So DC comics has hired Orson Scott Card, a famous sci-fi author, to write a couple of issues of Superman.
Orson Scott Card is also an activist who has said that “gay rights is a collective delusion,” and has called for revolution if gay marriage is legalized, has defended laws which make being gay illegal,1 and has sat on the board of directors of the so-called National Organization for Marriage.
So it’s not surprising that DC’s hiring him to write their flagship character has been controversial. A petition asks DC to “drop Orson Scott Card”; the comic strip Gutters sarcastically imagined Card’s take on what really doomed Superman’s home planet Krypton; one Dallas comic book store owner has announced that he will not stock Card’s Superman stories.
Card himself argues that “it should be perfectly legitimate to fire somebody” for being gay. If that’s legitimate, then shouldn’t it also be legitimate for Card to lose a writing gig for his anti-gay views?
On the other hand, Dale Lazarov, a writer of erotic gay comics,2 doesn’t want Card to lose the Superman gig:
I’ve known Orson Scott Card is a raging homophobe since the early 90s. I refuse to buy or read his work. But asking that he be denied work because he is a raging homophobe is taking it too far. Asking for workplace discrimination for any reason is counterproductive for those who want to end discrimination on their own behalf.
I can see nit-picky grounds for disagreeing with Lazarov (there are circumstances in which workplace discrimination is legitimate – discrimination against workers who refuse to do their jobs, for example).
On the whole, however, I agree with Lazarov. I oppose attempts to deprive people of work because of their political opinions. 3 I especially oppose pressuring publishers to drop artists and writers, because of the obvious free speech implications. Demanding that someone be fired is too strong and too mean an approach; this is a weapon that has been used against lgbt folks for too long. A lot of the terror of McCarthyism was in the attack on people’s employability.
Pressuring employers to fire someone, or publishers to drop authors, is a technique that – like direct violence – should be avoided by people on all sides, because it’s simply too cruel to be a part of legitimate political debate. To oppose people being able to work or publish because they disagree with us is both anti-free speech, and anti-worker’s rights. Those aren’t positions I’m willing to take up.
A few pre-rebuttals:
1. Let’s be clear: Although this is a free speech issue, it’s not a First Amendment issue. Card has a First Amendment right to say what he wants, but he doesn’t have a First Amendment right to freedom from consequences for what he says. In fact, readers have a First Amendment right to refuse to buy his work, and to petition DC asking that Card be canned, and publishers have a First Amendment right to choose not to publish Card.
2. Obviously, no one is obliged to buy Card’s comics, or any DC comic. I think it’s perfectly legitimate for readers who oppose Card’s homophobia to choose not to support Card’s work, or to choose not to buy DC comics.4 I also think it’s fine for a store owner to choose not to carry Card’s work.
3. If the Superman script Card turns is anti-gay in any fashion, I think DC would do the right thing by refusing to publish it.
4. I’ve seen some folks claim that if Card were famously anti-Black instead of famously anti-gay, DC would never have hired him to write their flagship character (and Marvel wouldn’t have hired him to write Ultimate Iron Man). Maybe this is true, although I’m not certain – people like Ron Paul and Charles Murray both seem able to find work despite their past racist writings. 5
But in any case, there’s a difference between views becoming socially and professionally limiting because there’s a genuine social consensus that those views are incompatible with decency, versus asking someone’s boss to have them fired because they’ve taken a side in a still-ongoing controversy. I’m not sure that either is good 6, but they are certainly different.
5. Let’s not kid ourselves about which side does this more. A significant number of anti-gay Christian employers routinely fire people for being lgbt, or for having the “wrong” views on lgbt issues, and as far as I can tell no one on the anti-SSM side ever speaks out for the people being fired.
- 1. In 1990, Card wrote: “Laws against homosexual behavior should remain on the books, not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone who happens to be caught violating them, but to be used when necessary to send a clear message that those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as acceptable, equal citizens within that society.” Card has since attempted to walk back this statement. [↩]
- 2. Link is safe for work, unless your workplace is seriously uptight. [↩]
- 3. There are a few obvious exceptions to this rule, such as political appointees. [↩]
- 4. Although DC, to its credit, includes a couple of high-profile gay superheroes in its lineup, including Green Lantern and Batwoman. [↩]
- 5. Or, in Ron Paul’s case, past ghost-written racist writings. [↩]
- 6. The social status of racism as a grievous sin, rather than as a common character flaw that most people need to resist, hasn’t eradicated racism, but it has eroded our ability to acknowledge racism and discuss it rationally. [↩]
It’s a complex topic, and I have a lot of trouble defining my own views in a way which is generalizable: I think you made a good post even though I am not sure I entirely agree with each point.
