order literati
and organizations. American poetry will simply get worse and
worse and more and more conformist and herd-like if the
established-order continues to keep its doors hermetically sealed
to outside criticism and poetry that risks, risks the very ire of
established-order literati. The backslapping, self-congratulating,
and icon creating and worshipping must STOP! The absolute
lack of questioning and challenging in the milieu must STOP!
How many poets, created by the established-order machine,
actually possess the individuality (as opposed to herd-conformity)
to pose the simple question: who were the judges who anointed
Perchik Poetaster of the Month? How many poets, created by
that machine, actually let their lives "be a counterfriction to stop
the machine" (Thoreau) and dare "go upright and vital, and
speak the rude truth in all ways" (Emerson)? For an alternative
to Perchik's tediously bland essay, try
http://www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm
Interestingly, moderator Larwar had written the following to
Perchik prior to my entry: “Now see...I suckered you in here just
so I could argue with you.” So, it seemed bating and “arguing”
were not prohibited, though later in direct contradiction to
Larwar’s own statement of “suckered you in,” Larwar herself
sent me the Posting & Conduct Guidelines, which clearly
stipulate: “Do not bait or flame your fellow users…” How to
explain? In any case, from the four corners of the Academy of
American Poets, as if suddenly called by the Pied Piper of
Poetry, the entire moderator herd issued a brief response to my
entry:
To answer your question, G. Tod:
Forum Moderators:
Christine (chrissiekl) —SiteAdmin
Gary (G.Wilkens) — Poetry Criticism & Reviews, On Writing &
Craft, Poem Sparks, Publishing, MFA Programs, Poetry 401
Diana (dmanister) — Poetry Criticism & Reviews
Stephen (sbunch) — Poetry 301
Catherine (rogersc) — Poetry 201
Larina (Larwar) — Poetry 201, Poem Sparks
Dave (hatrabbit) — Poetry 101
Cynthia (CynN) — Roving
Linz (girlypoet) — Roving
"Poetry gives us knowledge. It is a knowledge of ourselves in
relation to the world of experience, and to that world considered,
not statistically, but in terms of human purposes and values. ”
—Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren
That was the entire response, a quote. Most of the moderators
were somewhat incognito and their email addresses simply not
available. Of course, anonymity was usually a sign of fear—fear
of vigorous debate and fear of the non-herd member. So, how to
find out, for example, who Diana (dmanister) was? With a little
research on the Internet I discovered she was a member of the
American Branch of the International Critics Association and,
later, wondered if it was a proponent of censorship. Manister was
also the moderator of the AAP’s Poetry & Criticism forum. How
odd that a criticism forum would eventually ban a critic! The
next comment was made by moderator hatrabbit, regarding my
entry:
Thanks for telling us what to think and do.
Honestly, nothing in your comments signals to me that you gave
any thought to reading the poem or the essay. Your criticisms are
sweeping and really serve only as a platform to spruik [sic] your
potted message of dissent.
Dissent for dissent's sake is just as blind as 'herd-conformity',
and stinks of self-righteousness to boot.
Simon demonstrated a willingness to discuss his essay and poetry,
why don't you risk something and give some thought in your
critique of his work instead of cutting and pasting from your
manifesto.
"Tell me about the dream where we pull the bodies out of the
lake / and dress them in warm clothes again”
—Richard Siken
How the poets in today’s America seemed to hate manifestos!
My response was the following:
What a wonderful politician's non-response to my questions.
Let's hope for democracy's sake that you're not teaching college.
Allow me to pose those questions again. Maybe you'll come up
with another politician's non-response. "How many poets,
created by the established-order machine, actually possess the
individuality (as opposed to herd-conformity) to pose the simple
question: who were the judges who anointed Perchik Poetaster of
the Month? How many poets, created by that machine, actually
let their lives "be a counterfriction to stop the machine"
(Thoreau) and dare "go upright and vital, and speak the rude
truth in all ways" (Emerson)?"
The next entry was made by Site Administrator Christine
(Later research on the Internet enabled me to determine that her
full name was Christine Klocek-Lim):
enmarge,
Apparently you haven't read our Posting & Conduct Guidelines.
Therefore, let me enlighten you: if you continue to post
inflammatory statements which essentially amount to advertising
for your website, your posts will be deleted. From the Guidelines:
# Do not post spam or advertisements. Site admin and
moderators will remove these posts immediately.
# Do not post offensive material. Avoid language or statements
that can be considered pornographic, racist, threatening,
inflammatory, hateful, insulting, or violent. While we value
freedom of expression, we also value the comfort and sanctity of
this space for everyone. We expect that certain topics may lead to
contention and debate, and will not prevent users from
expressing their opinions, as long as they can be articulated and
debated in a rational, calm, and informed manner.
# Show respect for the Poets.org community. Do not bait or flame
your fellow users, or engage in personal attacks.
If you would like to engage in discussion regarding poetry, poets,
and poetics, please do so in the Just Conversation section of the
forum.
From that entry, the reasonable assumption would be that I
was being accused of transgressing those three excerpts from the
manifesto (i.e., P & C Guidelines) of the Academy of American
Poets. So, I defended myself with the following entry:
It is utterly astonishing to me that the Academy of American
Poets would THREATEN to censor my discourse because it is not
sufficiently happy-face, backslapping, and congratulatory! What
a great way to THREATEN to censor a poet who thinks
differently from the Academy poet herd by claiming he is not
abiding by the RULES of CONDUCT. I suppose Ginsberg, one of
your Beatnik members, approved those “Conduct Guidelines”? I
have not used four-letter words. Hell, think of all of the ones he
used! I am not posting Spam or Advertisements. He was a virtual
walking advertisement. The term “OFFENSIVE MATERIAL” is
entirely subjective and a most SHAMEFUL way for intelligent
people to censor and kill VIGOROUS DEBATE! Doesn’t being a
member of a child-pedophilia organization constitute
“offensive”? Wasn’t Ginsberg a member of such an organization?
I have not threatened anybody at all. “INFLAMMATORY,
HATEFUL, INSULTING” are but more subjective terms, easily
evoked to kill vigorous HEALTHY debate. “While we value
freedom of expression, we also value the comfort and sanctity of
this space for everyone.” Well, the space is no longer very
comfortable to me! Will any Academy poets come to my defense,
come to the defense of free speech and expression, and valid
critique, cornerstone of democracy? “RATIONAL, CALM, AND
INFORMED MANNER” are more such subjective terms. It is
incredible that educated poets could have enacted such “Conduct
Guidelines,” which echo uncannily the very speech-code
guidelines enacted by far too many universities… to suppress free
speech and vigorous debate. By the way, legal decision after
decision has struck down those codes.
Please, before you censor me for the simple reason that I have
failed to be indoctrinated as a friendly poet in implicit
conformity with our nation’s politically-correct happy-face
fascistic mentality, EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING QUOTE
issued by constitutional lawyer Greg Lukianof, president of the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: “Civility is a very
important value, but discussions of civility in the university
setting are sadly too often code for wanting to shut down
discussions that may offend students or administrators. It would
be a great service to students if it was explained to them when
they begin college that, although politeness may be nice, it is of
miniscule importance as compared to robust discussion. As we
often joke, being offended is what happens when you have your
deepest beliefs challenged, and if you make it through college
without being offended, you should ask for your money back. On
a serious note, a look at the U.S. Supreme Court's First
Amendment jurisprudence will demonstrate that the government
cannot require civil speech or mandate conventions of decency
(take a look at Cohen v. California or Papish v. Board of
Curators of the University of Missouri, to name just a few). That
being said, colleges and universities can *encourage* students to
dialogue civilly; they simply cannot *require* it.”
When I tried to post the entry, I noticed my previous posts had
been erased. How not to think of the altered photographs
ordered by Stalin, erasing people from them as if they’d never
existed! That’s how I felt when I looked at the Perchik-forum
page. My entries had been erased, as if they’d never been made—
as if I’d never existed. Troubling? Damn right! But what was
really troubling was that the people doing the erasing, as well as
those heartily approving of it, were poets and academics. And
even more troubling was the fact that Perchik was an attorney…
wholly indifferent to censorship.
