Again, Substack isn't letting me "reply"—I've already emailed support about this—but I'll post this as a new comment anyway, since it actually responds to multiple comments and emails I've received.
1. I should have said upfront that how to handle this situation is quite obviously Crystal Clanton's decision, and she should do what she feels is best for her.
I think I wanted to offer advice because (a) I'm often asked for crisis-management advice by friends, maybe because I've covered a lot of these types of controversies, cancellations, and scandals over the years; (b) I feel empathy for her, given my own past; and (c) it seemed like a good entry point into a story that I obviously have to cover.
But it goes without saying that these are her calls to make.
2. I totally understand and appreciate the "don't apologize" perspective. And I acknowledge that in many cases—and perhaps this case too—it's the wrong response.
My longtime readers know that I'm strongly committed to free speech and rational discourse, and I have deep faith in the power of persuasion and good-faith argument. This is why I'm so troubled by incidents like shoutdowns on university campuses, which are the opposite of all positive engagement.
I also generally believe that in between the ideological extremes, there's a surprisingly large number of moderates who are persuadable on a whole host of issues. And I focus on those people in public debates, as well as my own writing.
But I acknowledge that in 2024, maybe (1) my faith in the ability to bridge divides and persuade people is naive and misplaced, and (2) the moderate middle is vanishingly small (if not quite the 1% referred to by Dave F, maybe only marginally larger).
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Love your writing and podcast episodes. Appreciate you and the work you produce. I believe it is consistently an important perspective.
I personally go back and forth about your letter to Crystal, focusing on the part that assumes that she did NOT write those texts. Maintaining that assumption here, in short, it appears your letter, in my view and respectfully, places a lot of the effort at correcting this wrong on the victim, i.e., Crystal. I do not love this.
Were I similarly situated, working to build the reputation and career that Crystal seems to be building, I do imagine that I would want to strongly correct the record and denounce such horrible expressions. But I am not in her shoes, and I have not had to deal with the very public and stress inducing situation she currently finds herself in. So, I am tremendously reticent to say what is 'correct' or 'normal' in terms of how she should respond. The idea that Crystal MUST do something or behave a certain way is something I would caution any third party observer/commentator/advisor against when counseling a victim.
I spent an all too brief time representing human-trafficking victims in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the last thing any of them needed was any sort of judgment or opinion about what they NEEDED to do. The best and only approach, in my opinion, about counseling victims is first to return the power and decision making authority to them. I believe strongly in the approach being what do THEY want to do, and how can we as counselors advise them on the avenues available to best achieve their desired outcome or path. THE DECISION IS THEIRS.
Obviously, the degree of the wrong against Crystal is perhaps categorically different from the wrong committed against my former clients, but I believe the most appropriate approach to working with and FOR victims remains applicable and true."
I responded to this reader as follows:
"I don't know that I disagree with your main point; I acknowledge that the choice of how to proceed is Crystal's.
As someone who often gets asked for crisis-management advice, I thought it would be helpful to outline what I would do if consulted. And maybe I was 'projecting' a bit, empathetically trying to imagine myself in her shoes.
But I acknowledge that I haven't been consulted, and she should do as she pleases (and she will have a great career regardless of what she does, as long as she sticks to conservative circles)."
And this reader replied:
"Certainly, I do appreciate your assumption made [for purposes of this post] that had Crystal asked you for advice, this is an example of what you would advise. However, insofar as that advice may perpetuate the all too oft-taken approach that a victim should be told what to do, I am cautious.
As shortly as I can put it, assuming Crystal did not send those texts, the only words of advice I would have are as follows: 'I work for you and am here to help you achieve your desired outcome. The decision is and will always be yours. What would you like to do?'"
(For some reason Substack is not letting me "reply" to Dave F., so I'm writing this as a new comment.)
You seem to be assuming she's guilty. Let's say she's innocent. You don't think she should "engage with the cancelers" by providing detailed evidence about the person or people who framed her?
