When Galloway makes a "careless remark" we are urged - by his academic brothers - to give him a pass. Perhaps that is the civil thing to do. And if it were simply that - a carelessness - we might have been inclined to go along. But this was NOT that. This was a considered remark, a naked call for execution, underscored by an allusion to an extremely nasty event in American jusrisprudence; an event of which the legality, wisdom or appropriateness is still widely questioned.
Until this Professor comes clean with a humble, meaningful and appropriate apology, these random, proxy apologia count for naught.
Until this Professor comes clean with a humble, meaningful and appropriate apology, these random, proxy apologia count for naught.
UPDATE: Scott Galloway reached out to me earlier today and asked me to call him. I'm glad I did.View quoted post on X
I've read @profgalloway's books, listened to his podcasts, and appreciated his willingness to confront campus antisemitism and debate people he vigorously disagrees with, including @BenShapiro with comity (and more than a little comedy).
That's why his recent comments about Elon Musk surprised and troubled me.
My central criticism was that Scott called Musk a "traitor to the West" while invoking Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed for espionage.
I think it was a careless statement, but I don't think Scott is calling for Musk's execution. Too many people on this platform are making that accusation, but it's an oversimplification. He told me he explicitly opposes capital punishment. I still believe the analogy was overblown.
We also discussed what actually happened with Starlink and Starshield in Ukraine. What was restricted, when, by whom, and under whose authority? I agree with him that we need to know what actually happened for transparency's sake. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Scott acknowledged that if Musk was legitimately enforcing a commercial agreement, not meddling in wartime policies as a private citizen, the accusation of treachery would be unwarranted. I hope that if that occurs, he will retract it publicly.
We agree that serious accusations require serious evidence.
I raised Scott's role as a UC Regent because I believe those entrusted with governing the best university on the planet deserve particular scrutiny. I never called for his removal, nor do I want him removed.
Scott explained why that framing troubled him. I listened, and I understand his concerns better.
Despite disagreeing with my criticism, Scott offered to defend my academic freedom and my right to criticize him.
As a professor, I teach students to revise their conclusions when confronted with new evidence. Today I was reminded that professors must also reconsider their own approach, too.
I stand by the substance of my criticism. But my tone should have been more collegial.
Our conversation strengthened my respect for Scott's generosity and commitment to the University of California, a system that transformed both our lives. As a two-time native son of the UC system, I think Scott will play a vital role on that august board.
Lastly, and most remarkably, two podcast hosts managed to have a contentious discussion and find common ground without recording another podcast about it.
A first in (unrecorded) history.
