Category: Cancel Culture

Alex Byrne’s “colleagues” dogpile him for co-writing a critique of American pediatric gender medicine

July 7, 2025 • 8:45 am

Alex Byrne holds a chair in philosophy at MIT, and has done considerable research on gender issues.  This has resulted not only in several papers but also in an estimable book, Trouble With Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions. I read the book and liked it, and eventually became convinced of its thesis that the idea of “gender” is so slippery that it really shouldn’t be used at all. “Sex roles” would do as well, but somehow even I continue to use the g-word.

Luana sent me this new development in the Byrne saga. Because Alex contributed to the writing of a Health and Human Services Review of treatments for pediatric gender dysphoria, he is in the process of being demonized by a group of academics. It’s not that there’s anything wrong with the HHS review, really; the demonization came because it was issued by an HHS whose head was appointed by Trump, and also because it goes along with the increasing evidence that treating childhood dysphoria with “affirmative care” is deeply problematic, leading to premature dispensations of hormones and surgery to adolescents and children who, without that “care,” would mostly come out as gay.

But the pre-puberty treatments, often given before any reasonable age of consent, deprive those children of any chance of a meaningful sex life—including one without orgasms—forever. And the mutilation involved in sex-role-altering surgery surely requires consent of someone who understands the consequences—someone who’s mature. (I waffle between the ages of 18 and 21.) But if you deviate from the “progressive” party line that “gender-affirming therapy”—the one-way escalator from dysphoria to hormones and often to surgery—is the essential cure for gender dysphoria, then what is happening to Alex will happen to you, too.

Finally, Alex is getting dogpiled because his critics aver that, because he’s a philosopher, he has no expertise to weigh in on issues involving gender, even if he’s written about them repeatedly in scholarly venues. That’s rich because, as you’ll see, most of his critics don’t even approach Alex’s level of expertise.

The whole brouhaha serves to demonstrate that “cancel culture”—the attempt to ruin someone’s career if they transgress “progressive” ideological stands—is alive and well.

The announcement of the dogpile was tweeted by Jesse Singal, who has suffered his own accusations of “transphobia” for taking positions similar to Alex’s:

Here’s the letter, with the link in the heading:

Dear Professor Alex Byrne,

It was alleged in May that you were among the anonymous authors of the HHS report on pediatric trans care. The report, among other things, issues the alarming recommendation that trans youth should not have access to gender-affirming care, despite the leading pediatric medical body in the country supporting the efficacy and life-saving potential of these treatments. [1]

In light of your recent confirmation [2] of these allegations, we as your colleagues at MIT, in philosophy, and in higher-education feel it necessary to speak out.

While we are not here calling for official or unofficial sanctions, we the undersigned believe that your behavior (a) perpetuates harm toward the trans community; (b) constitutes a failure to uphold your responsibilities as an academic; (c) is the result of an extremely misguided decision to collaborate with the Trump administration.

Marginalization of Trans Communities. While you claim to support the right of trans people to live freely, in practice your behavior does not support this right. Since 2020 you have published a number of academic articles, as well as one book, arguing against trans inclusivity. And there can be no doubt that such rhetoric, along with the new HHS report, further marginalizes and stigmatizes trans people, both within and outside of philosophy. [3]

But your contribution to the HHS report raises serious issues well beyond this particular issue about marginalization. Indeed, we submit that the allegations against you should be a cause for significant concern, even for those who share your views about trans people.

Let us explain.

Academic Professional Ethics. We are happy to grant that your participation in the authoring of the report is an exercise of your academic freedom. Per the 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure, jointly agreed upon by the AAUP and AAC, academic freedom entitles professors to freedom in research and publication of results. [4]

But since 1966, the AAUP has also agreed on a Statement on Professional Ethics. [5] Per this 1966 Statement, professors are obligated to “exercise critical self-discipline and judgment in using, extending, and transmitting knowledge” and to “practice intellectual honesty”. We take this to mean that as academics, we also have a responsibility to the public to not misconstrue the scope of our expertise, nor comment in our capacity as academics on issues where we lack the requisite expertise. It is, of course, compatible with professional academic ethics to express one’s views publicly, even when one is not an expert, i.e., one might lobby for a particular candidate or write an op-ed in a newspaper.  But contributing to a document as an expert in an area in which one is not an expert is contrary to professional standards.

