“We’ve taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That’s no way to grow up.”

That was journalist Rikki Schlott speaking before a sold-out crowd on Monday night at a live taping of The Reason Interview with Nick Gillespie podcast in New York City. Schlott, 23, teamed up with Greg Lukianoff to co-write The Canceling of the American Mind .

Lukianoff, 49, is the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and co-author with Jonathan Haidt of the bestselling The Coddling of the American Mind (2018) . Schlott is a fellow at FIRE, a New York Post columnist, and a co-host of the Lost Debate podcast .

Cancel culture, they argue, constitutes a serious threat to free speech and open inquiry in academia and the workplace, and is best understood as a battle for power, status, and dominance.

Watch the video of the full event, and find a condensed transcript below.

Reason: What’s the elevator pitch for this book? Why is it relevant now?

Rikki Schlott: Well, I think it’s twofold. On the first front, people are still saying that cancel culture does not exist, which is absolutely crazy and defies all statistics fundamentally. But also, cancel culture is not just about the people that are torn down, it’s about the epistemic crisis that it creates and the devastation of the body of common knowledge that we all share, and also the undermining of trust between people.

And for me as a young person, the undermining of being able to grow up and have the freedom to fumble and make mistakes as well. So I think it’s important on a ton of different levels.

Reason: What is the working definition of cancel culture?

Greg Lukianoff: Basically, we’re trying to give the historical era that we’re in a name. I’m a First Amendment lawyer. I’m big on the history of freedom of speech. And a lot of what we call mass censorship events have names. So Alien Sedition 1798, the Red Scare One in the 1920s, Red Scare Two, also known as McCarthyism, the Comic Book Scare, etc.

So basically we’re proposing more or less that this be a historical definition of a unique and weird period where there’s been a lot of people losing their jobs because of their opinion. That’s really one of the things we’re trying to show, is that this is on par with any of these previous moments of mass censorship, and actually exceeds them in terms of the numbers of professors fired.

Reason: Can you elaborate more on the number of firings you are referring to?

Lukianoff: So real quick through the stats. Our definition is: the uptick of campaigns beginning around 2014 to get people fired, de-platformed, expelled, and the culture of fear that resulted from that. And I think it’s always important to root numbers in comparisons.

When I started at FIRE, I actually landed in Philadelphia at 9:10 in the morning on 9/11. All of my first cases were involving people who said jerky or insensitive things about the attacks or people who said, “Let’s go get those terrorists.” So it was a bad period for academic freedom. There was a moral panic, and it actually followed the normal M.O. of mass censorship events in history. There was a national security crisis. That’s usually the way it goesit’s either a national security crisis or a large-scale war that you have these mass censorship events. And 17 professors were targeted for being canceled, as we would say, which basically means punished for their speech. There were more students as well, but we were pretty small at the time, so we know that we probably only know a fraction of the students who got in trouble. Three professors were fired. That’s really, really bad historically. All three of those professors, by the way, were justified under things that weren’t related to speech.

For the cancel culture era, we’re talking over 1,000 attempts to get professors fired or punished in some way. About two-thirds of them resulted in someone being punished. About one-fifth of them, so about 200, resulted in them losing their jobs. During McCarthyism, the number of people who lost their jobs due to being a communist is about 63. They count other people who lost their opinions in this massive study that they did right towards the end of McCarthyism, and there were about 90 fired for their opinion overall, which is usually rounded up to 100.

We now think that they’re probably somewhere between 100 and 150 fired from 2014 to mid-last year, July. We know this is a crazy undercount as well. According to our survey, one in six professors say that they’ve either been threatened with investigation or investigated for their academic freedom. That means the numbers are absolutely colossal. Students, about 9 percent of them, say that they’ve actually faced sanctions for their speech. That’s an insanely huge number. And about one-third of professors say that they’ve been told to avoid controversial research. So we know that we’re only seeing a portion of it.

Reason: The first case study in your book is at Hamline University. Can you remind us what happened there and why it exemplifies cancel culture?