My next step was to send a group email to comrades in arms
and others, as well as an email to each AAP staff member,
questioning the legality of the arbitrary decision to eliminate me
from the forum. I would also have sent emails to each of the AAP
Chancellors, but their email addresses, with the exception of
Gary Snyder’s, were simply not available.
Dear Academy of American Poets staff: I have just been
censored from your forum RE Simon Perchik and am utterly
disgusted by that action. What do you have to say about it? The
American Dissident is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization and I
am its editor, and we are devoted to healthy vigorous debate and
criticism. How can educated people be so quick to censor???
Is it not illegal for you as a nonprofit tax-exempt organization to
censor, by such an arbitrary action, American citizens from your
open forums? I will be looking into the legality of your decision.
The following are the entries that were immediately removed
from the forum. Fortunately I had copied them. I was not even
given a chance to respond to the admonition of the site manager.
This is scandalous to say the least and, unless I hear from you I
will do my best to publish it and make it known around the
country what you stand for. By the way, I have a doctorate and
have been a college professor for most of my life.
In response, later, I received the following anonymous email
from the Academy of American Poets:
Hello enmarge,
You have received a new private message to your account on
"Poets.org" and you have requested that you be notified on this
event. You can view your new message by clicking on the
following link: http://www.poets.org/forum/privmsg.php?
folder=inbox
Remember that you can always choose not to be notified of new
messages by changing the appropriate setting in your profile.
Thanks, Poets.org.
So, had I hit a nerve—a legal nerve? I clicked on the new link,
which led to yet another email, authored by Site Administrator
Christine:
You [sic] posts regarding Perchik's poem have been moved to the
Just Conversation section (two posts got lost in the shuffle,
unfortunately):
http://www.poets.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12111
Feel free to politely continue the discussion.
Needless to say, I was now a bit angry. The experience was
reminiscent of high school, or worse yet, grammar school… but
this was the Academy of American Poets, sponsors of National
Poetry Month, an event embraced by the nation’s grammar
schools, high schools, and universities! How revealing! My email
response to the Site Administrator was the following:
So not just a censor now, but also a liar?! Got "lost," huh? What
a sad joke. You owe me an apology! I am currently looking into
the legalities of your arbitrary action of censorship with my
regard as an American citizen. I want those posts in proper
position and my last post also posted in proper position NOW…
the one critical of your Guidelines. You should know better that
as a nonprofit org you are legally required to hold open forums,
open to all citizens including critical ones like me. The American
Dissident is also a non profit org, but unlike you and the
Academy, it does not fear criticism. You have left me fully
disgusted.
Out of curiosity, I clicked on the new link. My hands were full
now, and that was what I’d wanted… for purposeful conflict with
power, more than anything else, tended to stoke my creativity.
Several moderators and poet sycophants battled with me for a
brief moment like a pack of rabid poet dogs foaming at the mouth
trying desperately to diminish me as a human being (the ole ad
hominem shoot-the-messenger-to-avoid-the-message strategy)
and otherwise make me disappear… and especially keep me
away from their darling Poet of the Month Perchik! The new
forum was a thinly-veiled diversion away from Perchik, though it
was oddly labeled Simon Perchik vs. The American Dissident.
Esther, an anonymous poet, wrote:
I had The American Dissident from my list of possible rags
to submit to, but I guess I can scratch it.
Moderator Larwar responded with a single word:
Ditto.
Then moderator hatrabbit—whose real name, Dave Rowley, I
had to hunt for—attempted responding to a few of my statements,
including the following: “Or maybe, the Academy ought to
simply stifle my voice, censor me out of existence! Wouldn't that
be so much better?” Note how self-assured he is that such a thing
would/could never happen!
enmarge,
That won't happen. The Academy merely hosts this site for
people who are interested in writing, critiquing, discussing
poetry. They couldn't be bothered checking in to stifle any
debates that don't fit their agenda. That's not how they operate
despite your imaginings. You'll be happy to know that I don't
teach at any college, one reason being that I don't have a college
degree. If you've set this site up as some great political monster
that you need to save the rest of civilisation [sic] from, then
you've made a big mistake. I'd say most of the thousands of
members here are not teaching poetry in colleges or anywhere
else. This is not part of the machine.
As to my previous response not addressing your points
adequately, that was because you didn't really make any. All you
did was acknowledge a poem and an essay had been written,
dismiss both, then spew your ideology all over our forum. Say
something that shows you're actually engaging with anything on
this site and I'd be happy to respond to it.
I can't believe you charged someone with not taking a risk and
then followed that up by hiding behind the words of two other
men. That's being political--building a strawman then taking pot-
shots while hiding behind a poorly thought through ideology.
Give us a break.
"Tell me about the dream where we pull the bodies out of the
lake / and dress them in warm clothes again"
—Richard Siken
Hatrabbit’s was an interesting response regarding my quoting
Thoreau and Emerson. Perhaps hatrabbit could argue his way
out of anything, including the most widely brimmed hats. Marvel
at his observation regarding my point on Ginsberg (i.e., "Wasn’t
Ginsberg a member of such an organization?").
But he was never a member of our Board of Chancellors, so
whatever argument you're trying to make has no legs.
No legs? Well, maybe it had a hat instead! At times, I did get
depressed when fighting the herd, for it was an evident futile
battle, though one that had to be waged just the same. My
response to the pack was the following:
Yes, I have been censored from the Perchik page! Isn't that
wonderful! Now, ole Perchie can only be exposed to happy-face
critique! Oh, yes, that will help him grow! But is it LEGAL? I'm
looking into it. No response from any of you regarding my being
CENSORED. Am I surprised? Not at all.
Wilkons, yours is a politician’s WITTY (haw!) non-response.
Now, Esther, why would you have put The American Dissident on
your list in the first place? Are you another beaver-poet shot-
gunning poems out right and left in the hope of fame… and who
doesn’t read guidelines? As a professor, allow me to teach you
that one ought to read guidelines prior to submitting ones work.
Larwar, are you what is known as a Ditto Poet?
Question: How do you, all of you, justify your likely love for
Thoreau or Emerson or Solzhenitsyn or Ibsen or Jeffers, yet hate
what they wrote about the cowardly herd?
Answer: You actually think you are not part of that herd. But
can’t you see how you’ve all banded together on this little
forum… so naturally herd-like?
Question: Why do you DISDAIN (and wish to CENSOR)
someone like me, who does question and challenge the canon, all
the lit clubby clubs, etc.?
Answer: Well, it’s obvious.
Hatrabbit (i.e., Mr. Anonymous), your writing is barely
intelligible. I don’t even know how to respond to it. Well, maybe
you need to get a degree, eh? I’ve got a doctorate from a French
university! Now, how will you put that one down? What kind of
WIT will you ooze out? Yes, Hatrabbit, you must think you do a
good witty job at ranking me out, stating I hide behind two
quotes. But how asinine can one get?
Writing to all of you has been like writing to one brick wall of
solidarity of incomprehension. You can’t even seem to
comprehend a simple sentence, as in “let your life be a
counterfriction to stop the machine.” You have to diminish it
with childish witless rank-out, thinking oh how witty you are. But
poetry is more than mere high-brow wit… or at least it ought to
be.
You need to diminish me because I do stand up and away from
the herd, the poet herd, the academy herd, the academic herd,
the consensus herd. Democracy will die with your help.
Well, perhaps that entry wasn’t as polite as it could have been.
But should I be censored for it? The literary machine was
constantly operating to weed out poets not obsequiously polite in
nature—loners, radicals, critics, etc. Moderator Gary Charles
Wilkens then responded with one word, regarding my “Question:
How do you, all of you, justify your likely love for Thoreau or
Emerson or Solzhenitsyn […]?”
Huh?
He then responded, regarding my “Answer: You actually think
you are not part of that herd. […]”
Again: huh? wha? Ask an [sic] real question, get an [sic] real
answer.