I agree with your advice provided in the column, particularly regarding the importance of owning up to past mistakes. As a Gen Xer, I can relate to growing up in an environment where racist and homophobic sentiments were expressed. I have been the subject of racists taunts and made homophobic jokes. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the hurtful impact these words can have and to take responsibility for them.
I also believe that a sincere apology and genuine efforts to make amends can go a long way in repairing relationships and earning forgiveness. While some may still choose to "cancel" someone regardless, many are willing to forgive when they see genuine remorse and accountability. Looking forward, such a sincere apology could indeed serve as a testament to one's growth and maturity, potentially even paving the way for future leadership roles (like being a Supreme Court nominee).
Acknowledging past mistakes and taking steps to address them is important and serves as a reminder that we all have the capacity to learn, grow, and make amends for our words and actions.
I'm skeptical of the validity of your advice if she did send the texts. Indeed, this seems to go against what we've seen in cases of cancellation and attempted cancellation where apologies tend to make things worse.
All admitting it and apologizing will do is reignite the discussion. Ironically, the **better** her excuse is [1] for sending the texts the more an explanation will backfire because it will make it an interesting issue for people to debate. A large segment of the online public is going to be out to get her now for no other reason than she's Thomas's clerk and they won't accept an apology (when apologies do work it's usually by convincing the people who raise racism accusations your on their side).
On top of this any apology raises the issue of whether she was lying before. Right now, she can hope people don't really remember it that much and hope that if people do they'll be some reluctance to deny her a job on this kind of vague scandal. I think many people who might be uncomfortable holding the situation against her now would find the "ohh she must have been lying before" argument a comfortable way to avoid a disagreement without having to confront the underlying dispute.
1: I can imagine all sorts of ways the text could have been sent that merely show poor judgement not any personal animus towards people of a given skin Cor. For instance, let's say she was young and drunk/stoned/whatever and was making some hyperbolic attempted joke that fell flat. Or perhaps it was meant to critisize something that culturally black people do more frequently the way someone might say, "I fucking hate white people they're always asking to speak to the manager and nakinh everyone else just trying to get our coffee at Starbucks late for work". Though there are good reasons we have norms that treat such talk about whites and blacks differently that suggests that one can end up saying those things because of a poor grip on those norms rather than deep animus.
(At risk of hyper-cluttering the comment section here, since I am also having issues replying to David's or my own comment below, this is in response to David's separate comment sent around 1:25 pm est)
I think the analysis is easiest if she's guilty. If she is, does it materially matter? No, so let's move on. Also I doubt any of the people pursuing her would ever be convinced she isn't, so it is easiest to operate from the guilty framework.
And no, if she is innocent, I don't think she should engage by "providing evidence about the person or people who framed her". How is that going to work out well? Connecting people who are currently actively trying to destroy her life publicly/online with... someone who previously tried to destroy her life who was willing to go to extreme lengths to do so? The people currently trying to, and intending to, destroy her life are going to be very credulous with someone who would be more than happy to lie to help facilitate that.
If innocent, the only people she should connect around these issues are people expressly *not* trying to ruin her life, who would investigate the issues and reach their own conclusions. She has done precisely that with Judge Pryor and Justice Thomas, at minimum. She has their approval, I don't see the benefit in trying to get House Democrat's approval or Above the Law's approval.
I'm sorry, but please. This is embarrassing, and the legal profession should be ashamed. Stop giving this oxygen.
This is not materially important, and the lengths to which people have gone to destroy someone for overt political reasons is reprehensible. Everyone who has continued the dialogue should splash some water on their faces and look in the mirror. It's transparently political, and gross, as the exact type of people (e.g. "House Democrats") pursuing this story to the ends of the earth are absolutely people who have not spent one millionth of the same effort of holding Joe Biden to account for his past (and more recent) racist statements -- and certainly Joe Biden has much more influence on society. (Requisite throat clearing: yes trump is more racist, that's not the point)
And as for the specific advice, no. Engaging with cancelers (which is what everyone here is) is the worst advice. No apology is ever enough, and is only ever used as a weapon to further hurt someone. Its a common thread on podcasts that discuss cancellations (e.g. Blocked and Reported). Not speaking on the issue is exactly the correct approach.