But this seems similar to the CA boycotts related to support of Prop. 8, right? Do you think it should be the same analysis?
Broadly agree with you.
Nitpick: “A significant number of anti-gay Christian employers…”
What value is added by specifying the religious identification of the employer? The anti-gay part is what is material. Obviously, in a nation as majority Christian as this one is, many employers (anti-gay or otherwise) could be described as Christian. There are Christian employers who aren’t anti-gay, though; the anti-gay position may be majoritarian but it is hardly definitive. The same is true of other relevant demographic breakdowns – blacks, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, etc. – and we wouldn’t specify ‘black anti-gay’ or ‘Jewish anti-gay’ unless it was somehow relevant to the rest of the discussion.
Granted, Superman can be viewed as a Christian allegory, but I don’t think that’s the connection here. ;)
It can be very tempting to try the same tactics that homophobes eagerly use against LGBTQIA folks. Still, I think about the fact that even homophobes often have families that rely on them to be providers. Those family members might be homophobes, too. However, they could be folks who just have an asshole for a mom or dad. I wouldn’t want them to suffer just because the person they rely on is a flaming homophobe.
That’s my main reason for staying out of efforts like this one. We can do all of those things that you mentioned (e.g. decide not to purchase or stock or read those issues), instead.
G&W, I can recall two points in the Prop 8 fight where someone’s job was at issue.
The first (iirc) involved someone who helped run a professional musical theater company, who resigned because of lgbt artists not wanting to work with him. I think that’s fair enough. No one is obligated to personally collaborate with a homophobe if they don’t want to.
The second was a restaurant that’s very popular with the gay community, whose co-owner donated thousands of dollars to support prop 8.
Here I’m torn. On the one hand, if I’m going to be consistent with this post, I should say that lgbt activists shouldn’t have protested and picketed and objected; they should have just quietly stopped being patrons of that restaurant.
On the other hand, if I recall correctly, the activism set the stage for talks between the activists and the restaurant, and in the end things were resolved in a way that everyone could live with. Fences were mended, and the person kept their job. (IIRC). So it seems weird to wish that activism that led to a largely positive outcome had not happened.
Robert: Point well taken.
My main problem with this is that DC hired him to write the character who is supposed to stand up for ALL Americans. DC should have thought about that a little bit more. Of course, just like they have the right to hire whoever they want, we, as consumers, have the right to not buy his product and send a message to DC. As a former admirer of Card’s writing I still get upset about his now revealed views at times, but have chosen to simply not provide him with anymore of my money.
It is SO FAR FROM direct violence that I suggest you may want a different analogy. Just sayin.
Doesn’t the too-cruel aspect depend on whether the punishment fits the offense? If Card declines to actively support anti-DOMA work, versus if he starts and funds a pro-DOMA campaign: those are different things.
There are certainly situations in which extreme measures might be warranted.
Not at all.
People can work;
people can speak;
people can publish.
It’s just that you may not be able to do all of those in your chosen manner at your chosen time in your chosen form with your chosen employer.
You can do it even in the face of societal opposition. True, if you’re widely opposed to society it makes it HARDER–but that’s part of how free speech works.
I think we should differentiate between using mass protests to punish, and using mass protests to coerce future behavior.
Punishment would be a demand “Fire Orson because of what he said. Otherwise we won’t buy your product.”
Coercion would be a demand “Fire Orson unless he publicly retracts and/or apologizes for what he said. Or if you don’t fire him, you will need to issue your own statement explaining it. Otherwise we won’t buy your product.”
I want to dovetail on what G&W said above.
I think this is the crux of it. If Card’s public statements on homosexuality had never gone beyond “I’m a practicing Mormon, and as part of my beliefs I recognize sexual contact between two members of the same sex as sinful. As a results, I object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds,” then I doubt we’d even be discussing this. Lots of people might disagree with his views for a whole lot of reasons, but we would not likely see a push for DC comics to replace or disavow him.
The issue isn’t that Card happens to take a particular view on same-sex marriage and human sexuality that some people disagree with. The issue is that Card has said genuinely hateful, bigoted things against gay people. The comments of his that Amp listed above are just the tip of the iceberg.
I guess I am somewhat torn on this. I don’t want to live in a world where anyone can find their job on the line simply for having unpopular views. Plenty of my own views are unpopular! Tolerance matters
mostat all when disagreements are strong.But I think there are limits to that as well. It’s one thing to oppose same-sex marriage, it’s quite another to spread terrible lies about gay people. And it’s the latter reason that his work with DC Comics is so controversial.
