Cancel Culture Harms Us All

By Madeleine Kearns

Sunday, April 24, 2022

 

Cancel culture is a form of soft totalitarianism: the persecution of one’s political opponents in the place of debate and the complete condemnation of those who make mistakes.

 

The two most common arguments against cancel culture are: It isn’t a real phenomenon — only an exaggerated right-wing talking point. Or, contradictorily, that those canceled deserved to be. Neither of these arguments is tenable.

 

Take the example of Maya Forstater. Forstater is not a right-winger but a tax-consultant-turned-women’s-rights campaigner, dismissed by the Center for Global Development think tank after expressing the view that sex is “real, important, immutable, and not to be conflated with gender identity.”

 

Forstater claimed unfair dismissal, arguing that her beliefs were protected under the U.K.’s Equality Act. In 2019, the original tribunal ruled against Forstater, claiming that her views were “not worthy of respect in a democratic society.” A High Court judge later reversed this decision, explaining that only views that, through their expression or manifestation, sought to destroy the rights of others fit such a description.

 

Advocates of cancel culture conflate feeling offended with having their rights violated. Really, it is they who to violate the rights of others through thuggish and totalitarian means.

 

Consider the illiberalism now rampant on university campuses. Kathleen Stock, a feminist philosopher and author, was subjected to a harassment campaign at the University of Sussex as students plastered the campus underpass with posters saying, “Stock is a transphobe” and “Fire Kathleen Stock.”

 

The former rector of the University of Edinburgh, Ann Henderson, likewise complained of “unsubstantiated public allegations of transphobia and abuse from a University of Edinburgh student organization, establishing a pattern of behavior that continued throughout my term of office.” All she had done to provoke such bullying was to propose a debate on sex and gender issues. Dr. Neil Thin, an anthropology lecturer at the University of Edinburgh, was similarly falsely accused. He was repeatedly and anonymously accused by students of being racist and a “rape apologist,” despite a two-month investigation which exonerated him of all charges.

 

What such tactics really come down is: “I don’t like this person’s views, so I will shout and tell lies about them until they shut up.”

 

The problem is not limited to student shenanigans. Consider the case of Roger Scruton, arguably the greatest British philosopher of the 20th century, who died of cancer in January 2020. Scruton agreed to be interviewed by a journalist from the New Statesman, a paper he used to write for. The young journalist, George Eaton, then tried to trick Scruton through asking a series of “gotcha” questions on complex issues.

 

Truncating Scruton’s answers into short soundbites which were used to paint him as a racist, homophobe, etc., Eaton then posted a picture of himself on Instagram, drinking champagne from the bottle, with the caption: “The feeling when you get right-wing racist and homophobe Roger Scruton sacked as a Tory government adviser.” Douglas Murray then revealed Eaton’s dishonesty by acquiring a recording of the interview, and the New Statesman belatedly apologized.

 

Cancel-culture activists are not interested in explanation, investigations, or even the truth. They act in bad faith and are obsessed with power and narratives. That’s why they rarely bother to find out what a person has actually said or done before whipping up a social-media mob — even if the targets are high-school students.

 

This brings us to the second harm related to “cancel culture”: the replacement of understanding with judgmentalism and forgiveness with condemnation.

 

Daring to think out loud means daring to be wrong. And if there are two groups who ought to be treated more generously, it should surely be those born into (in some respects) less enlightened times (who, besides, cannot defend themselves on account of being dead) and those who are immature by virtue of not yet being an adult.

 

A high-school cheerleader was kicked off the University of Tennessee cheer team and forced to withdraw from the school after a Snapchat video was posted online of her using the N-word at age 15. The teen, who had just passed her driving test, recorded a message for friends saying, “I can drive, n*****s!” In Scotland, the Glasgow City Council recently identified a statue of David Livingstone, a renowned anti-slavery missionary and explorer, as a candidate for removal after its 119-page report on “problematic” city sites identified Livingstone as having worked in a cotton mill from age ten that “likely” used West Indian cotton.

 

The examples are endless. 

 

In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill warned of “robbing the human race” by silencing opinions. Since “if the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error.” He was right. As well as destroying reputations and livelihoods, cancel culture stifles debate, kills humor, and narrows minds. It’s got to go.