Failure is Not an Option: Justice & Forgiveness in the Cancel Culture

“Failure is not an Option” Justice & Forgiveness in the Age of Cancel Culture

By Ballard Morton

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a Russian historian, philosopher, and novelist. In 1945, the seventeenyear-old was arrested and sentenced to just under a decade of hard labor and internal exile—for the crime of criticizing Joseph Stalin in his private letters. Solzhenitsyn wrote vividly and extensively about his horrific experiences in the gulags, as well as Soviet authoritarianism more generally, and later won the 1970 Nobel Prize in Literature. In one of his most renowned works, The Gulag Archipelago, Solzhenitsyn writes:

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart— and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained.” It has become cliché to write or speak about our current politics as being “toxic” or “polarizing.” Calls for moderation, compromise, and levelheaded discourse have been frequent, albeit largely unsuccessful. What is, furthermore, most disturbing to me is not that our politics have become “divisive.” Politics have always been divisive, and political division (unlike political unity) is often illustrative of liberalism, free thought, democracy, the values that we hold dear. Instead, it seems that our division has transcended the political sphere and has trickled into the cultural, psychological, and moral fabrics of our

society. Ideological tribalism and demagoguery have in many cases hijacked our most fundamental capacities for reason, empathy, sympathy, skepticism, and—perhaps above all—justice. What began as progressivism, as good intentions, has surreptitiously morphed into something altogether destructive— namely an epidemic of our most primal and animalistic impulses, manifested in the court of public opinion.

“Cancel culture” is a term that is easy enough to define superficially yet exceedingly difficult to disentangle and explore. Cancel culture, or “call-out culture,” is the tendency for people to cancel, disinvite, fire, admonish, or publically shame individuals for their past— regrettable—comments or behavior. A prominent example was when Kevin Hart stepped down from hosting the 2019 Academy Awards for homophobic Tweets that were nearly a decade old, or when Harvard rescinded its offer of admission from school-shooting survivor and conservative activist Kyle Kashuv for his use of the N-word two years prior. Cancel culture has included many celebrities and Hollywood personalities who were swallowed up in the #MeToo movement, such as Aziz Ansari and Louis C.K., who were said to have been unfairly lumped together with more overtly malicious and depraved figures such as Harvey Weinstein. Cancel culture comprises political figures, like Ralph Northam, who received substantial backlash and calls for resignation for his 1984 yearbook photo that depicted him in blackface.

Cancel culture has become a system of frontier justice—where Twitter plays judge, jury, and executioner. It has allowed, even encouraged, the ferocious demagogues of the Internet to dictate exactly who should be publicly chastised, and whose career ought to be damaged, if not entirely and irrevocably destroyed.

Who is to make sense of all of this? After all, it is almost undeniable that certain members of our society deserve to have their careers destroyed if they engaged in the absolute worst and most unredeemable forms of behavior. On the other hand, we all make mistakes. We

all say things and do things that we regret, that we seek to correct, for which we are willing to apologize and express our remorse. How does one navigate this moral ecosystem?

The crux of this issue is actually rather simple. When it comes to evaluating words, actions, and patterns of behavior, we ought to have two fundamental interests when it comes to our society:

1) We want to live in a society in which harmful and prejudicial words, actions, and patterns of behavior are discouraged and de-incentivised;

2) We want to live in a society that rewards and incentivises, rather than punishes, people for growing— for becoming less disposed to harmful and prejudicial words, actions, and patterns of behavior.

Managing these two interests is no trivial task. After all, the line between de-incentivising bad behavior and incentivising good behavior, growth, and rehabilitation is extremely thin. In fact, the only way that such interests may be properly balanced is through a kind of formula, a framework, that we as a society adopt in order to correctly evaluate these kinds of situations—situations in which well-known figures are discovered to have once engaged in regrettable language or behavior.

For the sake of conceptual clarity, let us divide this framework into two sections: the diagnostic stage and the treatment stage. Whenever you hear about a celebrity who once wrote something derogatory, or a public figure who engaged in objectionable behavior, ask yourself each of the following questions before arriving at any moral conclusion or “sentence.” Try to answer each question with a thoughtful, nuanced answer, rather than merely a basic “yes” or “no.”

order to live in a society that manages our fundamental interests, we must wield a mechanism for judgement that is consistent, nuanced, and precise—that allows for a wide spectrum, rather than a binary, of possible moral determinations.

