The Gadfly Papers: Three Inconvenient Essays by One Pesky Minister

by Todd F. Eklof

The Gadfly Papers is a collection of three essays written by Rev. Dr. Todd F. Eklof about the negative impacts the emerging culture of Political Correctness, Safetyism, and Identitarianism is having on America's most liberal religion. It's written specifically for Unitarian Universalists who care about the future of their faith, but will prove of interest to anyone seeking to understand how today's identity politics can fundamentally alter any institution, and presents a seminal case-study for researchers of this timely subject. The Gadfly Papers is a substantive, well argued work that's based on plenty of credible scholarship, yet is written in a conversational tone that makes its complex subject easy to understand. Whether you're a Unitarian Universalist, a student of history, social science, politics, or simply value the rare but refreshing application of logic, The Gadfly Papers is a book you won't put down until it's finished.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction

129 pages, Kindle Edition

Published May 26, 2019

Reviews

[Alicia Bayer · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a Unitarian Universalist, I first heard about this book via a post on Facebook saying that hundreds of UU ministers had signed a letter condemning it. While my first reaction was to applaud the ministers for speaking out against something I assumed must be harmful, I was a little concerned when I found out that most of them refused to read it before signing the letter.

I wanted to read this book myself before condemning it. That just seems like common sense to me. I'm glad I did, and I don't agree with those who are calling for "consequences" against Eklof for writing it.

The book, which Eklof (a UU minister) gave away during last week's UUA convention and which I purchased for $2.99 as a Kindle book yesterday, is a little over 100 pages and is broken down into three essays.

Essay one talks about the ideas expressed in "The Coddling of the American Mind," which is a book that I've been reading and have found very thought provoking. While I consider myself a very liberal person (and the authors of the Coddling book and Eklof would also all probably characterize themselves as liberals), I'm as troubled as these men are by the growing climate of "calling out culture" in our universities, churches and liberal organizations. Eklof gives some examples of people being targeted in UU for saying things that others found offensive or for even saying things at all if they are not in marginalized communities. For instance, he gives an example of two white male leaders of a UUA non-violence communication workshop (ironically) who were cat-called and verbally harassed until facilitators finally asked them to leave and gathered all of the POC in a separate room. There's no indication that the workshop leaders did or said anything inappropriate, but there seems to have been social media talk ahead of time of disrupting the workshop because people disapproved of bringing in white men (who were trained in NVC and long-time experts in it) to do the workshop.

Eklof also talks about other decisions made in the UUA, such as eliminating their slogan "Standing on the side of love" because having the word standing in it was seen as ableist. As another example, many hymns have been removed from UU recommendations because they might hurt someone (if they have the word "see" in them, they could be painful for vision impaired folks, and the beloved hymn "We'll Build a Land" could be offensive to Native American folks, as two more examples).

Eklof talks at length about how we are splintering ourselves into groups with common identities instead of working together for shared UU goals, and how the quest to be politically correct has led to the shutdown of dialog between people, leading many people to feel afraid to speak at all for fear of being called out for using a wrong word or for speaking at all.

The second essay is about the history of the unitarian and universalist religions, how very different they were (basically, one was humanist and non-religious and the other was rooted in Christianity, among other differences). They were joined because of shared liberal values, but Eklof argues that it's resulted in a faith that even its own members have a hard time defining. He argues for splitting them up again.