Crystal Clanton will never win over anyone seeking to ruin her. So why bother? Regardless of the truth or falsity of the story, what is to be gained? Approval from maybe the marginal 1% (of which perhaps you David consider yourself) who would actually be moved by her addressing the issue? How is that worth breathing continued life into a story that is never going to go away anyway? She has clearly personally convinced everyone for which it matters to her directly and so no, I don't think its a useful exercise to try to say something to appease House Democrats in this instance.
Good for you, David, for not saying nothing. I'm with you about Clanton's bizarre non-denial. I would not be at all surprised to learn it was written by a judge. Speaking of judges, is it worth mentioning that what we're really speaking about is judges? The issue here isn't merely a mean-spirited twenty-something-year-old who apparently doesn't respect the principles in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We're talking about somebody whose career path indicates a high likelihood she will become a judge on a fairly high court. We're also talking about multiple judges choosing whose careers they want to promote (and why).
So I'm with the illustrious champions of the freedom of speech and press in the First Continental Congress (and the SCOTUS justices who have quoted them): “the freedom of the press” is one of our “great rights” especially because it serves the “advancement of truth” about public officials and affairs, including so that “oppressive officers” can be “shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting [public] affairs.” We definitely don't need more purported public servants (including judges) who care more about their own pride, their own prejudices or their own politics than the Constitution.
Again, Substack isn't letting me "reply"—I've already emailed support about this—but I'll post this as a new comment anyway, since it actually responds to multiple comments and emails I've received.
1. I should have said upfront that how to handle this situation is quite obviously Crystal Clanton's decision, and she should do what she feels is best for her.
I think I wanted to offer advice because (a) I'm often asked for crisis-management advice by friends, maybe because I've covered a lot of these types of controversies, cancellations, and scandals over the years; (b) I feel empathy for her, given my own past; and (c) it seemed like a good entry point into a story that I obviously have to cover.
But it goes without saying that these are her calls to make.
2. I totally understand and appreciate the "don't apologize" perspective. And I acknowledge that in many cases—and perhaps this case too—it's the wrong response.
My longtime readers know that I'm strongly committed to free speech and rational discourse, and I have deep faith in the power of persuasion and good-faith argument. This is why I'm so troubled by incidents like shoutdowns on university campuses, which are the opposite of all positive engagement.
I also generally believe that in between the ideological extremes, there's a surprisingly large number of moderates who are persuadable on a whole host of issues. And I focus on those people in public debates, as well as my own writing.
But I acknowledge that in 2024, maybe (1) my faith in the ability to bridge divides and persuade people is naive and misplaced, and (2) the moderate middle is vanishingly small (if not quite the 1% referred to by Dave F, maybe only marginally larger).
Time will tell, I guess.
Posting on behalf of a reader who emailed me (with their consent):
"Love your writing and podcast episodes. Appreciate you and the work you produce. I believe it is consistently an important perspective.
I personally go back and forth about your letter to Crystal, focusing on the part that assumes that she did NOT write those texts. Maintaining that assumption here, in short, it appears your letter, in my view and respectfully, places a lot of the effort at correcting this wrong on the victim, i.e., Crystal. I do not love this.
Were I similarly situated, working to build the reputation and career that Crystal seems to be building, I do imagine that I would want to strongly correct the record and denounce such horrible expressions. But I am not in her shoes, and I have not had to deal with the very public and stress inducing situation she currently finds herself in. So, I am tremendously reticent to say what is 'correct' or 'normal' in terms of how she should respond. The idea that Crystal MUST do something or behave a certain way is something I would caution any third party observer/commentator/advisor against when counseling a victim.