If it was a product that I normally buy, I wouldn’t buy it. It’s not exactly a boycott since it’s only me. I do this sort of thing all the time. There are certain products that I like that I don’t buy because of the company or person associated with the company. I think that’s perfectly legitimate. I also think it’s legitimate to encourage others to not patronize the companies I don’t.
For example, I don’t ever, ever buy anything from giant well known box store. I know that they lied when they used to advertise that all their wares were made in the USA. I believe that they are incredibly destructive to the economy. I encourage others not to shop there. Were I interested in and DC publications, I would do the same thing in this case – not buy any and encourage others not to buy any. It’s the only leverage (teeny as that may be) that I have.
I am so disappointed in OSC. I always really liked his stories, and the way that unlike many SF writers he assumed that religion would still exist in the future (you know, cos it’s kind of a cultural thing and the human brain likes to find things to believe in like that) and then he turned out to be a bigoted dickhead. I don’t know if I can comment on the DC Comics thing because I don’t buy comics so I don’t know how I feel, but I have generally stopped seeking out his books. The ones I own I loved, but now I look at them and feel sad that I can’t enjoy them like I did before because they’re tainted with my knowledge of his personal prejudices.
So, I guess I AM against OSC writing for DC Comics, because it’s going to be horrible for all the gay comic book readers who will be reminded when they see these comics of these hateful statements he’s made. And I assume they will see them in shops, and will see publicity for them, so they can’t “just not buy them if they don’t like them”.
I don’t know if there should be a petition about it, and I don’t know if there is a sound moral argument to have him un-hired, but I think DC Comics should have been more considerate to this portion of their audience and not hired him.
Your point number 4 is exceptionally weak. It’s basically saying “discrimination on the basis of viewpoint is OK if that viewpoint is sufficiently marginal”.
By that logic, employment discrimination against LGBTQI folks in the 70’s was just fine, as will firing Card in 20 years.
I’m sympathetic to the idea behind it, but by linking acceptability of employment discrimination to popular appeal, you create way more problems than you solve.
“The issue isn’t that Card happens to take a particular view on same-sex marriage and human sexuality that some people disagree with. The issue is that Card has said genuinely hateful, bigoted things against gay people.”
Is it possible to disagree with same sex marriage without saying hateful and bigoted things? I don’t think so. When you disagree with same sex marriage you are denying people a desperately needed right. That is extremely bigoted and quite hateful.
I’m interested that the talk of pushing for Card to be fired is in regards to his being hired to write Superman– so far as I know, no one wanted his publishers to quit publishing his non-comics fiction.
I’m assuming that people care more about Superman, though it’s also possible that they care more about comics. Would this have happened if he’d been hired to write a new character, or a less famous superhero? No one seems to be upset that he was one of the writers for graphic novel of Ender’s Game.
I think there are some key differences, though perhaps subtle.
Generally, I understand Ampersand’s point to be: “If you are actively trying to get a person fired from their job because of something they said outside of the workplace, that’s not okay.” (It is, and should be, legal, but it is the wrong thing to do.) And I think I agree with the spirit of what he’s saying. (Though hashing out the specifics of when it is and is not okay might be a fun way to spend a day or a week.)
On the other hand, if you are choosing not to buy a product because you do not want to support the person or entity that makes it, that’s okay. Furthermore, communicating to others that the maker of a product has said or done problematic things is okay.
When you say, “Boycotts related to support of Prop 8,” I feel like you are lumping several different types of things together.
It is unquestionably okay to organize a boycott of the business of a person or corporation who donated money to influence the passage of a law. It is perfectly okay to actively try to decrease the amount of money flowing toward people or corporations who have used, or might again use, that money to fight against your rights.
But it’s not necessarily okay to boycott a business whose employees used their own money to donate money to influence passage of a law. I’m not saying it’s not okay, just that it’s not necessarily okay…
And it’s worth discussing whether it’s okay to actively boycott the business of a person who you know voted for Prop 8, but who did not campaign or donate money. (The fact that you don’t have evidence that your money actually was used against you means that this type of boycott would be punitive, not necessarily protective.)
Firing a person of privilege based upon a political viewpoint is a whole different kettle of fish to discrimination based upon minority status.
While free speech is an important value to our culture and is embedded in the Constitution, it is perfectly legal to fire somebody for a political viewpoint.
Whether or not it is ethical, is a different matter.
