To all of those on this thread comparing public health policy around an optional vaccine to the Holocaust, here are direct statements from The Holocaust and Human Rights Museum, The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, and The Anti-Defamation League about this dangerous parallel that people are drawing:
Hi, everyone. In an effort to maintain transparency I want to let you all know that I started the day allowing comments for this article from all members of the public (we made it 11 hours!). I have made the decision to turn comments off for everyone but paid subscribers because I am starting to receive comments that I believe are truly harmful to the community. I am always open to respectful discussion and disagreement, no matter what side of an issue someone falls on, but I draw the line at people sharing antisemitic and conspiratorial beliefs on my page.
What a great headline question. You don’t need to write about this gallery or any other to know the answer. I’m not saying you didn’t do a good job. But your question is answered by taking a simple look at what is going on worldwide today. The true infection seems to be a virus of the mind. This is a pandemic of social emotional learning. How quickly we learn to segregate again. How quickly we learned to look down upon a difference of opinion as a scourge. This isn’t going to go down well at all if we don’t open our doors to everyone. Thanks Charles for having the ethics of a true human being to see through all this folly.Maybe I should’ve said insanity.
I would be very interested to hear why the auction committee decided to keep their vaccination policy in the face of evidence that the vaccines don't do much to stop the spread. Everyone is getting sick, whether they are vaccinated or not. Fully half of my vaccinated and boosted circle got sick recently. States like Vermont where nearly every adult has been vaccinated have recorded their highest number of cases this past month. No one is claiming that the vaccines stop the spread anymore.
So what was the committee's reasoning for keeping the vaccine policy? Were they willing to listen to what Froelick had to say? In my experience, when I bring up the topic of vaccine requirements with friends who are in support of such policies, the discussion gets shut down one of two ways: either I get called a nasty name (anti vaxxer [even though I am vaccinated], conspiracy theorist, etc) or the response is: "Well, people are dying. Don't you care?" which effectively brings the discussion to a halt. It's not difficult to imagine that Froelick's exchange with the committee went something like that.
As a reporter, I wish you had asked them why they kept the policy. There is so much to explore here! This is a fascinating time in our lives. Never before have we as a society required proof of a vaccination to enter businesses. We didn't do it for smallpox, or polio, or measles. These policies absolutely beg to be questioned by smart, incisive reporters. And I'm just curious! Aren't you?
Anyway, thank you for your article and delving into this difficult topic, even if it was just dipping a toe into the water.
Vernon, I really appreciate your thoughts and questions. I can't speak for CAP, so I will speak on behalf of myself and my own understanding. You and I are in total agreement that, when infected with Covid, both vaccinated people and unvaccinated people shed the virus at the same rate. So, in that situation, no one is safer than anyone else. But, when you're considering public health measures, vaccinated people tend to clear the virus from their systems faster than unvaccinated people do, so from that vantage point, vaccinated people have a statistically lower likelihood of transmitting the virus (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/breakthrough-sars-cov-2-clear-quickly-less-likely-to-spread-infection). The newest data (released Feb 2, 2022) tells us that people with two vaccinations are 14 times less likely to die from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts, and people who have had a third shot are 97 times less likely to die from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts. Also, rapid antigen tests are only 40% affective within the first few days of exposure and only 70% effective after 4-5 days, so that isn't a slam dunk either in terms of ensuring that attendees to an event are Covid negative. CAP is an organization that serves immunocompromised people and has access to the top virologists and epidemiologists in the land, so I can only imagine that they based their policy on advice from experts regarding what makes the most sense to protect people who are HIV positive. (Again, this is coming from me and not from CAP.) Another reporter might have chosen to get more into the weeds on the Covid policy, but I was more interested in framing this article in terms of the larger power dynamics in the art world, because that is where my interest lies. I welcome other writers to take what I've written and run with it.
I applaud you for taking on a difficult topic, particularly in light of the relatively small and tight-knit nature of the Portland art scene. It seems many knew and were troubled by this situation, but speaking up is difficult when a job or reputation is on the line. No one wants to lose another gallery in Portland, but for those of us trying to do better, this is a situation that needs to be called out.
Perusing Charles' twitter account was equally troubling. Seeing voices who commonly promote hate and misinformation (such as Tucker Carlson) amplified through likes and retweets was sickening. Other likes and retweets that mock gender identity or compare the mask/vaccine mandates to segregation, Nazi Germany, etc. were equally tough to read.
