"Cancel Culture" is a cute phrase, but the author's analysis is shallow and ahistorical. Public redemptions happen all the time (Martha Stewart, Britney Spears, Rob Lowe, Hugh Grant, Robert Downey Jr), they're just not instant. It's true we now have a greater sensitivity to injustices perpetrated because of gender or race, but isn't it about time?

(Wrongdoing by our president seems to be the exception, which in itself is interesting. He doesn't worry about redemption. How does the "Cancel Culture" narrative account for his situation? Does the author think it would be a good thing if we each had executive privilege and the armed forces at our command to escape consequences?)

In the author's first example, one woman used social media as a weapon to shame another woman and endanger her livelihood. Oops! Happened to her instead. Live by the tweet, die by the tweet.

Kashuv's case is structurally distinct, concerning the recent (two years is recent!) private behavior of someone seeking to present a different public face. Harvard didn't pillory him on social media. The communications between the university and the applicant would have remained private had not Kashuv employed them in a passionate display of his sense of persecution. Yet many of us have managed to survive the trauma of not attending Harvard. So will he.

More Posts