The HHS cites contributors to their report on pediatric trans care as including medical doctors, medical ethicists, and a methodologist. [6] While you are a highly regarded philosopher of mind and have recently written on the philosophy of gender, you are not a medical ethicist by training. Moreover, to our knowledge, you do not have medical or scientific training, nor have you published any peer-reviewed pieces in medical journals.

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Familiarity with theories of gender made from the armchair does not equip one to make expert judgments about the quality of medical studies, nor about the lived experiences and needs of trans youth and their families.

In contributing to a medical report that will have significant negative impacts on the lives of trans youth across this country, we believe that you have failed to uphold your responsibility as an academic to provide expert testimony only on matters included in your domain of expertise.

Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration. The past few months have witnessed the Trump administration engage in the kidnapping of international graduate students from the streets, the deportation of innocent people to dangerous foreign prisons without due process, the cutting of lifesaving aid to millions across the world, and the undermining of the independence of colleges and universities across the country. We find these actions appalling, unethical, and undemocratic.

For these reasons, we believe it is deeply myopic for any academic to collaborate with the Trump administration in this moment, regardless of one’s particular views about gender. However misguided one may think “gender ideology” is, it is simply unconscionable to for that reason, make common cause with an administration so engaged. Indeed, were the Trump administration to suddenly decide tomorrow to support gender-affirming care for minors, we hold that it would be equally shortsighted and reprehensible if trans advocates were to then overlook everything else the administration is doing and join them as collaborators.

There is already a term of criticism for when a government appeals to pro-LGBTQ+ policies so people turn a blind eye to its other, harmful actions: that term is ‘pinkwashing.’ In this moment, we need a similar term of criticism for gender-critical theorists who overlook the rest of a government’s appalling behavior, merely because that government shares one’s views on gender. One can think that trans politics is misguided and also refuse to collaborate with such an administration.​​​​​​​

By contributing to the HHS report, we believe you have not only misconstrued the extent of your academic expertise, but have also badly misjudged the gravity of the current administration’s actions.

As of yesterday, the letter was signed by (according to my count) 211 people, 31 of whom who refused to give their names and appear as “anonymous”, 65 who say they are graduate students, and 57 who say they are undergraduates. (See the signers by clicking on this link.) While there is some overlap between these groups, it’s fair to say that about half the signers lack either the courage or the expertise to call out Byrne for “lack of expertise”. What kind of person would refuse to give their names when engaging in such a dogpile?

And note that the “expertise” of those judging Byrne’s expertise (probably without having read his book or the rest of his work) include students or professors in mathematics, mechanical engineering, women’s history, urban studies and planning, aerospace engineering, computer science, chemical engineering, bioengineering and a even “Anonymous (Staff)”. (I didn’t bother to look up some of the others whose fields weren’t specified.)

What is clear about these critics are several things (characterization and bolding below are mine):

a.) Many of them have not read Byrne’s work on gender and transitioning, as judging from their signing a letter that mischaracterizes his views (see his response below).

b.) His real crime is almost Soviet-style in its nature: “Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration.” Because the report came out as an HHS document, it can be traced to Trump, ergo to Satan, and ergo Byrne is an agent of Satan.  It’s Trump, Jake! Read this again and weep (from the letter):

Collaboration with the Current Presidential Administration. The past few months have witnessed the Trump administration engage in the kidnapping of international graduate students from the streets, the deportation of innocent people to dangerous foreign prisons without due process, the cutting of lifesaving aid to millions across the world, and the undermining of the independence of colleges and universities across the country. We find these actions appalling, unethical, and undemocratic.

For these reasons, we believe it is deeply myopic for any academic to collaborate with the Trump administration in this moment, regardless of one’s particular views about gender. However misguided one may think “gender ideology” is, it is simply unconscionable to for that reason, make common cause with an administration so engaged.

Whatever else the administration has done, and I’ve made it clear that I deplore nearly all of it, it’s crazy to say that you shouldn’t try to help it provide more salubrious forms of gender care given Trump’s EO on the issue. Kids are being mistreated, and you shouldn’t help them because in so doing you’re co-signing an HHS document?

c.) The collaboration of Byrne on a public document is characterized as a breach of professional ethics, since he’s a philosopher and therefore lacks “expertise”. From the “Dear Professor Alex Byrne” letter:

Given your lack of the requisite expertise, we believe it is inappropriate for you to engage in the shaping of national medical policy on gender-affirming care for trans youth. Familiarity with theories of gender made from the armchair does not equip one to make expert judgments about the quality of medical studies, nor about the lived experiences and needs of trans youth and their families.

