THE ‘DILBERT’-DAHL DILEMMA

We remember some years ago someone sharing with us a newsletter by Scott Adams, the creator of the “Dilbert” cartoon strip. Nothing overtly political was in the newsletter, but a careful reading of several newsletters led us to believe the cartoonist was not part of what is commonly known as “the liberal media.”

The newsletter didn’t have enough in it to interest us in subscribing, so we admit we don’t know how, or if, the author’s views have drifted, darkened or become more political since that time.

But we admit we were flabbergasted when we heard that on his YouTube show, “Real Coffee with Scott Adams,” Adams had described people who are Black as members of “a hate group,” a “racist hate group.” White people, he said, should “get away” from Blacks. He additionally said he would no longer “help Black Americans.”

What followed in short succession was the decision by hundreds of newspapers — including this one — to drop his comic strip lampooning office culture and for “Dilbert” distributor Andrews McMeel Universal to sever ties with him.

Adams initially defended himself on social media against those he said “hate me and are canceling me,” then later said he understands that newspapers dropping his strip “made a business decision, which I don’t consider anything like censorship.” He also maintained his remarks about Blacks were hyperbole.

Hindsight, especially when your career and livelihood are on the line, is always 20-20.

On Monday, we received an email from a 35-year reader of this newspaper who alleged that the editorial changes that were made to the children’s books of the late Roald Dahl — which we criticized in this space Sunday — were no different from the decision to drop the “Dilbert” cartoon.

We don’t see it that way.

Dahl, who died in 1990, had no say-so in the changes to his books that included deleting adjectives deemed hurtful, changing the genders of characters and inserting phrases the author never wrote (and may not have believed).

The changes were made by “sensitivity readers” employed by an agency called Inclusive Minds — hired by the company that owns the copyright to the books — to update them.

After a worldwide outcry, the publisher of Dahl’s books decided to offer both the “classic” versions of the books and the sensitized versions.

Adams, during his YouTube show, referenced a Rasmussen Reports survey that asked whether people agreed with the statement “It’s OK to be white.” Most respondents did, but he noted that 26% of Black respondents disagreed and that others weren’t sure.

Evidently that survey result triggered the cartoonist, who then went on to make his remarks classifying Blacks as a hate group and telling people to stay away from them.

Unlike Dahl, Adams is alive, is in charge of what he says and is free to say what he wants — and to accept the consequences.

The reader said this newspaper’s dropping of the comic strip was in contrast to its “Statement of Core Values,” which runs on the second page of the newspaper every day.

However, the first paragraph of that statement says “Impartiality means reporting, editing and delivering the news honestly, fairly, objectively, and without personal opinion or bias.”

To us, even though Adams’ comic strip did not contain the offensive language, using the strip of a man whose convictions are that 13.6% of the U.S. population might be called a “hate group” would be allowing the “personal opinion” or “bias” our core values caution against.

But what about Hillary Clinton and her “basket of deplorables,” President Joe Biden’s frequent divisive rhetoric and groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center declaring some Christian organizations as hate groups? we can hear some of our conservative readers saying.

Well, voters “canceled” Clinton, Biden was elected only because he wasn’t his opponent, and the influence of the Southern Poverty Law Center has been greatly diminished.

But two wrongs don’t make a right. And that’s why it’s important for people not to do what Adams suggested — to “get away” and not have anything to do with a group in which 26% disagreed that “It’s OK to be white.”

Only in dialogue and working together, discussing common values and finding common aspirations, can we move forward. Getting away is giving up. Getting away is a ticket to more partisanship. Getting away is a direct pathway to even more hate.

Adams, in another recent episode of his YouTube show, said his previous remarks only were making the point that “everyone should be treated as an individual.”

Hindsight, as we noted earlier, is 20-20. If that were the cartoonist’s actual point, he had an odd — and we’d have to say costly — way of expressing it.