I really feel for the artists and staff in his gallery. It must be miserable to have your livelihood upended by the radicalization of the owner.
disagree. The vaccines prevent neither infection or spread, and 4-times “vaccinated” Israel saw the highest per capita confirmed cases, AND the highest percent positive on testing, in the world, for the entire course of the pandemic, this past week. Highly vaccinated Denmark has been up there too. At this point it’s very clear that vaccines prevent neither infection or spread, no matter how many, and everyone knows this. So, what is the point of vaccine passports?
I personally see a very close alignment to “show me your papers” Germany in the 1930’s. Even in diseases - Polish SS Officers posted signs telling people to stay away from “Jews” because they carried Typhoid. Germans accused them of having lice. Othering is always a dangerous practice and frequently plays on instinctual human fear of diseases.
Black men have been othered as thugs. The ancient Greeks othered anyone who didn’t speak Greek as barbarians. History is ripe with examples of othering - and it’s a very dark path. People like to think “this time it’s different” every time it happens, but it’s never actually all that different, and it’s not different this time. I hope you turn back now as the path you are on leads to darkness.
I respect everyone's right to their opinions and beliefs. But I will say that, as a Jewish person, the comparison between someone being prevented from attending a private art auction (because of a choice that they made) and SS officers dragging people from their homes to exterminate them (because of something beyond their control), is deeply upsetting.
And I will say as the mother of biological children, and wife of an amazing man, who still has blood relatives trapped in Cuba that this is where it starts. It starts with art. In fact that is a fantastic comparison. The theft of Jewish art predated the SS dragging people away to their death.
That is why I say to turn back now. This path of othering leads to darkness. At this point no one is condemned to it, but in this exact comparison, it started in huge part in the art community.
Thank you for your comment. Speaking up in such a close-knit community is hard, which is why I'm so grateful to all of the people who agreed to talk to me for this story. I'm aware of Charles's twitter feed, which was beyond disheartening to discover (and which is public, so I encourage anyone who is interested to check it out @FroelickCharles). I decided not to include that type of public information in my reporting because I wanted to use my platform to share information most people don't have access to and as a window into larger topics within the art world. But I welcome other writers to write more about this issue and, if they wish, to dive further into Froelick's personal politics, which are on the record.
Thanks for your willingness to reflect on and write about an issue that is complex. These days, it's too easy to fall into some type of "cancel culture" and not dive deeper into an issue and those involved. We've got to be able to have disagreements in this world, and not let that irrevocably divide us. So many issues around COVID have been treated (primarily by the media) along a strict binary of right/wrong or liberal/conservative or us/them, but that's never the full reality -- we can hold space for a range of perspectives and beliefs, even if we don't agree with them. Thanks for leaning toward complexity here, even if some people reading this (including me a bit) don't agree with everything you've said.
Mike, thanks for taking the time to comment about all of the high wires that we're all walking these days and about a desire for complexity and nuance. It's very tricky writing about these types of things in a measured way. People are bound to disagree with some things I've said. I have no problem with respectful disagreement, in fact I really appreciate it, so if there's anything you'd like to open up for further discussion or debate, I would welcome your thoughts.
My name is Byron Beck, and I was the one who called for a boycott of Charles Froelick and his gallery on Facebook. I was not contacted by the author of this article or anyone at Oregon Arts Watch, where this was also published, to discuss why I made a decision to boycott Froelick. As someone who worked in the field of journalism for many years, I find that not only bad reporting, but an attempt to dismiss my decision. I expect more from Oregon Arts Watch who has many accomplished journalists working at the publication who know better.
I disagree. I found the article to be fascinating - which is a sign of actual journalism. Telling a story that deserves to be told. Byron. - I find you to be the misguided one.
“Bad journalism” describes exactly what we’ve head from the majority of “journalists,” who tell us everyday don’t believe your lying eyes, or all your triple vaccinated and infected friends, for 2 straight years. Uncritical propaganda is a better description of the state of journalism in America, accomplished or not. This piece was a refreshing break from that.
I read your comments Byron, and as of writing this, it doesn’t that you’ve added anything of substance. Sad but not necessarily surprising.
Calls for a boycott over “vax status” are nothing more than an attempt to other the not faux vaccinated - and the ONLY “science” that’s based on is Political.
By the time this event occurs nearly everyone in this country will be Covid recovered - regardless of how many faux vaccines they took. I have no idea if God will have mercy on your soul, but those like you Byron, seeking a return to 1930’s Germany and a “show your papers” mentality, are certainly the recipient of my just condemnation.