The third essay argues against the language that the UUA and its members have used in calling ourselves a "white supremacist organization." This is the least well written of the articles and he tends to go on and on with lots of definitions and examples of fallacies in arguments. The phrase was used after a Latina woman was passed up for a high ranking job in UU and she posted on her blog that she was equally qualified but was told they were looking for the candidate that would be "the best fit." She and other UUs called out the UUA for being rooted in white supremacy, and the UUA itself began repeating it and working to do better. The candidate who was hired (who seemed to have more years of experience and more schooling from what I can tell) eventually either resigned or had the job rescinded, I believe (he is still an active UU minister in Arizona, where he's active in social causes and has been especially vocal in trying to help the kids in the border camps recently). Eklof argues that we all automatically assumed that she didn't get the job because of her race but that we can't just assume that without knowing all of the facts. He also talks a lot about why it is inappropriate to say that we are a white supremacist organization. I understand why the term was used and why it continues to be used in UU, but I have to admit I don't know what to think about all of this and I agree with him that it would be good to actually talk about this as UU members without fear of being called racist to ask questions or raise our concerns. I know that I was shocked in 2017 when our minister sent an email saying that our church would be working harder to root out the "white supremacy in the UU church" and had no idea what it was talking about. She didn't really explain it and I was left with uneasy assumptions. All of the headlines about white supremacy in the UU church must be especially alarming to outsiders who will probably think this is a very unwelcoming faith for people of color, when the church I know works so hard to speak about issues like Black Lives Matter and to be welcoming and safe for everyone. To be honest, I felt that Eklof came off as overly defensive in this essay, but I also think he makes some valid points.

This is a 100+ page book, so this summary obviously only touches on what Eklof wrote. This is basically what the three essays are about, though.

I gave the book 3 stars, which Goodreads says means "liked it." I'm not going to give it 5 stars just to support him for speaking out and now being attacked for doing so, but I'm also not going to give it 1 star as I think he has some valid points and I think he has a right to speak his thoughts. I would hope that the people here who gave it one star actually read it, though I'm assuming at least some of them did so just because they were told that it was harmful hate speech and they believe they're protecting someone from harm (both Eklof and the authors of Coddling point out, however, that being exposed to ideas we don't like is not necessarily "harm").

In their letter condemning the book, the critics say that differing opinions do count not just as harm but as weapons, and they call this book a form of violence. They wrote in part: "Ideas and language can indeed be forms of violence, and can cause real harm. It is disingenuous at best, and malicious at worst, to argue that those who have been targeted by systemic violence have an obligation to bear witness to “ideas and words” that demean and diminish their personhood and discount their lived experience. The predictable “freedom of speech” arguments are commonly weaponized to perpetuate oppression and inflict further harm." (Read the entire letter here and see who signed it: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z...)

Furthermore, another UU organization has condemned it now even more strongly. Diverse Revolutionary Unitarian Universalist Multicultural Ministries (DRUUMM) wrote: "The Gadfly Papers by Todd F. Eklof being shared at General Assembly reintroduces toxic history and theologies containing transphobia, ableism, sexism and targets people of color, and in particular religious educators." (https://www.facebook.com/DRUUMM/photo...) I did not see these things in this book. These are all issues that are vitally important to me, and I would not support a book that I felt embodied these things.

Both The Gadfly Papers and The Coddling of the American Mind call for a return to dialog instead of shutting down ideas we disagree with (they clarify that this doesn't apply to hate speech or calls for violence). I don't necessarily agree with everything Eklof says but I do agree that he has a right to speak.

I would love to hear an equally professional response and I would likely agree with much of what that person would say too, but I don't agree that it's somehow harmful to have these talks at all. In addition, I agree with Eklof that right now there is so much awful going on in the world that we UUs should be working together to change rather than focusing so much on ourselves (though he is now causing more of just that with all this new drama about the book).

Pages for further reading about the book, Eklof, and the UU response:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UUreddit/com...

https://www.reddit.com/r/stupidpol/co...

https://www.revscottwells.com/2019/06...

[Jon Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an exceptionally brave work, published during the throes of a moral panic centered on accusations of systemic racism within the Unitarian Universalist Association. Rev. Eklof shares views on the rising tide of identitarianism and proclamations of innate white guilt in a faith previously proclaiming universal salvation and innate worth and dignity. For many who have puzzled over or mourned the direction of UUism, this book will be informative and distressing or chastening. Having read the condemnations of this book and Eklof after the 2019 General Assembly I chose to read it for myself. None of the these denouncements address his theses head on and bizarrely attack logic and reason as part of the toolbox of "White Supremacy Culture" rather than universal to all human minds. After reading this short book and the reaction it has generated, I am disheartened at the state of the Universalist and Unitarian traditions. The seven principles seem submerged in a quagmire, lost and ignored in the quicksand of call out culture and angry grievance.

