[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning again, everyone. A funny thing happened recently on the way to the usual left-right debate on cancel culture. The New York Times editorial board took the position that it's a problem. It said America has a free speech problem in large part because left and right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination about the topic of cancel culture itself.

The Times editorial board wrote, "Many on the left refused to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censorious as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers, and discourage open discussion in classrooms." That from the New York Times.

Just yesterday, we led the show with an analysis of Florida's new education law derisively known as "Don't Say Gay." A Times poll that they published in conjunction with the editorial, found nearly half of people surveyed said they feel less free to talk about politics than they did a decade ago. The Times poll found slightly more Republicans than Democrats said they have held their tongues recently for fear of harsh criticism, and more women have than men. 61% of women cited not feeling free to speak about something compared to 49% of men, but then, of course, there's Andrew Cuomo.

Andrew Cuomo: Cancel culture says, "If you don't agree with me and my point of view, then you should be canceled." They do it through social media. They do it quickly. They do it effectively. They demonize, demonize anyone who doesn't agree with their position. It's a social death penalty. Anyone can get canceled at any time, and it happens with frequency. No one's immune.

Brian Lehrer: Cuomo, of course, wasn't canceled. He resigned after the state attorney general found credible evidence of repeated sexual harassment and retaliation by Cuomo. Of course, others say accusation of cancel culture are just an excuse to enable traditional bigotry to continue to wield power over marginalized Americans, and that making it not okay to be racist and sexist in your speech with consequences is necessary if we're ever to approach safety and equality in this country. Here we are. We'll have a dialogue now about what's permissible in dialogues.

Joining me for this, are Suzanne Nossel, CEO of the free expression group PEN America, and Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, and author of the recently released book Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution. Some of you know that Elie was here recently for a book interview on that. Suzanne was here recently to talk about the current wave of book banning in the United States.

By way of context, Elie tweeted about an hour ago, "I'm going to be on Brian Lehrer at 11:00 to debate cancel culture and the nuances of 'free speech'. I encourage white students at UVA and people on the New York Times opinion editorial board not to tune in, because feelings may be hurt, and I know that it's too much for y'all to handle." Conversation on. Elie and Suzanne, thanks for engaging in this. Welcome back to WNYC.

Suzanne Nossel: Thank you for having us.

Elie Mystal: Thank you for having us, Brian.

Brian Lehrer: Can we start with each of you, Suzanne, you first, just defining the term cancel culture as you think people should understand it, and how much of a problem you each think it is in this country? You can take a few minutes if you need them to answer fully. Suzanne?

Suzanne Nossel: Yes, sure. Look, I don't like the term cancel culture because I think it's used so elastically as to be useless. The Andrew Cuomo example is a perfect one. That's somebody who was brought up on charges of misconduct to sexual assault, and resigned voluntarily. That's a cancellation on one hand, and then you have situations where a professor faces some form of discipline or not even discipline, but just an outraged group of students who object, whether on social media or on a petition, to something that they've done. It can be everything from convicted criminals on the one hand, not that Cuomo is that, to somebody who's accused of using the wrong word and just an article turn of phrase.

I think a term that broad renders itself useless. What I do think is worth talking about is what are the harms of speech? What forms of accountability are appropriate for hateful speech and bigotry? I would say if you plotted all of those cancellations on a spectrum, for me as a free expression person leading an organization that defends freedom of speech, my concern is with reprisals for speech as opposed to conduct. There are a lot of cases of so-called cancellation that involve conduct rather than speech. I'm most concerned where it's an isolated incident of speech.

It's not somebody who is accused of a broad pattern of stereotyping or prejudice or harassing conduct, but rather a single statement that triggers a response, and I'm most concerned where the response includes official reprisals, whether that's by a university, by a corporation. That's because in so doing, in policing speech aggressively, the power of that institution is reinforced.

Even if we may agree with the way that that power is exercised, in a single instance we may think, "This person said something offensive, and the publishing house or the magazine is perfectly within their rights to exact a punishment." What's going to be the next scenario that arises? Will it be speech that is challenging an orthodoxy or a dogma, and that we want to make space for? I think there is always a risk in allowing some speech to be punished that will make it easier for other and all speech to be punished.

Brian Lehrer: Elie, you want to go?

Elie Mystal: Sure. Look, it is easier to define what cancel culture is not. If you're a white person who is feeling a little like they have to speak in hushed tones before you say something impolitic or controversial, that's not being canceled. If you are shunned or shamed for saying something stupid in public, that is not being canceled. If you are booed or heckled for saying something stupid and wrong in public, that is not being canceled. If you were a white person who has experienced any of these things, what you were experiencing is not cancel culture. It is a quality.