Then I responded:
You need to diminish me because I do stand up and away from
the herd, the poet herd, the academy herd, the academic herd,
the consensus herd. Democracy will die with your help.
Then he responded:
No, we diminish you because you rant and rave and bait and
attack, while showing no respect for our simple guidelines. We
are within the rights given us in those guidelines in banning you
already. Explain why we haven't, if we are indeed as sinister as
you think.
Moderator “Stephen Bunch (my real name)” decided it was
time for him to get into the fray and drop the cloak of anonymity:
Mr. Slone,
I think you'll be history here soon because of your penchant for
personal attacks unrelated, as far as I can discern, to any
discussion of poets and poetry. But since you raised the matter, if
you're disturbed by Allen Ginsberg's proclivities and
associations, I also wonder about the curious coincidence of your
journal's title, American Dissident, and the National Alliance's
American Dissident Voices, a radio broadcast by now defunct
William Pierce and his neo-nazi organization, the National
Alliance. Of course, you're free to associate with neo-nazis. That
freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. But I do weigh
people's opinions and character by the company they keep.
Anyway, enquiring minds want to know. It's been fun, old stick.
Have a good life.
"I'm looking for the gold tooth in God's crooked smile." (Jim
White)
A tad frustrated by the impervious brick wall, I wrote the
following, then called it quits for the evening:
Wilkens,
Perhaps I shall do a cartoon on you. Your paltry response to my
being censored merits it! Perhaps one day you will be Lit Rogue
of the month (www.theamericandissident.org/LitToon.htm). So,
rejoice!
You need to examine the legislation in place. It was because I
shoved that legislation under the snout of the censoring
moderator Chrissie that put me back up on your website. It is
senseless to try to reason with you. But the law certainly made
Chrissie reasonable! Haw!
Your reasoning is purposefully fraudulent and makes no sense at
all regarding my argument about being censored from the
Perchik page. You are a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization and
cannot censor on a whim, and “politeness” is a whim.
Your guidelines are a sham, a transparent front put forth to
enable you to CENSOR anybody who does express a non-happy
face opinion and who is IGNORANT OF THE LAW. Read my
statement on it! Chrissie did and so did her bosses. YOU NEED
TO REVAMP THOSE GUIDELINES IN ACCORD WITH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. Vigorous debate is far more important
than your arbitrary politeness oblige. Don’t you get it? All those
speech codes enacted by academic clones are being struck down
in the courts, one after the other. Your code is null and void!
To call my argumentation “rant and rave and bait and attack,
while showing no respect for our simple guidelines” is as
unoriginal as shooting the messenger gets. It is also sadly typical
of educated people who shudder before someone who does have
the courage to express views not shared by the herd. My
statement was a simple criticism of the rampant blandness of
poets and poetry in America, Attorney Perchik, Poetaster of the
Month, included. It was censored from that page.
“We are within the rights given us in those guidelines in banning
you already. Explain why we haven't.” YOU KNOW DAMN
WELL WHY YOU HAVEN’T BANNED ME. YOU ARE A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION SUPPORTED BY
GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND THAT PROHIBITS YOU—
contrary to your ignorant, self-assured and self-satisfied
statement—FROM CENSORING CITIZENS DUE TO
ARBITRARY DESIGNATION OF IMPOLITENESS.
CAPICHE? If you had censored me in totality, I would have
brought a legal case against your POETRY INSTITUTION. You
will not censor me for that reason. Your bosses will not permit
you to do so! And I laugh at you for thinking you can and will
censor me. Shame on you, an educated man! Yeah, just call it
RANT… but you haven’t the guts to censor and ban.
Why should I show YOU any RESPECT at all? You merit no
respect. Your response to my statement on being censored from
the Perchik page was and is pitiful.
Unlike you, I do not threaten to censor. You are much more the
Nazi than I. So, Mr. Wilkens, it is time you stopped threatening
to eliminate me (“you’ll be history here soon”) from your forum.
If I shall be history, it will be my decision, NOT YOURS.
Did you and your buddies learn from the educational system how
to divert cogent argumentation? On Ginsberg, for example, you
and they couldn’t even comprehend the point I clearly made. Is
there any point in my repeating it? Probably not. But I’ll repeat:
Your guidelines for politesse stipulate NO “OFFENSIVE
MATERIAL” and NO “ADVERTIZEMENTS.” Whether G. was
a Chancellor or not is entirely immaterial. He was a member of
your org and a member of another org that promoted sex with
children. But for you, that’s fine and dandy, while my putting
forth an opinion IS NOT.
The repeated statement “Poetry gives us knowledge” must be a
farce because it certainly didn’t give you any knowledge
regarding your right to censor. You are a sad example of our
educational system. Your argumentation is entirely faulty and
diversionary. Here’s another example: “American Dissident, and
the National Alliance's American Dissident Voices…” and
blablabla. There is no connection whatsoever! But isn’t it
wonderful that you would connect American AND dissident with
something BAD! Perhaps you need to begin a journal and call it
THE AMERICAN CONFORMIST. Yes, you’d make a wonderful
editor of a journal like that. POETS SHOULD NOT BE
CONFORMISTS, THEY SHOULD BE DISSIDENTS! Capiche?
Clearly, you and yours are in a very weak position for you fear
any hard criticism of your milieu… and for good reason.
But that evening, I received one of those anonymous emails
telling me to click on a link so I could receive another email. The
following was the other email, authored by Site Administrator
Christine.
I suggest you read the Terms of Use.
Aberrantly, for in flagrant contradiction, she quoted Stephen
Fry: “Poetry is not made to be sucked up like a child's
milkshake…" She was indeed trying to restrict poetry and
criticism of it to suck-up of a child’s milkshake. She needs to
consult the plethora of quotations on the Internet issued by
famous people condemning censorship and all the sad excuses for
condoning and instituting it. Oddly, I could only find one quote
by a poet on censorship! And that poet was Charles Bukowski,
often considered by established-order literati as a poor poet or
not a poet at all. In other words, “they” tend to dislike him.
Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide
actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their
inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they
were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were
only taught to look one way when many ways exist.
My responses to the Site Manager were the following four
emails, shot in rapid succession.
I suggest you study the First Amendment... and the history of
censorship! I guess one of your bosses had a quick talk with you,
eh? I wrote to all of them!
Write to my email address, not to this spot if you want me to read
what you write.
todslone@yahoo.com
Read that email I reposted on censorship and 501(c) (3)
organizations. Read it! Then tell me what I should do. How
despicable you've been, truly...
You need to also define the word "politely," which, if left
undefined, is another of those words you seem to favor to support
censorship. Well, at least you now know that you cannot censor
me on a whim because the law forbids nonprofit organizations
from doing so. I am happy I was able to teach you something
today, Chrissie.
I will still be looking into the legality of your censoring my
comments from the Perchik page. Why not ask Perchik about
that? It is as if you are shielding him from seeing any criticism of
his work. Shame on you!
The next day, I booted up the computer and headed for the
forum, but all I got was an anonymous:
Critical Information: You have been banned from this forum.
Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more
information.
What an interesting conclusion to my experiment in free
speech in the poetry and academic milieu! It was over. Discussion
terminated. For “them,” I was terminated. Recall the comments
of moderators hatrabbit and Wilkins, respectively: “That won’t
happen.” “Because you weren't censored. If we had wanted to
censor you, we could have simply banned you from the site. Easy
as fishing.” Well, the proof was in the pudding, certainly not in
their facile verb (see http://www.poets.org/forum).
In conclusion, one could consider some of my phraseology
impolite and certainly lacking in deference. But isn’t serious
questioning and challenging always considered impolite by the
established order, both literary and academic? Nevertheless, not
once had I made threats or used four-letter words. The question
thus remains: should vigorous debate in a democracy be
terminated because of perceived impoliteness? In academe, the
courts have consistently struck down speech codes (which usually
demand politeness) in favor of vigorous debate (see www.thefire.
org). Only a few people responded to my email (sent out to about
100 individuals), announcing the Academy’s censorship. An
attorney from Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
wrote informally: “If the AAP set up an on-line forum they have
the power to decide who may or may not participate. I have not
seen any case law that would indicate to the contrary. Now you
are perfectly within your rights to shame them for this, but
ultimately I believe they have the full legal right to do this.”
