Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Reisman vs. ARI (Re: The Betsy Speicher Flip Flop)

44 views
Skip to first unread message

Chris Cathcart

unread,
Oct 30, 1997, 3:00:00 AM10/30/97
to

> From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>

> On 28 Oct 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:
>
> > Betsy Speicher writes:
> >
> > >That is what some people are claiming, but be aware that is only
> one side
> > >of the story. The actual facts may not be quite as they are
> presenting
> > >them.
> >
> > If the other side wants to present their case, I'll be happy to post
> > it at my web site. But so far, Linda Reardan, Richard Sanford, and
> > Jerry Kirkpatrick all seem to tell pretty much the same story.
> >
> > And it's a very UGLY story.
>
> Perhaps the "other side" is not the one making all the ugly claims.

Betsy, I know a little of what you said is the "other side's" story on
this, your "may not be" and "perhaps" above are more likely to be seen as
just arbitrary "maybe's" and "perhaps'es." If the other side's case is
strong, then it seems like some rebuttal is in order. There are not only
the Reisman's but 4 others, who broke with the ARI, who call into question
the standing of the people running ARI, and one would think the folks at
ARI want to do something to correct that.

--
Chris Cathcart <cathcacr at whitman dot edu>

"Man--every man--is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the
achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose." --Ayn Rand


Betsy Speicher

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

On 30 Oct 1997, Chris Cathcart wrote:

> > From: Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com>
>
> > On 28 Oct 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:
> >
> > > Betsy Speicher writes:
> > >
> > > >That is what some people are claiming, but be aware that is only
> > one side
> > > >of the story. The actual facts may not be quite as they are
> > presenting
> > > >them.
> > >
> > > If the other side wants to present their case, I'll be happy to post
> > > it at my web site. But so far, Linda Reardan, Richard Sanford, and
> > > Jerry Kirkpatrick all seem to tell pretty much the same story.
> > >
> > > And it's a very UGLY story.
> >
> > Perhaps the "other side" is not the one making all the ugly claims.
>
> Betsy, I know a little of what you said is the "other side's" story on
> this, your "may not be" and "perhaps" above are more likely to be seen as
> just arbitrary "maybe's" and "perhaps'es."

Then look at the evidence.

Reisman is claiming that ARI and some its principals have _publicly_
denounced him as immoral. Where are these public ARI denunciations?
There aren't any. The only ugly public denunciations of immorality seem
to be coming from the Reismans et. al. and are directed at ARI and its
principals.

As for ARI's side, there is nothing to say.

Betsy Speicher

Ayn Rand's Ideas On Talk Radio Every Week--"Philosophy Who Needs It"
For stations, topics, and to send your comments:

http://www.pwni.com

Chris Wolf

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Betsy Speicher writes:

>On 30 Oct 1997, Chris Cathcart wrote:

>> Betsy, I know a little of what you said is the "other side's" story on
>> this, your "may not be" and "perhaps" above are more likely to be seen as
>> just arbitrary "maybe's" and "perhaps'es."

>Then look at the evidence.

>Reisman is claiming that ARI and some its principals have _publicly_
>denounced him as immoral. Where are these public ARI denunciations?
>There aren't any. The only ugly public denunciations of immorality seem
>to be coming from the Reismans et. al. and are directed at ARI and its
>principals.

ARI's public denunciations of Edith and George Reisman did not take
the form of an ad in the New York Times, or a "To Whom It May Concern"
announcement in the Institute's monthly newsletter. Instead, it took
the form of informing nearly everyone connected with ARI that George
and Edith Reisman were immoral. This is typical weasel behavior on
the part of the ARI. They can sanctimoniously claim that they never
actually made a public denunciation of the Reismans, while
accomplishing exactly the same result via one-at-a-time denunciations
to everyone who might care.

Once again, Betsy Speicher tells the truth...but not the whole truth.
The very best way to lie.

The evidence is readily available at my web site, for anyone who
wishes to look. (see below). Check out the sections on George and
Edith Reisman, and Linda Reardan and Jerry Kirkpatrick.


*********************************************
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com

Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/

What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/

Ayn Rand On Emergencies
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/murder.html
*********************************************


Brad Aisa

unread,
Nov 1, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/1/97
to

Betsy Speicher <be...@speicher.com> wrote:

>Reisman is claiming that ARI and some its principals have _publicly_
>denounced him as immoral. Where are these public ARI denunciations?

I would say that denunciations made to third parties outside the dispute is
"public", especially if those parties are being pressed to make a choice of
sides, with penalty of censure and break of relations if the sided with the
Reismans. Then, how are these parties supposed to explain their sudden new
status to others? THEY are under no moral obligation to maintain privacy.

Also, I would like to gently point out, that given Objectivism's holistic
viewpoint, no dishonorable action could likely remain "private" forever.


--
Brad Aisa web archive: http://www.interlog.com/~baisa/
email (anti-spam encoded): baisa"AT SYMBOL"interlog.com

"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand


Chris Cathcart

unread,
Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97
to

Betsy Speicher wrote:

> Reisman is claiming that ARI and some its principals have _publicly_
> denounced him as immoral. Where are these public ARI denunciations?