It is the pluralistic world that you've been living in this whole time that you probably weren't aware of that says your viewpoint, your say, is not the only say that matters. White people still might have, be the only people allowed to vote in this country, but they're not the only people allowed to have a say in this country. Not anymore. Brian, you started your show by bringing up that New York Times poll that they centered their whole article around, "only 21% of people reported feeling freer, even though the past decade has seen a vast expansion of voices in the public square through social media". That's from the New York Times article.

Let's go to the crosstabs. the Times, never wants you to see who they're really talking about. When you go to the crosstabs of the poll that the New York Times is using, do you feel more or less free than to have your viewpoint that you did 10 years ago about politics? What you will see is that while 52% of white people said they felt less free, 36% of Black people said they felt more free, and 28% said they felt just as free as they did before.

That's 64%, folks, of Black people who felt more free, or just as free as before. That's 54% of Latinos who felt more free or just as free as before. That's 70% of people who identified as other who said they feel more free, or just as free as they did 10 years ago. Folks, this is a white person problem. This idea that they can't say what they always used to be able to say and get away with it, is a white person problem, and it just doesn't always seem like that because the white media that reports on that problem reports it from a centering in a white perspective.

Now, to close, I'll just say, I agree with most of what Suzanne just said because the things that are canceling is what we used to call censorship. We have censorship all across the society in many ways, but usually, that censorship is happening to Black people and LGBTQ people and their authors and their works and their opinions. That is a problem. White people being shunned is not a real problem.

Brian Lehrer: Suzanne, you want to react to any of that?

Suzanne Nossel: Yes. I also noticed what Elie pointed out in terms of some of the interesting differences by race in the Times poll. There clearly are areas and issues, for example, talking about race, talking about gender identity, where people who identify with certain groups feel freer to speak, and that is a boon for free speech. I think that is something that has to be recognized and that I think free speech defenders sometimes leave out, which is that if there are groups of people who feel excluded from the discourse, intimidated from speaking up, they can't make themselves heard, the marketplace of ideas loses out.

The fact that there is a sense of opening is unquestionably, I think, a positive, but I was also struck looking across the numbers at how much general uniformity there was in broad strokes in terms of how free people feel to speak, to what degree do they think freedom of speech is respected in our country. For Black respondents to the survey, they said not very much or not at all about 30%, and for white people it was about 22%. It wasn't that different.

I thought there was a striking amount of uniformity in the responses to a lot of the Times' questions, which I actually found somewhat encouraging in the sense that there are people from a across the spectrum in terms of race, ethnicity, political views, party identification, region of the country, who share some of the very same concerns. For us wanting to build-up a movement to reestablish the place of free speech in this country on terms that work for a diverse, inclusive and pluralistic country, I found it heartening that there was a good deal of agreement expressed in these numbers.

Brian Lehrer: Elie, want to keep going.

Elie Mystal: Yes, because I think the issue here is that when you ask a Black person or a Latino person or a gay person, is there an attack on free speech, they might well say yes, but they might be talking about something completely different than what a UVA college Republican is talking about. Two weeks ago, or a month ago, the Times had an article where they had a UVA college Republican talking about how he felt shunned by saying he's a Republican because if he says he's a Republican people might think that he's part of the fascist party. When really he's like, "No, I just want low taxes and don't care about fascism." He might say there's an attack on free speech.

When you ask me if there's an attack on free speech, I'm also going to say yes, because they're banning Nicole Hannah-Jones' book from schools in America. That's an attack on free speech. I'm going to say yes because Devon Nunes is out here suing cows on Twitter because Peter Thiel is out here destroying independent media. I'm absolutely going to say yes, there's an attack on free speech, but I mean something completely different than what a UVA student might mean.

Suzanne Nossel: Yes. Here's the thing, if I can, Brian, on that, which is what we try to articulate here at PEN America is free speech as a principle that is above politics. It's always harder to defend the speech of somebody that you disagree with. You're always naturally, as Elie says, going to be more riled up when someone who you think is saying something important ends up being muzzled and more sanguine when it's somebody who you think is saying something noxious. I think it's extremely important we're making this argument now very vociferously talking to people on the right about these book bans and curriculum bans all over the country.

The Republican party has styled itself as recently as the 2020 convention, as the party of free speech railing against cancel culture. Now here it's them who are elevating this battle and invoking the power of the state through legislation in order to suppress certain ideas. It's unprincipled, it's hypocritical. At the same time on the left, I understand where Elie is coming from and why it is that certain violations and impingements upon freedom of speech are going to exercise you more, that's where you want to put your focus, it's part of your mission to spotlight those, but it's part of a continuum.