Byrne answers this in his response (see links and excerpts below).

d.) These people who decry Byrne for lack of “expertise” are apparently themselves unaware of the increasing evidence against “affirmative” pediatric gender care, especially the use of “blockers”. They cite American organizations ideologically determined to support “affirmative care”, but don’t even mention Britain’s Cass Review, which led to the dismantling of all but one of that nation’s gender clinics and a ban on puberty blockers for people younger than 18. Several European countries now allow puberty blockers only as experimental treatments, forbidding them as instruments of  general “affirmative care”.

e.) It’s clear that although the letter denies any attempt to ruin Alex’s career, accusing him of professional malfeasance clearly has that end. It will predictably encourage his colleagues—not just at MIT but everywhere—from associating with him, and will drive away students who would otherwise seek his mentorship. As Byrne says in a Washington Post op-ed noting why he co-authored the HHS report:

The hostile response to the review by medical groups and practitioners underscores why it was necessary. Medicalized treatment for pediatric gender dysphoria needs to be dispassionately scrutinized like any other area of medicine, no matter which side of the aisle is cheering it on. But in the United States, it has not been.

I was familiar with the other authors — there are nine of us in all — and I was confident that we could produce a rigorous, well-argued document that could do some good. Collectively, we had all the bases covered, with experts in endocrinology, the methodology of evidence-based medicine, medical ethics, psychiatry, health policy and social science, and general medicine. I am a philosopher, not a physician. Philosophy overlaps with medical ethics and, when properly applied, increases understanding across the board. Philosophers prize clear language and love unravelling muddled arguments, and the writings of pediatric gender specialists serve up plenty of obscurity and confusion.

f.) Finally, and perhaps most important, nowhere in the letter do the signers engage in the claims of the HHS report. The proper way to engage something like the report is with rational counterargument and data, not with accusations of “lack of expertise” or of being on “the wrong side of the aisle.” This is implied in these tweets, two by Byrne’s wife Carole Hooven, who suffered her own demonization on the basis of sex and gender—to the extent that she had to leave her department at Harvard:

Robert P. George, a political philosopher at Princeton, also notes the letter’s failure to engage the recommendations of the HHS report:

Byrne’s reply is a document of unusual rationality, calmness, and maturity, and simply dismantles the dogpile letter above. I don’t have space to reproduce it all, but I will give the first bit:

Dear colleagues and others,

Thank you for your open letter (reproduced below), concerning my involvement in the recent Department of Health and Human Services Review of treatments for pediatric gender dysphoria, which I discussed in a June 26 Opinion for the Washington Post.

The topic of pediatric gender medicine is emotionally fraught, and some people understandably feel vulnerable, angry, and frustrated. However, an open letter of this sort is not a constructive way to express one’s view that a colleague has committed professional ethical lapses and errors of judgement. Formal university channels as well as more collegial options are available, including writing opinion pieces. Encouraging individuals on social media to join a public condemnation of a colleague is inimical to the mission of the university.

The letter makes two main complaints:

(A): I have breached “professional standards” in contributing to the Review because of my “lack of the requisite expertise”; this “constitutes a failure to uphold [my] responsibilities as an academic.”

(B): Given the actions and policies of the current administration, my decision to take part in writing the Review was “extremely misguided” and “unconscionable.”

Framing the letter, you write that “since 2020 [I] have published a number of academic articles, as well as one book, arguing against trans inclusivity.” Despite referring to my “rhetoric,” you give no quotations or citations in support. People interpret “trans inclusivity” differently, but on an ordinary understanding of that phrase I haven’t argued against it. For example, from the preface of my book, Trouble with Gender:

[N]o one’s pursuit of a dignifying and fulfilling human life is impeded by anything in the pages that follow–neither transgender people, nor women, nor gay people, nor any other relevant constituency. If there is any doubt about that at the start, I hope it will vanish by the end.

You also accuse me of producing work that “further marginalizes and stigmatizes trans people.” Indeed, you have “no doubt” that this is the case. Since you provide no evidence for this claim, I will not address it here, except to say that I disagree.

The last 2+ pages of Byrne’s letter take up the claims (A) and (B) that he says his critics make, and simply demolishes them. But he ends on a conciliatory note:

Our “Ethos, Diversity, & Outreach” webpage says that “the Philosophy Section aims to create a vibrant and tolerant intellectual community with heterogeneity in backgrounds and opinions, and where the overriding norms are those of civilized rational argument.” I endorse these aims and commend them to you. As some of you know, I enjoy talking to people with very different perspectives from my own. My office door is always open if any of you would like to discuss the issues raised by your letter in person.

