Here are three
Orson Scott Card is a hateful bigot.
Orson Scott Card has bigoted religious beliefs.
Orson Scott Card has
aligned himself with bigots.
To some people, they
are all different ways of saying the same thing, or just plain
indistinguishable, particularly with an eye to consequences. To
others, there is an important distinction about each; not just what
they say about the shape of the beliefs themselves, their bedrock,
but about the man himself, his epistemology and his values.
OSC is easily in the top 3 most influential writers in my life. Not just in regards to my love of reading or writing, in my life. I first read Ender’s Game when I was 12 and cried at the end of the very first chapter. I cried again at the end of the second. This probably says more about me and my life than the book, but the series as a whole has been powerfully moving and inspiring and motivating for me. I identified with Ender, but after I read Speaker for the Dead, I wanted to be one, an essentially made up profession, embodied by his older self. I would often ask myself “What Would Andrew Do?” and would get back answers that made me a kinder and braver and better person.
I first started looking into his beliefs about a decade ago, confused by the stilted and poorly written political commentary underlying Empire. I was shocked and heartbroken, and only read about a dozen articles and blog posts he’d written on various topics before I turned away from what seemed to be either the onset of dementia or a sad example of how people can calcify with old age. That may seem like a lot, but it’s not my usual deep dive into someone I really want to understand the perspective of with the goal of feeling I can reliably predict their stance on common topics. I gave up before then because, frankly, seeing a hero spout such toxic shit (not just about homosexuality) was painful.
I did the deep dive much more recently after being told that he was a respectable conservative thinker, and sadly, I can’t even give him that. But are any of those statements at the top true?
First, let’s define bigotry. For the purposes of this post, I’ll say “false beliefs about a specific demographic that knowingly disadvantage or cause harm to that demographic.”
To be clear, Card
has said many times that he believes homosexuals deserve compassion
and respect and safety. I have yet to hear him say anything clearly
hateful toward gay individuals or people.
But Card has also said that gay sex is sinful and that not just gay marriage but sex should remain illegal, if for nothing else than to strike fear into the hearts of those who might practice it openly and thus “shake the confidence” of the community in its ability to police harmful behaviors. He has pushed the frame that homosexuality is more environmental than genetic, and linked its origins for many to “seduction,” molestation, and rape. He asserted that children need a mother and father rather than two of one, and has even said, as recently as 2008 after judges began ruling gay marriage bans unconstitutional, “How long before married people answer the dictators thus: Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.”
(No, none of that is made better by context or his justifications. It’s fairly easy to read his own words if you want to find them, and to me the words are clear. If we start to argue that he was being hyperbolic or hypothetical, we’ve stopped arguing about what he actually said and started arguing about what we want him to have meant by his words, and I don’t think that’s a productive line of discussion for someone who is clearly intelligent and articulate, and an accomplished writer who should know better than to be careless with language so repeatedly and in such a consistent pattern.)
((See also, Jordan Peterson))
This presents a
seemingly intractable contradiction; how can someone who writes such
intelligent and compassionate characters feel so fanatically about
something so harmless?
I do not use that
word lightly: it is one thing to say that you disagree with gay
marriage, it is another to publicly state your position, and then it
is yet another entirely to go to the lengths Card has gone to crusade
against it. Card is, from a policy perspective, an anti-gay fanatic,
shy of actually enacting the violence he insinuated multiple times
was justified to “protect families.”
I put that in quotes, by the way, not because I don’t believe that OSC honestly believes that. I know it’s a justification that makes sense in his head. But I don’t think it changes much; if you’ve spoken with bigots at all, they always have justifications for bigotry. It does not transmute “false beliefs about a specific demographic that knowingly disadvantage or cause harm to that demographic” into something else.
Regardless of what
he purports to believe about the sinner, he has spent more time and
energy fighting this sin specifically than any other I could find
save perhaps for Islamic terrorism after 9/11.
That, to me, is
indicative of something more than someone holding an honest religious
belief and advocating for it. There are, after all, others sins: Card
planted his flag on this one, drew a slew of criticism and appeals to
his better nature, and kept planting more flags, insisting all the
while that he was being maligned and misunderstood.