However, if activists were to seek anti-discrimination laws for speech, how far should such a law extend? Should a hospital be unable to fire a doctor who advocates on his personal blog a controversial treatment (like oh say, conversion therapy for LGBTQ folks?) that many in the medical community know is dangerous?
What about a film company when one of the stars they hired, bad mouths their most popular director to ET! right before said star is about to start a new film for the studio? Why should the film studio not be able to fire said star?
What I see here is a group of people trying to make others aware that an extreme homophobe is now going to be writing for Superman, and that this project will be boycotted if he remains with it.
And guess what. A boycott is a kind of speech, one in which money talks. So to say people can’t boycott a form of media because they’re limiting someone else’s Free Speech is actually kind of contradictory.
Are we now all supposed to watch Fox News now or otherwise risk suppressing free speech?
-Jeremy
OSC is interesting in that he produced one of the very first sensitive and affirming stories about a gay man that I ever read (Songmaster), such that I was completely shocked to find that he was anti gay in his real life. Does it change anything that if you read enough of his stories it is almost crystal clear that he had been molested by a gay pedophile as a youth? (Lost Boys clearly has autobiographical elements and the abused child/revenge story is found in almost every single tale he tells.).
Anyway it is perfectly clear that he can and does treat gay people sensitively in his art. Isn’t that the main thing?
Sebastian H, I’ve assumed that Card was abused (probably not sexually) by his father or grandfather. There’s a lot of abuse of various kinds, including risk of killing, by older male authority figures.
It’s interesting to compare this to the Chick Fil-A controversy a few months back. Their corporate practices were blatantly anti-gay (they contributed to homophobic charities and causes), and a boycott of their product was organized with widespread support. Of course, a counter-boycott Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day was organized just as quickly by the bigots.
So, should a business be punished for its social and political actions? and if so, does hiring a bigot constitute such an action worthy of complaint and organized opposition? Is this a reaction against Card, or against DC?
I don’t know about the private sector, but in the public sector this is absolutely not true.
It varies by what you mean by “a political viewpoint.” And it varies by business size.
That said, most folks are “at will” employees and can be fired because they’re Yankees fans and you like the Red Sox, or any other equivalently banal reason. So as a practical matter it’s almost impossible to prove that sort of thing anyway.
I’m having a hard time seeing what the problem is here.
Well, yes, in the sense that you can derive anything from a false antecedent. But it’s not legitimate to fire somebody for being gay, so the implication is meaningless.
What free speech implications? Card can continue to speak all he wants. He might lose an avenue of distribution for his speech, and he might lose some income as well. Good! The remedy for despicable speech is and should be ostracism and loss of societal status, including excess income. Why is this a problem?
But there is no parallel between being gay and being an outspoken bigot, so I don’t see why there needs to be any sort of parity between the consequences for each. Further, simply because a method has been used to horrible effect against lgbt folks, does not mean that the method is suspect.
If Card were to get fired right this second, and every publisher on the planet were to refuse to publish his work, he would STILL live the rest of his life at a standard of living much higher than mine. If that’s cruelty, then sign me up for some punishment, please.
But if DC were to fire Card, he could still work. He could even still work at his chosen profession. He might have to choose a different (and more bigoted) publisher. Failing that, he could still publish via the miracle of the Internet.
If Card were, say, a migrant farmworker who lived hand-to-mouth, I would also oppose firing him for his views. Pitching him into extreme poverty would indeed be too cruel. But he’s not a migrant farmworker, and firing him will deprive him of neither home nor shelter.
DC could legitimately fire Card simply because they chose not to affiliate themselves with bigots. They could also legitimately fire him because his employment will cost them fans and money. For good measure, they should do both.
There is a huge parallel between being gay and being an outspoken bigot – or an outspoken person, in general.
Gays are historically, and generally, unpopular. Outspoken people are historically, and generally, unpopular. We should not mistake waves of relative tolerance or affinity for unorthodoxy for ground states; they are not.
The issue is not that gay people are just like bigots; obviously not. The issue is that both the loud and the proud tend to get shit on by the larger society – and that makes ‘hey, let’s not shit on people’ a value that we should encourage *whether or not* the person being shat upon deserves that treatment.
It’s not “don’t shit on Orson because he needs the money” or “don’t shit on Orson because his viewpoint is valid” or “don’t shit on Orson because he’s a special flower who should get a privilege”.
It’s “shitting on people, in general, ought to be discouraged….and so even though we can make a case justifying how shitting on this one guy this one time is valid and acceptable, to do so will undermine the case against shitting-upon *in general*…and that’s a bad idea. So let’s not shit on Orson.”