Once we open the door to policing speech, suppressing speech, no matter what the nature of that speech, we make it more possible to do the very same. I'll give an example in Springfield, Missouri where there was a police officer who was ejected from the force after tweeting something saying that the person who was killed in Charlottesville had it coming to her. A lot of people cheered his removal from the force that seemed so inappropriate.

A couple of years later, there was another detective on the force who pushed out on social media a photograph of a relative at a Black Lives Matter protest and in the frame was an anti-police poster. She was removed from the force too. They brought up that earlier incident to say, "Look, we did it to him and so we've got to do it to her. This is our social media policy." It's a just a powerful illustration of forwarding officialdom, the power to police speech can backlash and boomerang and it's something that we all need to guard against.

Brian Lehrer: I want to bring some callers into the conversation. Some people have called up already. Listeners, we still have some open lines as well. Has anyone had an experience in your life where you think you were canceled, or couldn't say what you think is a legitimate, honest opinion because you were going to suffer consequences? 212-433-WNYC. Is anyone listening who feels that this is different from 10 years ago in your own experience? 212-433-9692.

On the New York Times poll findings that our guests were discussing, women, men, people of different political or racial or ethnic or other backgrounds. Do you think this disadvantages your group more than others or other groups more than yours or any other way you'd like into this conversation? 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692, or tweet at @BrianLehrer for Elie Mystal justice correspondent for the nation, and Suzanne Nossel CEO of the free expression group PEN America. Salvatore in Greenwich Village, you're on WNYC. Hello, Salvatore.

Salvatore: Yes. I just want to push back against what I perceive as a false equivalency between cancel culture on the left and cancel culture on the right. The Republicans are passing laws against speech, don't say gay, you can't teach accurate African American history because Johnny is going to be offended. There's nothing like that going on in the left. It's all mostly personal on the left, and it's also because right wing people are very thin skinned. I'm sorry, but I will basically agree with your guests. Thank you.

Brian Lehrer: Salvatore, thank you very much. Susanna in Connecticut, you're on WNYC. Hello, Susanna.

Susanna: Hello. Let me turn my audio off. Sorry. I just wanted to say boohoo to them who are panties in a twist about cancel culture. It is all right as citizens to respond to impolite prejudicial and language that I find offensive, that you find offensive. We're allowed to do that. Were I to say something offensive [unintelligible 00:18:19] to someone, I need to apologize and think about what I said. This is very simple because the right has taken this language cancel culture and made something relatively simple into something convoluted and [unintelligible 00:18:36] period.

Brian Lehrer: I think your dog is trying to cancel you right now.

Susanna: Sorry.

Brian Lehrer: Trying to shout you down so you don't get to express that thought.

Susanna: No, I'm so sorry. Would you like me just to hang up?

Brian Lehrer: No. I think you did get your thought out, so, Susanna, I'm going to leave it there. I appreciate it. Michael in Morningside Heights, you're on WNYC. Hi, Michael.

Michael: Good morning. Two things. First of all, I want to say something to you, Brian, and then I want to comment on the overall topic. Using Andrew Cuomo as an example of those who are opposing cancel culture, why did you do that? That, basically, undermines the idea that it exists. That was a terrible idea in my mind.

Brian Lehrer: Well, I'll tell you why I did it, and you can agree or disagree with this thinking. What I thought I was doing was laying out some of the big arguments that it's a serious problem or not a serious problem and using Cuomo, you say it undermines the idea that it exists, using him as an example because it did I think it strikes a lot of people as an extreme abuse of the term cancel culture. It's even going this far to somebody who was not canceled in the way that people usually means it but they're talking about cancel culture too like they're the victims. Anyway, that's why I did it. Say anything- [crosstalk]

Michael: I would assume on the whole notion of it it makes it seem like the only people that are saying cancel culture are people like Andrew Cuomo.

Brian Lehrer: Not the only people, that certainly was not the point I was trying to make, but it's okay. Go ahead. Did you want to say something about the larger issue too?

Michael: A few things. Number one, we always have a tendency to, basically, dismiss the other side just out of hand and we put our heads in the sand as if it's going to go away. Pointing out the other side's extreme violations doesn't mean that the side we're defending doesn't have a problem as well. There's a lot of hypocrisy on both sides. The left tends to think of itself as more learned, more educated, and more open-minded but that's not always the case. As an example hypocrisy, where's the criticism been of longstanding expressions of misogyny and violence in hip-hop culture?

