The panel featured Meredith Clark, Ph.D., associate professor and founding director of the new Center for Communication, Media Innovation, and Social Change at Northeastern University; Suzanne Nossel, CEO of PEN America; and Cornell Belcher, president of Brilliant Corners Research & Strategies and political contributor for MSNBC. Jessica Baldwin-Philippi, associate professor of communications and media studies at Fordham, served as moderator.

What is ‘Cancel Culture?’

After studying Black Twitter for some time, Clark noticed that over the past few years the community as a whole has started “using its collective power on the site” to demand accountability from people for racist or offensive behavior. She cited the example of media mogul Russell Simmons, who made an offensive video “spoof” of Harriet Tubman having sex with her slave holder.

“The resounding pressure was such that he issued an apology,” she said, adding that he removed the video from his collection. “He said that apologizing was something that he would never otherwise do, but the outcry had been so loud.”

Belcher said this type of calling someone out isn’t new.He referred to it as “checking” someone.

“What we call checking people—I think that’s as old and American as apple pie,” he said. “What I think is dramatically different is the vehicle that it has, and the power of that vehicle to mobilize and spread it and actually give it more power.”

Belcher gave the example of Amy Cooper, the white woman in Central Park who called police on Christian Cooper, a Black birdwatcher.

“Once upon a time when a woman said some crazy racist [stuff]to a Black guy watching birds in Central Park, he might check her and say something about it, but that would be the end of it,” he said. “Now when that crazy person said some racist [stuff]to the birdwatcher in the park—there’s now a

With so many more people witnessing these events and cancelations, Nossel said, their impact can be multiplied in a way that worries her.
“My concern is about the way in which these particular cancellations can deepen divisions and polarization—a phenomenon I’ve witnessed of cascading cancellations where someone is called out, is out of bounds, and that even if you just defend them, you too can be sort of swept up in that,” she said.

On the flip side, the people doing the “calling out” can also be “shunned and stigmatized,” she said. “It can just escalate a battle instead of offering enlightened discourse.”

Separating Cancel Culture from Accountability

Both Clark and Nossel noted that there should be a difference between holding people accountable, such as the movement to hold R. Kelly accountable for his actions, and canceling someone for having an opinion you don’t agree with. But the two are often conflated, Clark said.

“The assumption that there’s a culture around it really does speak to some racialized origins— it throws back to the idea of the culture wars, that there are multiple groups in this country that are fighting to sort of set the ground rules of how we relate to one another and how discourse is supposed to flow,” she said.

Nossel said that it’s one thing when celebrities come under fire; they often have the resources to bounce back. But when a less famous person, like a journalist or professor, gets canceled, it can be hard for them to weather the storm.

“Individuals are within their rights to withhold their ticket-buying market power from a celebrity, or to tweet their outrage at something—that’s free speech,” she said. “But in our jet-fueled social media landscape … when you are under fire, it just feels thunderous and overwhelming. And what I have witnessed on multiple occasions is how institutional leaders, they just crack, they can’t take it.”

Possible Solutions and ‘Presumption of Innocence’

One possible way to address the under-fire feeling is to examine what the company is under fire about.

“I think one of the things that we need to look to institutions to do … is start thinking very seriously and very critically about how we’re going to address loud and outside demands for some sort of accountability, or how we’re going to address what is just noise,” Clark said.

Another possible solution raised by Belcher was “calling out cancel culture.” He cited the example of comedian Dave Chapelle, who made controversial comments related to the trans community in a comedy special. Right after he made it, he alluded to the fact that he’d probably get canceled.

“I’m not so sure Dave Chappelle hasn’t just killed cancel culture,” Belcher said. “He relished in it. And after the concert, he actually said, ‘Do you think they’ll cancel me?’ And he smiled, and dropped the mic. He’s calling out the canceled culture … that is probably the greatest sort of critique of canceled culture that I’ve ever seen.”

Still, Clark raised a few concerns about this method, particularly since a similar one had been employed by right wing speakers, such as Richard Spencer, who would work to get invited and then disinvited from a college—and use the outrage over that to fundraise or enhance their image.

Nossel said that we should try and move back to a place where there’s at least a “presumption of innocence” against those being called out and give them a chance to defend themselves.

