Same person's response to Anderson's original post:

Casey Muratori

The lack of self-awareness in this response is disturbing.

By uniquely subjecting Coleman to the requirement of a debate, you implicitly did directly to him what your employees claimed he did only indirectly to them: you are sending a strong signal that his identity is not as welcome, not as included, not as valid, not as legitimate as every other TED speaker. You are telling him that his ideas - and his alone - require refutation directly within the structure of TED.

You then imply that, since your employees did not succeed in censoring his talk, that there is no issue. I fail to comprehend how this is even speciously ameliorative. Incompetence is no excuse for malice. The thief who fails to rob a bank is no more moral than the one who succeeds.

Finally, your use of the phrase "a dangerous undermining of the fight for progress in race relations" is rich irony indeed. By subjecting him to additional participation requirements, your organization failed the basic task of treating a black speaker with equal dignity and respect. Perhaps it is time to look in the mirror and ask yourself whether it is in fact the apparent ideology of your organization that is "undermining of the fight for progress in race relations", not Coleman's? Perhaps it is time to ask why you run a conference where your attendees feel it appropriate to call a rational, measured speaker "racist", "dangerous", and "irresponsible" to their face?

At some point, it has to be acknowledged that your employees and your attendees were the bigots here, not Coleman Hughes.