As an example, and to take related points about hip-hop culture, I don't like hip-hop because I don't care for this music. If I were to express that, I wonder what the backlash would be. By the way, I love Duke Ellington and William Grant Still, and Scott Joplin, other African American artists for decades, but I don't find any value musically in hip-hop. What would the backlash be about me if I said that?

Brian: Michael, thank you for your call.

Elie Mystal: Well, do you work for Billboard?

Brian Lehrer: Elie, you want to, go ahead.

Elie Mystal: Do you work for Billboard? Because if you work for Billboard and you can't appreciate hip-hop music, it might be a problem for your job. If you work, I don't know, for the sanitation department then nobody cares about your hip-hop views. This is exactly why I get annoyed at these cancel culture aficionados. What actually is happening to you that’s so bad? Show me on the doll where cancel culture hurt you. You have a view, it's unpopular, people are like, "Wow, that's an unpopular view," and? What happens next?

Nothing happens next is the answer most of the time, unless you work in some official capacity where you're impolitic, improper, controversial views suggest that you are unable to fully do your job. To go back to Suzanne's example of the cop, yes, I think a cop who thinks that people getting shot to death in Charlottesville had it coming is a good indication that that person shouldn't be a cop. If that person was a barista, I wouldn't have a problem with their Charlottesville views. If that person was a painter I wouldn't have a problem with their views but if that person has a gun and has the authority of the state to shoot me, then suddenly his biases become important.

When we're talking about this issue, about whether or not you can say controversial, unpopular, impolitic things in public and what happens to you, we can't have that discussion devoid from the context of the job that you have. You will find me defending impolitic, impolite, improper views from comedians because, for the most part, comedians have a job where it's required, or you could argue that it's required for them to say controversial stuff. Even if I don't like the joke, I'm going to defend their right to have a job and say that joke because it's their job. If you're a high school principal, and you got 10 fun bars on internalized misogyny, maybe you need to chill out.

Brian Lehrer: Let’s take a few more calls. Tim in Brooklyn.

Elie Mystal: Sorry, I didn’t mean to mic drop there. [chuckles] We can lighten the mood and all that.

Brian Lehrer: No, no, that's what you're here for. Tim in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello.

Tim: Hi, Brian. Yes, the furor, the ridiculous absurd furor over cancel culture is largely pushback on the part of white, racist, misogynist, anti-LGBTQ people largely. However, there is a real problem. For instance, the academician in California whose name I forget who was attacked mercilessly for saying that teaching proper English is not inherently racist. That's a problem and that's a problem on our side and, Elie, Elie, Elie, to say that anyone suffering is diminished or irrelevant based on the tone of their skin, that is bigotry. Plain and simple.

Elie Mystal: Sorry, what did I say that was bigoted by pointing out that this is a problem that white people have more so than any other race based on the statistics in the articles that we're talking about, that was what was racist?

Tim: No, no, no, no, no, no, no, but to say that it is irrelevant or it doesn't matter because of what they look like that it's demeaning. Anybody who’s suffering- [crosstalk]

Elie Mystal: I didn’t say it doesn’t matter because of what they look like. I said this is a problem that is happening in white communities and is being pushed in white media. That's what I said. There’s another of way of putting it.

Tim: Of course, you did. Can I dismiss you?

Elie Mystal: If you look at the same crosstabs on the same poll, what you will find is that the people who most consistently, the group of people who most consistently say they are less free are people who make more than $100,000 a year. If you go down the poll, less free 52%, less free 27%, when everybody else is 24%. Less free 35% when everybody else is 26%. If you make more than $100,000 a year according to the New York Times poll-

Tim: Yes, all absurd, all absurd.

Elie Mystal: -you, apparently, are more in danger of being canceled which is- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Tim, go ahead.

Tim: Yes, that is absurd.

Elie Mystal: -hilarious.

Tim: I agree but you did make the statement that if white people feel shunned, that's not a problem.

Elie Mystal: It's not. It's not a problem.

Tim: Why? Because of their skin tone?

Elie Mystal: No.

Brian Lehrer: You mean to say-

Elie Mystal: No, because nothing is happening to them. See here, Tim, let me just really quickly. When Black people say, "I'm afraid of speaking. I'm afraid of standing out," it's not because we're afraid of being shunned. I've been shunned before, I've been shamed before. That's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is people showing up to my house, dragging me out of it, and beating me with sticks. I’m worried about being strung up from a tree.

Tim: That’s a different statement and a different problem.

Elie Mystal: That is the canceling that I’m worried about. White people being angry at me is not actually a problem in my life. You understand the difference?