The misguided, erroneous, and hamhanded letter of the critics above shows the extent to which science and medicine have been politicized in America, injected with ideology to the extent that if you collaborate on an endeavor coming from the “wrong side of the aisle,” people on the “right side of history” (or so they think themselves) will try to ruin your career. This is a reprehensible endeavor from people infused ideology, hate, and anger.

Day 3: USC Conference on Censorship in the Sciences

January 31, 2025 • 9:30 am

To finish up my reportage on the USC conference on Censorship in STEM, I present a video Day 3 for your delectation.  It’s 6½ hours long, but below I’ll give the time marks for three items of interest, one of which is of interest only because it includes ME.

First the whole day; I’ve put the written schedule at the bottom so you can find the other talks.

The first talk is by heterodox black political scientist Wilfred Reilly, speaking about ten taboo topics; it begins at the beginning. I won’t list the taboos, so you’ll have to listen to the talk to see them.

The second talk, involving Julia Schaletzky, Luana Maroja, and me, begins at 4:29:51; its topic is “Censorship, sciences, and the life sciences”.  I can’t bear to listen to myself again. But I advanced the video 5:26:00, where some guy asks me about filling the “god-shaped hole” in humanity, and by eliminating religion the hole is filled by solipsism, some undefined “meta-narrative”. I got as heated as I ever do in a meeting, which is not very heated, but did stand my ground.

But below a talk you must hear. It’s from Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). I think it was the best talk of the conference, and was also the last one. Fortunately, you can avoid scrolling around above because the talk is also posted as a standalone video (below). It’s a bit over 52 minutes long, and the topic is “How cancel culture destroys trust in expertise.”  Lukianoff is a passionate and eloquent speaker.

It’s a very good talk packed with information and slides, beginning with what happened to professors during the Red Scare in America the 40s and 50s, and then going on to the increase in cancellation happening today: how many professors get fired, how many deplatforming attempts are happening and how fast they’re increasing, and how schools rate on free speech. (Lukianoff really doesn’t like Harvard or Columbia; see 28:00, at 44:30, and at 51:44, when he says that Columbia should declare itself a “technical school.”)

Lukianoff also gives a number of examples of demonization or cancellation, all of which bear on how speech is chilled (note his comment on the Nature Human Behavior policy), and describes some ongoing FIRE lawsuits to promote free speech.

There are a full twenty minutes of good questions, the first by Jonathan Rauch (“What about the ACLU, the AAUP, and other organizations like yours?”). All of the questions get thorough and thoughtful answers.

 

Finally, here’s the schedule for day 3:

The FFRF removed my piece on the biological definition of “woman”

December 28, 2024 • 8:45 am

When I wrote yesterday about my critique of Kat Grant’s “What is a woman?” piece, a critique published on the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s (FFRF) website, I had no idea that what I wrote was being removed by the FFRF at that moment! I’m not going into a long exegesis here, as I’ll have more to say about this affair elsewhere.  But here are the relevant links:

“What is a woman?“: The original FFRF post on Freethought Today! by Kat Grant, an intern with the FFRF. (Article is archived here.)

“Biology is not bigotry“: My response to Grant’s piece on Freethought Today!. The link is an archived one because the original post is gone. You can also find it archived here. Also, because a reader suggested that archived pieces could be removed, I’ve added a transcript of my final published piece below the fold of this article. 

When some readers pointed out yesterday that “Biology is not bigotry” was no longer online, I had no idea what happened, and assumed they had relocated the post. I was unable to believe that they would actually remove my post, especially because FFRF co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor had given me permission to write it and approved the final published version.

I emailed Annie Laurie inquiring what had happened to my piece. I never got a response—or rather, they didn’t have the human decency to write me back personally. They still have not done so, and now they shouldn’t bother. Instead, they sent out the following notice to all FFRF members (it’s also archived here):

 

Note first that when they refer to my piece, they mention neither who wrote the piece or what it was about. If I’m to be cancelled for what I wrote, dammit, I want my NAME and TOPIC mentioned!