Schlott: There was a professor named Erica Lpez Prater who decided to show an image of the prophet Muhammad in one of her courses, which is considered sacrilegious by some people who follow Islam. And so she said in her syllabus that that was going to be in a class. She told people that you could get an excuse from class if it’s untenable for you to see that. She warned them multiple times ahead of time. She gave ample warning in every way, shape, and form, and also just told everyone that, “The only reason I’m showing you this is because there are some sects of Islam that do not find this offensive. This is a piece of art that was commissioned by a Muslim king.”

She ended up being squeezed out of her job for doing that because one student did show up to that class and decided afterward that she was offended. And the president of the university came out and said, “This is beyond freedom of speech, this is just offensive.” And it was a perfect example of cancel culture just defying common sense, defying just pluralism and democracy on a very fundamental level. And so that’s why we decided to call this one out as our opener because pretty much everyone condemned it in the end. It was unbelievable. And Hamline did have to reverse course.

Reason: The happy ending there is that the university president kind of got pushed out. What was the reaction of other academics?

Lukianoff: This was a positive case in the sense that people really came to her defense. The idea that she wasn’t rehired in the face of it is really stunning. Penn America was involved, of course, FIRE was involved, the American Association of University Professors came out and condemned it. So it was a moment of some amount of unanimity, but it somehow wasn’t enough at the same time.

Reason: What role do psychotherapists play in cancel culture?

Lukianoff: This is near and dear to my heart because my experience with Coddling of the American Mind started with me being hospitalized for depression back in the Belmont Center in Philadelphia back in 2007. The idea that you would actually have psychotherapists who think they should intervene if you have wrongthink in your mind when you’re talking one-on-one with them is about as horrifying as I can imagine. It’s no exaggeration to say I’m not sure I’d still be here if I actually had a psychotherapist who corrected me.

As far as a chapter that we could easily expand into its own book, and maybe we should, the psychotherapy stuff scares the living hell out of us. I know we talked to a number of practitioners. In terms of what I’ve heard from the existing clinical psychology programs is that they will pain over the nightmare scenario of, “What if it turns out the person I’m treating is a Trump supporter or a Republican?” And of course, the answer is, “Then you treat them compassionately,” not, “You have to drop out.”

Reason: Rikki, you were coming of age in the era that you guys are writing about. Have you experienced th mindset of “If you are a bad person, you have bad ideas”?

Schlott: Well, for me personally, I was in high school in the lead-up to the 2016 election and we just had a scourge of cancel culture explode even though we were still teenagers. I, at the time, was more worried about boys and acne than Trump, but I saw that en masse scale for the first time. It was really frightening to me. And frankly, as a result, I self-censored for a while, and by the time I got to NYU, I knew I was in an ideological minority as a right-leaning libertarian here in New York City. I actually started hiding books under my bed when I moved in because I was a new freshman and trying to make friends. Thomas Sowell and Jordan Peterson were under the bedbanished.

I think it’s so important to realize that there is a crisis of authenticity with young people who are growing up, who were supposed to explore different ideas and be an anarchist one day and a communist the next day and figure it out in the end, but we’ve taught young people that any of their missteps or any of their heterodox opinions are grounds to tear them down. That’s no way to grow up. You cannot be a young person and grow up in a graceless society.

I think it’s important to realize that there are a whole host of young people who did not come from this squeaky wheel, the tyranny of the minority group of people who do show up in institutions and scare the life out of everyone. But the fact of the matter is, whether it’s young people or American people at large, 80 percent of Americans think political correctness has gone too far. The vast majority of people do not want to live in a world where they’re tripping over tripwires at every turn or censoring their speech or biting their tongue for fear that someone will give them the worst possible interpretation of what they said. This is a tyranny of the minority, and courage is contagious, and there is strength in numbers, and I think that we really can fight back with that knowledge

Reason: Can you explain what the Woodward Report was?

Lukianoff: It was so terrific, and Yale specifically disavowed it in court. The Woodward Report was this wonderful report that came out in the 1970s. It was a stirring defense of the importance of freedom of speech, even for speech that we find deeply offensive. It was supposed to be kind of one of the things that really set Yale apart, and they haven’t been living up to it for a long time. But one thing that was kind of sobering to see is them actually going to court in a case where actually it was more of an attack on the right, that they were in a litigation against this one professor, and they specifically disowned the Woodward Report, basically saying in court that, “That’s just puffery. We didn’t really mean any of that.”

