I was not going to reply to this thread at all, but decided to reply to this. I'm writing as an ARSC member, and NOT speaking for the Board. 

Kurt's letter (Op-Ed, whatever you want to call it) was in response to the proposed new DEI policy currently being evaluated by the ARSC membership. As such, his letter had as much right to be in the bulletin as any other member's. That platform is also open to you if you so desire. 

I don't agree with Nauck's letter in any way. Nor do many ARSC members. Nor did it speak for the Board, as Rebecca stated. But IMHO, the Board's job is NOT to regulate members' opinions. We're all adults here, and most of us are Americans. We're supposed to be protective of free speech, including speech we don't like. Our OBLIGATION as Americans is to not be afraid of it, and to respond to it in kind with our own speech. 

So submit your rebuttal to the editor, as people do every day in newspapers. Or tell Kurt directly how you feel. Whatever you feel best gets your point across. And hopefully, we can all come to a resolution that lifts ARSC up to a better place that is more inclusive, responsive and respectful of ALL voices, which is something that has been lacking lately. And in that regard, I fully support Rebecca's efforts. 

Jeff Willens

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 15:02:13 -0500, Paul Stamler <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>On 7/20/2020 9:13 AM, Rebecca Chandler wrote:
>While I and others on the board do not agree with the
>> contents of the letter, it is important to the integrity of the
>> organization to allow our members to express themselves without censorship.
>This is a statement with which I profoundly disagree. Mr. Nauck
>publishes a catalog of auction offerings, and he used to occasionally
>append his opinions on political matters to the catalog. There is no
>censorship of those expressions; he has an absolute right under the
>First Amendment to express those opinions and publish them in his
>catalogs, and I would vehemently oppose any attempt to censor their
>expression in those catalogs -- for example, by the denying to him of
>bulk-mailing privileges.
>That doesn't mean or imply that ARSC is under any obligation to provide
>a platform for those opinions; it is not, and in my opinion it should
>not be. All opinions are not created equal, and this opinion at this
>time is inflammatory and potentially harmful. The editors may, at their
>discretion, grant the privilege of appearing in the newsletter to
>members who have expertise in a particular area. Mr. Nauck can claim
>particular expertise in the compensation curves appropriate for playing
>78 rpm records; he's co-authored a book on the subject. He does not
>carry any matching expertise in the enormously complex area of race
>relations in America; he's simply a guy with strong opinions on the
>subject. As I said, Mr. Nauck has an absolute right to hold those
>opinions, and to express them in the catalogs he publishes; if he wants
>to feature a record called "There's a Coon in the White House", as he
>did at the beginning of the Obama Administration, that's his right under
>the constitution, but I see no reason for the ARSC to provide him with a
>platform for promulgating those opinions, and think that the editors of
>the newsletter made a significant mistake by doing that.
>Paul Stamler
>This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.