[Cynthia · Rating 5 out of 5]

I agree with much that is said here. But even if I didn't I would give it 5 stars for the moral courage to speak his mind. He's far from alone, even among clergy, in these assertions. But clergy and leadership have been bullied into silence and compliance. More on my blog
What kind of UU Faith is that?
If it's a bunch of crap, no worries. It will go in the circular file of history. BUT what if it makes valid points? People will try to suppress, censor, and discredit it. That's what's going on with the one star reviews. It's cheap. Buy it and decide for yourself. That's what UU s do. (Or used to)

[Frank Strada · Rating 5 out of 5]

As a member of a UU church, I felt I had to read this book, in spite of the protests among members, or perhaps in part because of the protests, made by some who had not read the book.

However, as a (left) liberal and a citizen in a democracy, I have lately been very frustrated with where the student leaders, with their professor cheerleaders, on some college campuses have taken us. For example, preventing a speaker at Berkeley, the home of the free speech movement, from speaking because they didn't like what he had to say. I have also been at a loss to explain how one learns critical thinking in college when students are allowed to go to their "safe zones" so that they will not be "harmed" by speech they may not like. Trigger warnings - I guess I can go along with those in some cases, but not as excuses for college students to opt out of something they're uncomfortable with.

Much of what Eklof discusses grew out of movements that originally had good intentions and the potential for improving the social and political discourse - Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ movement, political correctness, all of which I support. But over time, concept creep took some of it over the top and critical thinking has suffered as a result.

Eklof, a UU minister, takes all this on and much more (e.g. racism, white supremacy and gender bias). (By the way, one of his habits is very annoying. It's his use of i.e. to mean for example. That is not what it means. It's Latin, id est, which means "that is." If one means "for example," then e.g., exempli gratia, should be used. But I'll forgive him that error because he has taught me so much in this little book). He also takes us through a refresher course in logic and how many people are unaware of how logic is misused and abused in their effort to try to persuade.

I recommend this book to any one who wants to try to understand what the heck is going on - not just within the UU church (a tiny portion of the US population), but on some college campuses and on the left in general. You may not agree with everything the author has to say, but by god, he'll get you to thinking about things - especially things we've accepted without thinking too much about (if we thought about it at all).

No matter your ideology, religion, race, gender or politics, this is a must read - you'll be not just glad, but feel like you have a much better grasp on what's up on the left.

[Mathiasquackenbush · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this coming just off the heels of finishing The Coddling of the American Mind, a book directly referenced by Eklof many times as he speaks, from the perspective of somebody who has been deeply involved in Unitarian Universalism at the denominational level, to his concerns regarding how some in leadership have chosen to address the issue of racism at the individual and institutional levels. The distinction between individual and institutional-level racism is critical, as one key elements of Eklof’s argument, and indeed that of the authors of “Coddling...”, is around how the rise of identity politics followed the rise of Reaganism as a way for those on the American left to continue feeling effective by turning their efforts inward. This has meant a focus on identifying enemies within institutions already dominated by the Left, such as academia- UUism is understandable as another sphere where this might occur.

It might be distressing enough to see the efforts of our academic and spiritual leaders turned toward policing and silencing divergent individual ideologies in place of a focus on dismantling the institutions that continue to perpetuate structural racism in America. Even more concerning is how, aided in part by the rise of social media, the supposedly most "woke" among us have resorted to the use of dehumanizing and authoritarian tactics to do so. The first of the book’s essays chronicles the ways in which this tendency has manifested itself, disturbingly, in several UU institutional spaces. These are features of our current historical moment that anybody who cares about the liberatory and oppressive potentials of religion and spirituality should be aware of, and Eklof's book is worth reading for that alone.


With a firm historical grounding in the histories of Unitarianism and Universalism, Eklof then makes some arguments about how the merger that, in the early 60s, led to the creation of the UU denomination may have, in the name of creating a universally accessible and accepting spiritual movement, severed UUs from the humanist traditions that grounded us in connection to our common humanity and may have made us more vulnerable to the larger cultural trends toward dehumanizing, divisive identitarianism. As a UU who tries to stay grounded in our principles, such as that of “the inherent worth and dignity of all people,” I don't quite fully understand the respect in which those principles, for Eklof, don't form sufficient basis for a liberal religious movement argument for what we’re currently missing except to affirm that pluralism may not be sufficient to form the basis for a liberal religious movement but I think it’s an important conversation.

