This is getting a little out of hand. I know Sammy Jones. He's a very nice guy, and he's definitely NOT a racist. I respect his position as a professional journalist, and I think we should all do so.
Audio Engineer Emeritus
The Crane School of Music
SUNY at Potsdam, NY 13676
"Great art presupposes the alert mind of the educated listener."
"A true artist doesn't want to be admired, he wants to be believed."
"If you design an audio system based on the premise that nothing is audible,
on that system nothing will be audible."
From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Lou Judson
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2020 5:08 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [ARSCLIST] ARSC controversies
This message did not originate from SUNY Potsdam or one of its trusted senders. Do not open attachments, click on links, or provide your credentials if the source is suspicious.
Sammy, in what capacity and for what orgnizations are you a “Journalist” with a capital J? Where are you published?
I won’t lecture on white previlege or the fallacy of objectivism, but you take a position by your words, and by your being offended.
You see hate where it is not actually there. You see attack when someone responds. Look to yourself, be honest. And listen to others for truth.
> On Jul 22, 2020, at 1:53 PM, Sammy Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What a hurtful message. I have expressed no racist ideology, and am frankly shocked to be called one. All I have said is that the ARSC Board should have not weighed into current events. I submit your attack-filled note to me as an example of the discord that our organization making public statements like this fosters. Because I object and must keep my views private, you have leveled a hate-filled attack at me.
> My reason is that I'm a journalist who covers these events, and cannot be seen to taking a position or a side on them...or frankly to be part of a group that is taking a side.
> In addition, I do not look to ARSC to define how I feel about current events. Period.
> Just to be clear: I abhor racists and racism. But I cannot and will not offer my thoughts on issues that are in the news and that are playing out in our court system.
> You say neutrality is a vote for white supremacy. I say, I MUST remain publicly neutral when it comes to stories I cover. It is a central tenet of journalism in the United States. You have no idea how I feel in private, but I will let you in on this: I am not a white supremacist, and having nothing but scorn for that ideology.
> You say you pray I arrive at a different set of commitments and priorities. My commitments and priorities must remain unchanged so long as I am a journalist. Those are, to tell the truth, and to take no public side on stories that I cover. That is the duty of journalists in this nation, a profession so important to the fabric of democracy that it is specifically protected in the Constitution.
> Journalists do what we do so that others may speak freely, express THEIR opinions freely, protest freely, and demand the government take action freely. We must not be seen to be taking those other steps ourselves. It endangers the trust of the readers, viewers, and listeners who come to us to find out what happened.
> The rest of your message goes into ideologies expressed by protest groups. I have explained again and again that I cannot publicly take a side one way or the other on any of those views. And that is my issue with the Board's statement: they took a position for all of us.
> If you knew me, who might well know how I personally feel on these issues, but you as you don't, how can you possibly know? I have not given you my personal thoughts at all (save for what you have read above), and it is unethical for me to do more publicly.
> I resent being called a racist because I have stood up for the ethics of my profession. Is this the type of attack at ARSC will allow on the ARSCList? Are my concerns being dismissed out of hand?
> Sammy Jones
> Jess from Ohio wrote:
> I am a long-time lurker on this list; I logged into this discussion
> because I was confused by the thread title & then was rapidly shocked
> by the overt & explicit racism in Sammy's posts here. Sammy, whoeever you are:
> seriously?! Yikes. I couldn't imagine feeling comfortable, as a ARSC
> member of color (I'm neither), with this organization when statements
> like this are allowed to fly around on a public list-serv! Sammy, have
> fun wondering if police murders of POC constitute crimes. Have fun
> waiting for courts to rule that those crimes are crimes. Have you
> heard what we're out here marching for? That's not how this system works. No justice, no peace.
> This has *everything* to do with recorded sound, insofar as structural
> racism is literally the *infrastructure* of everything we know -- of
> every discipline, of every hobby, of the entire protocols and ordering
> logics of who can move, collect records, whatever it is, safely in
> this world; and for whom carrying a bag of skittles is a death
> sentence. And, yes, the history of recorded sound -- its present, and,
> unless we do something, its futures -- are shaped by institutional
> racism. Any number of people on this list have written books &
> developed projects exposing and amplifying those histories.
> Black Lives Matters & calls to defund & abolish the police & attendant
> systems of incarceration aren't a "political" issue -- what does that
> even mean? Unless it's "political" to say Black people shouldn't be
> subject to death, incarceration, overpolicing, simply by living in a
> deeply racist society that hasn't even begun to do reparations work
> for centuries of slavery. Is that political? If so, guess you're not
> gonna like hearing that structural racism is political. Denying it is
> political. You're being
> *hella* political right now, Sammy. If fighting for racial justice is
> political, everything is political. These are meaningless words
> deployed to shut down a meaningful effort at solidarity on ARSC's
> part, which, already, like those of almost all white-led, historically
> white-serving cultural organizations, is already way too little, too
> late. It's the *least* ARSC can do.
> If you're a white person writing these devil's advocacy hypotheticals,
> I want to just come right out and say you're advocating for the murder
> & continued making-fungible of Black bodies. Neutrality is not only
> not an option; it's an open vote for white supremacy. We *see* you saying that.
> It's gross, man.
> Kudos to those ARSC members calling this sort of thing. I know almost
> none of you and am not a member besides enjoying biscuits with you all
> at the Chapel Hill conference several years ago, and have no
> affiliations to maintain; so I have the luxury of calling it like I
> see it, and, damn: this ain't it, Sammy.
> Come the fuck on.
> In closing, in response to your question, "I have to ask again, why
> are we even in this position?" -- I offer that you educate yourself on
> the loooooong history of anti-blackness & ongoing structural-systemic
> violence against & dispossession of Black, Indigenous, & POC in this
> country -- what Saidiya Hartman calls the "non-event of emancipation"
> -- & pray the answer you arrive at lands you with a different set of
> commitments & priorities than the ones you're -- shockingly -- comfortable expressing here, now.
> Respectfully submitted,
> and in solidarity with BIPOC & Black lives, Jess from Ohio