We were dismayed by letters editor Paul Thornton’s
uneven framing of the Trump supporters’ responses. He wrote, “Trumpism is not going away on Jan. 20. For the foreseeable future, in a Biden presidency and beyond, his supporters and the rest of us will share a country; in Los Angeles, they will share a newspaper and, yes, the same letters page.”
We are sociolinguists, so when reading this introduction, we asked: What is the objective of publishing these letters? Who is the intended readership?
What was perceived by The Times as an act of journalistic balance was considered by many others — particularly scholars and journalists of color — as journalistic appeasement.
The letters were portrayed as conveying the ideas and feelings of Trump supporters, but the editorial curation was unintentionally dangerous. The curation presented mild versions of the Trump campaign’s violent, oppressive messaging. Such presentations are how white supremacy and other forms of government- led hatred function — by tempering hatred as a set of reasonable policies while ignoring the dangerous resulting practices.
Times readers have been reading Trump supporters’ underdeveloped arguments for years. Many of us have had to be aware of them for our own safety and survival. The published letters did not center those arguments, which demonstrates that many Trump supporters understand the president’s messaging is problematic, but they choose to ignore his violent rhetoric and his actions. Featuring these letters elevates the opinions of those who have accepted the hate as a byproduct of what they gain from a Trump presidency.
The Times should engage Trump supporters to bear witness to their perspectives. But turning over an entire letters page to them for their unmitigated side of the story turns The Times into a platform for propaganda. We don’t just want to know that a Black
Trump supporter made money during the Trump administration; we want to know how he as a Black person understands the racist messages that are a feature of the administration he supports.
The Times’ decision also inf luences who else has a voice on the letters page. Many on social media and elsewhere have been pointing out the lack of representation in these pages of people who are unhoused or incarcerated, among others.
The Times should dedicate itself to more fully representing the full range of opinions in California and why people hold them. From there, a more meaningful and inclusive dialogue might begin. Anne H. Charity
Hudley Santa Barbara Jamaal Muwwakkil
Los Angeles Charity Hudley is a professor of linguistics at UC Santa Barbara. Muwwakkil, the UC student regent, is a doctoral candidate in linguistics at UC Santa Barbara.