I am stuck in the middle of a conundrum.
(What do you think a conundrum looks like anyway? What do you think is in the middle? Based on what I see from here, it’s filled with unruly pets.)
Anyway. Some of you may know that I write about autism in a column called Autism Unexpected over at the Communities at the Washington Times. I am not an employee of The Washington Times nor am I under their control. I work with editors at the Communities, but they have never restricted what I write and have, in fact, been very supportive of what I write.
Here’s the problem: The Washington Times publishes some crazy shit. Just about every single belief I have is opposite of and offended by what they publish. About a week ago they published an editorial attacking affirmative action for people with disabilities seeking to enter the federal workforce. The Autistic Self Advocacy Network put out a statement responding to the editorial, which I published in my Autism Unexpected column.
At the same time that I sent that column to my editors, I tendered my resignation. I no longer wanted the ad revenue from my page views going to an organization that was putting forth these offensive words. I no longer wanted to be affiliated with their vitriol.
I expected my editors to tell me they were sorry to lose me. I didn’t know if they would publish the ASAN response. I expected to part ways.
What I didn’t expect was for my editors to fight for me. To go to the Times and ask them to retract the editorial. To say that they were outraged too. To tell me that my voice and my message is too important to shut down.
So now I don’t know what to do. I tend to write different things there than I write here. There are pros and cons to both sticking and leaving. I could make a list here, but I’m curious as to your opinion.
Am I silencing myself by quitting? Am I compromising myself by staying?
What would you do? Should I cool it or should I blow?*
* Name that tune.