"We're gonna hurt some people ourselves to get even" is the devil speaking.

Where in this thread do I justify or emulate? Please quote something from any of my posts that would give you the impression that I approve of "cancel culture".

However, if people are genuinely concerned about chilling speech, then why are they spending so much effort to call out SJW in a tiny handful of big cities instead of raising hell about the overt and often legal discrimination that happens in tens of thousands of rural communities?

It's hard for me to take the concern about cancel culture seriously when the concern is exclusively focused on one side of the political/cultural divide even though the phenomenon happens far more on the other side of that divide. I have zero confidence that such concerns are genuine.

I'm pretty sure this is exactly what I'm saying ;-)

AFAICT every example in the article. I always assume that the contents of the article are upthread because I always assume people read the article before commenting :)

Aside from the article, my impression is that "cancel culture" has a more specific meaning than you seem to prescribe. One on hand, we never called it "cancel culture" when a teacher is fired for being gay. And on the other, CPAC's theme this year is "America Uncanceled". My understanding is that, at this point, the term does have political content.

So yeah, "cancellation" has some left-wing connotations, but it's not something that only the left can do. Further, there absolutely are hypocrites who criticize "cancel culture", but who happily try to cancel people they don't like. Hypocrites are bad, but there are still lots and lots of principled critics of cancel culture (indeed, I'm pretty sure most of the Harper's letter signatories are left-of-center). That there are hypocrites doesn't validate cancel culture.

Also, if you're upset about the left-wing connotations, the proper response is not to try to legitimize cancel culture, but rather to persuade your political associates to behave better for sake of the brand.

TL;DR: Canceling is bad no matter who does it; recently it's mostly been the woke left who have been doing it so it does have some political connotations; sometimes people are disingenuous in criticizing "cancel culture".

Passing off Liberty as a bastion of free expression because they invited Sanders to give a speech is beyond disingenuous, and a perfect example of the enormous double standard in discussions of "cancel culture" right now.

> In the general case, you're not allowed to teach at Liberty unless you're a very specific type of conservative christian.

Let's not pretend that you are allowed to teach at Harvard, at least in certain departments, without a very specific political leaning. And certain other political leanings are not allowed in any department.

> A statement of faith is a required component of the faculty application packet.

UC requires a mandatory "diversity statement" for faculty job applications:

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/11/19/mathematician...

I can't speak to all of Harvard's departments, but I know it's completely possible to have a wide variety of political viewpoints in SEAS. The faculty itself is probably to the right of the immediately surrounding community (that that this means much in Boston Metro, but I think it's probably true in the case of SEAS).

> UC requires a mandatory "diversity statement" for faculty job applications:

Diversity statements typically focus on a certain type of service and teaching activity.

The "how it effects my teaching and advising" part of the statement could talk about making special efforts in your teaching to help first generation college students, or supporting students who aren't neurotypical, or being really good at working with the specific circumstances of students who come from non-traditional backgrounds (eg adult learners).

The outreach/service portion of the statement could discuss bringing resources to underserved rural communities. Or providing learning opportunities for prisoners. Or a million other things.

Source: actually did this. Got job offers.

The fact that you think writing a "diversity statement" means you have to fit a certain political mold says a lot more about what you think diversity means than about diversity statement requirements. The diversity statement is about proving that you can at the very least create an inclusive learning environment for people from non-traditional backgrounds. Why in god's name should this be political, or in fact not a requirement for a teacher?

Comparing diversity statements to statements of religious faith is absurd. If you can't write a page about eg helping autism spectrum students succeed in CS 1, and someone else can, then you might not be the best candidate for a CS 1 lecturer. Opinions on the Westminster Catechism, on the other hand, are not relevant to teaching students about linked lists.

An individual who I thought got a raw deal and was completely misunderstood, when he gave his speech.

As far as I can tell he’s done well for himself since then, but that’s because he already had a network of connections.

One misconstrued speech was all it took to ruin a chance to lead a premier east coast uni.

The idiocy of that conversational arc is basically the point I’m trying to make.

Now I’m responding to the assertion to that one doesn’t need to be of a certain stripe to make it in liberal institutions.

You downplay and say that a Harvard pres. position is highly political; which is fair, but the reaction also shows that a pervasive and intolerant groupthink is present.

It may tolerate the odd dissenting professor, especially if they’re protected by tenure, but the buck stops there.

No such protections for students first making their way into the world.

Not exactly a bastion of free thought and discourse.

What _you_ and Harvard in general think of as a wide variety of political viewpoints, and what _actually_ constitutes a wide variety, are likely very different things.

I know well what a wide variety of political viewpoints looks like, because I’ve lived in at least three extremes. Have you?

Harvard’s faculty is left of center in aggregate (did I ever say otherwise?) but they aren’t uniformly radical and there are a lot of moderates and conservatives in the ranks.

That's complete nonsense. Harvard's law department is run by Mary Ann Glendon, notorious catholic dominionist and staple of anti-abortion activism in the US.

The "liberal college professor" meme is a right-wing canard, which only holds true as far as people who believe in evidence driven investigation and deep thought, such as those who serve in science departments, are unlikely to form a religious conservative reactionary worldview.

Could you be any more disingenuous?

And no one has ever suggested that other groups don't engage in this sort of activity when they're in power.

Show me a single college with a policy that explicitly discriminates against Christians.