I spent an all too brief time representing human-trafficking victims in the San Francisco Bay Area, and the last thing any of them needed was any sort of judgment or opinion about what they NEEDED to do. The best and only approach, in my opinion, about counseling victims is first to return the power and decision making authority to them. I believe strongly in the approach being what do THEY want to do, and how can we as counselors advise them on the avenues available to best achieve their desired outcome or path. THE DECISION IS THEIRS.
Obviously, the degree of the wrong against Crystal is perhaps categorically different from the wrong committed against my former clients, but I believe the most appropriate approach to working with and FOR victims remains applicable and true."
I responded to this reader as follows:
"I don't know that I disagree with your main point; I acknowledge that the choice of how to proceed is Crystal's.
As someone who often gets asked for crisis-management advice, I thought it would be helpful to outline what I would do if consulted. And maybe I was 'projecting' a bit, empathetically trying to imagine myself in her shoes.
But I acknowledge that I haven't been consulted, and she should do as she pleases (and she will have a great career regardless of what she does, as long as she sticks to conservative circles)."
And this reader replied:
"Certainly, I do appreciate your assumption made [for purposes of this post] that had Crystal asked you for advice, this is an example of what you would advise. However, insofar as that advice may perpetuate the all too oft-taken approach that a victim should be told what to do, I am cautious.
As shortly as I can put it, assuming Crystal did not send those texts, the only words of advice I would have are as follows: 'I work for you and am here to help you achieve your desired outcome. The decision is and will always be yours. What would you like to do?'"
(For some reason Substack is not letting me "reply" to Dave F., so I'm writing this as a new comment.)
You seem to be assuming she's guilty. Let's say she's innocent. You don't think she should "engage with the cancelers" by providing detailed evidence about the person or people who framed her?
I agree with your advice provided in the column, particularly regarding the importance of owning up to past mistakes. As a Gen Xer, I can relate to growing up in an environment where racist and homophobic sentiments were expressed. I have been the subject of racists taunts and made homophobic jokes. However, it's crucial to acknowledge the hurtful impact these words can have and to take responsibility for them.
I also believe that a sincere apology and genuine efforts to make amends can go a long way in repairing relationships and earning forgiveness. While some may still choose to "cancel" someone regardless, many are willing to forgive when they see genuine remorse and accountability. Looking forward, such a sincere apology could indeed serve as a testament to one's growth and maturity, potentially even paving the way for future leadership roles (like being a Supreme Court nominee).
Acknowledging past mistakes and taking steps to address them is important and serves as a reminder that we all have the capacity to learn, grow, and make amends for our words and actions.
I'm skeptical of the validity of your advice if she did send the texts. Indeed, this seems to go against what we've seen in cases of cancellation and attempted cancellation where apologies tend to make things worse.
All admitting it and apologizing will do is reignite the discussion. Ironically, the **better** her excuse is [1] for sending the texts the more an explanation will backfire because it will make it an interesting issue for people to debate. A large segment of the online public is going to be out to get her now for no other reason than she's Thomas's clerk and they won't accept an apology (when apologies do work it's usually by convincing the people who raise racism accusations your on their side).
On top of this any apology raises the issue of whether she was lying before. Right now, she can hope people don't really remember it that much and hope that if people do they'll be some reluctance to deny her a job on this kind of vague scandal. I think many people who might be uncomfortable holding the situation against her now would find the "ohh she must have been lying before" argument a comfortable way to avoid a disagreement without having to confront the underlying dispute.