Reason: What is the right wing version of cancel culture?

Schlott: Yeah, actually, it surprises most people to hear that about a third of attempts to get professors censored or fired are coming from the right and are attacks on professors to the left of the students. That tends to happen less in the really shiny institutions that garner the headlines and more at smaller schools, but it’s still meaningful.

There’s intergroup cancel culture in a way that I think is really frightening on the right. We talk about David French, for example, who’s maligned for having some different views about Trump and conservatism. I think, especially in the post-MAGA era, there’s a reflexive response to anyone who might be critical of Trump or to doubt Trump to cancel them or to squeeze them out. We talk about Megyn Kelly as an example of that, who gave me my first job in media, and was squeezed out from the right and then from the lefta demonstration of how one person who is or at the time was in pretty much the center right area could be canceled by both sides.

Reason: Where does right-wing cancel culture come from?

Schlott: I mean, I would say as someone who is right-leaning, and who grew up in a context where I now realize I wrongfully associated illiberalism with liberalism just because of the context of the years that I grew up in. I’ve realized that the left completely left freedom of speech, which used to be a fundamental principle of theirs, up for grabs. And anyone could grab that mantle and say, “Here’s the restorative, pluralistic democratic vision to move forward.” But instead, I think that we’ve seen quite a lot of people on the right just fight illiberalism with illiberalism and fists with fists in a way that is just so infuriating.

Reason: How has cancel culture erupted in the last few weeks in response to the war between Israel and Hamas? Do you think that Harvard students should lose their jobs over their opinions on Israelis and Palestinians?

Lukianoff: It is still cancel culture. I mean just the fact that it’s cancel culture that many people agree with doesn’t make it not cancel culture and I don’t like blacklists. I like to actually deal with people individually, find out what they really think about something, and give the benefit of the doubt.

Now to be clear, do companies have the legal right to hire who they want? Yes, and I oppose laws actually saying that they have to hire, but I do want people to take a deep breath, take some distance and say to themselves, “What if we live in a country where every company was also not just a widget shop, but also a political shop, and the boss’s politics decided who got to keep their job?” And it’s not that fanciful because that’s what it started to look like in 2020 and 2021 where people were getting fired for just having mildly critical Black Lives Matter statements. So I want people to consider what the world would look like if essentially you have a First Amendment, but you can’t have a job if you actually honestly say your political opinion.

I will give one caveat though to the Harvard students. I think that a big part of the problem we have as a country is that we too reflexively hire elite college graduates. I think this creates serious problems. I think you should try to find out when you’re hiring from elite college campuses by asking, “Okay, no, I understand you have a view that I find abhorrent. Can you work with people who disagree with you?”

Reason: Universities love to shoot their mouths off about all kinds of things. In your perfect universe, would universities never talk about anything other than higher education? Is the problem that they’re making too many statements, or that they are not making the right statements, or that they’re just hypocritical?

Lukianoff: In my perfect universe, every university would adopt a 1967 University of Chicago C Report, which is a very strong admonition not to take political positions. We are not the speakers, we are the forum for the speakers and the thinkers, which I think is the right attitude to have about higher education.

Reason: What can we do about cancel culture?

Schlott: Yeah, this is the conclusion of our book where we really make the case that we all need to buy into this free speech culture. That the only way we can supplant cancel culture is by going back to the old idioms that so many Americans were raised with, like, “to each their own.” This is a free country, everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Because I think we’ve underestimated just how far we’ve drifted away from that. Parents have not realized that they need to be aggressively mindful in instilling those values into a generation of young people who’ve been taught the absolute opposite, whether it was in K-12 or on college campuses, that words can wound and always trust your feelings, and that you can insulate yourself. You need safe spaces and trigger warnings.

We all need to buy-in to fight back against this tyranny of the minority of people who want to tear other people down to exercise cheap ad hominem attacks and dodge actual meaningful conversation. Because that’s the only way, if we actually want to move forward in a diverse and pluralistic society, we need to be able to have civil conversation and dialogue about the touchiest and most contentious issues. And unles we actually, mindfully fight back against cancel culture, we are just going to slump down into dangerous and illiberal tendencies.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity. Video Editor: Adam Czarnecki