Thank you for having true courage Mr. Froelick! I’m 39 and was raised around the arts to appreciate its role in society, and how art speaks so strongly without words about the human experience. About love, tragedy, humanity, heartache, triumph, pain, joy, and beauty, with an undercurrent of anti-authority.
The art world Byron envisions is a place of division and authoritarian propaganda. I hope he sees the light and turns back now. We have seen those like Byron before, and the path he is on leads to darkness.
Byron, thanks for your comment. The editorial decision was made (by people with 75 years of combined experience in journalism) to focus more on the idea of boycotting in the arts than on one specific boycott. It was not an attempt to dismiss you or your decision. You are welcome to share your thoughts here or, as a journalist yourself, to use your platform to write about why this is important to you.
Then why did one of those distinguished editors say they were surprised when they found out you did not contact me? If you are going to call something "myopic" and "misguided" don't you have a responsibility to, at the very least, reach out to the person who you are accusing of being those things? If I had not called for the boycott, however misguided or myopic you think it is, no one would be talking about Froelick's very misinformed decision.
I was also surprised that your editors did not require you to identify anyone who was interviewed for this article that are in the local art scene or associated with the auction. Why was that decision made? Does Charles have so much power that no one will go on the record for disagreeing with his decision? Or are the days of following the guidelines of basic journalism over?
As usual, you’ve handled a complicated topic and it’s larger implications with sensitivity and forthrightness, always guiding us toward a greater understanding of how we can take care of each other and embrace the ways art makes a difference for us in the world, individually and collectively. Thank you for your consistent efforts on behalf of us all.
To all of those on this thread comparing public health policy around an optional vaccine to the Holocaust, here are direct statements from The Holocaust and Human Rights Museum, The Oregon Jewish Museum and Center for Holocaust Education, and The Anti-Defamation League about this dangerous parallel that people are drawing:
https://www.adl.org/blog/anti-vaccine-protesters-misappropriate-holocaust-era-symbol-to-promote-their-cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AejyLO_uxbk
https://www.adl.org/blog/shocking-rise-of-holocaust-trivializing-yellow-stars-across-europe
https://www.dhhrm.org/public-statements/statement-on-comparisons-of-covid-19-regulations-to-hitler-and-nazis/
And here are some news articles on the subject:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacharysmith/2022/01/27/holocaust-survivors-condemn-anti-vaccine-protesters-use-of-nazi-imagery/?sh=54743660796e
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-davidson-covid-vaccine-caerds-nazi-auchwitz-memorial/
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/590995-auschwitz-memorial-says-rfk-jr-speech-at-anti-vaccine-rally-exploits
Hi, everyone. In an effort to maintain transparency I want to let you all know that I started the day allowing comments for this article from all members of the public (we made it 11 hours!). I have made the decision to turn comments off for everyone but paid subscribers because I am starting to receive comments that I believe are truly harmful to the community. I am always open to respectful discussion and disagreement, no matter what side of an issue someone falls on, but I draw the line at people sharing antisemitic and conspiratorial beliefs on my page.
What a great headline question. You don’t need to write about this gallery or any other to know the answer. I’m not saying you didn’t do a good job. But your question is answered by taking a simple look at what is going on worldwide today. The true infection seems to be a virus of the mind. This is a pandemic of social emotional learning. How quickly we learn to segregate again. How quickly we learned to look down upon a difference of opinion as a scourge. This isn’t going to go down well at all if we don’t open our doors to everyone. Thanks Charles for having the ethics of a true human being to see through all this folly.Maybe I should’ve said insanity.
I would be very interested to hear why the auction committee decided to keep their vaccination policy in the face of evidence that the vaccines don't do much to stop the spread. Everyone is getting sick, whether they are vaccinated or not. Fully half of my vaccinated and boosted circle got sick recently. States like Vermont where nearly every adult has been vaccinated have recorded their highest number of cases this past month. No one is claiming that the vaccines stop the spread anymore.
So what was the committee's reasoning for keeping the vaccine policy? Were they willing to listen to what Froelick had to say? In my experience, when I bring up the topic of vaccine requirements with friends who are in support of such policies, the discussion gets shut down one of two ways: either I get called a nasty name (anti vaxxer [even though I am vaccinated], conspiracy theorist, etc) or the response is: "Well, people are dying. Don't you care?" which effectively brings the discussion to a halt. It's not difficult to imagine that Froelick's exchange with the committee went something like that.