So, how is this diagnostic framework built? It is built on questions, on our ability to be investigative and inquisitive whenever a “cancel culture” situation arises. Our questions must be direct and must apply to some moral variable or consideration that is relevant in the context of what is being evaluated.

— Is there evidence to support the claim that this person said X or did Y?

Are the sources that are reporting this allegation credible? —

If this person said something bad (X)…

-Did this person say X originally or was he/she quoting someone else?

-Did this person know the extent to which X was harmful language?

-Did this person say X in a clear attempt to be ironic, facetious, and/or humorous?

-Did this person say X with the clear intention of being harmful?

-Did this person say X off the cuff or was it prepared?

-Did this person say X in private or in public?

-Did this person say X in a time, place, or cultural context that was more amenable to saying X?

-Did this person say X under the influence of drugs or alcohol? —

If this person did something bad (Y)…

-Did this person intend to do Y or was it accidental? -Am I predisposed to judging this person for saying X or doing Y simply because I do not like them personally?

-Did this person know the extent to which Y was harmful behavior?

-How many victims were harmed as a consequence of Y and how badly?

-Did this person do Y on his/her own accord, or did someone encourage or coerce him/her?

-Did this person do Y in a time, place, or cultural context that was more amenable to doing Y?

-Did this person do Y once or multiple times?

-Did this person do Y under the influence of drugs or alcohol? — -How old was this person when he/she said X or did Y?

-How long ago was it since this person said X or did Y?

-Has this person demonstrated growth since he/she said X or did Y?

-Has this person apologized for saying X or doing Y? — -Have I ever said X or done Y? -Am I predisposed to judging this person for saying X or doing Y simply because I disagree with him/her politically? —

Precisely answering all of these questions in the wake of an allegation may seem tedious. I think you would be surprised, however, if you realized just how different the responses actually are when you evaluate different figures who were called out in the #MeToo movement, for example. By systematically working through these questions, we will be able to work with better precision and caution in making the kinds of consequential decisions that seriously affect people’s careers, reputations, and legacies.

That, at least in part, covers the diagnostic stage. But what about the “treatment” stage? How should people respond? What is the appropriate response when someone is discovered to have said or have done something regrettable in the past?

This one is perhaps trickier, for it is far more circumstantial. It truly depends on the current status of whoever’s reputation is being called into question, as well as the severity of his or her transgressions. The basic formula for calculating an appropriate response or “treatment” can be described as such:

1) The worse the offense, the higher the standard should be for an apology and a demonstrated track record of growth;

2) If a person is sufficiently apologetic, remorseful, and “rehabilitated” relative to his or her transgressions, then he or she should not be punished. If a person is insufficiently apologetic, remorseful, and “rehabilitated” relative to his or her transgressions, then he or she should be punished to the same degree that they lack remorse and a demonstrated track record of growth since the incident.

Kevin Hart is among the most famous and successful American comedians in recent memory. In 2009, he posted the following two Tweets:

In 2010, Hart made jokes about preventing his son from being gay in his comedy special. Later on, in January of 2011, he Tweeted the following:

Now, having read these Tweets, let’s go through our checklist of questions and answer them.

— Is there evidence to support the claim that this person said X or did Y? Yes; the Tweets are confirmed to be real and many reputable news sites reported on it

Are the sources that are reporting this allegation credible? Yes; the NYT, the Post, the WSJ, and many other credible news organizations have reported on it — If this person said something bad (X)… -Did this person say X originally or was he/she quoting someone else? -Did this person know the extent to which X was harmful language? Hart most likely made the Tweet as a comedic remark, rather than intentionally and deliberating saying something he knew would upset people

-Did this person say X in a clear attempt to be ironic, facetious, and/or humorous? Most likely; Hart is a comedian, and Twitter in 2009 and 2011 was likely more amenable to comedic provocation and humor than in 2019 or 2020 when Twitter has become a public forum, and a place for “serious” discourse among political figures and public intellectuals; given the light-hearted nature of most of his Tweets, it is unlikely that this accurately represents his sincere beliefs about homosexuality

-Did this person say X with the clear intention of being harmful? Hart was most likely not trying to be harmful; once again, he is a comedian who has made a career in saying provocative things, not in seriously vocalizing his deeply-held beliefs and predispositions; it is unlikely these remarks were an exception