Tim: There is, obviously, a true danger to a lot of people based on the color of their skin. However, but to dismiss anyone's shunning, which is a painful thing, it is a difficult and painful thing, if they do that because of something that is perceived by others to be incorrect, and it's really objectively true, for instance, in some cases, I’m talking about us the left, and how we enforce these orthodoxies that it can be a problem and it can be a real thing. I’m just saying- [crosstalk]

Brian Lehrer: Tim, thanks so much for engaging I really appreciate it. I'm going to leave it there for a time. Suzanne, do you want to get in on that exchange at all?

Suzanne Nossel: Yes, sure. Look, I think it's not so simple in terms of drawing a line to say the person's job or position dictates whether they can hold a particular point of view. I was on a panel yesterday with a planetary scientist who had had a major lecture at MIT canceled because of his views on affirmative action. He's against affirmative action. He's been outspoken in the context of his own university. He was coming to deliver a lecture at MIT on the subject of planetary science and because of his remarks, protests stirred up and that invitation was rescinded. That to me, that is a real problem.

Here's somebody who is not accused of bigotry or denigration or harassment. He simply has views that people vehemently disagree with. Yet the idea that our scientific discourse is impaired and that his voice, nobody's questioning his expertise, cannot be heard on a totally different subject, I find very troubling. It's not the only example. I urge people to look at the cross tabs of the Times’ survey because there's some examples of racial difference and then there are many examples of exact parity. When they asked do you feel free to speak openly to people you're in contact with at work, Blacks and whites answered in almost identical percentages to that question.

There were slightly more Blacks in one category where they said, not at all, but 30% of both groups said they feel completely free. I think we've got to be nuanced in how we talk about these issues and try to recognize that there are shared concerns. There are concerns that are more intense for understandable reasons for people in particular groups.

Brian Lehrer: Elie's also bringing up the question of a power differential, I think. In society in real life, some people are materially harmed by speech, by racist speech, by sexist speech, by homophobic speech in ways that people with more privilege are not. Issue?

Suzanne Nossel: No, that's true. Look, in my book Dare To Speak Defending Free Speech For All I have a whole chapter that's devoted to the harms of speech. I think free speech defenders have historically been too reluctant to acknowledge those harms for fear that it becomes an open door to censorship. I think it's important to acknowledge those harms, particularly for people who are subject to denigration, stereotyping, slurs, their whole life. There are documented effects, both physiological, psychosocial, on academic performance.

We have to recognize that. I think it's also true that the harms can be exaggerated, overstated, speculated on, projected and we have to recognize situations where claims of harm or safety are, I think, used over-broadly to silence speech that we should be able to have a place for within reason, discourse on topics that we need to be able to talk about whether it's immigration policy or abortion or Israel-Palestine. Those things can evoke hurtful feelings, absolutely, but we need to be able to discuss these questions as a society and find the space to do so respectfully.

I also talk about the importance of conscientiousness with speech. I think conscientiousness can really go a long way. If you express your ideas conscientiously, you avoid inadvertent offenses. You avoid that needless friction and you can actually get your point across which above all should be what we're trying to do here. Not to just piss one another off.

Elie Mystal: Can I tell you Brian where I--

Brian Lehrer: Yes, we have about 30 seconds left in the segment. You'll get the last word.

Elie Mystal: Here's where I get in trouble because Suzanne has the more reasonable, more nice position. There are harms, there are crimes. Why can't we also include some of these other people who have legitimate concerns? I have to say no, because I'm basically saying, "Look, I am packing for a road trip where I am trying to stop a real problem." These other people keep saying, "While you're packing for the road trip, why don't you also include some supplies for the zombie apocalypse?"

I have to say no, because the zombie apocalypse is not a real thing and packing for it slows me down on my actual journey to stop real problems. I can't take the nicer position of let's we all, why not both. I can't take why not both, because I actually have to go out and try to figure out a way to stop Republicans from censoring and burning books, from excluding LGBTQ people from schools and their history, from excluding Black people from schools and their history. I don't have time to add on the zombie apocalypse backpack while I'm trying to fight the actual fight.

Brian Lehrer: With that, we will obviously not settle it all here today, but good conversations, Suzanne Nossel CEO of the free expression group PEN America, and Elie Mystal justice correspondent for the Nation and author of the recently released book Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution, and he of the afore mentioned mic drop that he said from before. We'll call it audio punctuation. Elie and Suzanne, always appreciate when both of you come on. Thank you very much for engaging.

Suzanne Nossel: Thank you, Brian.

Elie Mystal: Thanks so much, Suzanne. Thanks so much, Brian.

Suzanne Nossel: Thank you, Elie. Bye.

 

Copyright © 2022 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.