A few weeks ago an article was published Ethan Woods is an asshole, and in it there were tons of inaccuracies, and outright lies. I am a historian at Shekland University, and have done some biographical research on Sir Ethan Woods in relation to some other work. Having read this article I felt I had to respond to it’s lies and libel. Correcting the record is important for an accurate understanding of history, and this record of events is outright fiction.
Embezzlement & Taxes
To start with the worst offender, everything the author mentioned in this section for their article was completely wrong, or maliciously worded to make their unfounded points. It’s astonishing to me that the paper is refusing to release their name to the Woods estate because this is open libel. To deal with the claims 1 by 1:
How come his kids soccer team was able to rack up 18,000 in untaxed income? Those must have been some rich kids.
The torturing of context here is astounding. The way this is worded it’s meant to imply that Ethan took 18,000 on behalf of kids and then pocketed the money. The truth is that Ethan was one of the parents involved in a volunteer kids soccer organization. The organization charged 10/month to help pay for a monthly pizza party, and venue costs. This number was calculated by taking those donations over the lifespan of his kids playing in the events. The formula is:
10/kid
30 slots
300/month
300/moth * 12 months = 3,600/year
Ethans kids played for 5 years
3,600/year * 5 years = 18,000
So, unless the author believes that every kids soccer team should have to register for tax filings each year, this claim is outright malicious bullshit. Not to mention this money went to the organization as a whole, which had anywhere for 4-6 parents helping manage the money.
Why was he able to avoid paying the infamous craftsmanship tax on his woodworking company?Surely woodworking shouldn’t be counted as craftsmanship.
Let’s start with some misconceptions here. The infamous “craftsmanship tax” was actually called the “Tax deduction recall act”. Up until this point in Shekland any business calling themselves a “craftsman” was able to apply for tax deductions. This system was heavily abused including obscure arguments about accountants, investors, and teachers being “craftsmen”. As such this act was meant to cancel the tax deductions outright, and provide more specific exemptions on a per-category basis. Unfortunately one of the staff serving under the Commissioner of Commerce & Finance who was helping draft the act slipped in a provision. Anyone who had been receiving the deductions “fraudulently” for the last 5 years was required to pay back the tax deductions.
This “paying back” was problematic because it meant that people who had relied upon those deductions were now effectively being blindsided by a new “tax”. Woods Woodsmith (his “woodworking company”) was already exempt from this because it wasn’t one of these “fraudulent” cases, and because it was a side hobby for Ethan he had never applied for the tax deduction in the first place. So not only did they not bother to look up the “tax” itself, they don’t even understand where it would be applicable in the first place.
Maybe his 15 homes that he was receiving payments from the Shekland government for? Where do I sign up for that?
“15 homes” is an interesting way to phrase this. I am working with limited information considering the author did not feel it necessary to provide any proof for their claims, or any factual information at all. Based on what they said I assume they are referring to the 15 dormitories that were owned by Ethan. These locations were largely defunct when he purchased them, and were renovated from their original purposes (small offices, warehouses, laboratories, etc.) to dormitories for people to stay. Several of these dormitories were used primarily for additional staff and students at Shekland University. Because the resources were used for “the public good” there was funding given to help continue to run them (though most of that was “discounts” on goods like food, water, etc.).
The author did manage to step backwards into an interesting critique. It’s unlikely they’re aware of this, but several of these locations were a source of controversy. There were instances of these dorms being closed for “renovations”, then rented out as space for various social events that Ethan hosted. It is easily arguable that this should have precluded the spaces from the leniencies and “funding” received, however even these cases were the minority of the time. The longest consecutive “renovation” of these dormitories was 5 months, out of the operating time of 25 years.
Reshuffling
This topic is entirely a subjective one. Whether you agree with it or not, it’s certainly the case that the opportunity to redesign a building, and be taken seriously enough to actually have it rebuilt as a student is thrilling. Ethan was an eccentric man, and he took the notion of inspiring and incentivizing people to be creative very seriously. Is reshuffling a “waste” of money, by most pragmatic analysis, yes. However, it’s not meant to be pragmatic, it’s meant to be eccentric. The money was given on the basis that the guidelines set out for it would be followed. The notion that you can just take money from a charitable donation and give it to whatever you want is a dangerous precedent to set.
If you donate to the food bank should that money be “reallocated” to weapons if the public deems it more pragmatic? If you donate to an animal shelter can the money be “reallocated” to slaughterhouses to produce more food if the public deems it more pragmatic? These are not questions I want the organizations I donate to, to even be asking. The answer should be a resounding NO. When I donate my money to a cause it should go to that cause. Ethan gave a massive amount of money for the more pragmatic things that were mentioned in the article. More proportionately than anyone of his fortune that I’ve seen. The argument that a cause he planned ahead for, and donated to explicitly should be ransacked by people as ill-informed as the author makes my blood boil.
Actioneering
The elephant in the room eventually becomes unavoidable. Actioneering is a practice that should have been outlawed years ago. To the extent that Ethan engaged in it (which there is certainly evidence of), he should be condemned for it. It is morally unacceptable to engage in this sort of behavior, and you certainly won’t find me defending it.
Conclusion
It is clear to see the author does not like Ethan, and in general has an anti-elite attitude. However they have actively allowed their bias to cloud them from any semblance of the truth. Whether Ethan is an asshole or not is up for the reader to decide, but that decision should be made with accurate information. If you require lying and deception to make your point, it’s likely you’re incorrect. I hope the author takes this as a learning experience and improves, however I suspect my optimism in that regard might make me a dumbass, which is arguably worse than an asshole.
Curators Notes
It takes strong conviction to do what is right. Sometimes something as simple as correcting the record on those that wish harm on the innocent and righteous is brave. Ethan Woods was a good man, and the fact the author of the previous article saw it fit to attack him is unconscionable. Sometimes authority must be stood up to, but it’s important to not fetishize this rebellion, and to make it it’s own ends. Not everything is tyranny, sometimes it’s just baseless conspiracy.