If indeed, that attorney is correct, then I stand corrected and
admit wrong. Yet it was Daniel Frisch, Exempt Organizations
Specialist of the IRS, who had informed me when I sought 501(c)
(3) status for The American Dissident, that the following
regulation “is a key principle regarding advocacy”:
FINAL-REG, TAX-REGS, §1.501(c)(3)-l. Organizations
organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific,
testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or for
the prevention of cruelty to children or animals
An organization may be educational even though it advocates a
particular position or viewpoint so long as it presents a
sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to
permit an individual or the public to form an independent
opinion or conclusion. On the other hand, an organization is not
educational if its principal function is the mere presentation of
unsupported opinion.
In other words, according to Frisch, I would have to permit
voice to contrary opinions in The American Dissident and on its
website for the journal to be considered educational. Why
doesn’t the Academy of American Poets have to do that too…
or does it?
Another respondent stated that “Censorship is of ideas.
Editorial discretion is of manner of expression: clarity,
coherence, logic.” Well, if he’d thought about it, his definition
for editorial discretion could easily and arbitrarily constitute a
reason to censor, that is, by labeling those ideas illogical,
incoherent and not clear. “Remove me from your e-mail list,”
was the response of a tenured English professor. But, to be fair,
another such English professor wrote: “I think it is great the way
you question everything!” Perhaps the most pertinent response
was from a poet: “I am not interested and don't which [sic] to
participate. Stop sending me emails about cencor [sic] whatever.”
As mentioned, I sent emails to each staff member of the AAP
and to Chancellor Gary Snyder. To date, not one of them has
responded or apologized. For the Academy, I simply do not exist.
For the Academy, anybody who dares question and challenge the
status quo probably doesn’t exist either. As for censorship, good
citizens should stand up and protest. Whether or not one likes the
censored person should be entirely immaterial. Please stand up,
lodge your protest, and write: academy@poets.org,
tswenson@poets.org, gssnyder@ucdavis.edu, larina76@msn.com,
chrissiemkl@gmail.com, ebleakney@poets.org, gary@gcwilkens.
com, bharrison@poets.org, jkronovet@poets.org,
medaverowley@gmail.com, rschaer@poets.org, and
Simon@hamptons.com.
Also, emails announcing the censorship incident were sent to
about 30 people, involved in the AAUP, NEA, and The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Only one responded, a reporter for The
Chronicle.
Dear George Stone [sic]--
Thanks for your e-mail. Can you copy the exchanges you had in
an e-mail and send them to me? I am not a member of the aap
forums and don't have a password, etc.
thanks, ROBIN Wilson
After directing the reporter to the entire unadulterated,
uncensored Perchik-forum transcript
(www.theamericandissident.org/AcademyAmericanPoets.htm),
she responded again.
Dr. Slone --
Thanks for your response. I'm a reporter at The Chronicle, and I
write in the Faculty Section. I thought we might write something
about you being banned, but I'd have to see the forum posts. We
do run Opinion pieces -- which is what we call anything written
by people not on our staff. They run in our Chronicle Review
section. The editors there would consider the essay you've
written. Why don't you copy me and also e-mail to 2 editors
there: liz.mcmillen@chronicle.com and sarah.bray@chronicle.
com. Hopefully the essay will give me enough of a feel for what
happened to know whether we should also write something in our
news pages or for our daily website.
Thanks, ROBIN
After following her instructions, I waited a month, heard
nothing, then sent the reporter another email. To date, she has
not responded. An email survey, including a question on the
censorship incident was sent to 130 “high-end” literary journals,
including Poetry, Kenyon Review, Georgia Review, and Poets &
Writers. Only one editor (Gargoyle) deigned to fill out the survey
and respond to that question. #13: If you agree with question
#12, would you be willing to send an email protest to 1) the staff
members of the Academy of American Poets for its censorship of
my opinions and/or 2) NewPages.com for its refusal to list The
American Dissident on its website? If not, please explain. The
editor’s response was: “Nope, I don't know you from Adam. And
your entire process here is self-serving and kind of ridiculous.
You may be the new Joan of Arc but you're coming off like a half-
cocked paranoid schizophrenic.” Question #12 was the
following: When it comes to censorship, good citizens in a
democratic society should stand up and protest. Whether or not
one likes the censored person should be entirely immaterial and
not be a determinant in the decision to protest. Do you agree
with that statement? If not, why not?
Finally, the email Charlotte Walker (Iowa City, IA) sent to the
Academy in protest (she sent me a copy) serves as an excellent
conclusion (she never received a response from the Academy):
Greetings to all at the Academy of American Poets: -- can you
explain to me why the Academy has prevented Tod Slone from
taking part in your forum discussions?
Today I was looking over your website and I noticed this part in
your terms and conditions for the forum:
"Respect other users. Do not attack, abuse, harass, intimidate, or
threaten other users in the Forum."
I am sure most everyone knows of people who get horribly
offended by honest criticism either about themselves and their
opinion or criticisms aimed at their friends. Anyone who has had
much experience in being part of internet discussion has heard
overly sensitive members complain that they are being abused or
attacked or intimidated even by the most mild difference of
opinion. An "attack", or "harass" or "abuse" can have many
meanings to different people.
I'm sure it isn't easy to moderate any forum but sometimes the
censorship lines are drawn in debatable ways. I think Tod Slone
would be an interesting member of any poetry group discussion. I
am surprised and disappointed to hear that he has been banned
from taking part.
===============================================
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident, a literary journal of critical thinking
and a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization
1837 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742
www.theamericandissident.org
todslone@yahoo.com
===============================================
GO HERE TO ENTER THE MONDAY REPORT BOX.
This week's report by G. TOD SLONE
Editor of The American Dissident, a literary journal of critical thinking
An American Poet
Censored by the
Academy of
American Poets
A Case Study in
American Censorship
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that
it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing
generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than
those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the
opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose,
what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier
impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.
—John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current
conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by
challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting
existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is
the removal of all censorships. There is the whole case against
censorships in a nutshell.
—George Bernard Shaw
Of all entities eager to wield the sword of censorship,
America’s academic and literary institutions are by far the most
shameful and perhaps even the most prolific in that endeavor.
Over the years, as a professor and poet, I have tested the waters
of free speech in the academic and literary milieu and,
unsurprisingly, have become persona non grata and otherwise
despised by professors and poets. Almost always, the excuses have
abounded for limiting free speech far beyond its constitutional
limitations. In one such “test” (i.e., experiment in free speech),
I’d written a 20-page essay on that very phenomenon, that is, on
testing the waters, incorporating into it many of the excuses and
naming those who’d evoked them. Over a period of five years, the
essay was constantly revised to include new data and sent to over
50 academic and quasi-academic literary journals. Not one of
those journals would publish it. Most would not even comment.
Eventually, the essay was published by two different non-
academic journals, one paying $150 honorarium (see
www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm).
More recently, yet another “test” confirmed the hypothesis
that free speech and expression, as well as vigorous debate—
cornerstones of democracy—were disdained, to say the least, in
the academic and literary milieu. The origin of, or initial
inspiration for, that “test” was a group email sent out by Gloria
Mindock, editor of Cervena Barva Press, announcing:
Simon Perchik is Guest Poet of the Month for the Academy of
American Poets'
Simon Perchik is Guest Poet at: Poets.org
You may "speak" with Simon about poetry/art/life (or any other
subject that interests you), his tastes are eclectic!
You can submit your poetry or comments to Simon and he'll
respond online in their chat. Visit the below link to get there:
http://www.poets.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12040
Check it out. I hope some of you will take this opportunity. Simon
is a great poet and person.