> There aren't any. The only ugly public denunciations of immorality
> seem
> to be coming from the Reismans et. al. and are directed at ARI and its
> principals.

Here's part of George Reisman's statment, "To Whom it May Concern," dated
11/14/94:

"We've been told that people calling up the Ayn Rand Institute
are told simply that there is a moral conflict between them and us. The
specific nature of the conflict is not stated and no
evidence of any kind is offered."

On 9/19/94, there was a conference call in which Peikoff privately
condemned the Reismans for being unjust to Peter and Harry. The Reismans
offered a statement defending themselves on 9/27/94, claiming that they
were the ones who were victims of injustice. But it appears that the
matter had still remained a private one at that time. Now was there
something that happened between September '94 and November of '94, that we
don't know about, given the publicly available evidence? In September, it
was still a private matter, but by November, we are told that people
calling the ARI "are told simply that there is a conflict between them and
[the Reismans]." Now, if it was private, why would the ARI be telling
this to the people calling them up?

Is Reisman not telling us something, and if so, what is he keeping from
us?

Betsy Speicher

unread,
Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97
to

On 1 Nov 1997, Chris Wolf wrote:

> Betsy Speicher writes:
>
> >Reisman is claiming that ARI and some its principals have _publicly_
> >denounced him as immoral. Where are these public ARI denunciations?
> >There aren't any. The only ugly public denunciations of immorality seem
> >to be coming from the Reismans et. al. and are directed at ARI and its
> >principals.
>

> ARI's public denunciations of Edith and George Reisman did not take
> the form of an ad in the New York Times, or a "To Whom It May Concern"
> announcement in the Institute's monthly newsletter. Instead, it took
> the form of informing nearly everyone connected with ARI that George
> and Edith Reisman were immoral.
>
> This is typical weasel behavior on the part of the ARI. They can
> sanctimoniously claim that they never actually made a public
> denunciation of the Reismans, while accomplishing exactly the same
> result via one-at-a-time denunciations to everyone who might care.

That's funny. I am "connected with ARI" in that I am friends with people
who work there and know hundreds of people who are contributors and
volunteers there. I have not heard ANYTHING from anybody at ARI (and
neither has anybody I know) concerning the Reismans other than they were
asked to step down from the ARI Board of Directors. The reason given,
when I asked the remaining Board members why, was that they found them too
difficult to work with.

The first mention of "immorality" I ever heard came from George Reisman,
in a public announcement _he_ made at the end of a one-day TJS conference.
After that, I began getting thick envelopes from _the_Reismans_ which
contained a brief mention of immorality in _personal_ letters who authors
asked that the matter be kept private. Despite this and without the
author's consent, The Reisman copied these personal letters and mailed
them out to _hundreds_ of people.

> The evidence is readily available at my web site, for anyone who
> wishes to look. (see below).

Indeed it is. It shows that the only mention of immorality made against
the Reismans were in a couple of private communications whose authors did
wish made public. The Reisman's made it public anyway and added _tons_ of
accusations of immorality and dozens of denunciations (which in my
experience seem totally off the wall) directed at ARI and its Directors.

Tony Donadio

unread,
Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97
to

>"We've been told that people calling up the Ayn Rand Institute are told
>simply that there is a moral conflict between them and us. The specific
>nature of the conflict is not stated and no evidence of any kind is offered."

Individuals who actually contacted the Institute at the time were told
*explicitly* that the principals at ARI did not expect anyone who was not a
party to the conflict to stop dealing with the Reismans.



>On 9/19/94, there was a conference call in which Peikoff privately
>condemned the Reismans for being unjust to Peter and Harry. The Reismans
>offered a statement defending themselves on 9/27/94, claiming that they
>were the ones who were victims of injustice. But it appears that the
>matter had still remained a private one at that time. Now was there
>something that happened between September '94 and November of '94, that
>we don't know about, given the publicly available evidence?

Sure there was. *That was when the Reismans mailed their initial package of
public attacks on Harry, Peter, Mike, and Dr. Peikoff to the Objectivist
community at large*. The Reismans and their supporters, not ARI, were the ones
who issued the first, and in fact ALL, of the public attacks in this conflict.



>In September, it was still a private matter, but by November, we are told
>that people calling the ARI "are told simply that there is a conflict between
>them and [the Reismans]." Now, if it was private, why would the ARI be
>telling this to the people calling them up?

It would hardly have been reasonable for them to pretend to contributors who
called (either before or after the Reismans' public attacks) that the conflict
did not exist. However, they clearly recognized that the general public was
not a party to the conflict and did not have available to them the evidence
that led them to their decision. They were simply answering, in a dignified
way, why they had decided to break their personal and professional
relationships with the Reismans.

By issuing those attacks, however, the Reismans changed the situation. Those
of us who had initially been planning to recognize the break as a private
matter and to continue dealing with the Reismans had to rethink that decision.
Many of us (myself included) concluded that the Reismans' public attacks were
outrageously unjust, and on THAT basis broke our association with them.