(Which to some degree he was, but I don’t respect people who only engage with the worst of their critics, and his attitude has repeatedly been one I would characterize as self-righteous bitterness, in much the same way a lot of modern “Intellectual Dark Web” members talk about the “Intolerant Left.” Example: “Faggot” and “Homophobe” are “exactly analogous,” according to Card, and thus anyone who decries one and uses the other is apparently a hypocrite. This by the way is from an article that’s probably Card’s most liberal explanation of his views. Again, context does not help)
So: Why do that? Why
accept the role of “villain” to so many without batting an eye?
More to the point, why do it specifically to fight homosexuality?
The easy answer is
religion, of course. Card would be far from the first bright mind
whose rationality seems bizarrely warped by his sincere and
unshakable faith, and further, bent to its service. CS Lewis wasn’t
just a fiction writer but a prolific Evangelical apologetic who was
capable of accepting evolution as a scientific theory, and truly
understood what that meant, decades before the Catholic Church could
manage to, but still drew a similar line at its implications for
human origins. Card has expressed other bizarre beliefs that show a
similar warping root, such as his
insistence that the Book of Mormon is vanishingly unlikely to be a
work of fiction, not by historic or archaeological evidence (fun
fact: Card studied archaeology before he gave it up for being “hard
work”), but by simple analysis of the text from the lens of one who
also writes science fiction.
It’s important to
highlight at this point that Card is not what I would consider a
particularly rational person. Intelligent, certainly. And he does an
amazing job of writing intelligent and rational character in stories.
But the magnitude of the mistake that Card makes in deciding that Mormonism is likely true because he can’t imagine that someone could write the Book of Mormon, structurally and stylistically and in richness of content, as a hoax… is so irrational I would call it hostile to rationality. It’s turning 180 degrees away from not just evidence, but reason as basic as Occam’s Razor and as complex as Bayesian Probability, to bend reality around what he wants to be true.
He shows similar irrationality with things like Anthropogenic Climate Change as recently as 2007, demonstrating not just stark ignorance of the scientific mechanisms and decades of research, but that he takes his news about those he disagrees with by their political enemies: his points were not original, but canned and labeled by conservative pundits and anti-global warming “news” sites. He showed a way of thinking that makes it clear that his epistemology is not grounded in truth seeking, but political considerations. He does not see those sounding the alarm over ACC as honestly mistaken: he sees them as conniving and dishonestly motivated, and writes a narrative that appeases that outcome rather than one that fits the facts or context or history.
So while religion is
a tempting answer to Card’s efforts to bend reason over backwards
to justify beliefs that primarily disadvantage homosexuals, there are
plenty of Mormons and ex-Mormons who rejected such things, and it
just doesn’t seem sufficient to answer the question of whether Card
is a bigot, or just holds bigoted religious beliefs, or is just
pinching his nose while standing aligned with bigots for the sake of
strong personal conviction of what’s True and Right.
Still, if you truly believe that your faith is right and you want to act out its tenets, and that those others of your faith who disagree are just misled or hypocritical, then the Good and Brave thing to do is plant your feet and tell the world “No, you move.”
problem with blaming his religion. I’ve been saying bigotry all
this time, both because “homophobic” has other connotations, and
I don’t think this question can only be applied to homosexuality,
Mormonism is historically an explicitly racist religion which barred African Americans from full participation until 1978 (when Card was 27), which is about when God apparently realized that being tax-exempt might be more important than preventing interracial marriage or black priests.
And I can’t for
the life of me find where Card came out against that, or talked about
the church’s racist views. If someone can find an article on it,
please send it to me: it could be a crux for this next part.
that’s his justification for being against homosexuality: you
“can’t serve two masters.” If God says X, you don’t try to
insist that it’s genetic or that the law of the land says it’s
okay, you either accept God’s word or you don’t.
So what were Card’s
views on black Mormons? What are they now? Because gay marriage is
legal now, but in a world where tax-exempt status for religions
relied on willingness to perform gay marriages, I wonder if he would
accept God’s about-face.
The world may never
know. But I surely wonder, because Card’s views on Obama’s
presidency reek of a similar and startling fervency to his crusade
against gay marriage that makes me uneasy.