Having nothing better to do for the day, I decided to examine
the forum. It was the first time I’d ever visited an Academy
forum. The name Simon Perchik rang a bell, much like that rung
by other poets voraciously sending their poems in the hope of
fame. So, who was Perchik? In the words of the forum moderator
Larina Larwar:
Simon Perchik is an attorney whose poems have appeared in
Partisan Review, The New Yorker, and elsewhere. Family of Man
(Pavement Saw Press) and Rafts (Parsifal Editions) are both
scheduled for publication 2007. For more information, including
his essay “Magic, Illusion and Other Realities” and a complete
bibliography, please visit his website at
www.geocities.com/simonthepoet
The websites authored by poets were almost always and
inevitably embarrassing, as in “I am the greatest,” because their
focus was almost always the poet in question… and nothing else
but—no particular ideas, no originality, just self-vaunting.
Perchik’s site was typical in that sense and began with "Perchik
is the most widely published unknown poet in America..."
The forum page included poems and an essay by Perchik, as
well as a few entries made by other individuals and the
moderator. The first several verses of the first poem were the
following and more than enough to discourage me from reading
the rest:
Even the colors are anxious, carried
as if its new home above ground
would skimp the way all rows use dirt
cut in two with nothing in between
–you suddenly bring it a darkness
use one hand to comfort the other
though you’ve done all this before
have no faith in mornings :clumps
that want only to forget, just lie still […]
“These representative poems, Mr. Perchik, are poetic gems!”
wrote participant Ike Vallon. “They are haunting, mysterious,
mystical and powerful.” “Simon is very interested in
conversation about this essay,” wrote moderator Larwar.
“Whether you agree or disagree, I encourage you to post your
thoughts about it here.” Thus, I dared post an opinion, not
laudatory, but rather in disagreement:
The poem is tedious, unoriginal, and utterly lacking in RISK. It is
the kind of poem no doubt favored by established-order literati
and organizations. American poetry will simply get worse and
worse and more and more conformist and herd-like if the
established-order continues to keep its doors hermetically sealed
to outside criticism and poetry that risks, risks the very ire of
established-order literati. The backslapping, self-congratulating,
and icon creating and worshipping must STOP! The absolute
lack of questioning and challenging in the milieu must STOP!
How many poets, created by the established-order machine,
actually possess the individuality (as opposed to herd-conformity)
to pose the simple question: who were the judges who anointed
Perchik Poetaster of the Month? How many poets, created by
that machine, actually let their lives "be a counterfriction to stop
the machine" (Thoreau) and dare "go upright and vital, and
speak the rude truth in all ways" (Emerson)? For an alternative
to Perchik's tediously bland essay, try
http://www.theamericandissident.org/ColdPassion.htm
Interestingly, moderator Larwar had written the following to
Perchik prior to my entry: “Now see...I suckered you in here just
so I could argue with you.” So, it seemed bating and “arguing”
were not prohibited, though later in direct contradiction to
Larwar’s own statement of “suckered you in,” Larwar herself
sent me the Posting & Conduct Guidelines, which clearly
stipulate: “Do not bait or flame your fellow users…” How to
explain? In any case, from the four corners of the Academy of
American Poets, as if suddenly called by the Pied Piper of
Poetry, the entire moderator herd issued a brief response to my
entry:
To answer your question, G. Tod:
Forum Moderators:
Christine (chrissiekl) —SiteAdmin
Gary (G.Wilkens) — Poetry Criticism & Reviews, On Writing &
Craft, Poem Sparks, Publishing, MFA Programs, Poetry 401
Diana (dmanister) — Poetry Criticism & Reviews
Stephen (sbunch) — Poetry 301
Catherine (rogersc) — Poetry 201
Larina (Larwar) — Poetry 201, Poem Sparks
Dave (hatrabbit) — Poetry 101
Cynthia (CynN) — Roving
Linz (girlypoet) — Roving
"Poetry gives us knowledge. It is a knowledge of ourselves in
relation to the world of experience, and to that world considered,
not statistically, but in terms of human purposes and values. ”
—Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren
That was the entire response, a quote. Most of the moderators
were somewhat incognito and their email addresses simply not
available. Of course, anonymity was usually a sign of fear—fear
of vigorous debate and fear of the non-herd member. So, how to
find out, for example, who Diana (dmanister) was? With a little
research on the Internet I discovered she was a member of the
American Branch of the International Critics Association and,
later, wondered if it was a proponent of censorship. Manister was
also the moderator of the AAP’s Poetry & Criticism forum. How
odd that a criticism forum would eventually ban a critic! The
next comment was made by moderator hatrabbit, regarding my
entry:
Thanks for telling us what to think and do.
Honestly, nothing in your comments signals to me that you gave
any thought to reading the poem or the essay. Your criticisms are
sweeping and really serve only as a platform to spruik [sic] your
potted message of dissent.
Dissent for dissent's sake is just as blind as 'herd-conformity',
and stinks of self-righteousness to boot.
Simon demonstrated a willingness to discuss his essay and poetry,
why don't you risk something and give some thought in your
critique of his work instead of cutting and pasting from your
manifesto.
"Tell me about the dream where we pull the bodies out of the
lake / and dress them in warm clothes again”
—Richard Siken
How the poets in today’s America seemed to hate manifestos!
My response was the following:
What a wonderful politician's non-response to my questions.
Let's hope for democracy's sake that you're not teaching college.
Allow me to pose those questions again. Maybe you'll come up
with another politician's non-response. "How many poets,
created by the established-order machine, actually possess the
individuality (as opposed to herd-conformity) to pose the simple
question: who were the judges who anointed Perchik Poetaster of
the Month? How many poets, created by that machine, actually
let their lives "be a counterfriction to stop the machine"
(Thoreau) and dare "go upright and vital, and speak the rude
truth in all ways" (Emerson)?"
The next entry was made by Site Administrator Christine
(Later research on the Internet enabled me to determine that her
full name was Christine Klocek-Lim):
enmarge,
Apparently you haven't read our Posting & Conduct Guidelines.
Therefore, let me enlighten you: if you continue to post
inflammatory statements which essentially amount to advertising
for your website, your posts will be deleted. From the Guidelines:
# Do not post spam or advertisements. Site admin and
moderators will remove these posts immediately.
# Do not post offensive material. Avoid language or statements
that can be considered pornographic, racist, threatening,
inflammatory, hateful, insulting, or violent. While we value
freedom of expression, we also value the comfort and sanctity of
this space for everyone. We expect that certain topics may lead to
contention and debate, and will not prevent users from
expressing their opinions, as long as they can be articulated and
debated in a rational, calm, and informed manner.
# Show respect for the Poets.org community. Do not bait or flame
your fellow users, or engage in personal attacks.
If you would like to engage in discussion regarding poetry, poets,
and poetics, please do so in the Just Conversation section of the
forum.
From that entry, the reasonable assumption would be that I
was being accused of transgressing those three excerpts from the
manifesto (i.e., P & C Guidelines) of the Academy of American
Poets. So, I defended myself with the following entry:
It is utterly astonishing to me that the Academy of American
Poets would THREATEN to censor my discourse because it is not
sufficiently happy-face, backslapping, and congratulatory! What
a great way to THREATEN to censor a poet who thinks
differently from the Academy poet herd by claiming he is not
abiding by the RULES of CONDUCT. I suppose Ginsberg, one of
your Beatnik members, approved those “Conduct Guidelines”? I
have not used four-letter words. Hell, think of all of the ones he
used! I am not posting Spam or Advertisements. He was a virtual
walking advertisement. The term “OFFENSIVE MATERIAL” is
entirely subjective and a most SHAMEFUL way for intelligent
people to censor and kill VIGOROUS DEBATE! Doesn’t being a
member of a child-pedophilia organization constitute
“offensive”? Wasn’t Ginsberg a member of such an organization?
I have not threatened anybody at all. “INFLAMMATORY,
HATEFUL, INSULTING” are but more subjective terms, easily
evoked to kill vigorous HEALTHY debate. “While we value
freedom of expression, we also value the comfort and sanctity of
this space for everyone.” Well, the space is no longer very
comfortable to me! Will any Academy poets come to my defense,
come to the defense of free speech and expression, and valid
critique, cornerstone of democracy? “RATIONAL, CALM, AND
INFORMED MANNER” are more such subjective terms. It is
incredible that educated poets could have enacted such “Conduct
Guidelines,” which echo uncannily the very speech-code
guidelines enacted by far too many universities… to suppress free
speech and vigorous debate. By the way, legal decision after
decision has struck down those codes.
