September 21, 1993
To: The Triple Nine Executive Committee
From: Kevin Langdon, P.O. Box 795, Berkeley, CA 94701; (510) 528-5157
Once again, the Triple Nine Society faces a crisis.
If you didn't know of these matters before the present ExCom memo, documents included
herein have made you aware of differences between the current Editor of Vidya and
two members of TNS, Kent Shultz and John Kormes, which have led to strong feelings and
strong words on both sides.
I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but at the same time I feel I must make clear how I
view these matters, in the light of what I understand the Triple Nine Society to stand
for.
Richard Canty, Ron Hoeflin, Ron Penner, Ed Van Vleck, and I founded TNS as a refuge for
those who did not wish to submit to the dictatorial policies of the leaders of the
ISPE--then as now unconducive to democracy and members' rights. We felt that it was
unacceptable for the officers of a society supposedly composed of superintelligent people
to treat the members of that society in ways that violated their dignity and personal
freedom.
In the first case, that of Kent Shultz, the Editor, Clint Williams, chose to make use of
the prerogatives of his position to present a contribution submitted by Mr. Shultz in a
very negative light, by using an altered photograph of Mr. Shultz with a highly pejorative
caption on the front cover of the issue of Vidya in which Mr. Shultz'
contribution appeared. Further aspersions on Mr. Shultz' character appeared in the dummy
of issue #134 circulated to members of this Committee.
I want to make it clear that, while I have exchanged letters with Mr. Shultz and find him
to be an intelligent and interesting essayist and correspondent, I share Mr. Williams'
abhorrence of the crime of child molestation and would go so far as to advocate the
imprisonment for life of those guilty of this crime (the recidivism rate is approximately
80%; that's just not an acceptable risk).
I agree with Mr. Shultz that child molesters' conduct is an expression of a human
potential which exists, to a certain degree, in everyone. But I cannot see it as
appropriate for a sexual offender to attempt to shift the blame for his conduct to society
through an ill-defined psychological construct like ``toxic shame.'' Here, too, I am more
in sympathy with Mr. Williams than with Mr. Shultz.
But this in no way justifies the Editor's use of his unique access to the form and content
of Vidya to express his contempt not only for the content of a contribu-tor's
material but for the contributor himself.
In my opinion, Mr. Shultz is indeed entitled to an apology for this abuse of editorial
discretion, though I do not believe that it belongs on the front cover of Vidya
(the editorial would be the most appropriate place for it).
Accordingly, I move that the Editor be directed to print such an apology in the next
available issue of Vidya and that, if he fails or refuses to do so, he shall be
removed from office and an official apology for his actions by the Triple Nine Society
shall be printed in the first available issue by his replacement.
I wish to clarify the meaning of the term ``apology'' above. The minimum acceptable form
of an apology includes an unambiguous acknowledgement that one is wrong and the injured
party is right, without justification or disparagement of the injured party.
I would also like to make it clear that we will not be without an editor if we choose to
exercise the option of removal; I hereby volunteer to edit Vidya through the end
of 1993 if an Acting Editor is needed.
A further note: While I respect our Ombudsman, Larry Jess, very much and do not wish to
make his job any harder, I regard his request that others refrain from writing about the
Shultz matter as inappropriate. This matter concerns important issues affecting the Triple
Nine Society, concerns about which any member has a right to express his opinion and
regarding which members of this Committee have a duty to take appropriate action.
The other matter, involving John Kormes and the Editor, is less serious but also involves
Clint Williams' penchant for taking sarcastic potshots at members of TNS making use of his
position as Editor.
TNS' ``mantra'' is not ``We're not ISPE,'' but could more properly be expressed as ``We
won't tolerate official abuse of members.'' When serious violations of the rights of TNS
members (including attempts to expel two members, one of whom was me) were attempted by
former officers of TNS a few years ago, many of us stood up for democracy and member
rights against the abusers; this had nothing to do with the ISPE.
I find Clint Williams' acquiesence in his expulsion from the ISPE distastefully
uncourageous and his contribution to the ISPE's legal expenses treacherous; I applaud John
Kormes' willingness to stand up for his membership rights, including his lawsuit against
the ISPE.
The Editor's reluctance to publish Mr. Kormes' ``There She Goes Again'' is inappropriate.
A man has a right to reply to his critics when he is attacked, in the same forum in which
the attack appeared.
Nonetheless, while I regard Clint's remarks about Mr. Kormes in the dummy of Vidya
#134 as tasteless and as an abuse of his position as Editor, I think that talk of libel
exaggerates the situation; it is hard to imagine anyone but the authors of the various
high-range I.Q. tests suffering an injury to his business or profession as a result of
what someone writes about him in a high-I.Q. society journal.
Clint Williams' motion for John Kormes' expulsion from TNS is absurd, for several reasons:
1. The Executive Committee does not have the authority to expel a member.
2. Mr. Kormes is the injured party in this dispute.
3. The Editor is not the final arbiter of the content of Vidya; this Committee
is.
4. Nobody had a gun to Clint's head; he voluntarily deleted certain remarks at the
Ombudsman's request.
5. This whole matter is a tempest in a teapot.
One other irregularity in the Editor's conduct of his office deserves mention here: He
edited my announcment of the Annual Meeting from a full page to one paragraph. Official
announcements do not fall within his editorial prerogative, but must be printed in full.
(Pat Thomas was going to speak with Clint about this mattter; I don't know whether the
full announcement was restored in the published version of Vidya #134 at this
writing.)
I have chosen to ignore Mr. Williams' resignation as Editor and from the Triple Nine
Society. He is capable of doing a good job as Editor, but only if he refrains in the
future from using the editorship as a platform from which to attack other members. In my
opinion, the Editor should inject comments in the same issue in which others' material
appears only for clarification; if he wishes to present contrary views, he should wait
until the next issue, like any other member, and refrain from preeminent placement of his
remarks.
I hope that Clint will choose to remain a member of TNS. I don't believe in expelling
people because I disagree with them and I think that our society is the better for
including members with widely disparate views.
Finally, whoever is Editor in the near future, an announcement of the December 15 filing
deadline for running for TNS office must be published in time to remind the membership
that an election is imminent.