Several historical events have illustrated the power of collective action to combat prejudice and discrimination. The “Me Too” movement unveiled an epidemic of sexual harassment in Hollywood and elsewhere; The Black Lives Matter initiative intensified following the murder of George Floyd and other African Americans by law enforcement; and community members and local leaders partnered to fight a spate of attacks against Asian Americans following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Most recently, pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s assault in Gaza—along with counterprotests fueled by perceptions of antisemitism — have erupted on dozens of campuses across the U.S. Inherent to these all movements has been the desire to remedy historical injustices and provide equal opportunities and protections to all groups.
Few people would deny that fairness, justice and mutual respect are moral imperatives for any advanced society. Simultaneously, several prominent scholars, journalists, authors have expressed concern over what they see as a growing “cancel culture” in which people can be swiftly fired from their jobs, ostracized within their communities or publicly shamed for remarks that (regardless of intent) are perceived as prejudicial or insensitive. Critics of cancel culture argue that fears of being morally condemned or accused of prejudice will suppress the type of open dialogue and argumentation that is needed for real reform.
In your opinion, how do we as a society balance efforts to curtail the use of hurtful or prejudicial language (e.g., on social media, in published literature, in the workplace) with a desire to promote open dialogue and discourse? How do we convey respect for dissenting views while avoiding the type of “ideological conformity” that leads to self-censorship and fears of reprisal?

A Letter on Justice and Open Debate