Please, before you censor me for the simple reason that I have
failed to be indoctrinated as a friendly poet in implicit
conformity with our nation’s politically-correct happy-face
fascistic mentality, EXAMINE THE FOLLOWING QUOTE
issued by constitutional lawyer Greg Lukianof, president of the
Foundation for Individual Rights in Education: “Civility is a very
important value, but discussions of civility in the university
setting are sadly too often code for wanting to shut down
discussions that may offend students or administrators. It would
be a great service to students if it was explained to them when
they begin college that, although politeness may be nice, it is of
miniscule importance as compared to robust discussion. As we
often joke, being offended is what happens when you have your
deepest beliefs challenged, and if you make it through college
without being offended, you should ask for your money back. On
a serious note, a look at the U.S. Supreme Court's First
Amendment jurisprudence will demonstrate that the government
cannot require civil speech or mandate conventions of decency
(take a look at Cohen v. California or Papish v. Board of
Curators of the University of Missouri, to name just a few). That
being said, colleges and universities can *encourage* students to
dialogue civilly; they simply cannot *require* it.”
When I tried to post the entry, I noticed my previous posts had
been erased. How not to think of the altered photographs
ordered by Stalin, erasing people from them as if they’d never
existed! That’s how I felt when I looked at the Perchik-forum
page. My entries had been erased, as if they’d never been made—
as if I’d never existed. Troubling? Damn right! But what was
really troubling was that the people doing the erasing, as well as
those heartily approving of it, were poets and academics. And
even more troubling was the fact that Perchik was an attorney…
wholly indifferent to censorship.
My next step was to send a group email to comrades in arms
and others, as well as an email to each AAP staff member,
questioning the legality of the arbitrary decision to eliminate me
from the forum. I would also have sent emails to each of the AAP
Chancellors, but their email addresses, with the exception of
Gary Snyder’s, were simply not available.
Dear Academy of American Poets staff: I have just been
censored from your forum RE Simon Perchik and am utterly
disgusted by that action. What do you have to say about it? The
American Dissident is a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization and I
am its editor, and we are devoted to healthy vigorous debate and
criticism. How can educated people be so quick to censor???
Is it not illegal for you as a nonprofit tax-exempt organization to
censor, by such an arbitrary action, American citizens from your
open forums? I will be looking into the legality of your decision.
The following are the entries that were immediately removed
from the forum. Fortunately I had copied them. I was not even
given a chance to respond to the admonition of the site manager.
This is scandalous to say the least and, unless I hear from you I
will do my best to publish it and make it known around the
country what you stand for. By the way, I have a doctorate and
have been a college professor for most of my life.
In response, later, I received the following anonymous email
from the Academy of American Poets:
Hello enmarge,
You have received a new private message to your account on
"Poets.org" and you have requested that you be notified on this
event. You can view your new message by clicking on the
following link: http://www.poets.org/forum/privmsg.php?
folder=inbox
Remember that you can always choose not to be notified of new
messages by changing the appropriate setting in your profile.
Thanks, Poets.org.
So, had I hit a nerve—a legal nerve? I clicked on the new link,
which led to yet another email, authored by Site Administrator
Christine:
You [sic] posts regarding Perchik's poem have been moved to the
Just Conversation section (two posts got lost in the shuffle,
unfortunately):
http://www.poets.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12111
Feel free to politely continue the discussion.
Needless to say, I was now a bit angry. The experience was
reminiscent of high school, or worse yet, grammar school… but
this was the Academy of American Poets, sponsors of National
Poetry Month, an event embraced by the nation’s grammar
schools, high schools, and universities! How revealing! My email
response to the Site Administrator was the following:
So not just a censor now, but also a liar?! Got "lost," huh? What
a sad joke. You owe me an apology! I am currently looking into
the legalities of your arbitrary action of censorship with my
regard as an American citizen. I want those posts in proper
position and my last post also posted in proper position NOW…
the one critical of your Guidelines. You should know better that
as a nonprofit org you are legally required to hold open forums,
open to all citizens including critical ones like me. The American
Dissident is also a non profit org, but unlike you and the
Academy, it does not fear criticism. You have left me fully
disgusted.
Out of curiosity, I clicked on the new link. My hands were full
now, and that was what I’d wanted… for purposeful conflict with
power, more than anything else, tended to stoke my creativity.
Several moderators and poet sycophants battled with me for a
brief moment like a pack of rabid poet dogs foaming at the mouth
trying desperately to diminish me as a human being (the ole ad
hominem shoot-the-messenger-to-avoid-the-message strategy)
and otherwise make me disappear… and especially keep me
away from their darling Poet of the Month Perchik! The new
forum was a thinly-veiled diversion away from Perchik, though it
was oddly labeled Simon Perchik vs. The American Dissident.
Esther, an anonymous poet, wrote:
I had The American Dissident from my list of possible rags
to submit to, but I guess I can scratch it.
Moderator Larwar responded with a single word:
Ditto.
Then moderator hatrabbit—whose real name, Dave Rowley, I
had to hunt for—attempted responding to a few of my statements,
including the following: “Or maybe, the Academy ought to
simply stifle my voice, censor me out of existence! Wouldn't that
be so much better?” Note how self-assured he is that such a thing
would/could never happen!
enmarge,
That won't happen. The Academy merely hosts this site for
people who are interested in writing, critiquing, discussing
poetry. They couldn't be bothered checking in to stifle any
debates that don't fit their agenda. That's not how they operate
despite your imaginings. You'll be happy to know that I don't
teach at any college, one reason being that I don't have a college
degree. If you've set this site up as some great political monster
that you need to save the rest of civilisation [sic] from, then
you've made a big mistake. I'd say most of the thousands of
members here are not teaching poetry in colleges or anywhere
else. This is not part of the machine.
As to my previous response not addressing your points
adequately, that was because you didn't really make any. All you
did was acknowledge a poem and an essay had been written,
dismiss both, then spew your ideology all over our forum. Say
something that shows you're actually engaging with anything on
this site and I'd be happy to respond to it.
I can't believe you charged someone with not taking a risk and
then followed that up by hiding behind the words of two other
men. That's being political--building a strawman then taking pot-
shots while hiding behind a poorly thought through ideology.
Give us a break.
"Tell me about the dream where we pull the bodies out of the
lake / and dress them in warm clothes again"
—Richard Siken
Hatrabbit’s was an interesting response regarding my quoting
Thoreau and Emerson. Perhaps hatrabbit could argue his way
out of anything, including the most widely brimmed hats. Marvel
at his observation regarding my point on Ginsberg (i.e., "Wasn’t
Ginsberg a member of such an organization?").
But he was never a member of our Board of Chancellors, so
whatever argument you're trying to make has no legs.
No legs? Well, maybe it had a hat instead! At times, I did get
depressed when fighting the herd, for it was an evident futile
battle, though one that had to be waged just the same. My
response to the pack was the following:
Yes, I have been censored from the Perchik page! Isn't that
wonderful! Now, ole Perchie can only be exposed to happy-face
critique! Oh, yes, that will help him grow! But is it LEGAL? I'm
looking into it. No response from any of you regarding my being
CENSORED. Am I surprised? Not at all.
Wilkons, yours is a politician’s WITTY (haw!) non-response.
Now, Esther, why would you have put The American Dissident on
your list in the first place? Are you another beaver-poet shot-
gunning poems out right and left in the hope of fame… and who
doesn’t read guidelines? As a professor, allow me to teach you
that one ought to read guidelines prior to submitting ones work.
Larwar, are you what is known as a Ditto Poet?
Question: How do you, all of you, justify your likely love for
Thoreau or Emerson or Solzhenitsyn or Ibsen or Jeffers, yet hate
what they wrote about the cowardly herd?
