18 Comments

I'll admit it: on a visceral level, even after reading this and acknowledging its good points. I still feel basically no pity or sympathy for the Harvard students. That probably doesn't reflect well on me. To my stupid ape-brain, they're just not part of my tribe.

That all said... a dedication to free speech and against (for lack of better term) "cancel culture" isn't worth a damn thing unless it's extended to people for whom one cannot muster a visceral sense of sympathy, and must instead rely upon one's abstract principles for guidance. So I'm glad HistoryBoomer wrote this to remind me of that.

Expand full comment

Thank you! And I agree it's often tough, especially when faced with some views.

Expand full comment

This is fascinating because it's a real-life, live, example of the difference between the "full" free-speech argument and what might be called the "Overton window" free-speech argument. The "full" argument basically is respond to speech only with speech, period - because attempting to draw lines doesn't work. The "Overton window" argument is, no, that allows real Nazis and horrible racists and hateful 'phobes of all sorts. It contends, we can draw lines! And typically that the line should be drawn exactly at the current "Overton window" of what "most" educated professionals believe (usually this is of course said by an educated professional who is worried about being cancelled by more extremist professionals).

And you then draw your line and give the reasons for it. And many other people respond those reasons are moral abominations. What happens now? How does this simply not devolve into everyone special pleading that what they say is OK (inside the window), what their opponents say is not OK (outside the window)?

Expand full comment

I agree it's tough, but we do outlaw certain speech. Animated child porn is an obvious example. How many think that should be allowed?

Expand full comment

There are really two kinds of speech policing, one by the government and another by private entities. It should always be off-limits for the government to censor; the big question is how much private parties are willing to tolerate before they take action of some kind. I am in favor of a very broad tolerance when it comes to speech. The Harvard signatories to the Hamas excuse note crossed the line of endorsing murder and victim-blaming. They deserve what they're getting, at least.

Expand full comment

I've got sympathy for the students who just happened to be members of a group when the group's leaders signed that letter. I'm sure they didn't run it by the membership. And looking through the list of original signatories you've got everything from "Students for Palestine" (which you expect) to the local chapter of the Tiddlywinks club.

Perhaps I relate because I'm a member of a number of professional groups that since 2016 have been churning out "statements" in response to everything under the sun and I've never been informed (let alone consulted) until it goes up on the website.

The ones I have zero sympathy for are the ones who showed up to the pro Hamas rallies. Like the one in NY with the guy on the mic joking about terrorists attacking "hipsters" at a dance party. While the crowd laughed.

They laughed at women being raped and murdered. Fuck em.

As for the NYU students ripping down fliers about the Israeli hostages...honestly not sure where I land on that. Is it "free speech" or vandalism? Is it "hate speech"?

Expand full comment

>>I've got sympathy for the students who just happened to be members of a group when the group's leaders signed that letter.<<

And I think this is the *only* exception that we should make. The trouble is, the organization(s) involved cowardly hid the names of the signatories after the fact.

Expand full comment

All this hand-wringing in defense of people valorizing the intentional, wanton murder of innocents is some of the most obscene bothsidesism I have ever heard. In general, "cancel culture" is employed to enforce ideological purity over absurdly trivial matters, like whether a book has suitable representation, or someone making a bad, sexist joke. The people making paraglider t-shirts are tankies or worse. People LAUDING this possess a mammoth character flaw, right in plain sight. What else might they justify to themselves? Stealing from an employer? Sabotaging in some other way? They have a broken moral compass. Moreover, these people are supposed to be young adults! The "they're just kids" defense doesn't cut it anymore.

This incident is making me seriously revise my opinion about Dalton Trumbo's blacklisting.

Expand full comment

The problem is what you consider trivial they consider vitally important. Who decides where the lines should be?

Expand full comment

Yes, because endorsing murder is EXACTLY THE SAME THING as going off-script about trans women being women.

This isn't even close to a corner case.

Expand full comment

I did not see words in that statement that endorsed murder.

