Cancel Culture Suppresses Minority Voices Too
The Case of Jon Doe
Subscriptions to Shiny Herd are deeply appreciated—and they’re free! If you care about free expression and viewpoint diversity in entertainment and media, please subscribe.
Recently, someone contacted me for advice about his predicament.
This “Jon Doe” has achieved success within the field I cover most—entertainment and media—but fears he may soon lose his job for jokes he cracked many years ago.
His fear seems justified.
A major media outlet has contacted him. The story could break tomorrow or in a month.
Until it actually happens, there is perhaps some chance it won’t break at all, but Doe tells me his boss nearly fired him as a preemptive move.
The motivation for cancelling Doe is political. He has heterodox beliefs and expresses them openly.
Others have tried to cancel Doe before, also for political reasons. The prior attempt did not gain traction, but Doe fears the current attempt will. And if it doesn’t, the next one might.
There’s another facet to this story.
Jon Doe is, in todays’ parlance, a member of a historically marginalized community (although he would not describe himself that way). Our culture may be awash in DEI slogans, but we shouldn’t expect any of that to save Doe from the mob.
Myths abound when it comes to cancel culture.
Some claim it doesn’t exist. Others say it simply enforces accountability. Still others claim it elevates minority voices that have long been suppressed by white culture.
Let’s look at that last one.
Cancel culture certainly elevates some minority voices—the ones that agree with the progressives who dominate entertainment, media, and academia.
But the UK research organization More in Common notes that the “progressive activist” tribe comprises only eight percent of the population. The vast majority of minorities—like Americans in general—aren’t members of that tribe.
Minorities often challenge progressive orthodoxy. And when that happens, the defenders of the monoculture typically set aside their concern for elevating minority voices and punish dissenters.
In other words, cancel culture usually suppresses minority voices.
It enforces conformity and creates an impression that minorities are less intellectually diverse than they really are. Sometimes the thought-policing gets splashed all over social media, but most of the time it unfolds behind the scenes.
Most of the time it unfolds like Jon Doe’s saga.
Or like these examples of cancel culture punishing minorities:
Karith Foster, a not-that-kind-of DEI trainer, was blacklisted for her dissident views on diversity training.
Surbhi, an Indian standup comedian, was cancelled for her dissident views on sex.
A Latino comedic actor was fired in 2020, after his comedy suddenly became problematic.
John McWhorter, Kmele Foster, and Walter Williams were not considered for a major media outlet’s all-black discussion of race due to their dissident views.
The soon-to-be-released documentary I directed, The Coddling of the American Mind, includes a black woman, a black man, and an Indian man who were thought-policed in separate episodes.
It’s ironic that many regard cancel culture as a force that strikes back against the white establishment.
In nearly every case above the ideological enforcers were white, and the progressive activist tribe is overwhelmingly white (80%). It’s also the tribe most comfortable with restricting speech.
The figure below shows how isolated progressive activists are on the issue of speech.
Even strong majorities of “traditional liberals” and “passive liberals” regard political correctness as a problem. But progressive activists disagree. It’s the only tribe where a majority of members does not consider political correctness to be a problem.
And the enforcers seek out, not just conservatives, but dissidents of any kind.
The targets above would call themselves everything from liberal to libertarians, but I’m quite sure that none identifies as conservative. No matter, because the slightest deviation from progressive orthodoxy can get you branded as a problematic right-winger.
Sometimes it feels like we’re living in Steven Pinker’s Left Pole.
“Just as when you’re in the North Pole, all directions are South,” says the Harvard psychologist, “the Left Pole is the mythical spot from which all directions are right.”
The above examples aren’t widely known, but the chilling effect has touched all those privy to them, including the colleagues, associates, friends, and family of those who were targeted.
Politics can quickly extinguish the warm talk of diversity and inclusion, and the message to minorities is clear—stay in line.
Ted Balaker is a filmmaker, and former network newser and think tanker. His recent work includes Little Pink House starring Catherine Keener and Jeanne Tripplehorn, Can We Take a Joke? featuring Gilbert Gottfried and Penn Jillette, and a soon-to-be-released feature documentary based on the bestselling book, The Coddling of the American Mind, by Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt.
Who are Progressive Activists?
Progressive Activists have strong ideological views, high levels of engagement with political issues, and the highest levels of education and socioeconomic status. Their own circumstances are secure (they feel safer than any group), which perhaps frees them to devote more attention to larger issues of justice in society around them. They have an outsized role in political discourse, even though they comprise a small portion of the total population (about 1 in 12 Americans). They are highly sensitive to issues of fairness and equity in society, particularly with regards to race, gender and other minority group identities. Their emphasis on existing power structures leads them to be very pessimistic about fairness in America. They are uncomfortable with nationalism and ambivalent about America’s role in the world.
From the Hidden Tribes study by More in Common