There’s more to say here, including about Eklof’s third essay in which he provides a primer in logic in an effort to assess how useful Robin D’Angelo’s concept of White Fragility is in contrast to the well-researched framework of Colorblind Racism- but the overarching message here is a call to hold fast to humanist principles of universal human dignity, enabling a fact-based discourse to guide a democratic process. The Gadfly Papers is an important exercise in telling the truth as one sees it, grounded in compassion and humanity and acknowledging one's own limitations, and the attempts by the Unitarian Universalist Association to suppress it only illustrate and enhance the urgency of not turning away from its message.

[Chris Brimmer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm going to look at this one essay at a time.
The first essay in The Gadfly Papers, "The Coddling of the Unitarian Universalist Mind". I agree with a lot of it, disagree with some of it, but find the argument well constructed and the writing respectful in its dissent. This is well within the tradition of UU Humanism. So what got him defrocked? Is there some Jekyll and Hyde shift in the last two, much shorter essays?
Second essay "I Want a Divorce". Okay, I can see how really pissed off the Brahmans at Beacon Street might be over this one. He is advocating splitting the church back into it's Unitarian and Universalist constituents. I think he makes the case too heavily that it is only the Universalist part and it's theist baggage that has entrapped the church into an identarian mode, I think Unitarians often fall victim to this trend as well. That said, his critique is nothing more than what I believe everyone from the Unitarian end of the pool hasn't thought or felt at one time or another, and often why our youth leaves in droves. I'm still looking for that smoking gun that would justify a trial and defrocking in a church that stands for the "free search for truth".
The last essay "Let's Be Reasonable" about the 2017 UUA hiring controversy that caused a number of resignations including UUA President Peter Morales and led to charges that the UUA was a white supremist organization and the subsequent (and I considered at the time faulty) audit and analysis. The man is demanding rigor of the process in his argument and makes a pretty good case that it was riddled by logical fallacy and was really designed to come to one conclusion, the UUA and indeed ALL white people are involved in propagating a white supremist culture. He does not deny the possibility that the UUA may have a problem with diversity and fully acknowledges that it probably does. His assertion is that a process designed to not only come up the expected "right" answer but the conclusion that it is "too late" to redeem this irredeemably racist organization is completely lacking in utility because of its reductionist conclusion. I believe that it is his critical logical analysis of DiAngelo's arguments (a Beacon Press author) in favor of those of Bonilla-Silva is probably the trigger for the outright hostility that this book has been met.
Still I have to ask, between the admonition for the "responsible search for truth" and the free pulpit what exactly did the man write for him to be ejected from the professional organization for UU Ministers and the accusations of "violence" in his very language? It seems to be his defrocking may well be the best evidence that he's right.

[Barbara · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be a thought-provoking book on the state of Unitarian Universalism in the United States. Personally, I think every UU SHOULD read this book before forming opinions about it, most have not, but still have opinions based only on heresay, which violates many UU principles, but the the fourth one in particular: A free and RESPONSIBLE search for truth and meaning. That's not a popular opinion, at least in my congregation, but it is what I think.

The events surrounding this book have both saddened and disturbed me in a profound way. I'll be grappling with this for a long time to come.

[Ward Hammond · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every UU should read this. In an age of identity politics, we must be informed and ready to address false charges of bigotry. I got bogged down in the white supremacy essay but I'm glad I finished. I simply had to find out how in the world UU could be classified in that way. Here is an organization that recognizes above all the value, even the divinity, of every individual. What a strange, crazy, mixed-up world we live in. It makes me want to scream, "Hey liberals! Don't eat your own!"