Expand full comment

They didn't have to, Carl. By blaming Israelis *exclusively* for recent events, it's the worst kind of victim-blaming.

This is straining at gnats, missing the forest for the trees, etc.

Expand full comment

You've made me rethink some things here. I even upgraded to paying because of this essay. But I have one pretty big problem here, and it's about Ackman.

I think Ackman had basically the same reaction I did here: he saw this atrocious letter and decided he didn't want anyone who would sign it working for him. I felt exactly the same way; if I was hiring someone and they came from Harvard, I would directly ask them if they signed this letter and would not hire them if they did. And that is the actual example of freedom of association that those who denied cancel culture even exists always leaned on. It isn't canceling to say "I won't hire you," that requires an attempt to at least interfere in someone else's employment relationship. And Ackman did ask for a list of the students, but just like it would be reading into their statement to say they support the murder of Jews, it would be reading into his to say he wanted these people to be unemployable. If we take him at his word, which I'm inclined to do much more than for the students who signed it, he just wants to make sure he didn't hire someone like that. That isn't cancel culture, and I'd argue it's actually the most reasonable approach

Expand full comment

Thank you for paying! Especially because you disagree with much of what I say!

I'd argue he's trying to make sure other people won't hire them as well, which seems cancel culture to me.

Expand full comment

That's fair enough, but it seems like mind-reading in the same way accusing the students of endorsing the murder of Jews is mind-reading

Expand full comment

I do agree that there are different levels of stupidity and only some deserve official loss of social status. That Cornell University professor who declared that it was "exhilarating" to watch Hamas "change the balance of power" in the conflict and that some Palestinians can "now breathe" probably deserves to lose his job. That seems pretty unequivocal to these eyes. If it could be proven that a signer of the Harvard letters didn't actually know what they were signing (or had gone through what you described) I could probably live with it too.

But I also think the people resting "all" the blame for 10/7 on Israel are at best absurdly wrong. I'd point to Jonah Golberg's recent column on the matter as my argument.

Expand full comment

“Except the letter didn’t endorse the murder of babies. It blamed Israel for all the violence but didn’t say the violence was good.”

I’m not sure about this. If terrorists of oppressed groups are NOT going to be held responsible for violence against citizens that the oppressors feel represent the oppressor state, then wouldn’t this encourage more violence? If a black or native American person shoots a white person in the streets for no other reason other than they feel oppressed, that would be OK by the spirit of this message. Afterall, it is all the fault of the United States. People could start killing each other in the name of oppression.

In other words, you may be technically correct in this assessment, but you’ve won the battle at the cost of the entire war. What if some lower class kids do physical harm to these Harvard because they feel oppressed by the privilege of Ivy League students? I’m pretty sure these Harvard students would say that is not right. But that’s the only logic that their statement leads to if you 100% absolve murderers of any responsibility. Maybe there is another way to interpret those comments, but they didn’t leave much room for any other interpretation.

I think the more egregious act is of the President, who after three attempts, still can’t come to specifically condemn the acts of Hamas and doesn’t condemn the specific line from the students’ statement. That’s not leadership. Harvard leadership should probably stay out of politics and political statements anyways, but I believe they crossed that line a long time ago on other issues.

Agreed that the students shouldn’t be formally punished or sanctioned by the university. Freedom of speech is important. Students should take responsibility for what they say (and receive the shame for anti-humanist comments), otherwise, they shouldn’t say anything. You can’t have it both ways…..I want my message to mean something, I just don’t want to be held accountable for my message. This is an important lesson that Harvard leadership could have taught these kids.

Expand full comment

Ah well, I have been gladly demoted as a free speech advocate. Ackman and any manager has a duty to vet the moral character of whom they hire and it is at their discretion.

These students aren't 5 year olds. They are adults and what they advocated....and yes, even if euphemistically, was the eradication of Israel and Jews. No, I wouldn't want to hire people like that.

Expand full comment