The Tyranny of Cancel Culture and a Free Speech Organization That Fights Back

Cancel culture is a form of the censorship, but it differs in its methods from other types of censorship. Censoring of social media, as

Matt Taibbi

has shown through the Twitter files dump, federal intelligence agencies coerced Facebook and Twitter to remove posts that they didn’t like. Mainstream media censorship is formed by limiting stories to pro-establishment opinions. Likewise, cancel culture has its own characteristics.

But what exactly is cancel culture? An online dictionary defines it as:

Cancel culture refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.

This definition leaves lots to be desired. First of all, it’s a highly sanitized explanation of cancel culture. This definition raises some important questions. Objectionable or offensive to whom? Is there any statement a person can make that someone else won’t find offensive? Who gets to be the grand arbiter of deciding what’s offensive? The term “cancelled” when applied to a human being is disturbing. What does it really mean? to strip a person of their value? Demoralize someone? Get them fired?

Though it is used by mainstream media, cancel culture is in many ways a form of self-censorship. This means that the population is censoring itself without government or large corporations intervening. This is one person or group deciding that another person or group is offensive and should be removed from the public arena. This often leads to groupthink and a mob mentality that will viciously go after people for opinions that don’t meet their orthodoxy. It has become a common occurrence in universities and social media. Politicians and the mainstream media use as needed.

At its core, cancel culture relies on ad hominem attacks rather than holding intelligent discussion of issues. It operates on the principle that if you disparage a person, then what they have to say becomes irrelevant. This is not only dangerous for the person being cancelled, but it also creates a society lacking intellectual capacity and compassion.

Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty of such behavior. Over the last two decades however, Democrats have taken the lead in canceling. Movements like Woke and DEI (More on this later) have energized the Liberal Democratic wing of the party. These movements have infiltrated universities. Professors have been fired as a result of violating vague policy that was set almost as a form of entrapment. Both faculty and students have been shamefully prevented from speaking in the one place they should be allowed to speak, universities. That’s what universities are for, to be a “marketplace of ideas”; to hear differing opinions, debate them and let the students learn the process of critical thinking. Universities are meant to open minds, not slam them shut like a prison door.

An example of cancel culture from the left was the cancelling of Charles Murray. Murray Is political scientist and scholar at The American Enterprise Institute. He is certainly a polarizing character. In The Bell Curve he proposed that intelligence is based on genetics and environmental factors. He believed that the differences between races was somewhat due to genetics. Murray was invited to speak at Middlebury College (In Vermont) but was disinvited because of fear of riots.

There is mountain of evidence to make a powerful argument against Murray’s ideas. Canceling him was a double loss for the university. It’s a victory for Murray, because he can either claim that nobody had the evidence to debate him, or he became a martyr who was denied free speech by an authoritarian culture. The college bowed out of the only real way to defeat a speaker you disagree with, which is to research and gather evidence and present a strong counter argument. The college threw away a great opportunity to educate students in discourse and instead allowed students to get away with cheap intimidation tactics. Universities have failed students in this respect, partly because many faculty members and administrators don’t object to cancel culture.

Bad-faith accusations of antisemitism since the Oct 7th war have run wild. Several professors opposed the war and criticized Israeli policy. They were deceitfully labeled antisemitic and fired. There was no offer to debate or even a small space for dissenting opinions. It should be noted that not one pro-Israel professor was dismissed, not even the ones who proudly said, “erase Gaza”.

After mocking the Liberal Left for their fixation on identity politics, the Republicans embraced cancel culture when it suited their needs. They jumped on the antisemitism bandwagon when they needed to quiet criticism of Israel. It was the Republicans who proposed the Antisemitism Act that tied antisemitism to criticizing Israel’s policies.

Defenders of cancel culture maintain that they are merely “holding people accountable for their actions.” A collection of cancel culture case studies show that their actions do no such thing. They show a story of self-righteousness with the psychological thrill that comes with mob mentality.

The driving forces from the Liberal Left are based mostly on social issues, but oddly enough they include the current wars (because the Democratic party tells them to). The belief system is dogmatic, intolerant and punishing of any deviation from their doctrine. There is also a profound subservience to the party. It’s an absolute perversion of what true Liberalism was intended to be.