-Did this person say X off the cuff or was it prepared? Although Hart took the time and preparation to write out his remarks on Twitter before posting them, it is unlikely he spent very much time thinking about the potential consequences of his remarks; the Tweet is more likely a spontaneous joke rather than a premeditated statement

-Did this person say X in a time, place, or cultural context that was more amenable to saying X? 2009 and 2011 did not have the same stringent PC standards for Tweets and for comedy more generally

-Did this person say X once or multiple times? Hart posted three Tweets in particular that received backlash; he also received backlash for making some provocative jokes in his comedy special about homosexuality

-Did this person say X under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Unknown; it’s possible — How old was this person when he/she said X or did Y? Hart was about 30 years old when this occured

-Am I predisposed to judging this person for saying X or doing Y simply because I do not like them personally? [for you to answer]

-Am I predisposed to judging this person for saying X or doing Y simply because I disagree with him/her politically? [for you to answer] —

Having answered these questions, we are able to more effectively evaluate what the response should have been to Hart’s being selected to host the Oscars. I personally believe that—given Hart’s status as a comedian, the nature of the Tweets in question, the amount of time that has passed, and the remorse that he has since vocalized in the form of several apologies—Hart

How long ago was it since this person said X or did Y? It was about 8 years from the time he posted the Tweets to the time he was invited to host the Oscars

Has this person demonstrated growth since he/she said X or did Y? Hart has been a popular comedian, actor, and celebrity for years, and though his provocative style of comedy persists, it is unlikely that it is intended to do harm, or otherwise results in harm

Has this person apologized for saying X or doing Y? Hart initially refused to apologize due to his frustrations with how the story was being covered and the extent to which he had already made apologies and expressed his regret up that point; a few days later, on December 7th of 2018, when he officially stepped down from hosting, he said the following: “I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past … I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart.” — Have I ever said X or done Y? [for you to answer]

should not have been pressured to step down from hosting the Oscars. His remarks, albeit tasteless and shallow, simply do not have the moral gravity to warrant his disinvitation 8 years later, especially considering the apologies he has made since.

Go through the same checklist of questions with other polarizing figures such as those exposed in the #MeToo movement. You’ll soon realize that at one end of the spectrum, you have Kevin Hart, and the relatively innocuous comedians and provocateurs who have made some unscrupulous remarks throughout their lives. Further down on the spectrum, you may have Aziz Ansari or Louis C.K. who engaged in some questionable behavior, and deserve a certain degree of pushback and public scrutiny but do not

“There are numerous factors to consider in such ethical evaluations, such as the severity of certain forms of speech and behavior, the frequency of ” someone’s transgression, and the intent of the person in question.

deserve to have their careers, reputations, and legacies seriously damaged or indefinitely uprooted. Further down the spectrum you may find the Matt Lauers of the world—those who intentionally and maliciously abused their power and repeatedly harassed and exploited (and, at worst, assaulted) subordinates and colleagues and very likely deserve to have their careers ended and to face criminal charges, depending on the specific nature and circumstances of the transgression(s). Still further down the spectrum we encounter those such as Harvey Weinstein—figures whose abuse of power and repeated violence—sexual or otherwise—warrant an immediately tarnished reputation and legacy as well as substantial legal and criminal consequences.

Here is the general point: there is a spectrum of bad words and bad behavior. The aforementioned examples are just a slight piece of the moral continuum with which we ought to evaluate our public figures. The difference between someone like, for instance, Aziz Ansari (who received pushback for being somewhat sexually assertive on a single date in 2017) and Matt Lauer (who repeatedly harassed, coerced, and sexually exploited female subordinates) is so substantial, that to utter their names in the same sentence is irresponsible, if not reprehensible. There are numerous factors to consider in such ethical evaluations, such as the severity In short, we must ask questions and refine our moral continuum. Only then will we as a society properly navigate this ethical ecosystem, and only then will we be able to set a responsible precedent for responding to instances of harmful speech and behavior. Our current, dualistic, draconian system of frontier justice is simply not the mechanism we want in place to determine whose reputation should be spared, and whose should be dismantled. Let us adopt a more skeptical, forgiving, enlightened approach—a spectrum, rather than a binary—that does not hesitate to punish seriously poor speech and behavior, but also provides sufficient room for forgiveness and empathy. As Solzhenitsyn said, every individual possesses a capacity for good and evil, as well as the ability to grow and to improve. It’s time that we realize this within ourselves, and treat our society, public figures, and fellow citizens accordingly.