A professor at Yale University has falsely alleged that the young journalist doxed by the 1619 Project’s founder “regularly slanders people in vicious ways.”
A professor at Yale University has falsely alleged that the young journalist doxed by the 1619 Project's founder "regularly slanders people in vicious ways."
Young reporter Aaron Sibarium wrote an article for the Washington Free Beacon about the apparent forced resignation of science writer Donald McNeil Jr. from The New York Times. McNeil was dismissed for using the n-word years ago in an exchange prompted by his student that questioned grounds for suspension.
In Sibarium's expose that unearthed the inner workings of debate among The New York Times staff over McNeil's exit, it was revealed that 1619 Project founder Nikole Hannah-Jones doxed Sibarium—in direct violation of the platform's Terms of Service—before she wiped her entire Twitter history.
For the record, it was more annoying than alarming. Some nasty voice messages but nothing serious.
— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium)
The incident transpired when Aaron Sibarium asked Hannah-Jones whether intent differentiated her case of the racial epithet's usage in 2016. That's when she posted Sibarium's scoop-related inquiry, including his cell phone number, to Twitter and scrubbed her social media account.
After the news broke, Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley falsely claimed that Sibarium "regularly slanders people in vicious ways" on his Twitter feed, including Stanley. "The article [Sibarium] wanted to write was a smear job intended to get someone in trouble," the since-deleted tweet read. "This right wing hit job journalism is not worthy of defense."
"I have never slandered Stanley, because I have never said anything false about him," tweeted Sibarium in response. "If he has evidence to the contrary, he should provide it. Otherwise, his accusation of slander is itself slanderous."
Sibarium then referred to Stanley's previous Twitter quarrel with Yale colleague Nicholas Christakis on whether racism is a "genuine casual force to be taken seriously in modern society."
The professor of social and natural science fired back at the "preposterous mischaracterization" by Stanley, highlighting how he has taught about racial inequality for 25 years and worked to redress inequality through hospice care in Chicago. "What have you done?" Christakis asked Stanley.
"Just as a point of informal logic, it's possible both to be a physician and a racism apologist," Stanley sneered. Christakis expressed surprise that the scholar resorted to name-calling.
Stanley reinforced that he was just "making a point of logic" and the "fact that [Christakis] worked as a physician has no evidential weight."
"Just a point of informal logic, as Stanley might say," Sibarium jested.
Just a point of informal logic, as Stanley might say. pic.twitter.com/cZptH1xrXs
— Aaron Sibarium (@aaronsibarium)
Reacting on Twitter, Stanley admitted that he shouldn't have used the term "slander" in the legal sense. "You say I'm incompetent—despite knowing nothing about me—and tweet vicious stuff that then gathers other vicious comments," he replied, accusing Sibarium of taking "discussions out of context."
"It's fine," Stanley interjected. "That's exactly your journalism and your job."
I didn’t mean “slander” in the legal sense. You say I’m incompetent - despite knowing nothing about me - and tweet vicious stuff that then gathers other vicious comments. You take discussions out of context etc. It’s fine. That’s exactly your journalism and your job.
— Jason Stanley (@jasonintrator)
"That's not speaking truth to power," commented American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Christina Sommers, "it's bullying."
Jason Stanley replied to the above tweet by saying he shouldn’t have said “slander” but then complained that Aaron Sibarium had “mocked” him on Twitter. Then he deleted the Tweet. And then this ? pic.twitter.com/E0VwpPmvGy
— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers)
Stanley apologized for the slander allegation, but he then complained that Sibarium had "taken things out of context" and "mocked" his "competence on topics" that he has written on. Stanley then blocked Sommers.
Fellow academic and Acadia University lecturer Jeffrey Sachs commented on the backlash that Hannah-Jones had faced and even denounced her actions.
Libby’s Desk
Commentary and must-reads from Libby’s desk, straight to your inbox.
TPM Newsletter
The Post Millennial’s top stories, delivered to your inbox.
If true, holy crap. Seriously, I'm a big fan of the 1619 Project and NHJ's work on school segregation, but she is, by almost all accounts and on the evidence of her own behavior On Here, a public menace.https://t.co/XtxuX8HC0x pic.twitter.com/Vgu9nWbGzt
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs)
"If true, holy crap," remarked Sachs, noting that he's a "big fan" of the 1619 Project and the work of Hannah-Jones on school segregation. However, "by almost all accounts and on the evidence of her own behavior," Sachs called the social justice reporter "a public menace" on Twitter.
An exasperated Stanley, also the author of How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them, told Sachs that he is "falling for a conservative hit job."
"I don't think I am," countered Sachs, insisting that Sibarium has "an agenda." Despite Sibarium's beliefs, that doesn't make the retaliation he suffered "any less wrong." Hannah-Jones "really did foul him," Sachs reiterated.
I don’t think I am. Obviously Sibarium has an agenda, but that doesn’t make the thing I flagged in my tweet any less wrong.
Put another way, Sibarium might be working the refs a bit, but NHJ really did foul him.
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs)
"I'm disappointed to see you join this grotesque conservative martyrdom victimhood play," Stanley told Sachs, alleging that Hannah-Jones is "attacked 24-7 by such folks." Stanley also just changed his profile picture to the two of them photographed together.
— Jason Stanley (@jasonintrator)
Another Twitter user intervened to expose Stanley's diversion tactic. "It's conspicuous that you apparently have no response on the substance of Jeffrey's point," the account volleyed. "You've left the ideological compound so now you're an enemy!" the user mimicked Stanley.
It's conspicuous that you apparently have no response on the substance of Jeffrey's point. Just: "You've left the ideological compound so now you're an enemy!"
— Charles Peyton (@Friedmanzone)
"Sibarium regularly goes after me in the most vile ways so pardon me if I lack sympathy for his fake outrage," Stanley answered.
Your feelings about him might be perfectly fair. But they're not a stand-in for addressing the substance in this case. Sometimes, annoyingly, people we despise say true things. If you know him to be lying, that's a different matter. Either way, by reflexively denouncing...
— Charles Peyton (@Friedmanzone)
To which, the same user validated his feelings about Sibarium. "But they're not a stand-in for addressing the substance in this case. Sometimes, annoyingly, people we despise say true things," the account pointed out. "If you know him to be lying, that's a different matter."