[Kelly Bronner · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am not a Unitarian, so forgive me for finding these essays a little hard to take seriously. I read this because I'm interested in religion generally and I'm also interested in the culture wars. If you think "identity politics," "wokeism," "critical social justice," or whatever you call it, is exaggerated, or is just a bogeyman that isn't really important, this book will make you think again - not only because it is full of concrete examples of "wokeness" gone amok, but because the very existence of these essays, and the fact that anyone would see the author as "controversial," is absurd. No reasonable person would even walk by a Unitarian Universalist church and think they are "white supremacist" and "racist." We're talking about members of an organization that combats "systemic racism" and hosted Robin DiAngelo before she was all the rage questioning whether their organization is "white supremacist." A guy who, by his own church's description, is "nationally recognized for his activism in the areas of peace and justice, LGBTQ rights and marriage equality, the environment, Restorative Justice and criminal justice reform" is suddenly no longer Woke enough when he dares to ask people to use basic logic and reason. Talking about reason is now "inconvenient," "pesky," "controversial," and "brave." Give me a break. Oh, well, it's just a sign of the times, I guess!

On the bright side, I do give this book three stars because 1) the writing is decent and engaging enough, 2) the author strikes me as a kind and compassionate man who wrote this book because he genuinely cares about the future of his organization, 3) there's some history of Unitarian Universalism for anyone who's interested, and 4) the section on the logical fallacies that permeate Wokeism. All in all an interesting, though disturbing, read.

[Correen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a little book that raised controversy when it came out. Rev. Dr. Todd Eklof wrote the book in response to changes in the language and actions within the Unitarian Universalist (UU) Church of America and released the book at its denominational conference. Todd is my minister and I generally agree with his thinking but, in this case, not necessarily with all of his presentation. There are two basic parts of the book: the theological direction of the church and complaints that the Church and its largely white membership are racist. The first part is largely a question of identity. The second part is more emotional. Since UUism is a liberal religion, believing in the significance and rights of all persons, and consistently working to overcome racism and other forms of discrimination, the venomous language of the complainers was surprising. Many denominations are going through a crisis of some kind, this is ours.

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

Powerful questions asked of the Unitarian Universalist Association. Can we demand political correctness in a denomination whose history focuses on discussion, dissent, and the agreement that we do not need to think alike to love alike? I think all reasonable UUs should read this book.

[Pam · Rating 1 out of 5]

I can't recommend this book. For a better analysis than I can provide, search for "I read The Gadfly Papers so you won't have to."

[Christopher Barghout · Rating 4 out of 5]

A worthwhile read

It's a an essay for UU people who've been taken in by simple liberal reflexive thinking. Makes some good points but has many axes to grind.

[Steve Bottorff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Of interest to any Unitarian-Universalist. Are we becoming our own enemy?

[MB · Rating 1 out of 5]

I'm so glad I didn't spend any money on this book and was given it for free. If I could give this book zero stars, I would. It calls out people by name and is full of monsters under the bed. Todd Eklof is a leader of the "poor me" movement - asking us why we never hear any cis-, straight, white men talking anymore. I heard enough of him and his followers from people I'm trying to get out of office, out of our country, and out of power. We had fun defacing, destroying, and disposing of all of the copies of this book my family got their hands on. NOTE: I was given several free copies of this book (both to me and my teenager) simply by walking past the booth at a convention. They were providing in person spam.

[robert hedlund · Rating 3 out of 5]

Goodish

RevT presents the case for reason and communication that many of us will endorse. The first essay, the only one I plan to read, is persuasive if not concise. His position reminds me greatly of Bill Maher except of course that Bill is an Islamophobe and Todd is only opposing the UUA patriarchy. If only our great thinkers could actually solve our problems.

[Hal Issen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am 65 and was a lifelong Unitarian-Universalist. I was raised in the faith, met and married my wife in a UU Fellowship, taught RE, served and chaired committees including a ministerial search, been a trustee and officer on church boards, and been very generous with my financial support. I think current events are moving the UUA far from our 4th Principle, The Free and Independent Search For Truth and Meaning, and is now firmly in the business of dictating dogma. I am also greatly concerned with changes from its roots in the Congregationalist movement and towards Denominational Authority. The issue is driving a wedge between my wife and I. I don't need this at my stage of my life.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Amazing what a storm this book created. Ripples are happening still.
3 additional related books have now been published:
Against Illiberalism by David Cycleback
Gadfly Papers continued
Used to be UU