Disagree. If someone holds a senior position in a publicly funded national institution (like the Israeli Philharmonic) they can be assumed, prima facie to represent the nation in question. But that assumption is rebuttable. So, it's entirely reasonable to ask them to make a clear statement one way or the other, or else to exclude them.
Turning things around, suppose that some group, reasonably enough in the circumstances, excluded Israelis in general. What would you say to someone seeking an exemption on the grounds that they had a clear public record of opposition to the government?
Thank you John. I don’t agree. Anyone who holds a senior position in an arts or academic or like institution in a state that pursues policies that are harmful and that the individual personally disagrees with, perhaps very strongly, is in a difficult position. They can manage it through their tacit understanding of how exactly they can voice opposition and still retain their position. But it is tacit knowledge: I don’t have any idea what a Russian state theatre director could say about the invasion of Ukraine if they opposed it, or what a Chinese museum director could say about her government. I can’t advise what the current chair of the National Endowment for the Arts in Washington ought to say publicly in response to Trump’s directives.
So a foreign organisation who wishes to invite someone from a country whose state policies they sharply disagree with ask the invitee to make an unequivocal statement against their country’s government, they are compelling speech in a way the individual himself knows is going to end badly.
I don’t think “we exclude members of country X unless they make certain declarations” to be different. The Trump administration is vetting students on visas on their political views - we shouldn’t assume that those demanding declarations will always be choosing declarations we would in principle agree with.
The examples you cite are striking. Both Russian theatre directors and NEA directors took action against dictatorship and paid the price (prison in the first case, unemployment in the second). I'd have no hesitation in boycotting their replacements (if indeed the NEA survives)
If, as you suggest in the comment above, Israel is also a state where arts appointments require at least tacit consent to genocide, then the same applies here. But it seems reasonable to give the person in question the choice on whether or not to speak out before excluding them.
I totally agree, Michael. I'd refuse to make such a statement even if every words was a quotation from my own blog. I speak when I want to speak about what I want to speak. And I deeply object to the injection of politics into every nook and cranny of our lives, especially into the arts.
I think your point about compelled speech is a good one, but there's another difference between, "no American will be invited" vs "no Americans will be invited unless they make a statement condemning the current administration."
The second feels more personal.
Would you still object if the rule was that every attendee had to check a box agreeing with the statement, "I understand that it is the position of this festival to oppose two ongoing wars intended to subjugate an independent nation in Ukraine and Gaza and call upon the Russian and Israeli governments to cease military operations."
That is still compelled speech, but it would feel less personal.
I realize that I have an implicit assumption that, if the organization had to craft a statement that all of their attendees would support that it would be fairly anodyne (as above).
But I can still see the slippery slope. If one festival had a statement, "we believe the 2020 US presidential election was fair and legitimate and oppose all efforts to overturn or undermine the results." You might end up with another organization saying, "it is important to ensure the integrity of elections by investigating fraud."
I agree, Michael. I would refuse to make a compelled statement even if the words were all taken from my personal blog. I speak why I want to speak, not when others tell me to do so. And I deeply object to the injection of politics into every facet of our lives, especially the arts.
Disagree. If someone holds a senior position in a publicly funded national institution (like the Israeli Philharmonic) they can be assumed, prima facie to represent the nation in question. But that assumption is rebuttable. So, it's entirely reasonable to ask them to make a clear statement one way or the other, or else to exclude them.
Turning things around, suppose that some group, reasonably enough in the circumstances, excluded Israelis in general. What would you say to someone seeking an exemption on the grounds that they had a clear public record of opposition to the government?
Thank you John. I don’t agree. Anyone who holds a senior position in an arts or academic or like institution in a state that pursues policies that are harmful and that the individual personally disagrees with, perhaps very strongly, is in a difficult position. They can manage it through their tacit understanding of how exactly they can voice opposition and still retain their position. But it is tacit knowledge: I don’t have any idea what a Russian state theatre director could say about the invasion of Ukraine if they opposed it, or what a Chinese museum director could say about her government. I can’t advise what the current chair of the National Endowment for the Arts in Washington ought to say publicly in response to Trump’s directives.
So a foreign organisation who wishes to invite someone from a country whose state policies they sharply disagree with ask the invitee to make an unequivocal statement against their country’s government, they are compelling speech in a way the individual himself knows is going to end badly.
I don’t think “we exclude members of country X unless they make certain declarations” to be different. The Trump administration is vetting students on visas on their political views - we shouldn’t assume that those demanding declarations will always be choosing declarations we would in principle agree with.
The examples you cite are striking. Both Russian theatre directors and NEA directors took action against dictatorship and paid the price (prison in the first case, unemployment in the second). I'd have no hesitation in boycotting their replacements (if indeed the NEA survives)
https://www.rferl.org/a/russian-theater-director-8-years-prison-anti-putin-posts/33202082.html
https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/arts-directors-exit-the-national-endowment-for-the-arts-1234741434/
If, as you suggest in the comment above, Israel is also a state where arts appointments require at least tacit consent to genocide, then the same applies here. But it seems reasonable to give the person in question the choice on whether or not to speak out before excluding them.
I totally agree, Michael. I'd refuse to make such a statement even if every words was a quotation from my own blog. I speak when I want to speak about what I want to speak. And I deeply object to the injection of politics into every nook and cranny of our lives, especially into the arts.
I think your point about compelled speech is a good one, but there's another difference between, "no American will be invited" vs "no Americans will be invited unless they make a statement condemning the current administration."
The second feels more personal.
Would you still object if the rule was that every attendee had to check a box agreeing with the statement, "I understand that it is the position of this festival to oppose two ongoing wars intended to subjugate an independent nation in Ukraine and Gaza and call upon the Russian and Israeli governments to cease military operations."
That is still compelled speech, but it would feel less personal.
Thanks Nick. Yes, I would still object - it is the compulsion rather than the personal aspect that is the issue to me.
Interesting.
I realize that I have an implicit assumption that, if the organization had to craft a statement that all of their attendees would support that it would be fairly anodyne (as above).
But I can still see the slippery slope. If one festival had a statement, "we believe the 2020 US presidential election was fair and legitimate and oppose all efforts to overturn or undermine the results." You might end up with another organization saying, "it is important to ensure the integrity of elections by investigating fraud."
I agree, Michael. I would refuse to make a compelled statement even if the words were all taken from my personal blog. I speak why I want to speak, not when others tell me to do so. And I deeply object to the injection of politics into every facet of our lives, especially the arts.
The cynic in me says that the issue was that Shani was Jewish.