Several things are clear, including a point I’ve made before: the FFRF has a remarkable ability to place any kind of antiwoke ideology under the rubric of “Christian nationalism.” That’s why I wrote in my now-expunged piece, “As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get!”  And of course I support LGBTQIA+ rights, save in those few cases where those rights conflict with the rights of other groups, as in sports participation. I doubt that even the FFRF would think that women should be boxing, professionally or in the Olympics, against men or biological men who identify as women.  So in terms of “LGBTQIA-plus rights,” I’m pretty much on the same plane as the FFRF, even though they imply I’m not.

But it’s the last six paragraphs of the FFRF’s post where they explain why they took down my piece.  It is because it caused “distress” and “did not reflect [the FFRF’s] values or principles.”  I’m not sure what values or principles my piece failed to reflect. Does the FFRF think that sex is really a spectrum, that there are more than two sexes in humans, or that the most useful definition of biological sex doesn’t involve gamete size? I don’t know, nor do they say.

As for my words causing “distress,” well, I’m sorry if people feel distress when I explicate the biological definition of sex or estimate how few people fail to adhere to the sex binary.  But this is all material not for censorship but for back-and-forth discussion, especially on a site called “Freethought Now!” (Should it be called “Freeethought Not!” instead?)

And that is what disappoints me most: not just the “mission creep” instantiated by the FFRF’s incursion into partisan politics or dubious ideology, but the fact that they will not allow free and civil discussion about an article that they published, an article that concludes by saying, “A woman is whoever she says she is.”  If that is not a statement ripe for discussion, then what is? It is only fear that would make an organization take down a rational discussion of such a contentious statement. I don’t know what the FFRF is afraid of, but I am just a biologist defending my turf, and am not by any means bent on hurting LGBTAIA+ people.

I’m distressed that it’s come to this, as I’ve always been a big supporter of the FFRF and its historical mission, which is, I suppose, why they made me an honorary director and gave me the Emperor Has No Clothes Award. And I will always support their activities that genuinely try to keep church and state separate. But when they start censoring my words because, though biologically justifiable, they are ideologically unpalatable, that is just too much. All I can say now is that this is not the end of this kerfuffle, and that I stand by what I wrote before.

How sad it is that one of the nation’s premier organizations promoting “freethought” won’t permit that kind of thought on their website, but instead quashes what they see as “wrongthink.”

 

Click “continue reading” to see a transcript my original published piece.

Continue reading “The FFRF removed my piece on the biological definition of “woman”” →

Science-and-ideology conference at USC in January (with Prof. Ceiling Cat and friends)

November 10, 2024 • 11:00 am

From January 10-12 (Friday through Sunday), there will be a substantial conference at the University of Southern California on censorship in science, and by that they mean all the sciences: STEMM.  You can see details about the conference at the website below (click on screenshot), and view the preliminary program here.  (There was an sketchier announcement of the conference in August, but now things are in their final stages.)

You can register here; the fee is $200 ($100 for students), and that’s not a bad deal given that the registration includes lunches, coffee breaks, and receptions with drinks and food.  And the participants include, beyond a passel of working scientists, people like Jonathan Rauch, Jesse Singal, FIRE President Greg Lukianoff and, mirabile dictu, Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academy of Science.

And of course there’s this by way of self-promotion (end of the meeting):

Yes, I team up again with my partner in crime Dr. Maroja, on a two-person panel moderated by UC Berkeley molecular biologist Julia Schaletzky.

I hear that space is filling up, so if you want to register, and have the time and ability to go to USC (in LA), I recommend registering ASAP.

Israeli contestants banned from prestigious Youth Computer Olympiad

October 1, 2024 • 11:30 am

Because this is a contest for computer geeks, banning Israeli students is particularly onerous, as they’d done excellently in the past.  As the article below notes, “In the 2024 competition, held in Alexandria, Egypt, four Israeli students participated remotely due to security concerns and won three gold medals and a bronze. The Israeli team placed second overall out of 94 participating countries and more than 350 student competitors.”

But now there’s no chance for Israeli medals because of the ban. And that ban serves no purpose I can see save to further demonize Israel by hurting its young people, and to demonstrate some kind of twisted “virtue” on the part of the organizers.

Now that the American Association of University Professors has dropped its long-standing opposition to academic boycotts (undoubtedly to give the okay to boycotts of Israel, though they won’t say it), others are following suit. A new article in Tablet gives examples of how Jews are being “frozen out” of not just academia, but publishing—and this is largely in America! A wave of anti-semitism is sweeping the world, and it’s not good.