“I think there’s something very fundamental to the fabric of our society that hinges on the idea that you’ll have an opportunity to defend yourself,” she said. “If you’re innocent, you’ll have a chance to prove that—you won’t receive a punishment based on a sort of speculation or innuendo, that there will actually be an inquiry.”

Speech Acts, which kicks off this week, will bring together high-profile speakers such as George Stephanopoulos and Nikole Hannah-Jones for eight panels and lectures to address an issue that has become increasingly fraught over the last few years.

“We’ve had a long-standing ferment in society, in the culture, and perhaps most intensely, on American campuses, about freedom of speech—what you can do, what you can say, and what can be discussed and in what form,” said David Gibson, the director of Fordham’s Center on Religion and Culture.

The center addressed the topic in March when it held a discussion on cancel culture, and over the summer, Fordham Provost Dennis Jacobs, Ph.D., asked faculty to propose their own ways to talk about what Gibson called “the lifeblood of university life”—the free and open exchange of ideas.

The first panel, “Political Discourse in a Polarized Age,” will take place Thursday, Oct. 7, from 3:30 to 5 p.m. at the Lincoln Center campus. It will feature Stephanopoulos; Kristen Soltis Anderson, a pollster and author of The Selfie Vote: Where Millennials Are Leading America (And How Republicans Can Keep Up) (Broadside Books, 2015); Robert Talisse, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Vanderbilt University; and Roshni Nedungadi, a partner at HIT Strategies. Monika McDermott, Ph.D., professor of political science, will moderate.

Hannah-Jones will speak on Feb. 1. Jones, the creator of the New York Times’ “1619 Project” on American slavery and its consequences, was denied tenure at the University of North Carolina in June, and subsequently joined the faculty of Howard University. Her story generated enormous debates about academic freedom, and lawmakers in Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota introduced bills to ban teaching the “1619 Project” in schools. She will be interviewed by Janai Nelson, associate director and counsel at the NAACP.

Catherine Powell, a professor at Fordham’s School of Law who was instrumental in inviting Hannah-Jones, said her work is key to understanding how the United States is undergoing a backlash similar to the one that happened in the 1960s in reaction to the civil rights movement.

“As a society, we’re currently having a debate about who gets to speak, who gets heard, and whose ideas are valid,” she said.

Hannah-Jones’ 1619 Project has been a major force in this debate, she said.

“That was a way to make visible certain ideas and certain histories that many Americans have been unaware of, that the history of Black Americans goes back 400 years, not just to the country’s founding,” she said.

Powell said it’s crucial that the educators are committed to the truth and shun “alternative facts” and disinformation.

“At the same time, it’s important that the university is a place where all ideas are welcome, even unpopular ones and unpopular speech, that we learn to be agreeable to being disagreed with, and that we learn from each other,” she said.

“Being open to the possibility that our ideas may evolve, and hearing others in a place where we can each speak freely and respect each other is critical to learning.”

The lectures represent the depth and breadth of the expertise of Fordham faculty. Miguel Alzola, a professor from the Gabelli School of Business, will moderate a panel on Oct. 15 titled “Is Free Expression at Risk in U.S. Organizations?” Abner Greene, a professor at the School of Law, will moderate “The Promise and Limits of Our First Amendment,” on Jan. 26. And associate professor of communications Jesse Baldwin-Phillippi, Ph.D., will moderate “Speech Impacts: ‘Cancel Culture’ and the Consequences of Our Words” on Nov. 4.

The Center on Religion and Culture is contributing with “The Quality of Mercy: Justice, Forgiveness, and Public Discourse,” a panel in the spring on a date to be determined. Gibson said the plan is to explore whether American culture is inflicted with a puritanical streak that leads people to be intolerant and unmerciful toward others, as well as incapable of forgiveness.

“My biggest concern is that that we only attempt to approach this through the lens of rights, or policies, or grievance, and I think we need to approach this from a spiritual and social perspective. This is about our relationships with each other,” he said.

As for the series, Gibson said he’s optimistic that there will be healthy disagreement among participants and audience members.

“More than any particular topic, speaker, or event, I hope the fact of holding this series will contribute to a solution because you’re going to bring people together in a space to discuss these things,” he said.

“What we’re trying to do is to model what good speech looks like, what a constructive environment for education looks like.”

In-person attendance for the series is limited to the Fordham community, but the series will be live-streamed. Register here.