Should We Cancel the Cancel Culture?
I have previously blogged about the cancel culture including its good and bad points. We haven’t heard a lot about it for quite a while, so I have decided to discuss it once again in the context of what just happened to Congressman Eric Swalwell (D-California). In case you haven’t heard, Swalwell withdrew from the nomination for governor of California yesterday after a growing chorus from others in Congress to do just that. The allegations of sexual abuse from at least four women were more than his candidacy could tolerate. By withdrawing, he may create a boost for another Democrat to come in first or second in the California gubernatorial race. In California, the top two finishes from the primary have a runoff to see who will serve as the next governor of California. It doesn’t matter if the top two are from the same party, which is quite unusual as these runoffs go.
Two women who allege they were preyed on by the disgraced Swalwell say they decided to break their silence in a bid to prevent him from spending the next few decades harming “future victims.” The accusers, Ally Sammarco and Annika Albrecht, told CBS News they felt partly vindicated after Swalwell abruptly resigned from Congress on Monday and dropped out of California’s gubernatorial race following the wave of sexual assault and rape claims leveled against him. “He thought he was untouchable. He acted with total impunity. He never thought that the consequences of his actions would follow him,” Sammarco said.
As I wrote in my blog, cancelling someone is a manifestation of holding others accountable for their behaviors. Assuming the allegations are true, it is appropriate that Swalwell was forced to pull out of the race. The fact that there were multiple allegations against him, gives credence to the point of view that he is guilty as charged.
What is the Cancel Culture
The cancel culture is used to call out behaviors and actions of individuals and corporations that convey opinions or feelings which are objectionable to the perceived public good. The cancel culture is when someone or some organization is ostracized by another individual or group/community for something they said or done. It has become a social issue because some people allow it to affect what they say or do…which may not (or should not) be cancelable. A good example, worthy of consideration is that of Adam Smith.
Back in 2012, Chick-fil-A’s president at the time, Dan Cathy, spoke out against gay marriage and a fierce backlash ensued. The then Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, called for a Chick fil A Appreciation Day because he was “incensed at the vitriolic assaults” against the fast-food chain after Cathy’s remarks. Supporters of the fast-food company lined up to order from Chick-fil-A in a show of solidarity with Cathy, protesters decided to do the opposite — order nothing but free cups of water and voice their disagreement to the employees.
In Tucson, Arizona, Adam Smith decided to order a free cup of water himself. Smith, a successful young business executive, had recently witnessed the struggle his brother-in-law experienced coming out. He felt righteous joining in on the protest, and he decided to film the whole exchange and post it to YouTube. In the video, Smith is seen telling the drive-thru attendant, “I don’t know how you live with yourself and work here. I don’t understand it. This is a horrible corporation with horrible values.”
I can understand what protesters did and why. We have freedom of speech after all. However, I think Smith crossed the line when he admonished the drive-thru attendant. There is no way to justify such behavior.
The underlying cause of such behavior is the lack of tolerance for points of view different from our own. In today’s society, if you don’t agree with the particular point of view, you risk being cancelled. In other words, it’s “my way or the highway,” which signifies an ultimatum. It implies that we must follow a speaker’s preferences. It’s a non-negotiable point of view, often used by someone in an authority position. Their view is the only one acceptable.
Promoting Accountability
Cancelling someone can promote accountability for one’s actions. When people are accountable, and answer for their actions, it builds trust.
Accountability isn’t about being harsh. It’s about being fair. When celebrities break the law and face no or minimal consequences, it:
- Sends the wrong message to society
- Encourages a sense of immunity for the rich and famous
- Weakens the public’s faith in justice.
No one should be above the law, regardless of their status. Some crimes are often public and should be addressed with transparency. When someone gets away with illegal behavior, it creates double standards.
Accountability is an ethical value because it implies that the individual is responsible for their actions. If they come out and accept those consequences, without having to be prodded to do so, such as Eric Swalwell, then society may be quick to forgive them especially if they promise not to do it again.
Freedom of Speech
The justification for not cancelling someone that is often given is the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. However, freedom of speech is not an absolute. One person’s “cancellation” is another person’s use of their own First Amendment-protected free speech right to criticize. We can yell “fire” in a crowded theater, and that is OK if done to warn patrons. But it is not OK if the motivation is to start a riot.
Brendan Fraser’s cancellation is one of the most heartbreaking Hollywood stories. He came forward about being sexually assaulted by a powerful industry executive, and instead of getting support, he was basically blacklisted from the business for over a decade. Fraser had been a huge star in the late 90s and early 2000s, but after speaking his truth about the abuse he suffered, roles just dried up. He disappeared from Hollywood while dealing with the trauma and fallout from going public. It wasn’t until recently that people started recognizing how badly he’d been treated and he finally got his comeback with The Whale, even winning an Oscar. His story shows how speaking up can cost you everything, even when you’re the victim.
We all witnessed a period of time recently where the emerging social movements, such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo, used their influence to take down racist statues, rename buildings named after white supremacists, call out celebrities and prominent figures in society, and address “racist, sexist, or homophobic views or ideologies.”
Going back in time, Andrew Jackson was the seventh president of the United States from 1829 to 1837. He rose to fame as a U.S. Army general and served in both houses of the U.S. Congress. His political philosophy, which dominated his presidency, became the basis for the rise of Jacksonian democracy. His legacy is controversial: he has been praised as an advocate for white working Americans and preserving the union of states, and criticized for his racist policies, particularly towards Native Americans. In Washington, DC on June 22, 2020, protesters in Lafayette Square right by the White House tried to take down a statue of Jackson. Jackson was a slave owner. His policies were also deadly for thousands of Native Americans. Police stopped these protesters, but statues are coming down around the U.S., yanked down or removed by local governments. So what should be the standard for taking down a statue? Manisha Sinha, a Civil War historian at the University of Connecticut, says when it comes to, say, Robert E. Lee, take it down.
Social Media
An Dinh , a student at Cal State Long Beach, wrote for her honors program requirement that “the phenomenon of cancel culture has become a significant aspect of modern society, particularly within the online environment of Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. She studied “the key factors contributing to the nature of cancel culture over the past 5-10 years on these platforms, along with exploring the consequential impact on individuals subjected to cancelation. According to An, “The evolution of cancel culture can be traced back to being an original form of collective accountability for celebrities on social media. Quick judgments and public opinions significantly contribute to the societal pressure to take stances, fueling the rapid escalation of cancel culture. Cultural and societal factors, such as shifting norms through social justice movements, also play crucial roles. The viral spread of information on social media intensifies cancel culture, thus emphasizing the important role of one’s digital footprint, cultural norms, and intent behind actions or words.” The point is there are so many places to make statements or do questionable things online that the avenues for cancelling have exploded.
Conclusion
We see the cancel culture in play in almost every field, whether its entertainment or politics. I think it’s a good thing if it makes us stop and think before we say something or engage in some action that might be viewed as objectionable. The problem is today too many people act first and then think about the consequences of their actions or words later. I believe it is the result of instant posting online where we want to post a thought or reaction to someone right away. Somehow, we believe our words will have a greater effect if we do just that. But the opposite is true as well.
An alternative to the cancel culture is the “call-out culture,” which emphasizes dialogue and accountability rather than exclusion. Call-out culture is about calling attention to someone’s wrongdoing and giving them a chance to learn from and correct the issue. This is exactly what we want if freedom of speech is to live up to its promise in a Democratic society.
Blog posted by Steven Mintz, Ph.D., professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, on April 14, 2026. Visit Steve’s website and learn more about his activities.