The Times of Israel reports on the latest instance of Jew-banning, and also shows the resilience of those banned young Jews.  Click to read.

Excerpts:

Israel won’t be allowed to participate as a competing nation in the 2025 International Olympiad in Informatics (IOI), a prestigious international competition for high school students, in the first such decision by a global tournament organizer.

The IOI General Assembly voted by a two-thirds majority to “sanction Israel for its role” in the ongoing “humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by the ongoing conflict,” according to a Tuesday announcement by the IOI.

“Beginning in 2025, Israel will not be recognized as a participating delegation at IOI, but four contestants from Israel may still participate under the IOI flag,” the statement said.

Well isn’t that alternative special? Happily, the Israelis aren’t having it:

Today, the Education Ministry says that Israeli students competing in the olympiad under the IOI flag is “not going to happen.”

“The Israeli team will carry the Israeli flag proudly on the way to many more victories and international achievements… The ministry is examining, in cooperation with the Foreign Ministry, decisive measures on the issue,” the statement says.

The punishment is levied because of the conflict in Gaza. The IOI website says this:

Dear Colleagues and members of the IOI community,

This message is being sent to provide an update on a significant decision of the General Assembly of the IOI.

Members of the community requested that the IOI respond to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza caused by the ongoing conflict. During IOI 2024, the General Assembly debated many options at length. The question about what action to take, if any, was not taken lightly. The result was a vote to sanction Israel for its role in the crisis. Over two thirds of the delegations voted in favour of this action. Specifically, the action means that beginning in 2025, Israel will not be recognized as a participating delegation at IOI, but four contestants from Israel may still participate under the IOI flag.

There will continue to be reflection and debate about the mission of the IOI and its connection to war and other international disputes.Assoc/Prof Sun Teck Tan
President of IOI

Perhaps the IOI should be ideologically neutral instead of taking sides. But if they must take sides, they’re taking the wrong one.

Note that the IOI is sanctioning Israel for its “role in the crisis”, which means for defending itself (Israel isn’t allowed to win a war). If the IOI is doing this because “too many Gazan civilians were killed”, they should realize that “civilians” as reported by the Hamas-controlled Gazan Health Ministry include Hamas terrorists; that Hamas elevated civilian deaths as part of its strategy because dead Gazans mean more world opprobrium towards Israel; and that civilian deaths were elevated because Hamas deliberately embedded itself in civilian areas, schools, and hospitals. Further, the ratio of civilians killed to Hamas fighters killed is among the lowest in the history of modern warfare (it’s getting tiresome to repeat this). And I haven’t even mentioned the hostages. . . .  This isn’t computer science, after all, but simple facts.

If anybody is banned from this competition, it should be Palestine, home of terrorists, genocidal towards Jews, and the territory that started the war. Remember, they’re punishing young Jews that had nothing to do with the war, so, under that philosophy, if anybody should be punished, it should Palestinians. But perhaps they shouldn’t mix politics with computers at all.

The next IOI competition, sans Israelis, is scheduled to be held in Bolivia next year.

A new list of many people canceled for bad reasons

September 16, 2024 • 9:35 am

Up to now, the main source of information about cancellations was the “Campus Deplatforming Database” FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression). Going back to 1998, it now lists 1,507 deplatforming attempts on campus, of which 626 were successful (there have been 110 this year alone). They define these attempts this way:

A deplatforming attempt is a form of intolerance motivated by more than just mere disagreement with, or even protest of, some form of expression. It is an attempt to prevent some form of expression from occurring. Deplatforming attempts include efforts to disinvite speakers from campus speeches or commencement ceremonies, to cancel performances of concerts, plays, or the screenings of movies, or to have controversial artwork removed from public display. An attempt to disrupt a speech or performance that is in progress is also considered a deplatforming attempt, whether it succeeds or fails.

Deplatforming attempts do not include criticisms of some form of expression and protests denouncing them that are not motivated by the goal of deplatforming the controversial expression.

Here are a few examples in a screenshot (click to read); go to the page to read more.

When you click on “view” to the right, you get more details about the incidents, including whether the deplatforming attempt came from the Left, Right, somewhere else, or isn’t known.

For example, I didn’t know that Bari Weiss was the subject of an unsuccessful deplatforming attempt at UNC Chapel Hill this year (the subject was Israel). The deplatforming attempt came from the Left, and among the details FIRE notes that

“About 25 minutes into Weiss’ discussion with Frank Bruni, protesters affiliated with Students for Justice in Palestine began waving Palestine flags and shouting at the stage. A university administrator took to the podium and informed the protesters that, as per university policy, they are not allowed to disrupt the event and must leave. Police escorted the protesters out of the event and Weiss and Bruni resumed and completed their discussion.”