I’m fine with shamming, shunning and boycotting anti gay bigots. Especially when it is religiously based prejudice. They have a lot of nerve trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. They can change their views, or keep their views for their own lives and refrain from attempting to make their religious views civil law. They can change, unlike sexual minorities who are unable to change their sexual orientation, a part of their being which harms no one and is nobody’s business.
It is not the sexual minorities who have to change, they cannot change who they are, it is we straight people who can and must change. I would shame, shun and boycott the KKK also. Shame, shun and boycott are Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association. People are perfectly free to say whatever they want, but so can I. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you immunity from criticism. I will criticize you by shamming, shunning and boycotting you. First engage, always try to reach out, but if that doesn’t work, shame, shun and boycott.
I would have stood on the sidewalk picketing the waitress who donated to Prop 8. That is part of shunning, letting her co-workers and customers know that they are being served, or working with, an anti gay bigot.
“They have a lot of nerve trying to force their religious beliefs onto others. They can change their views, or keep their views for their own lives and refrain from attempting to make their religious views civil law.”
Yeah! Fucking Abolitionists, coming around here and telling me it’s wrong to keep slaves.
I’m broadly in your camp on this one, SG, but it is worth remembering that not all religious beliefs that their adherents want to put into secular law are ill-intended or malignant in effect.
The test is not the motivation of the lawgiver, it is the acceptability of the law to the moral/legal framework of the nation. Whether an abolitionist was inspired by Christ or by Jefferson (or both), the desire to end slavery was profoundly compatible with the ideals of the Constitution; whether an opponent of SSM is inspired by Buddha or Batman, their desire to block some citizens from enjoyment of their civil rights is not.
As others have pointed out, we’re not talking about a person or group of people struggling to get by despite long-standing, institutionalized discrimination. We’re talking about a single individual who has abused his power and status in order to oppress the vulnerable in society.
At heart, this is not an issue of employment, or workplace discrimination. This is an issue of status and reputation and what you do with it.
DC hired Card, presumably at least in part, for his name recognition. His name will surely be prominently displayed and associated with the comics in question, and DC had a reasonable expectation that this fact will bring in more readers than if some other name were in its place. Owing to the fact that Card is actually intensely and increasingly unpopular among DC’s target demographic, it turns out that one aspect the product they were buying from him – his name recognition – is actually worth significantly less than what they originally thought.
To broaden this, any media company would be absolutely justified in making an employment decision – hiring, firing, promotion – based on the public image of one of the people whose names will be associated with that media company and its brand. It’s why news organizations can – and often do – fire people who make a single offensive comment. I think, and clearly many agree, that this is a reasonable distinction to make – that it’s not okay for McDonald’s to fire someone for producing hate speech, but it is okay for NPR or NBC to do so.
But what I really think – aside from the legal/ethical justification argument – is that the problem with DC hiring Card is not that Card has a reputation that will tarnish DC, but that DC has a reputation that will elevate Card. By hiring Card, DC is throwing their support behind a known, outspoken homophobe, and even if the comic in particular doesn’t give Card a venue for his hatred, being associated with the Superman franchise and DC will certainly enhance his status in ways that will allow his hatred to reach more people.
The symbolic power of DC giving a flagship character to this particular kind of hatemonger is strong and we should not ignore it. The impact it will have on LGBT kids who read these comics is real and we should not ignore it.
I don’t think that people should be unable to get a job because of a political opinion. I do think that organizations that have great power and influence should avoid throwing that influence behind people whose political opinions *and actions* are destructive to the well-being of millions. I don’t see this as punishing Card – I see it as protecting readers.
You’re not wrong about any of that, panoptical, except for the very first sentence. It isn’t about an oppressed and marginalized community of creators right now, it’s about the privileged-and-bad-acting Card.
But whatever happens to him WILL happen to the oppressed and marginalized at a later date, with Card’s treatment presented as a justification – possibly presented without a shred of credibility among those who know the full story and understand the nuances involved. What percentage of the world do you figure that is? I’d say 10% but I’m a well-known Panglossian optimist.
The boobs will accept it, though, because they (ok, we) generally do.
Let me put it in a starker form that might resonate:
– – – – –
The poor, marginalized, and oppressed have never and will never receive BETTER treatment from society than the rich, mainstream and privileged receive.
– – – – –
I agree with you that the fan world has the absolute right to be super pissed and that DC has the right to do pretty much anything they like, up to and including keelhauling, to any subcreator they hire to manage a property. I just think it would be counterproductive over the long haul.
Pingback: Follow-up: Orson Scott Card “Superman” story put on indefinite hold | Alas, a Blog