jerseyshorejohnny
Well-known member
‘Cancel Culture’: Views From the Campus
Students debate the merits of the latest export from the universities.
July 14, 2020 / WALL STREET JOURNAL
Let Him Cast the First Stone
There is a clear difference between holding people accountable for what they say and “canceling” them. Accountability allows for redemption. Canceling constitutes a hatred-fueled public shaming that aims to ruin a person’s life. It ignores moral development, especially when the offending comment was made years ago. To give equal weight to statements people make when they are young and those they make as adults is absurd. Differences in opinions over time are often a sign of growth—something laudable.
The problem with cancel culture is that it expects perfection; one mistake made 20 years ago can be seized on to destroy a man’s livelihood, regardless of whether he expresses genuine remorse. People let their rage guide them, when, if they had reflected, they would realize that they are usually every bit as fallible as the person they are condemning.
Cancel culture is poisoning modern discourse. College students have all experienced this: a lecture hall that stays silent even as the professor tries to provoke discussion and debate on controversial issues. How can we hope to generate a diversity of ideas if we fear retaliation for any dissent? So long as the threat of lifelong condemnation hangs over our heads, we can’t.
Cancel culture creates an atmosphere that hinders personal growth. Only a culture that allows for redemption and open discourse can encourage the moral progress we all want. If the perfect person whom cancel culture demands really exists, let him cast the first stone.
—Joseph Murante, Seton Hall University, economics and finance
Why Shed Tears?
While my instinct is to support free speech, that right shouldn’t extend to hate speech or singling out marginalized communities. Opinions are one thing. It’s entirely different to use abusive or threatening language that expresses prejudice on the basis of race, sex, gender or religion. Language has long been an oppressive force used to disparage marginalized groups; the diction Americans have used to speak about minority groups often has a negative connotation. For example, using the word “Oriental” to describe people from East Asia relegates their existence to that of an object, like an Oriental-style rug. It reduces a group of people from diverse cultures to one stereotype of an exotic land filled with strange wonders. The rise of cancel culture signals that the weight of language is finally being recognized.
It is bewildering that prominent figures, from YouTube stars and children’s-book authors to corporate executives, are upset when the public disagrees loudly with their bigoted and prejudicial sentiments. How can you voice your problematic thoughts in the public arena, then be angry when you face a public trial and social death? Isn’t that the price that comes with a platform? When your livelihood depends on the public, they have the right to determine your success. To be canceled is to be held accountable for your actions and finally face the consequences. Freedom of speech doesn’t grant freedom from repercussions.
—Katherine Quinn, Syracuse University, public relations
The New Exile
The scare quotes around “cancel culture” cling to it like burrs. Cancellation, broadly, has applied to everyone from known sexual predators and bigots to shampoo brands and squabbling YouTubers. It might seem new, but what are exile, banishment and shunning if not ancient forms of “canceling”? Cancellation exemplifies the natural functioning of social norms in weeding out bad or immoral behavior. It can be a powerful tool for good, publicly reaffirming the moral values that societies accept and reject. It can also breed resentment, block cross-political understanding, and show a willingness to punish vindictively rather than restoratively. When overused, the designation “canceled” becomes obsolete and meaningless.
Cancel culture should alert us that the technologies we use are active shapers of our behavior. Instagram was designed for beach pictures and typewriter-font poetry; inevitably, it encounters difficulties when it tries to house discourse on social and political issues. For better or worse, social media is optimized for virality. Algorithmic, activity-based timelines ensure that the opinions you’re more likely to see are the ones that cause the most buzz, and that appeal to strong emotions—not always the opinions that get the facts straight. When we hold every controversy, inflammatory remark and scandal in the palm of our hands, and there is immense pressure to react, remember: Moral outrage is neither a trend nor an opportunity for self-gratification.
—Renee Yaseen, University of Notre Dame, international economics and Arabic
The Other Justice System
Cancel culture is a social phenomenon that ostracizes people who commit socially unacceptable actions. It can involve a social punishment, the loss of a job, or both. Targets face ridicule and isolation, and often threats and real material harm.
This form of social “justice” functions in the same way as the carceral state that many have come to rebuke. But too often the same people who call for defunding the police and putting the money toward restorative justice seem to experience little cognitive dissonance when destroying the lives of their peers through social pressure. It is odd: For crimes, they want rehabilitation, but for social offenses, they want pure retribution and incapacitation. For both types of offenses, we must work toward restorative and educational measures, rather than punishment.
It is unacceptable to be hateful. But once the offending party has repaid his debt by working to help those who have been harmed, forgiveness must come.
—Sarah Shaiman, University of Pennsylvania, political science
Speech Is Violence, Violence Is Speech
Cancel culture is a social climate characterized by hostility to unfashionable ideas and a willingness to act aggressively to ensure they are never heard at all.
What happened to the marketplace of ideas? The prevailing belief used to be that good ideas win out over bad ones via rational persuasion and the combat of argument. Cancel culture, by contrast, objects to the very idea of discourse, opting to silence rather than refute those who differ.
This mindset first gained a foothold at the universities. There, in an Orwellian contortion of language, offensive speech is regarded as violence, whereas using physical force to shut down events is considered speech. This confusion gives moral sanction to the censors.
At the University of Pennsylvania, a nonpartisan group invited panelists in October to discuss immigration, including a former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. By the time the event started, a mob of students had massed outside, armed not with arguments or rebuttals but deafening chants intended to drown out the panelists’ voices. It worked—the event was canceled 15 minutes after it had begun. We are now seeing what happens when this antirationalism makes its way from the campus to the public square.
