For context, I'm a fan of much of your writing Jessica (with many claps to show for it), and a believer in progressive solutions, and overturning the patriarchal systems that perpetuate and excuse the abuse of women. But I'm also a happily independent thinker and believer in healthy respectful disagreement. I have a bit of a challenge with this paragraph in particular. While I agree this is in extremely poor taste for a white professor to use the n-word even when reading the words of MLK (and look forward to watching the Mitchell podcast), I cannot agree with the assumption here that: 1) this is beyond debate and 2) that anyone who disagrees must de facto not be doing so in good faith. Ironically this is exactly one of the points the authors of the Harper's letter are making. I've been a bit disappointed that nearly every comment and critique from my progressive sistren and brethren has been to attack the authors in ad hominem fashion instead of challenging the core of their argument and question. It is a fundamental one: are we seeing censoriousness stifle debate and fruitful discussion among responsible and concerned advocates for change? Censoring has long been a tool of conversatives and authoritarianism, and it's an abhorrent one (*if* that is what is happening here, which is a point of debate). I think it is safe to say that the timing of the letter is a bit eye-roll inducing, given the changes that are still needed in both the BLM and MeToo movements, but that doesn't mean their arguments are not worthy of consideration. I'm still trying to sort my thoughts out on how to approach my similar concerns about censoring tactfully and with "good faith" intent (and that I'm willing to reconsider my position when my argument is shown to be untenable)--especially given the long history of condescending, aggressive disagreement from men towards women speaking their truths. But something feels askew here, and to me dismissing those who disagree categorically, or to declare it as a response to a threat to existing power structures, doesn't settle this in any way that satisfies rational thinking, as I see it. This is something we need to address in the face of conservative intellectual disagreement. Thanks for writing the column and considering my reply!