SJP never gives up!  At any rate, the source of the deplatforming, Left or Right, gives an interesting take on who’s trying to cancel people. I once did a survey over a few decades, and, as I recall, early on deplatforming attempts seemed to come almost equally from the Left or Right, while in the last seven or eight years ago the majority of them, by far, came from the Left.  I just looked at the first 20 on the list, and found that 13 deplatformings came from the Left and the other 7 from the Right, but of course there are multiple events from a school at the same time. But I’d bet my hat that in the last five years, a sizable majority of deplatforming events came from the Left, which is a weakness of my side. People on the Left, or at least liberals, are not supposed to suppress speech.

The weakness of the FIRE survey compared to the one below is that the former deals only with deplatforming attempts on campus.

There is now a new “cancellation” database (click the screenshot) that has two advantages: it deals with cancellations that don’t just occur on campus, and these are cancellations that, when successful (most of them have been) result not in the ending of a talk or speech, but in substantial damage to a person’s career, including firing, demotion, and so on. Some details are given.

The new “canceled people” list includes about 210 victims, some of whom you will recognize. All the cancellations appear to have occurred this year, though the offenses may have occurred several years before, as with  They come from several Western countries, though mostly from the U.S.

And, as far as I can see, none of the cancellations were justified. In some cases, the courts or other appeals reversed the cancellations.

First, part of what they say about the reason why the database was constructed and how they define cancellation. There’s more at the “about” page.

Purpose

We are building a database of people who have been “canceled”.

Our purpose is to better understand cancel culture itself as a phenomenon. How does it manifest? How is it evolving? How does it affect societal norms around free speech that enable democracy to function and flourish? By consolidating as many well-sourced data points as possible, we hope to give researchers and others the tools to explore and draw their own conclusions.

What does it mean to be canceled?

There has been some controversy over whether or not cancel culture is real. Obviously, we do think it is real – that is the whole reason this database exists!

Part of the problem when discussing cancel culture’s prevalence and existence is that there has been no clear definition of what it means to be canceled.

For the purposes of this database, we will use the following definition:

  1. The canceled person has been targeted for behavior that falls within the boundaries of “reasonable expression” (see more on this below). The “offense” may not be recent, and it may not even be their own action.
  2. The canceled person has lost their job or position (this includes forced resignations). Their future professional opportunities have been limited. If they are self-employed, they have suffered financial losses from a boycott or sabotage of their company.
  3. The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to silence them. The effort seeks to render their person or their ideas unfit to discuss.
  4. The canceled person has faced a coordinated effort to shame them and destroy their reputation. The effort seeks to damage their self-worth and will likely target their personal or professional relationships.

What is not included?

It is perhaps as important to define what should not be considered a “canceled person”:

  1. A person who has been subject to harsh criticism or disagreement. Disagreeing with someone’s speech or behavior, even in a cruel way, is not the same as canceling them.
  2. A person who has been subject to online harassment but no “real-world” consequences. We recognize that online harassment and bullying can be horrific. Part of what makes cancelation unique is the attempt to bring the person down by moving outside of the online space. Most commonly, this involves contacting their employer or making them unemployable.
  3. A person who has said or done something outside of the window of reasonable expression and therefore is predictably getting their comeuppance. This could include many different things: saying a racial slur with the intention to wound, inflicting a sexual fetish on others, denying the Holocaust, etc. Our society does have legitimate reasons to shun a person, and employers have legitimate reasons to fire an employee.
  4. A person who has said or done something illegal. This one seems obvious, but for example, threatening a person online may lead to real-world “cancelation” as well as legal action – rightly so!
  5. A person who had the attempt made to cancel them that did not succeed. There are many examples of this and we believe they are troubling and worth paying attention to – they likely do have “chilling effects” on free speech. However, they are an example of the system working properly; the mob went after someone and did not succeed.

Here are a few examples that you can find by using the “find” function on the site. There are links so you can verify the cancellations from sources on the Internet:

It’s interesting to peruse the list, but keep in mind that people’s careers have been wrecked by this stuff. Remember this one?

And this one, also involving the New York Times?

