Add the National Book Foundation to the growing list of alleged non-political non-profits that can’t stay in their lanes.
Yesterday Levar Burton, whose claim to celebrity rests solely on two iconic roles, in “Roots” and “Star Trek” but who now describes himself as an “actor, podcaster, and reading advocate” (that is, has-been) said in a statement, “It’s an honor to return as host of the biggest night for books, especially in a moment when the freedom to read is at risk.” Burton also hosted the ceremony in 2019, presumably because he hosted the PBS children’s show “Reading Rainbow” for its entire two decade run.
The “freedom to read” is NOT at risk in any way, but Burton is dutifully mouthing ideological deceit from those who believe minors should be “free to read” books with sexual content and that advocate sex-related conduct in the collections of public school libraries. That’s not a reading issue but a parental rights issue. But I digress.
Burton replaces Drew Barrymore, that well-known literature critic, who was dropped by the National Book Foundation as host of the upcoming 74th National Book Awards Ceremony. in November, after she announced that “The Drew Barrymore Show,” supposedly a spontaneous and unscripted talk show, would resume production while Hollywood’s writers were still on strike. It didn’t, however, because nice Drew doesn’t want to make anyone mad, and quickly reversed herself after the writers union made sure she was bombarded with social media hate messaged calling her a scab or worse.
What does a dim-bulb daytime talk show hosted by an actress who never attended high school have to do with reading? Ya got me! What do the writers who work for TV talk shows have to do with reading books? I’m stumped! Here’s the National Book Foundation’s literate explanation:
“The National Book Awards is an evening dedicated to celebrating the power of literature, and the incomparable contributions of writers to our culture. Our commitment is to ensure that the focus of the Awards remains on celebrating writers and books, and we are grateful to Ms. Barrymore and her team for their understanding in this situation.”
I’m glad they “understand.” I assume what they understand is that organizations run by left-committed ideologues stick together, even when doing so means escaping the bounds of their official missions. Their punishment of Barrymore had nothing to do with books or writing. It was a demonstration of solidarity with organized labor and a warning to others not to buck progressive agendas, which, properly, is none of the National Book Foundation’s business. Such non-profits are now part of the relentless progressive culture push and resistance is futile, as Geordi knows well.
Esteemed Ethics Alarms commenter JutGory proposed this story as an ethics quiz, musing, “Is it okay to rescind an invitation because controversy involving the invitee will distract from the purpose of the event? Does it make it better if the invitee agrees to step away? Shouldn’t the organization prioritize its mission and avoid a controversy that will distract from the purpose of its event?”
I’m happy to hear opinions on those questions, but I decided to make this an Ethics Dunce post because I don’t believe for a second that the idea was to avoid that flaming 24-hour controversy over whether a daytime talk show should keep running during a writer’s strike distracting from the National Book Awards two months later. This was entirely a Woke World hit job. What do you think is the common audience for the “Drew Barrymore Show” and the National Book Awards? I’d bet it’s about the same as the overlap between Drew’s show and the National Sock Drawer Organizers Awards.
My answers to Jut’s questions are 1) It’s ethical if it’s a real scandal that genuinely reflects on the character on the invitee, which this was not and did not. 2) No, and I wouldn’t step away in Drew’s position. I’d make the organization fire me and look like the politicized group that it is, for all to see. 3) To me, prioritizing its mission means staying out of a labor-management dispute that has nothing to do with the mission.
Ethics Alarms 
And wouldn’t it be something if we had a president who stayed out of labor management disputes?
Typo:
My guess:
“I’d make THE organization DISINVITE me”
-Jut
Honestly, I saw Gamereg’s comment and thought we were seeing a stroke in progress. I had no idea that mess came from me. Fixed.
This has NOT been a good day.
Of all the has-been celebrities I might consider hiring as advocates for books and reading, I’d have to put Levar waay down the list.
My wife, a librarian and advocate for freedom of speech and expression, has not seen any barricades erected around the library. No one is barred from reading. Parents have the right to oversee their child’s reading list. That also means it is there responsibility to do so actively.
“Levar Burton, whose claim to celebrity rests solely on two iconic roles, in “Roots” and “Star Trek” but who now describes himself as an “actor, podcaster, and reading advocate”
In his defense, he is also very well known for being the host of “Reading Rainbow” for 20 years. Calling himself a “reading advocate” is pretty in the lane for him.
I did mention the “Reading Rainbow” gig. a) “Reading advocate” carries as much weight as calling oneself a “humanist,” in my book. Who’s a reading adversary? b) He was hired to play a “reading advocate.” Actors like Burton will typically accept money to advocate anything. I think including that on one’s bio is like Tom Selleck saying he’s a “reverse mortgage advocate.”
I think it’s an oversight though. As part of the generation that watched Reading Rainbow I know its impact, downplaying his role in that iconic series ignores how much the “younger generation” considers it an essential component of Levar Burton’s role in culture.