Do you watch TED talks?
TED is a popular platform for the spreading of ideas through short presentations. They feature amazing speakers from across professions who give thoughtful takes on topics worth discussing.
But the risk of being an organization that discusses ideas, particularly when it comes to race and politics, is that you will find yourself playing host to ideas that people are threatened by. Sometimes they are not merely people in the audience, but people who work with you closely, whose views and contributions you respect.
TED, and its head Chris Anderson, have come under fire in the aftermath of a TED talk given by Coleman Hughes, a young writer and intellectual famous for his critiques of modern racial activism. Coleman’s talk was titled “A Case for Color Blindness.”
In it Coleman argued that people, institutions and society should not center race in the way we engage and afford opportunities for other people, even when the goal is to promote racial equity. Colorblind standards and class-based policies, in Coleman’s view, are a better way of providing opportunity and equal treatment for people of color and humanity in general.
To some this is benign. To others such colorblindness risks ignoring the reality of racism by refusing to acknowledge race. Many of TED’s employees felt this way and asked Chris Anderson not to publish Coleman’s talk.
Ultimately Anderson did publish it, but followed it with a debate on the subject between Coleman and New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.
No doubt the choice to publish was a disappointment to some at TED. But the hesitation around publishing the talk, ultimately done only on the condition that there would be a follow up debate, has also prompted visceral outrage among those who felt that this presentation should simply have been treated like any other.
Coleman Hughes is a friend of mine. He has appeared in multiple Braver Angels events and podcasts. I consider him to be insightful, respectful and honorable. So I, like many, was very frustrated by the inability of TED to simply air his presentation without pre-conditions.
“At Braver Angels we know well the difficulty that comes with hosting conversations on controversial and (arguably) dangerous subjects.”
However, at Braver Angels we know well the difficulty that comes with hosting conversations on controversial and (arguably) dangerous subjects. We also know the need for us to respect the views and concerns of not only our audiences, but also our colleagues.
In the spring of 2021 Braver Angels was rocked by its own controversy over our decision to hold a debate on voter fraud (and voter suppression) in the aftermath of the 2020 election. Members, funders, volunteers and staff had concerns. Many insisted we not go through with this decision.
Ultimately we did. I believe it proved to be the right decision. Braver Angels’ April Lawson revisits this experience (and more) in this week’s episode of Uniting America.
Part of what you will hear April reflect upon was the need for us to honor both those who felt it was vital that we debate the issue of voter fraud as well as those who felt that we were platforming a discussion that was out of bounds.
Most of us felt it in keeping with our values and mission to go forward with the event. Yet we preceded that with the release of a podcast that was an internal staff debate on the decision to hold the debate on voter fraud.
The view that we shouldn’t debate the issue at all was also highlighted as a part of our featured debate on voter fraud itself.
It is not morally illegitimate to believe certain topics should not be platformed by socially responsible organizations. People have strong reasons for feeling this way.
I almost always disagree with this view. But how can we disregard the views of those who feel this way while in the same breath suggesting all views should be heard?
At Braver Angels we decided to compromise in a way that, in some respects, was similar to what Chris Anderson chose to do at TED.
(It is important to note here with respect to TED, an organization that we at Braver Angels greatly respect, that there are more concerning allegations from Hughes that they have suppressed the circulation of his talk in violation of previous commitments. This I cannot speak to.)
But the compromise we came to in a somewhat similar situation was, in my view, wise, ethical, and advanced our mission. Without satisfying everyone it preserved the unity of our team and allowed us to continue serving America.
American institutions will continue to face these sorts of challenges. Let us strive to meet them with grace.
