Good note Corry. I am also a member of the DEI Committee and like you, not
authorized to speak for the committee as a whole. That said, I have
followed with interest the weeklong responses to Kurt Nauck's letter and
matters having to do with the ARSC Procedures for Responding to Incidents
(Mar. 9, 2020), and the ARSC Code of Conduct (Mar. 10, 2020). I am in the
process of finishing a response to our board chair and the leadership of
DEI. All ARSC members can submit comments and concerns regarding the two
ARSC documents and have been encouraged to do so by ARSC leadership. The
deadline for doing that is this week. Given the extensive comments posted
here, board members will not suffer from a lack of summer reading.
A few comments as to what has been said on the listserv:
1. Newsletter editor Yuri Shimoda’s response to the Nauck issue and
Letters to the Editor in general was both thoughtful and very much
appreciated. ARSC members have rightfully voiced their praise for Shimoda’s
work on the newsletter and brought attention to the long hours she puts in
as a volunteer. As a faithful reader, I see the excellence of her work in
2. Our board president has posted a response to the publication of the
Nauck letter on this forum. In doing so, she informs us that the letter in
question was put before the ARSC board. This tells us two things: a) Editor
Shimoda was right in red flagging it to the board; b) the board made a
mistake in approving it.
3. I will note to President Chandler that “censorship” and making a
decision on whether to publish are two very different things. Publication
can and is subject to matters of: *Accuracy* (Nauck put forward a number of
specious claims); *conciseness of expression *(*New and Returning Members*
listings aside, more than a full page was devoted to Nauck’s letter in just
15 pages of copy); *appropriateness to the publication in question*
(letters to the editor in a vast number of publications are accepted or
rejected on this basis alone). There being, “no other Letter to the Editor
submissions” for the Summer 2020 issue is irrelevant to all of the above.
4. I’m not trying to draw blood here. All of us make mistakes. Consider
two recent examples from our national newspapers: Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark)
in an Op-Ed published in the New York Times entitled, “Send in the Troops”,
Jun. 3, 2020 to which the Times has now added “…*we have concluded that the
essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published *(bolding
added*)”. *Or the July 14, USA Today Op-Ed written by White House trade
advisor Peter Navarro entitled, “Anthony Fauci has been wrong about
everything I have interacted with him on”, to which the Editorial Page
Editor has now added a long preface that includes, “…*However, several of
Navarro’s criticisms of Fauci... …were misleading or lacked context. As
such, Navarro’s op-ed did not meet USA TODAY’s fact-checking standards*
Finally, on a matter that continues to hover within the strange and
mysterious realm, long time ARSC member Dennis Rooney voices concerns over,
“ad hominem attacks and uncivil screeds” on the Listserv forum. Those are
very serious accusations, Dennis, to which you add objections over reading
the views of “ostensible professionals.” Then, come your two conduct
guidelines. Your first one comes from Thumper (a rabbit) in a 1942 Walt
Disney animated feature. Your second guideline comes from Archie Bunker, a
fictional character in a 1970’s CBS sitcom whose primary personality trait
was his bigotry. Wow!
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 1:14 PM Corey Bailey <[log in to unmask]>
> Hi All,
> Since there have been no postings for a couple of days now, it looks as
> though this thread may have run it’s course.
> I would like to thank those that posted & if anyone feels that they were
> insulted or got their nose tweaked, I apologize.
> I posted the question because I was surprised to see Kurt Nauck’s letter
> to the membership in the newsletter.
> Full disclosure:
> I am a member of the ARSC DEI Committee. I didn’t mention it because;
> 1) I didn’t want to influence the conversation.
> 2) It wasn’t an official DEI function & I am not authorized to speak for
> the committee.
> I joined the committee because I was surprised to learn that some felt
> intimidated by certain members & others felt that certain members were
> Tim Brooks made some interesting comments about the DEI committee’s
> proposals in his post. I would suggest that the membership carefully
> read those proposals and submit any ideas.
> I have never met Kurt Nauck although I have participated in several of
> his auctions (Nauctions) & intend to do so in the future. I don’t agree
> with several points that he expressed in his letter to the membership.
> However, if I do have the chance to meet him, I’m sure that we will
> agree to disagree on some things.
> Again, I would like to thank all of those that took the time & effort to
> post their views.
> Corey Bailey Audio Engineering