1: I can imagine all sorts of ways the text could have been sent that merely show poor judgement not any personal animus towards people of a given skin Cor. For instance, let's say she was young and drunk/stoned/whatever and was making some hyperbolic attempted joke that fell flat. Or perhaps it was meant to critisize something that culturally black people do more frequently the way someone might say, "I fucking hate white people they're always asking to speak to the manager and nakinh everyone else just trying to get our coffee at Starbucks late for work". Though there are good reasons we have norms that treat such talk about whites and blacks differently that suggests that one can end up saying those things because of a poor grip on those norms rather than deep animus.
(At risk of hyper-cluttering the comment section here, since I am also having issues replying to David's or my own comment below, this is in response to David's separate comment sent around 1:25 pm est)
I think the analysis is easiest if she's guilty. If she is, does it materially matter? No, so let's move on. Also I doubt any of the people pursuing her would ever be convinced she isn't, so it is easiest to operate from the guilty framework.
And no, if she is innocent, I don't think she should engage by "providing evidence about the person or people who framed her". How is that going to work out well? Connecting people who are currently actively trying to destroy her life publicly/online with... someone who previously tried to destroy her life who was willing to go to extreme lengths to do so? The people currently trying to, and intending to, destroy her life are going to be very credulous with someone who would be more than happy to lie to help facilitate that.
If innocent, the only people she should connect around these issues are people expressly *not* trying to ruin her life, who would investigate the issues and reach their own conclusions. She has done precisely that with Judge Pryor and Justice Thomas, at minimum. She has their approval, I don't see the benefit in trying to get House Democrat's approval or Above the Law's approval.
I'm sorry, but please. This is embarrassing, and the legal profession should be ashamed. Stop giving this oxygen.
This is not materially important, and the lengths to which people have gone to destroy someone for overt political reasons is reprehensible. Everyone who has continued the dialogue should splash some water on their faces and look in the mirror. It's transparently political, and gross, as the exact type of people (e.g. "House Democrats") pursuing this story to the ends of the earth are absolutely people who have not spent one millionth of the same effort of holding Joe Biden to account for his past (and more recent) racist statements -- and certainly Joe Biden has much more influence on society. (Requisite throat clearing: yes trump is more racist, that's not the point)
And as for the specific advice, no. Engaging with cancelers (which is what everyone here is) is the worst advice. No apology is ever enough, and is only ever used as a weapon to further hurt someone. Its a common thread on podcasts that discuss cancellations (e.g. Blocked and Reported). Not speaking on the issue is exactly the correct approach.
Crystal Clanton will never win over anyone seeking to ruin her. So why bother? Regardless of the truth or falsity of the story, what is to be gained? Approval from maybe the marginal 1% (of which perhaps you David consider yourself) who would actually be moved by her addressing the issue? How is that worth breathing continued life into a story that is never going to go away anyway? She has clearly personally convinced everyone for which it matters to her directly and so no, I don't think its a useful exercise to try to say something to appease House Democrats in this instance.
I am having issues editing as well. I clicked the edit button but can't make edits. This must be a Substack issue.
Testing the editing function. Okay, it works.
Good for you, David, for not saying nothing. I'm with you about Clanton's bizarre non-denial. I would not be at all surprised to learn it was written by a judge. Speaking of judges, is it worth mentioning that what we're really speaking about is judges? The issue here isn't merely a mean-spirited twenty-something-year-old who apparently doesn't respect the principles in the First and Fourteenth Amendments. We're talking about somebody whose career path indicates a high likelihood she will become a judge on a fairly high court. We're also talking about multiple judges choosing whose careers they want to promote (and why).
So I'm with the illustrious champions of the freedom of speech and press in the First Continental Congress (and the SCOTUS justices who have quoted them): “the freedom of the press” is one of our “great rights” especially because it serves the “advancement of truth” about public officials and affairs, including so that “oppressive officers” can be “shamed or intimidated, into more honourable and just modes of conducting [public] affairs.” We definitely don't need more purported public servants (including judges) who care more about their own pride, their own prejudices or their own politics than the Constitution.
Wow. First time I’ve been disappointed reading this column.