Editor's note: Daniel Wolff, a member of Inthefray's advisory board, wrote a Letter to the Editor sharply criticizing last month's Notebook essay. (In that essay, "Pop and politics," I defended pop singer Bono for his work on debt relief.) Below is the full text of Mr. Wolff's letter, followed by my response.

Letter from Daniel Wolff

July 9, 2001

The Lord brought Bono and Senator Jesse Helms together, and Inthefray now blesses the marriage. Why? Because "all people are human beings and worthy of respect, even racists," according to the editor, and because the real work--as opposed to what "liberals" do--is "establishing alliances."

Well, the facts are right. Rock star Bono did meet with and praise Senator Jesse Helms recently, the subject being Third World debt. And Helms certainly is a racist: an avowed one who began in the 1960s as a radio commentator questioning why the Kennedy administration would defend civil rights activists but attack the Ku Klux Klan and, more recently, leading the opposition to a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday by accusing King of associating with Communists.

It's a little ironic, then, that Inthefray defends Bono by saying King "did something similar when he made it his duty to confront racists face-to-face." The only trouble with this logic is that Bono wasn't confronting Helms but collaborating with him. King worked for equality and voters' rights so that the racist leaders of his day and age could be put out of power. There are no pictures of Dr. King warmly shaking hands with, say, Governor George Wallace because the two men found some common ground which was more important than their differences on basic human dignity. In comparison, Bono, while acknowledging that he disagreed with the Senator on some issues, brushed those aside by hailing Helms' Christian compassion and acknowledging their friendship at a U2 concert.

Inthefray applauds this, arguing that the ends justify the means. The editor chooses to ignore the fact that Helms' well-known racist and isolationist policies forth-rightly condemn people of color to second-class citizenship. That if the Senator helped Bono pass debt-relief, his pro-apartheid record makes clear that he would support any and all other means to keep these "foreigners" down. And that what Inthefray calls this "discreet, long-term work of building credibility" was a piece of orchestrated public relations which placed the aging rock star and his Senator buddy on the front pages of newspapers across the country. Did this educate the public about debt relief? Maybe. Certainly, a discerning reader might want to find out why he or she should get behind a "Christian charity" which had garnered the support of a politician who has made his reputation on hatred.

Senator Helms has worked his whole life against the concept which Inthefray claims is at "the core" of its beliefs: tolerance. As an advisor to this publication, I am alarmed and ashamed by the recent editorial.

Daniel Wolff
New York

Response from Victor Tan Chen

I have great respect for Mr. Wolff, who is a member of our advisory board, and I take his opinion of the magazine very seriously. However, I must strongly disagree with him on both the nature and severity of his criticisms.

I am certainly no fan of Jesse Helms. I said he is a racist because I believe he is one. But if someone like Helms decides to support as worthy a cause as Third World debt relief, I give him credit for doing so. Why? If compassion demands that we give "second chances" to criminals, then it also demands that we offer the same to our political opponents, I would think. Mr. Wolff implies there is some ulterior motive for the senator's change of heart: "Certainly, a discerning reader might want to find out why he or she should get behind a 'Christian charity' which had garnered the support of a politician who has made his reputation on hatred." Perhaps Mr. Wolff is right; all the same, I do not think it's fair to make up a sinister motive when there's no evidence of any.

Furthermore, I think that engaging racists is often more effective than vilifying them. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi are my heroes of mine because they not only fought for worthy principles, but they (when it would have been much easier not to) taught love for their enemies. They sought to change the hearts of their enemies, even as they sought to change the hearts of the general populace. In doing so, they rejected the well-trodden paths of "the ends justify the means" and "an eye for an eye" and aimed for a higher moral ground. It can also be argued that they won over many more people following such tactics than they would have shooting guns at their enemies or merely publishing angry editorials.

U2's lead singer may not be a King or Gandhi, but I see no reason to fault him for finding a good cause and working hard on it. I see no reason for condemn him, either, for merely talking with Helms. The rock star has convinced a devoutly isolationist senator to support debt relief, which is no small feat. Equally important, Helms has apparently forced Bono to concede nothing. I too would be alarmed if Bono had come out of his meetings with Helms saying he supported the Confederacy and hated gay people. But nothing of the sort has happened. And so Mr. Wolff's criticism of the Bono-Helms connection is essentially that Bono should not be dealing with someone like Helms, period. By that logic, because I hate murder and rape, I should never deal with murderers and rapists, or do anything to help change their views. I think that's not enough of a reason to condemn someone like Bono; beyond "collaboration," there has to be a clear sign that someone is compromising important moral principles.

I certainly did not mean to bash the work of "liberals", which I proudly consider myself. I never said that the "real work" (Mr. Wolff's words) solely involves "establishing alliances." Please refer to my sentence: "Demonstrations and other public expressions of outrage are important, but so is the more discreet, long-term work of building credibility, establishing alliances, and educating people at all levels." My point was that a strategy of protest and public outcry is important, but so is the more subtle work of grassroots organizing and political lobbying. People who work against tolerance know this all too well--look, for instance, at the determination with which anti-gay activists stack local school boards with their candidates. Those with a different vision of society would be wise to use all the resources at their disposal.

I am sorry that Mr. Wolff felt "ashamed and alarmed" by my essay. With all respect, I do not believe the views I expressed gave him reason to feel that way. I share his disgust with racists; I simply think that adopting a "holier-than-thou" attitude--one that never engages those of opposing viewpoints, except to attack them--is neither sensible nor morally defensible. Such thinking merely hardens hearts, and changes nothing.

Victor Tan Chen
Editor, Inthefray.com

Please join this discussion! Reply to these remarks by Wolff and Chen in our Forum, under "Letters to the Editor".