As a reporter, I wish you had asked them why they kept the policy. There is so much to explore here! This is a fascinating time in our lives. Never before have we as a society required proof of a vaccination to enter businesses. We didn't do it for smallpox, or polio, or measles. These policies absolutely beg to be questioned by smart, incisive reporters. And I'm just curious! Aren't you?
Anyway, thank you for your article and delving into this difficult topic, even if it was just dipping a toe into the water.
Vernon, I really appreciate your thoughts and questions. I can't speak for CAP, so I will speak on behalf of myself and my own understanding. You and I are in total agreement that, when infected with Covid, both vaccinated people and unvaccinated people shed the virus at the same rate. So, in that situation, no one is safer than anyone else. But, when you're considering public health measures, vaccinated people tend to clear the virus from their systems faster than unvaccinated people do, so from that vantage point, vaccinated people have a statistically lower likelihood of transmitting the virus (https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/breakthrough-sars-cov-2-clear-quickly-less-likely-to-spread-infection). The newest data (released Feb 2, 2022) tells us that people with two vaccinations are 14 times less likely to die from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts, and people who have had a third shot are 97 times less likely to die from Covid than their unvaccinated counterparts. Also, rapid antigen tests are only 40% affective within the first few days of exposure and only 70% effective after 4-5 days, so that isn't a slam dunk either in terms of ensuring that attendees to an event are Covid negative. CAP is an organization that serves immunocompromised people and has access to the top virologists and epidemiologists in the land, so I can only imagine that they based their policy on advice from experts regarding what makes the most sense to protect people who are HIV positive. (Again, this is coming from me and not from CAP.) Another reporter might have chosen to get more into the weeds on the Covid policy, but I was more interested in framing this article in terms of the larger power dynamics in the art world, because that is where my interest lies. I welcome other writers to take what I've written and run with it.
A nuanced and responsible approach to the issue at hand AND the larger picture. Thank you for your thoughtful writing, Jennifer.
Thank you, Grace.
I applaud you for taking on a difficult topic, particularly in light of the relatively small and tight-knit nature of the Portland art scene. It seems many knew and were troubled by this situation, but speaking up is difficult when a job or reputation is on the line. No one wants to lose another gallery in Portland, but for those of us trying to do better, this is a situation that needs to be called out.
Perusing Charles' twitter account was equally troubling. Seeing voices who commonly promote hate and misinformation (such as Tucker Carlson) amplified through likes and retweets was sickening. Other likes and retweets that mock gender identity or compare the mask/vaccine mandates to segregation, Nazi Germany, etc. were equally tough to read.
I really feel for the artists and staff in his gallery. It must be miserable to have your livelihood upended by the radicalization of the owner.
disagree. The vaccines prevent neither infection or spread, and 4-times “vaccinated” Israel saw the highest per capita confirmed cases, AND the highest percent positive on testing, in the world, for the entire course of the pandemic, this past week. Highly vaccinated Denmark has been up there too. At this point it’s very clear that vaccines prevent neither infection or spread, no matter how many, and everyone knows this. So, what is the point of vaccine passports?
I personally see a very close alignment to “show me your papers” Germany in the 1930’s. Even in diseases - Polish SS Officers posted signs telling people to stay away from “Jews” because they carried Typhoid. Germans accused them of having lice. Othering is always a dangerous practice and frequently plays on instinctual human fear of diseases.
Black men have been othered as thugs. The ancient Greeks othered anyone who didn’t speak Greek as barbarians. History is ripe with examples of othering - and it’s a very dark path. People like to think “this time it’s different” every time it happens, but it’s never actually all that different, and it’s not different this time. I hope you turn back now as the path you are on leads to darkness.
I respect everyone's right to their opinions and beliefs. But I will say that, as a Jewish person, the comparison between someone being prevented from attending a private art auction (because of a choice that they made) and SS officers dragging people from their homes to exterminate them (because of something beyond their control), is deeply upsetting.
And I will say as the mother of biological children, and wife of an amazing man, who still has blood relatives trapped in Cuba that this is where it starts. It starts with art. In fact that is a fantastic comparison. The theft of Jewish art predated the SS dragging people away to their death.
That is why I say to turn back now. This path of othering leads to darkness. At this point no one is condemned to it, but in this exact comparison, it started in huge part in the art community.