Tony Donadio
------------
Say NO to Citizen Service. Your life belongs to YOU.
The Petition Against Servitude: http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude


Tony Donadio

unread,
Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97
to

>I would say that denunciations made to third parties outside the dispute is
>"public", especially if those parties are being pressed to make a choice of
>sides, with penalty of censure and break of relations if the sided with the
>Reismans.

This just isn't what happened. Those contributors who contacted the Institute
at the time were not only NOT "pressed to make a choice of sides," they were
told explicitly that they were not expected to stop dealing with the Reismans.
Censure of the Reismans didn't become widespread among the Institute's
supporters until substantially after they had mailed their public attacks on
the principals at ARI.

Tony Donadio

unread,
Nov 2, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/2/97
to

>ARI's public denunciations of Edith and George Reisman did not take
>the form of an ad in the New York Times, or a "To Whom It May Concern"
>announcement in the Institute's monthly newsletter. Instead, it took
>the form of informing nearly everyone connected with ARI that George
>and Edith Reisman were immoral.

It consisted of informing people with whom they had personal and professional
relationships, and who also had such relationships with the Reismans, of their
decision to break with them and the reasons for that decision. Do you really
think that there is something wrong with that?

Jeffrey Haber

unread,
Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97
to

Speaking of Reisman--didn't he give a C-SPAN televised talk to the
UC-San Diego club last November, which is a "tolerationist"/Kelley club?

Was Reisman aware of that beforehand?


Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber


Jeffrey Haber

unread,
Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97
to

Chris Wolf wrote:

> ARI's public denunciations of Edith and George Reisman did not take
> the form of an ad in the New York Times, or a "To Whom It May Concern"
> announcement in the Institute's monthly newsletter. Instead, it took
> the form of informing nearly everyone connected with ARI that George

> and Edith Reisman were immoral. This is typical weasel behavior on
> the part of the ARI. They can sanctimoniously claim that they never
> actually made a public denunciation of the Reismans, while
> accomplishing exactly the same result via one-at-a-time denunciations
> to everyone who might care.


I'm an ARI contributor and ARI never mailed me a notice, nor did it
ever inform me about it individually. I think I first learned about the
split here on HPO or elsewhere on the Internet.

Jeffrey Haber
http://www.sb.fsu.edu/~haber


Tony Donadio

unread,
Nov 3, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/3/97
to

>Apparently Mr. Donadio has not bothered to carefully examine all the
>evidence in this matter. The following quote is from a letter
>published by Linda Reardan. The full copy of this letter is available
>at my web site (see below).

I received and read Linda and Jerry's letters quite carefully, thank you. They
(particularly Jerry's) contained frankly some of the most patently specious
reasoning that I've ever seen, even if you accept the alleged facts that they
assert (some of which I don't, because the evidence of my own experience with
the principals and discussions with other Objectivists who would be in a
position to know simply don't corroborate them).

>"Besides myself, there were two other OGC students informed at the
>time, by the Reismans and Dr. Peikoff, of both sides of the dispute.
>One of these had taken the position that the evidence provided by
>Harry, Mike, Peter, and Leonard against George and Edith was totally
>unconvincing. **In December**, Mike Berliner (who would not have done this
>without Harry’s and Leonard’s encouragement) told this student that
>ARI would give him no further benefits unless he took a stand against
>the Reismans. (The student told me this himself; regrettably, he
>complied with their demand.)" (** Emphasis added - TD)

Please note the month cited: DECEMBER, AFTER the Reismans had attempted to
destroy their reputations by mailing public attacks on Mike, Harry, Peter, and
Dr. Peikoff to the Objectivist community at large. As I said, AFTER the
Reismans' public attacks the situation changed significantly. The principals
at ARI, who had been trying to make a quiet and dignified break with the
Reismans and their supporters, were now in a position where not taking a firm
public stand against the Reismans would have been tantamount to turning the
other cheek. Many of the rest of us, who had been planning to keep dealing
with the Reismans before they mailed their package, found their attacks to be
so unjust that we afterwards wanted nothing to do with them.

In December, after the Reismans' unjust public attacks against them, not only
would I say that ARI was *justified* in demanding that students receiving
benefits from the Institute make a decision to censure people who were
unjustly and publicly attacking them and the Institute, but I *applaud* them
and as a contributor would have taken them to task if they had NOT done this.

>It's also typical of Tony Donadio. He tells the truth, but not all the truth.

I'll let the reader decide that, thank you.

J. Kendrick McPeters

unread,
Nov 5, 1997, 3:00:00 AM11/5/97
to

Tony Donadio <tdon...@monmouth.com> wrote:

<everything snipped other than sig>

>Say NO to Citizen Service. Your life belongs to YOU.

Unless you're an Eskimo, and have a bit of bad luck, huh?

>The Petition Against Servitude: http://www.aynrand.org/no_servitude

Anybody wanna start a petition against "no-fault murder?"

How about a "Just Say NO to Kidney-Looting" campaign?

What?

No takers from the Official Objectivist Camp???

Gee... why am I so utterly unsurprised?


---Kendrick


0 new messages