Saturday, July 01, 2006
Horns of a Dilemma
Over the past couple years, I have had occasion to seek the counsel of a trusted colleague regarding accusations of fraud against two writers--one somewhat popular and one of seemingly limited influence--both of whom came recommended by this colleague. Having read the inspirational book of one and the erudite white paper of the other, I came to the conclusion that both had something to offer to our understanding of the human condition today, but that neither was entirely aboveboard in revealing their apparently hidden agendas.
One of them committed an error of fact that I found so serious I took it upon myself to investigate his background; the other, whose propositions I found intriguing, left minor questions as to his authenticity. Chancing upon two more recent papers of the former, I discovered to my horror this person to be actively involved in promoting xenophobic white nationalism. The latter turned out to be a fraud in how he represented himself, and, according to another highly respected colleague, someone who at times has resorted to unforgivable racist stereotyping.
How to resolve this troubling dilemma? Do we ignore minor frauds by authors who otherwise contribute vital ideas? Can we accept that people change, sometimes for the worse, and note their earlier works we find useful while ignoring later transgressions? Should we promote their beneficial insights if we judge them to be otherwise harmful by either ommission or commission? Are caveats sufficient when giving them recognition?
One of them committed an error of fact that I found so serious I took it upon myself to investigate his background; the other, whose propositions I found intriguing, left minor questions as to his authenticity. Chancing upon two more recent papers of the former, I discovered to my horror this person to be actively involved in promoting xenophobic white nationalism. The latter turned out to be a fraud in how he represented himself, and, according to another highly respected colleague, someone who at times has resorted to unforgivable racist stereotyping.
How to resolve this troubling dilemma? Do we ignore minor frauds by authors who otherwise contribute vital ideas? Can we accept that people change, sometimes for the worse, and note their earlier works we find useful while ignoring later transgressions? Should we promote their beneficial insights if we judge them to be otherwise harmful by either ommission or commission? Are caveats sufficient when giving them recognition?
