Ross Douthat on Cancel Culture

Ross Douthat took on cancel culture in his most recent column. As always, his ideas were compelling and interesting. And yet, the column contains flaws, which I believe worth underscoring.

Since Douthat will argue that all cultures cancel, we should wonder whatever that means and why it is pertinent. Universal generalizations should only be trotted out with extreme caution.

Consider two cases. In one case A is interviewing for a job over lunch. He slurps his soup, wipes his mouth on his sleeve, mumbles incoherently and yells at the busboy. In the end, he does not get the job. Has he been cancelled? In one sense, his candidature has been canceled. In another sense, his performance is limited to the situation at hand. He is not deprived of any and all means of employment. He has simply missed out on one specific job opportunity.

In another case, B has been publicly denounced as a racist, sexist, homophobic bigote. He has become radioactive and can no longer get any job. He loses his friends and is no longer invited to family gatherings. He becomes persona non grata, by the public attack on his reputation. Whereas A might practice manners that are acceptable in one situation but unacceptable in others, B has been effectively deprived of all social connections and any chance at making a living.

Are these two simply different versions of cancel culture? I think not. Losing out on a job is not the same as losing out on any and all jobs. The latter case, that of B, corresponds more closely to what we call cancel culture. It’s most recent origin lies with the Storm Troopers of Nazi Germany, who canceled all Jews, destroyed their businesses, got them fired from their jobs and made it impossible for them ever to get another job. 

When you say that all cultures cancel, you need to make a distinction between the two cases. Today’s American cancel culture more closely resembles the Nazi version, because once you are canceled you have no chance of overturning the judgment. If you miss out on a job opportunity you can always reapply. And you can always improve your manners before your next job interview. The information about your performance is not advertised in public, because if it were, you would have a cause of action.

Not inviting your neighbor to a dinner party is not of the same import as placing a sign in front of his house identifying him as a child molester.

Then, Douthat makes this strange remark:

The canceled individual hasn’t lost any First Amendment rights, because there is no constitutional right to a particular job or reputation. 

Evidently, he is ignoring the point I have been trying to make. Moreover, while you do not have a constitutional right to a job, and while you do not have a constitutional right to a reputation, the two are incommensurate. When it comes to your reputation, if someone maligns your reputation, you most certainly have a cause of action in a court of law. You can sue for libel, slander or defamation of character. If the defamatory action makes it impossible for you to get a job, you will have recourse in a civil court. 

The strange part about cancel culture is that its victims seem not to have a way to sue a Twitter mob, but that does not obviate the fact that our law-- I assume it’s a Common Law principle-- allows us all the right to defend our reputation. No one has a right to defame your character. No one.