The New York Times ran a full-page ad denouncing the decision. Researchers later discovered that editors had given away the space *for free.*

Meanwhile, when linguists put together an open letter (ahem) stating their support for Oakland and the validity of African-American English, the Times refused to run it.

I spent a lot of time on LexisNexis looking into this. At the time, opinions were divided between "Oakland was bad" and "Oakland was terrible." Defending the decision was completely unthinkable.

There was a finite number of news sources at the time, with a finite number of editors. Most were male and white and straight and cis. If this group of, I don't know, 75 dudes decided an opinion wasn't worth hearing, it wasn't. Like, it *really* wasn't.

We're in a different media environment now with different problems. I don't know if the 'Ebonics' controversy would play out better now, but it would certainly play out differently.

The "cancel culture" moral panic feels like it's a backlash by those 75 dudes who are used to defining the parameters of acceptable opinion. I realize this is an exaggeration, but that feeling is why I have such an emotional reaction to stuff like the Harper's letter.

We're objectively *not* living in a time when free speech is being constricted. Instead of too few gatekeepers, we arguably have none at all. The debates now shouldn't be about who gets to speak — anyone can post anything anywhere — but about which opinions get platformed.

That's what's at the heart of the James Bennett and JK Rowling and "American Dirt" controversies. That's the debate we should be having. That letter, and everyone who signed it, is pretending it doesn't exist.

(If you want an hour-plus of me ranting about the 'Ebonics' controversy, see here) https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ebonics-controversy/id1380008439?i=1000465289876

Sorry to go all Soundcloud on you, but I also made a video about this, which has some interesting footage from the Congressional hearing