—Adam Robbins, University of Pennsylvania, physics
Students debate the merits of the latest export from the universities.
July 14, 2020 / WALL STREET JOURNAL
Let Him Cast the First Stone
There is a clear difference between holding people accountable for what they say and “canceling” them. Accountability allows for redemption. Canceling constitutes a hatred-fueled public shaming that aims to ruin a person’s life. It ignores moral development, especially when the offending comment was made years ago. To give equal weight to statements people make when they are young and those they make as adults is absurd. Differences in opinions over time are often a sign of growth—something laudable.
The problem with cancel culture is that it expects perfection; one mistake made 20 years ago can be seized on to destroy a man’s livelihood, regardless of whether he expresses genuine remorse. People let their rage guide them, when, if they had reflected, they would realize that they are usually every bit as fallible as the person they are condemning.
Cancel culture is poisoning modern discourse. College students have all experienced this: a lecture hall that stays silent even as the professor tries to provoke discussion and debate on controversial issues. How can we hope to generate a diversity of ideas if we fear retaliation for any dissent? So long as the threat of lifelong condemnation hangs over our heads, we can’t.
Cancel culture creates an atmosphere that hinders personal growth. Only a culture that allows for redemption and open discourse can encourage the moral progress we all want. If the perfect person whom cancel culture demands really exists, let him cast the first stone.
—Joseph Murante, Seton Hall University, economics and finance
Why Shed Tears?
While my instinct is to support free speech, that right shouldn’t extend to hate speech or singling out marginalized communities. Opinions are one thing. It’s entirely different to use abusive or threatening language that expresses prejudice on the basis of race, sex, gender or religion. Language has long been an oppressive force used to disparage marginalized groups; the diction Americans have used to speak about minority groups often has a negative connotation. For example, using the word “Oriental” to describe people from East Asia relegates their existence to that of an object, like an Oriental-style rug. It reduces a group of people from diverse cultures to one stereotype of an exotic land filled with strange wonders. The rise of cancel culture signals that the weight of language is finally being recognized.
It is bewildering that prominent figures, from YouTube stars and children’s-book authors to corporate executives, are upset when the public disagrees loudly with their bigoted and prejudicial sentiments. How can you voice your problematic thoughts in the public arena, then be angry when you face a public trial and social death? Isn’t that the price that comes with a platform? When your livelihood depends on the public, they have the right to determine your success. To be canceled is to be held accountable for your actions and finally face the consequences. Freedom of speech doesn’t grant freedom from repercussions.
—Katherine Quinn, Syracuse University, public relations
The New Exile
The scare quotes around “cancel culture” cling to it like burrs. Cancellation, broadly, has applied to everyone from known sexual predators and bigots to shampoo brands and squabbling YouTubers. It might seem new, but what are exile, banishment and shunning if not ancient forms of “canceling”? Cancellation exemplifies the natural functioning of social norms in weeding out bad or immoral behavior. It can be a powerful tool for good, publicly reaffirming the moral values that societies accept and reject. It can also breed resentment, block cross-political understanding, and show a willingness to punish vindictively rather than restoratively. When overused, the designation “canceled” becomes obsolete and meaningless.
Cancel culture should alert us that the technologies we use are active shapers of our behavior. Instagram was designed for beach pictures and typewriter-font poetry; inevitably, it encounters difficulties when it tries to house discourse on social and political issues. For better or worse, social media is optimized for virality. Algorithmic, activity-based timelines ensure that the opinions you’re more likely to see are the ones that cause the most buzz, and that appeal to strong emotions—not always the opinions that get the facts straight. When we hold every controversy, inflammatory remark and scandal in the palm of our hands, and there is immense pressure to react, remember: Moral outrage is neither a trend nor an opportunity for self-gratification.
—Renee Yaseen, University of Notre Dame, international economics and Arabic
The Other Justice System
Cancel culture is a social phenomenon that ostracizes people who commit socially unacceptable actions. It can involve a social punishment, the loss of a job, or both. Targets face ridicule and isolation, and often threats and real material harm.
This form of social “justice” functions in the same way as the carceral state that many have come to rebuke. But too often the same people who call for defunding the police and putting the money toward restorative justice seem to experience little cognitive dissonance when destroying the lives of their peers through social pressure. It is odd: For crimes, they want rehabilitation, but for social offenses, they want pure retribution and incapacitation. For both types of offenses, we must work toward restorative and educational measures, rather than punishment.
It is unacceptable to be hateful. But once the offending party has repaid his debt by working to help those who have been harmed, forgiveness must come.
—Sarah Shaiman, University of Pennsylvania, political science
Speech Is Violence, Violence Is Speech
Cancel culture is a social climate characterized by hostility to unfashionable ideas and a willingness to act aggressively to ensure they are never heard at all.
What happened to the marketplace of ideas? The prevailing belief used to be that good ideas win out over bad ones via rational persuasion and the combat of argument. Cancel culture, by contrast, objects to the very idea of discourse, opting to silence rather than refute those who differ.
This mindset first gained a foothold at the universities. There, in an Orwellian contortion of language, offensive speech is regarded as violence, whereas using physical force to shut down events is considered speech. This confusion gives moral sanction to the censors.
At the University of Pennsylvania, a nonpartisan group invited panelists in October to discuss immigration, including a former director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. By the time the event started, a mob of students had massed outside, armed not with arguments or rebuttals but deafening chants intended to drown out the panelists’ voices. It worked—the event was canceled 15 minutes after it had begun. We are now seeing what happens when this antirationalism makes its way from the campus to the public square.
—Adam Robbins, University of Pennsylvania, physics
