Review of "The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All — But There Is a Solution" by Greg Luikianoff and Rikki Schlott, New York: Simon and Schuster, 2023.
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, has provided vigorous protections for freedoms of speech, press, and peaceable assembly. However, Greg Lukianoff, a graduate of Stanford Law School who serves as the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and previously coauthored The Coddling of the American Mind, and journalist Rikki Schlott who also works at FIRE, argue in this provocative book that such protections were born from and continue to rely upon what they call “Free Speech Culture.” They think this culture has become increasingly anemic as partisans of both the right and the left have elevated political litmus tests and concerns for equality and other values over those of freedom of speech.
What is ‘cancel culture’ and when did it begin?
Although examining a number of definitions, the authors describe the cancel culture as campaigns “beginning around 2014, and accelerating in 2017 . . . to get people fired, disinvited, deplatformed, or otherwise punished for speech that is — or would be — protected by First Amendment standards and the climate of fear and conformity that has resulted from this uptick” (p. 31).
Just as Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill once warned of the dangers of the “tyranny of the majority,” so, too, Lukianoff and Schlott warn that a legal right to speak at a forum may be of relatively little value if speakers can be disinvited, shouted down or threatened with violence. Similarly, while social media platforms have widened opportunities for individuals to express their views, they have also opened the door for disinformation and served to preserve a record of youthful speech indiscretions that might later be used to upend individual lives and careers.
Canceling on the rise
This book relies on numerous arresting anecdotes that highlight how individuals have been harassed and hounded from their jobs for expressing unpopular opinions. Although a survey of U.S. Supreme Court decisions might suggest that free speech rights are stronger than ever, the authors’ experiences at FIRE suggest more individuals have been canceled over the past decade than during the McCarthy Era than during what they call the “First Great Age of Political Correctness” from 1985-1995, or even in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks. Tenured professors have been fired or encouraged to resign, individuals’ reputations have been ruined for jokes or statements they made even as teenagers, and students have increasingly suppressed their speech for fear that it would bring about negative consequences.
Although the authors trace some contemporary distrust of the First Amendment to Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay on “Repressive Tolerance,” they argue that such distrust has since permeated both the political left and the right. Moreover, they believe that many prior bastions of free thought, particularly elite universities, have become increasingly susceptible to blocking out rival views. State legislatures, in turn, have sought to impose the same kind of restrictions on curricula at state universities that might be appropriate for K-12 schools.
The weaponizing of rhetoric
In describing what the authors call this “no-man’s land,” they highlight key “dirty tricks” that both the right and left use to weaponize speech. These include:
- “Whataboutism: Defending against criticism of your side by bringing up the other side’s alleged wrongdoing” (p. 94);
- “Straw-manning: Misrepresenting the opposition’s perspective by constructing a weak, inaccurate version of their argument that can be easily refuted” (p. 94);
- “Minimization: Claiming that a problem doesn’t exist or is too small-scale to worry about” (p. 95);
- “Motte and Bailey arguments: Conflating two arguments—a reasonable one (the motte) and an unreasonable one (the bailey)” (p. 96);
- “Underdogging: Claiming your viewpoint is more valid than your opponent’s because you speak for a disadvantaged party” (p. 97);
- “Accusations of bad faith: Asserting that your opponent is being disingenuous or has a sinister, selfish, and/or ulterior motive” (p. 98);
- “Hypocrisy projection: Asserting that your opponent is hypocritical about a given argument without actually checking the consistency of their record” (p. 99);
- “‘That’s offensive’: Responding to an idea you don’t like with ‘that’s offensive,’ rather than engaging with its substance” (p. 100);
- “Offense archaeology: Digging through someone’s past comments to find speech that hasn’t aged well” (p. 100); and
- “Making stuff up: Fabricating information to bolster a weak argument — and asserting it with confidence” (p. 101).
What would free speech culture look like?
The authors associate their own vision of free speech culture with such idioms as “’it’s a free country,’ ‘to each his own,’ ‘sticks and stone,’ ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion,’ ‘address the argument and not the person,’ ‘different strokes for different folks,’ and ‘who am I to judge?’” (p. 295). They also counsel that one is far more likely to convince opponents of the weakness of their position through grace and mercy, especially for long past rhetorical faux pas, rather than through exclusion or demonization. They constantly point out that even people with radically different beliefs from one’s own sometimes make good arguments.
Cancel culture and universities
Much of the book focuses on the insular nature of many institutions of higher education, where the authors observe that administrators have multiplied, costs have risen, issues of diversity, equity, and inclusion have sometimes been emphasized over academic merit, and institutions have — however selectively — taken stands on controversial issues rather than serving as a forum for the discussion and debate of ideas. The authors are skeptical of campus speech codes and of attempts at what they consider to be indoctrination rather than education.
An appendix to the book included FIRE’s 2022 College Free Speech Rankings where the University of Chicago, with a score of 77.92 (presumably out of 100) heads the list of schools where the speech climate is good, while Yale University comes in at 198th with a poor score of 22.65 and Columbia University is listed as abysmal with a score of 9.91.
Many, including this reviewer, may express skepticism over proposals to substitute micro-credentialing and trade schools for college degrees, and some might think the authors tilt more against attacks on free speech from the left than on the right, but most will find that Lukianoff and Schlott do exactly what free speech is designed to do, namely encourage thought. Most thoughtful readers are likely to think twice before joining or reacting to the next media feeding frenzy or accepting media summaries of rhetorically fraught situations without digging deeper.
SEE ALSO
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
FURTHER READING
“’Cancel culture’ not a new thing” by Ken Paulson, The Free Speech Center, March 9, 2021