The Book “The Cancelling of the American Mind”. by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott takes a deep dive into the history of these types of ideologically motivated personal attacks, from the left and the right. The authors cover the different stages of political correctness, cancel culture, woke and DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion).

The book contains many powerful case studies that show the abuses of cancel culture. One case in particular details a situation where students shouted down a speaker at Stanford law school and used vulgar language in an attempt to stop him from speaking. There were ad hominem attacks galore. This speaker is a federal judge, a Christian and a Trump appointee. The most disturbing part of the story is that the school administration, after promising to keep the environment safe, reneged on their word and sat back and watched. Lukianoff and Schlott raises the right point: Was there no common ground? Was there nothing the students could have found useful, or at least thought provoking? How can law students at a top law school not find something of value from a federal’s judge?

One of the key points presented throughout the book is that cancel culture is a highly simplistic way of viewing the world. Juvenile in my opinion. It implies that shutting someone down with bad faith bigotry accusations is actually winning an argument, when all the canceller has done is avoid any real discussion of the issue. That’s a loss for our society, as discourse is evaporating. Those who disagree with Liberal orthodoxy are undoubtably called out for being “far right”. Other terms that get thrown around are “antisemite”, “Putin Puppet”, “Russian Agent” not to mention the explosion of comparing people to Hitler.

Another case study describes the firing of an art professor who planned to show a painting that included an image of Mohammed. In Islam, there are no images of Mohammed allowed. The professor spoke to the class in advance and warned them that some might find it unsettling. Learning, of course, is about being unsettled. Being pushed out of one’s comfort zone is a necessary part of the process. After taking precautions, she showed a slide of the painting to the class. After the class, students complained that it was defacing Islam. The professor was fired. She sued, but still has not gotten her job back yet.

Lukianoff and Schlott showed examples of universities attempting to create speech codes. They have created lists of words that are not allowed to be said on campus. Some of these “speech codes” have (thankfully) been successfully challenged by Higher Courts. The irony here that the Supreme court had ruled that free speech applied to universities as it does for the rest of the country. Healy vs. James, 1972 it was ruled:

The Supreme Court declared that “the precedents of this Court leave no room for the view that…First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.”

The book also covers the latest form of free expression violation. This is called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. Once again, we find ourselves facing religious fervor based on vague terms. The authors make powerful arguments showing that DEI is used as a litmus test in universities. Many universities are asking professors to write up their DEI beliefs as part of their job application. This allows candidates to be screened based on their response. Is there really a right answer to a question like that? “Diversity” in this context means it conforms to specific definition set by the Liberal Left. The authors made the point that a DEI statement that included diversity of opinion would be happily rejected.

The book also covers the censorship sins of the right. This includes vague legislature that could be interpreted as disallowing any discussion of slavery in the schools, covered under the guise of keeping critical race theory out of the schools. There is the “don’t say gay” law and an attempt not only to ban books in schools but in libraries as well. There have been state bills that would remove any books with references to LGBTQ. Further, conservative universities have fired professors for saying that the Covid policies should be stricter.

Lukianoff and Schlott bring up a very sad point. Many students and faculty feel afraid to speak up about their views for fear of retribution. Instead of “marketplace for ideas”, universities can be centers of intellectual silence.

Fortunately, there is a place where victims of cancel culture can turn. This Organization is called FIRE: The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This is an organization that specializes in helping those who have had their freedom of speech violated. FIRE’s stated mission is “to defend and sustain the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty”.

FIRE handles cases of first amendment violations for universities, but also for nonacademic violations. One of the authors of The Cancelling of the American Mind, Greg Lukianoff is the President and CEO. What’s remarkable about the organization is that they actually have real diversity. Mentioned in the book, they have a mix of conservatives, liberals, libertarians, religious Christians on board. The team rallies around the free speech cause. Cases get submitted to FIRE and will be reviewed for free speech impingements. They have litigated and won many cases.

The FIRE website is an excellent place to learn about the current free speech climate. There are case studies on their site and a place to research and learn. If cancel culture is going to be defeated, it’s going to start with learning about past cases and understanding freedom of speech. There is a learning center with number of resources about censorship Knowledge and understanding will arm us and will enable us to recognize abuse of freedoms when we see it. I am optimistic that the better informed we are, the better we can fight back against autocracy.