Thank you for your comment. Speaking up in such a close-knit community is hard, which is why I'm so grateful to all of the people who agreed to talk to me for this story. I'm aware of Charles's twitter feed, which was beyond disheartening to discover (and which is public, so I encourage anyone who is interested to check it out @FroelickCharles). I decided not to include that type of public information in my reporting because I wanted to use my platform to share information most people don't have access to and as a window into larger topics within the art world. But I welcome other writers to write more about this issue and, if they wish, to dive further into Froelick's personal politics, which are on the record.
Thanks for your willingness to reflect on and write about an issue that is complex. These days, it's too easy to fall into some type of "cancel culture" and not dive deeper into an issue and those involved. We've got to be able to have disagreements in this world, and not let that irrevocably divide us. So many issues around COVID have been treated (primarily by the media) along a strict binary of right/wrong or liberal/conservative or us/them, but that's never the full reality -- we can hold space for a range of perspectives and beliefs, even if we don't agree with them. Thanks for leaning toward complexity here, even if some people reading this (including me a bit) don't agree with everything you've said.
Mike, thanks for taking the time to comment about all of the high wires that we're all walking these days and about a desire for complexity and nuance. It's very tricky writing about these types of things in a measured way. People are bound to disagree with some things I've said. I have no problem with respectful disagreement, in fact I really appreciate it, so if there's anything you'd like to open up for further discussion or debate, I would welcome your thoughts.
My name is Byron Beck, and I was the one who called for a boycott of Charles Froelick and his gallery on Facebook. I was not contacted by the author of this article or anyone at Oregon Arts Watch, where this was also published, to discuss why I made a decision to boycott Froelick. As someone who worked in the field of journalism for many years, I find that not only bad reporting, but an attempt to dismiss my decision. I expect more from Oregon Arts Watch who has many accomplished journalists working at the publication who know better.
Byron- you never contacted me for discussion before you posted whatever you posted on FB. Very interesting.
I disagree. I found the article to be fascinating - which is a sign of actual journalism. Telling a story that deserves to be told. Byron. - I find you to be the misguided one.
“Bad journalism” describes exactly what we’ve head from the majority of “journalists,” who tell us everyday don’t believe your lying eyes, or all your triple vaccinated and infected friends, for 2 straight years. Uncritical propaganda is a better description of the state of journalism in America, accomplished or not. This piece was a refreshing break from that.
I read your comments Byron, and as of writing this, it doesn’t that you’ve added anything of substance. Sad but not necessarily surprising.
Calls for a boycott over “vax status” are nothing more than an attempt to other the not faux vaccinated - and the ONLY “science” that’s based on is Political.
By the time this event occurs nearly everyone in this country will be Covid recovered - regardless of how many faux vaccines they took. I have no idea if God will have mercy on your soul, but those like you Byron, seeking a return to 1930’s Germany and a “show your papers” mentality, are certainly the recipient of my just condemnation.
Thank you for having true courage Mr. Froelick! I’m 39 and was raised around the arts to appreciate its role in society, and how art speaks so strongly without words about the human experience. About love, tragedy, humanity, heartache, triumph, pain, joy, and beauty, with an undercurrent of anti-authority.
The art world Byron envisions is a place of division and authoritarian propaganda. I hope he sees the light and turns back now. We have seen those like Byron before, and the path he is on leads to darkness.
Byron, thanks for your comment. The editorial decision was made (by people with 75 years of combined experience in journalism) to focus more on the idea of boycotting in the arts than on one specific boycott. It was not an attempt to dismiss you or your decision. You are welcome to share your thoughts here or, as a journalist yourself, to use your platform to write about why this is important to you.
Then why did one of those distinguished editors say they were surprised when they found out you did not contact me? If you are going to call something "myopic" and "misguided" don't you have a responsibility to, at the very least, reach out to the person who you are accusing of being those things? If I had not called for the boycott, however misguided or myopic you think it is, no one would be talking about Froelick's very misinformed decision.
I was also surprised that your editors did not require you to identify anyone who was interviewed for this article that are in the local art scene or associated with the auction. Why was that decision made? Does Charles have so much power that no one will go on the record for disagreeing with his decision? Or are the days of following the guidelines of basic journalism over?
Well you have your chance to tell your side of the story here in the comments!
As usual, you’ve handled a complicated topic and it’s larger implications with sensitivity and forthrightness, always guiding us toward a greater understanding of how we can take care of each other and embrace the ways art makes a difference for us in the world, individually and collectively. Thank you for your consistent efforts on behalf of us all.
Thank you! It's really hard to write about such delicate and difficult topics.
Thanks, Meg.