I should note first
that I find accusations that any criticism of Obama are racist to be
tiring and dangerous. There’s a lot you
could criticize Obama for: expansion of the spy state, excessive use
of drone strikes, not protecting whistleblowers, failing in his
promise of transparency, too many executive orders, unwillingness to
compromise with Republicans (if you’re conservative), attempting
to compromise too much (if
you’re liberal), and so on.
But I know racists
who criticize Obama, and I know
people-I-have-no-reason-to-believe-are-racist who criticize Obama,
and there’s a pattern I’ve noticed in the former. While Card
doesn’t quite fit that pattern, and breaks from it entirely in some
places, he made one that seems to run parallel to it in other places.
In 2012, Card made
the rare step of admitting that a politician he disagreed with as
fervently as possible, Obama, is a better person than the one whose
policies he supported, Gingrich. That’s ridiculously uncommon. He
also claimed in 2008 that he voted for Obama in the Primary, though
ultimately he ended up supporting McCain because Obama was seen as
soft on Islamic Extremism (a view Card continued to hold even after
Bin Laden was killed) and his fear of “dictator-judges.”
And then he wrote Unlikely Events, where, in regards to foreign policy, Obama is called “the dumbest president in history” not 5 years after Bush left office. You know, the guy who started the worst military blunder since the Vietnam war with no exit plan and caused massive instability in the region. No, it’s not better that Card named white guys who have never held office as runnerups; somehow it’s still America’s first black president who has that honor.
Do I think he would
have said that if Obama wasn’t black?
Do I think he would
say that “Obama is, by character and preference, a dictator” if
Obama wasn’t black?
Do I think he would “imagine” (all in good fun, of course, haha, it’s just me Card the kooky science fiction writer imagining things that definitely won’t happen the way we science fiction writers do) Obama turning “young out-of-work urban men” into a national police force to maintain his dictatorship if Obama wasn’t black?
Or that he would say “Having been anointed from the start of his career because he was that magical combination — a black man who talks like a white man (that’s what they mean by calling him “articulate” and a “great speaker”) — he has never had to work for a living, and he has never had to struggle to accomplish goals. He despises ordinary people, is hostile to any religion that doesn’t have Obama as its deity, and his contempt for the military is complete.” if not?
…I really don’t think he would. That level of unhinged-from-reality means those false beliefs have to come from somewhere, and maybe he’s just really, really bad at filtering truth from lies and misinformation, like with ACC, and so if Obama were white the general criticism of Obama would be less unhinged and the pundits Card follows and their views of his policies would be less divorced from reality. But also maybe it’s easier for him not to filter unflattering lies about Obama than Bush for some reason.
(Counter-evidence: Card has, thankfully, criticized Trump fairly often, calling him dictatorial as well. But he also voted for him, and as far as I know, he has not apologized for or amended his views of Obama in light of what the real deal looks like.)
Part of me is asking
myself right now, “Hey now, despite insisting he’s a Democrat, he
very clearly holds a lot of conservative views. Isn’t extreme and
undeserved hatred of Obama just part of standard conservative dogma?”
And another part of me responds, “Yes. And your point is?”
My mom is a racist. I love her, but she is. She’s not often a hateful racist. She has minority friends. I’m pretty sure she voted for Obama.
But she’s still a racist who believes certain ethnicities are intrinsically better or worse at certain things, who is quicker to attribute negative features to someone’s race if they’re not white, and who holds all sorts of prejudices both big and small. It’s a sad cultural feature of many in her generation, and seems even more prevalent for those who are even older… like Card is.
So, just on priors, what are the odds that Card avoided that cultural and generational feature? Would 50% be fair? Just from my observations of my parents’ generation, way too generous. 20% feels closer to right, and still may be generous.
All I know is that his attitude toward Obama, which is wildly out of scope in its criticism compared to the reality of what Obama’s presidency entailed (like most conservatives), strikes me as suspicious in the same way as when my mom told me I couldn’t sleep over my black neighbor’s house when I was 8 because he “lives too far” struck me as suspicious, given that “too far” in this case was a walk of less than a minute within the same gated community.
She was always
friendly to him when he was around. I genuinely think she held no
hate in her heart toward him. That didn’t change the fact that her
perspective is racist, the same way her blatant preference for white
residents years later while on the HOA for the community was racist.