Answer: You actually think you are not part of that herd. But
can’t you see how you’ve all banded together on this little
forum… so naturally herd-like?
Question: Why do you DISDAIN (and wish to CENSOR)
someone like me, who does question and challenge the canon, all
the lit clubby clubs, etc.?
Answer: Well, it’s obvious.
Hatrabbit (i.e., Mr. Anonymous), your writing is barely
intelligible. I don’t even know how to respond to it. Well, maybe
you need to get a degree, eh? I’ve got a doctorate from a French
university! Now, how will you put that one down? What kind of
WIT will you ooze out? Yes, Hatrabbit, you must think you do a
good witty job at ranking me out, stating I hide behind two
quotes. But how asinine can one get?
Writing to all of you has been like writing to one brick wall of
solidarity of incomprehension. You can’t even seem to
comprehend a simple sentence, as in “let your life be a
counterfriction to stop the machine.” You have to diminish it
with childish witless rank-out, thinking oh how witty you are. But
poetry is more than mere high-brow wit… or at least it ought to
be.
You need to diminish me because I do stand up and away from
the herd, the poet herd, the academy herd, the academic herd,
the consensus herd. Democracy will die with your help.
Well, perhaps that entry wasn’t as polite as it could have been.
But should I be censored for it? The literary machine was
constantly operating to weed out poets not obsequiously polite in
nature—loners, radicals, critics, etc. Moderator Gary Charles
Wilkens then responded with one word, regarding my “Question:
How do you, all of you, justify your likely love for Thoreau or
Emerson or Solzhenitsyn […]?”
Huh?
He then responded, regarding my “Answer: You actually think
you are not part of that herd. […]”
Again: huh? wha? Ask an [sic] real question, get an [sic] real
answer.
Then I responded:
You need to diminish me because I do stand up and away from
the herd, the poet herd, the academy herd, the academic herd,
the consensus herd. Democracy will die with your help.
Then he responded:
No, we diminish you because you rant and rave and bait and
attack, while showing no respect for our simple guidelines. We
are within the rights given us in those guidelines in banning you
already. Explain why we haven't, if we are indeed as sinister as
you think.
Moderator “Stephen Bunch (my real name)” decided it was
time for him to get into the fray and drop the cloak of anonymity:
Mr. Slone,
I think you'll be history here soon because of your penchant for
personal attacks unrelated, as far as I can discern, to any
discussion of poets and poetry. But since you raised the matter, if
you're disturbed by Allen Ginsberg's proclivities and
associations, I also wonder about the curious coincidence of your
journal's title, American Dissident, and the National Alliance's
American Dissident Voices, a radio broadcast by now defunct
William Pierce and his neo-nazi organization, the National
Alliance. Of course, you're free to associate with neo-nazis. That
freedom is guaranteed by our Constitution. But I do weigh
people's opinions and character by the company they keep.
Anyway, enquiring minds want to know. It's been fun, old stick.
Have a good life.
"I'm looking for the gold tooth in God's crooked smile." (Jim
White)
A tad frustrated by the impervious brick wall, I wrote the
following, then called it quits for the evening:
Wilkens,
Perhaps I shall do a cartoon on you. Your paltry response to my
being censored merits it! Perhaps one day you will be Lit Rogue
of the month (www.theamericandissident.org/LitToon.htm). So,
rejoice!
You need to examine the legislation in place. It was because I
shoved that legislation under the snout of the censoring
moderator Chrissie that put me back up on your website. It is
senseless to try to reason with you. But the law certainly made
Chrissie reasonable! Haw!
Your reasoning is purposefully fraudulent and makes no sense at
all regarding my argument about being censored from the
Perchik page. You are a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization and
cannot censor on a whim, and “politeness” is a whim.
Your guidelines are a sham, a transparent front put forth to
enable you to CENSOR anybody who does express a non-happy
face opinion and who is IGNORANT OF THE LAW. Read my
statement on it! Chrissie did and so did her bosses. YOU NEED
TO REVAMP THOSE GUIDELINES IN ACCORD WITH THE
FIRST AMENDMENT. Vigorous debate is far more important
than your arbitrary politeness oblige. Don’t you get it? All those
speech codes enacted by academic clones are being struck down
in the courts, one after the other. Your code is null and void!
To call my argumentation “rant and rave and bait and attack,
while showing no respect for our simple guidelines” is as
unoriginal as shooting the messenger gets. It is also sadly typical
of educated people who shudder before someone who does have
the courage to express views not shared by the herd. My
statement was a simple criticism of the rampant blandness of
poets and poetry in America, Attorney Perchik, Poetaster of the
Month, included. It was censored from that page.
“We are within the rights given us in those guidelines in banning
you already. Explain why we haven't.” YOU KNOW DAMN
WELL WHY YOU HAVEN’T BANNED ME. YOU ARE A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION SUPPORTED BY
GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND THAT PROHIBITS YOU—
contrary to your ignorant, self-assured and self-satisfied
statement—FROM CENSORING CITIZENS DUE TO
ARBITRARY DESIGNATION OF IMPOLITENESS.
CAPICHE? If you had censored me in totality, I would have
brought a legal case against your POETRY INSTITUTION. You
will not censor me for that reason. Your bosses will not permit
you to do so! And I laugh at you for thinking you can and will
censor me. Shame on you, an educated man! Yeah, just call it
RANT… but you haven’t the guts to censor and ban.
Why should I show YOU any RESPECT at all? You merit no
respect. Your response to my statement on being censored from
the Perchik page was and is pitiful.
Unlike you, I do not threaten to censor. You are much more the
Nazi than I. So, Mr. Wilkens, it is time you stopped threatening
to eliminate me (“you’ll be history here soon”) from your forum.
If I shall be history, it will be my decision, NOT YOURS.
Did you and your buddies learn from the educational system how
to divert cogent argumentation? On Ginsberg, for example, you
and they couldn’t even comprehend the point I clearly made. Is
there any point in my repeating it? Probably not. But I’ll repeat:
Your guidelines for politesse stipulate NO “OFFENSIVE
MATERIAL” and NO “ADVERTIZEMENTS.” Whether G. was
a Chancellor or not is entirely immaterial. He was a member of
your org and a member of another org that promoted sex with
children. But for you, that’s fine and dandy, while my putting
forth an opinion IS NOT.
The repeated statement “Poetry gives us knowledge” must be a
farce because it certainly didn’t give you any knowledge
regarding your right to censor. You are a sad example of our
educational system. Your argumentation is entirely faulty and
diversionary. Here’s another example: “American Dissident, and
the National Alliance's American Dissident Voices…” and
blablabla. There is no connection whatsoever! But isn’t it
wonderful that you would connect American AND dissident with
something BAD! Perhaps you need to begin a journal and call it
THE AMERICAN CONFORMIST. Yes, you’d make a wonderful
editor of a journal like that. POETS SHOULD NOT BE
CONFORMISTS, THEY SHOULD BE DISSIDENTS! Capiche?
Clearly, you and yours are in a very weak position for you fear
any hard criticism of your milieu… and for good reason.
But that evening, I received one of those anonymous emails
telling me to click on a link so I could receive another email. The
following was the other email, authored by Site Administrator
Christine.
I suggest you read the Terms of Use.
Aberrantly, for in flagrant contradiction, she quoted Stephen
Fry: “Poetry is not made to be sucked up like a child's
milkshake…" She was indeed trying to restrict poetry and
criticism of it to suck-up of a child’s milkshake. She needs to
consult the plethora of quotations on the Internet issued by
famous people condemning censorship and all the sad excuses for
condoning and instituting it. Oddly, I could only find one quote
by a poet on censorship! And that poet was Charles Bukowski,
often considered by established-order literati as a poor poet or
not a poet at all. In other words, “they” tend to dislike him.
Censorship is the tool of those who have the need to hide
actualities from themselves and others. Their fear is only their
inability to face what is real. Somewhere in their upbringing they
were shielded against the total facts of our experience. They were
only taught to look one way when many ways exist.