Almost all of these involve freedom of speech, though there are cancellations for stuff like refusals to sign oaths and, in the case of NYT editor James Bennet, for simply running an op-ed that didn’t comport with the ideology of the NYT.  His being forced out wasn’t a violation of the First Amendment, as a paper can fire whom it wants, but it was unjustified and a violation of the canons of good journalism.

Anyway, have a look.

AAUP drops 20-year opposition to academic boycotts

August 14, 2024 • 8:30 am

Most rational people, I believe, are opposed to academic boycotts: those political movements that try to prohibit the exchange of scholars or academic information with countries deemed unacceptable on ideological grounds.  These boycotts not only stem the free flow of information among countries that is the lifeblood of academia—especially of science—but also punish those who can contribute to this knowledge even though those people rarely have any influence with their government. Indeed, as in the case of Israel (surely the reason for the dropping of the boycott prohibition), many scholars are opposed to the government’s policies.

Inside Higher Ed (click below to read) reports on the ending of boycotts by the influential organization the American Association of University Professors, an organization that should know better. Click to read:

The report:

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has dropped its nearly 20-year-old categorical opposition to academic boycotts, in which scholars and scholarly groups refuse to work or associate with targeted universities. The reversal, just like the earlier statement, comes amid war between Israelis and Palestinians.

In 2005, near the end of the second intifada, a Palestinian uprising, the AAUP denounced such boycotts; the following year, it said they “strike directly at the free exchange of ideas.” That statement has now been replaced by one saying boycotts “can be considered legitimate tactical responses to conditions that are fundamentally incompatible with the mission of higher education.” The new statement doesn’t mention Israel, Palestine or other current events—but the timing isn’t coincidental.

The new position says that “when faculty members choose to support academic boycotts, they can legitimately seek to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights.”

Note that the AAUP never prevented individual professors from deciding not to cooperate with faculty from other countries. Rather, they used to aver that systematic academic boycotts were not approved by the organization.   Now that’s all changed: systematic boycotts are okay.  But o its credit, the University of Chicago, under the late President Bob Zimmer, opposed academic boycotts in a 2013 statement, and our opposition remains intact:

“The University of Chicago has from its founding held as its highest value the free and open pursuit of inquiry. Faculty and students must be free to pursue their research and education around the world and to form collaborations both inside and outside of the academy, encouraging engagement with the widest spectrum of views. For this reason, we oppose boycotts of academic institutions or scholars in any region of the world, and oppose recent actions by academic societies to boycott Israeli institutions.”

That’s the way a gutsy university handles such matters. Sadly, the AAUP punted (read its statement at the link).  The AAUP’s statement was also heartily approved by a group participating in the BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement, an antisemitic initiative whose goal is to eliminate Israel as a Jewish state. Click to read:

An excerpt:

The Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) commends the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) for dropping its biased, unethical policy opposing academic boycotts, which was primarily aimed at shielding Israeli universities from accountability for their egregious human rights violations.

PACBI salutes all those who worked tirelessly to push the AAUP to change its position, as well as the conscientious academics, students, and progressive academic associations that have for years advocated for ending US academic institutional complicity with Israel’s 76-year-old regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid and, in the process, challenging AAUP’s hypocrisy. Without their persistent protests and intellectual challenges, without the student-led encampments reenergizing campus campaigns for academic boycott and divestment in response to Israel’s Gaza genocide, the AAUP would not have reversed its ethically and logically untenable policy.

. . . Scrapping its unethical policy, which was, arguably by design, used to suppress academic freedom of many calling for BDS against Israel, the new AAUP position recognizes the obvious. It finally accepts that academic boycotts targeting institutions deeply implicated in grave human rights violations can be legitimate “to protect and advance the academic freedom and fundamental rights of colleagues and students who are living and working under circumstances that violate that freedom and one or more of those rights.”

The PCBI’s only beef is that the AAUP didn’t go far enough and denounce Israel specifically:

. . . AAUP’s failure to now endorse the Palestinian call to boycott complicit Israeli universities, which it finally recognizes as legitimate, even as Israel’s violence culminates in the world’s first livestreamed genocide, which has included scholasticide, domicide and engineered famine, is a profound ethical failure to make amends for the harm the AAUP’s racist policy has done to Palestinians and to our struggle for emancipation from colonial subjugation.

It’s clear from all this, as Inside Higher Ed notes, that the AAUP’s change of policy was to legitimize academic boycotts of Israel.  The coincidence of timing is too strong to imply otherwise.