So. Do I really think the man who wrote Alvin Maker is a racist? The man who wrote Magic Street?
I’m not sure. I don’t think so, by most definitions of that word. Again, he has not said anything explicitly racist, and has written against the evils of racism.
But there are suspicious underlying failures in thinking, which can collectively be called prejudices, that I can’t ignore. He doesn’t do well based on priors, and together with the way he pattern matches onto people I know who have stronger-than-average prejudice, the underlying irrationality that Card has shown himself more than capable of can include racism.
Alright, let’s look at these again.
Is Card a hateful bigot?
Insofar as that word denotes hatred or disgust, I don’t think so. Being so vociferously anti-gay marriage, like being disproportionately inclined to think the worst of Obama, is mild evidence for hatred or disgust, but not strong evidence.
Does Card hold bigoted religious beliefs?
Undoubtedly. Justifications do not excuse bigotry; the fact that his honest faith tells him that homosexuality is a sin does not absolve him of responsibility for the actions of that belief. Someone who shoots an abortion doctor is still a murderer, no matter how good their intentions or true their belief. Just so, someone who argues for inequality on religious grounds is still espousing bigotry.
Does Card align himself with bigots?
In many ways, yes. He fought the same fight with the same goals. He argued against hatred or violence, but he still worked to deprive gay men and women of equal rights, and stayed in and supported the Mormon church for years despite its racism.
To someone who faces oppression, these questions are academic at best and disingenuous at worst. I understand that from the person getting hit, the intentions don’t matter. I don’t say “most Trump supporters are racist” because I don’t think it’s true, but I don’t nitpick friends who say it because “most Trump supporters don’t care sufficiently about racism to let it influence their vote” looks and feels close enough.
But I think it’s
important to note that, while hatred is about values, prejudice is
ultimately built on poor thinking. One can be solved by education,
Unless, of course,
the value of Truth is too low on the hierarchy. There’s a chance
that Truth just doesn’t matter overly much to Card. He has too many
beliefs that come not just from the land of ignorance but of
falsehood. When that includes religion and poorly fact-checked
conservative websites, neither of which are particularly known for
their tolerance or promotion of real equality, again, it seems hard
to care about the difference.
Card is not, ultimately, a simple person who can easily be put into a box. I don’t think he’s an evil person. I think he’s genuinely disgusted by overt or even covert bigotry, and insofar as he was cheering on homophobes fighting gay marriage, he did it with a fervent wish that they would be more compassionate and kind. In my list of grand alliances, I think he ends up pretty high.
But at the end of
the day, when I think of what’s more appropriate for a situation,
conflict theory vs mistake theory, what I tend to think of is how
tractable the disagreement is, and what the consequences of someone’s
beliefs and actions are.
For conflict vs mistake theory, Card does not seem simply mistaken. He doesn’t act like he seeks Truth. He acts as though he is fighting a war, to preserve Mormonism, Americanism, Life, Liberty, etc… but sort of in that order? Where each value is colored by the one preceding it, and I can see him holding evidence in his hand that Mormonism was made up or that ACC is true or that Bush lied about WMDs and just tossing it in the trash.
And for consequences, at the end of the day, giving him as much agency as I want others to give me, Card has now spent decades seeing his words hurt people he insisted he held no animosity toward, for no reason and to no gain other than the strength of his conviction and faith… and he stayed the course until the bitter end, moderating his language only when his side lost. He could have put in the hard effort of looking his belief in the eyes and judging, as a being of reason, whether it was justified or just caused pain. He could have “evolved” on homosexuality as many do, like Obama ostensibly did. He chose not to.
I don’t respect that. More importantly, I don’t think it’s what Andrew would have done.
feelings for Card used to be complicated. Now they’re just a little
sad and a lot disappointed. Maybe someday before he dies he’ll
recognize his mistakes and not go down in history with such a
tarnished legacy. I hope so.
But thankfully, art and man are separate. Thankfully, truth doesn’t belong in a person, and someone can stumble onto it even when a little lost. I can look at the wisdom of many of his books and characters and draw from them, without being bothered by the contradictions and irrationality, if maybe not quite bigotry, in the man himself.