My responses to the Site Manager were the following four
emails, shot in rapid succession.
I suggest you study the First Amendment... and the history of
censorship! I guess one of your bosses had a quick talk with you,
eh? I wrote to all of them!
Write to my email address, not to this spot if you want me to read
what you write.
todslone@yahoo.com
Read that email I reposted on censorship and 501(c) (3)
organizations. Read it! Then tell me what I should do. How
despicable you've been, truly...
You need to also define the word "politely," which, if left
undefined, is another of those words you seem to favor to support
censorship. Well, at least you now know that you cannot censor
me on a whim because the law forbids nonprofit organizations
from doing so. I am happy I was able to teach you something
today, Chrissie.
I will still be looking into the legality of your censoring my
comments from the Perchik page. Why not ask Perchik about
that? It is as if you are shielding him from seeing any criticism of
his work. Shame on you!
The next day, I booted up the computer and headed for the
forum, but all I got was an anonymous:
Critical Information: You have been banned from this forum.
Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more
information.
What an interesting conclusion to my experiment in free
speech in the poetry and academic milieu! It was over. Discussion
terminated. For “them,” I was terminated. Recall the comments
of moderators hatrabbit and Wilkins, respectively: “That won’t
happen.” “Because you weren't censored. If we had wanted to
censor you, we could have simply banned you from the site. Easy
as fishing.” Well, the proof was in the pudding, certainly not in
their facile verb (see http://www.poets.org/forum).
In conclusion, one could consider some of my phraseology
impolite and certainly lacking in deference. But isn’t serious
questioning and challenging always considered impolite by the
established order, both literary and academic? Nevertheless, not
once had I made threats or used four-letter words. The question
thus remains: should vigorous debate in a democracy be
terminated because of perceived impoliteness? In academe, the
courts have consistently struck down speech codes (which usually
demand politeness) in favor of vigorous debate (see www.thefire.
org). Only a few people responded to my email (sent out to about
100 individuals), announcing the Academy’s censorship. An
attorney from Foundation for Individual Rights in Education
wrote informally: “If the AAP set up an on-line forum they have
the power to decide who may or may not participate. I have not
seen any case law that would indicate to the contrary. Now you
are perfectly within your rights to shame them for this, but
ultimately I believe they have the full legal right to do this.”
If indeed, that attorney is correct, then I stand corrected and
admit wrong. Yet it was Daniel Frisch, Exempt Organizations
Specialist of the IRS, who had informed me when I sought 501(c)
(3) status for The American Dissident, that the following
regulation “is a key principle regarding advocacy”:
FINAL-REG, TAX-REGS, §1.501(c)(3)-l. Organizations
organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific,
testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or for
the prevention of cruelty to children or animals
An organization may be educational even though it advocates a
particular position or viewpoint so long as it presents a
sufficiently full and fair exposition of the pertinent facts as to
permit an individual or the public to form an independent
opinion or conclusion. On the other hand, an organization is not
educational if its principal function is the mere presentation of
unsupported opinion.
In other words, according to Frisch, I would have to permit
voice to contrary opinions in The American Dissident and on its
website for the journal to be considered educational. Why
doesn’t the Academy of American Poets have to do that too…
or does it?
Another respondent stated that “Censorship is of ideas.
Editorial discretion is of manner of expression: clarity,
coherence, logic.” Well, if he’d thought about it, his definition
for editorial discretion could easily and arbitrarily constitute a
reason to censor, that is, by labeling those ideas illogical,
incoherent and not clear. “Remove me from your e-mail list,”
was the response of a tenured English professor. But, to be fair,
another such English professor wrote: “I think it is great the way
you question everything!” Perhaps the most pertinent response
was from a poet: “I am not interested and don't which [sic] to
participate. Stop sending me emails about cencor [sic] whatever.”
As mentioned, I sent emails to each staff member of the AAP
and to Chancellor Gary Snyder. To date, not one of them has
responded or apologized. For the Academy, I simply do not exist.
For the Academy, anybody who dares question and challenge the
status quo probably doesn’t exist either. As for censorship, good
citizens should stand up and protest. Whether or not one likes the
censored person should be entirely immaterial. Please stand up,
lodge your protest, and write: academy@poets.org,
tswenson@poets.org, gssnyder@ucdavis.edu, larina76@msn.com,
chrissiemkl@gmail.com, ebleakney@poets.org, gary@gcwilkens.
com, bharrison@poets.org, jkronovet@poets.org,
medaverowley@gmail.com, rschaer@poets.org, and
Simon@hamptons.com.
Also, emails announcing the censorship incident were sent to
about 30 people, involved in the AAUP, NEA, and The Chronicle
of Higher Education. Only one responded, a reporter for The
Chronicle.
Dear George Stone [sic]--
Thanks for your e-mail. Can you copy the exchanges you had in
an e-mail and send them to me? I am not a member of the aap
forums and don't have a password, etc.
thanks, ROBIN Wilson
After directing the reporter to the entire unadulterated,
uncensored Perchik-forum transcript
(www.theamericandissident.org/AcademyAmericanPoets.htm),
she responded again.
Dr. Slone --
Thanks for your response. I'm a reporter at The Chronicle, and I
write in the Faculty Section. I thought we might write something
about you being banned, but I'd have to see the forum posts. We
do run Opinion pieces -- which is what we call anything written
by people not on our staff. They run in our Chronicle Review
section. The editors there would consider the essay you've
written. Why don't you copy me and also e-mail to 2 editors
there: liz.mcmillen@chronicle.com and sarah.bray@chronicle.
com. Hopefully the essay will give me enough of a feel for what
happened to know whether we should also write something in our
news pages or for our daily website.
Thanks, ROBIN
After following her instructions, I waited a month, heard
nothing, then sent the reporter another email. To date, she has
not responded. An email survey, including a question on the
censorship incident was sent to 130 “high-end” literary journals,
including Poetry, Kenyon Review, Georgia Review, and Poets &
Writers. Only one editor (Gargoyle) deigned to fill out the survey
and respond to that question. #13: If you agree with question
#12, would you be willing to send an email protest to 1) the staff
members of the Academy of American Poets for its censorship of
my opinions and/or 2) NewPages.com for its refusal to list The
American Dissident on its website? If not, please explain. The
editor’s response was: “Nope, I don't know you from Adam. And
your entire process here is self-serving and kind of ridiculous.
You may be the new Joan of Arc but you're coming off like a half-
cocked paranoid schizophrenic.” Question #12 was the
following: When it comes to censorship, good citizens in a
democratic society should stand up and protest. Whether or not
one likes the censored person should be entirely immaterial and
not be a determinant in the decision to protest. Do you agree
with that statement? If not, why not?
Finally, the email Charlotte Walker (Iowa City, IA) sent to the
Academy in protest (she sent me a copy) serves as an excellent
conclusion (she never received a response from the Academy):
Greetings to all at the Academy of American Poets: -- can you
explain to me why the Academy has prevented Tod Slone from
taking part in your forum discussions?
Today I was looking over your website and I noticed this part in
your terms and conditions for the forum:
"Respect other users. Do not attack, abuse, harass, intimidate, or
threaten other users in the Forum."
I am sure most everyone knows of people who get horribly
offended by honest criticism either about themselves and their
opinion or criticisms aimed at their friends. Anyone who has had
much experience in being part of internet discussion has heard
overly sensitive members complain that they are being abused or
attacked or intimidated even by the most mild difference of
opinion. An "attack", or "harass" or "abuse" can have many
meanings to different people.
I'm sure it isn't easy to moderate any forum but sometimes the
censorship lines are drawn in debatable ways. I think Tod Slone
would be an interesting member of any poetry group discussion. I
am surprised and disappointed to hear that he has been banned
from taking part.
===============================================
G. Tod Slone, Ed.
The American Dissident, a literary journal of critical thinking
and a 501(c) (3) nonprofit organization
1837 Main St.
Concord, MA 01742
www.theamericandissident.org
todslone@yahoo.com
===============================================
GO HERE TO ENTER THE MONDAY REPORT BOX.