Main Edition
US
FR
November 9, 2024 - 8:00am
A large body of evidence suggests that academics in the English-speaking world are more likely to face professional sanctions for offending Left-wing sensibilities than for offending Right-wing sensibilities. Yet the reverse may be true when it comes to the issue of Israel-Palestine. Since the start of the current Israel-Hamas war, many academics have been sanctioned for expressing what they regard as legitimate pro-Palestine views. Have we entered a new era of cancel culture?
Research by Eric Kaufmann and Pippa Norris indicates that the victims of academic cancel culture are disproportionately on the political Right. Academics with Right-wing views report much higher levels of self-censorship, and are more likely to say they’ve been subject to bullying or disciplinary action. Meanwhile, a non-trivial fraction of Left-wing academics openly admit that they would support ousting a colleague who carried out controversial research on diversity, imperialism, traditional parenthood or group differences in performance.
One area in which there have been notable cases of censorship against the Left is Israel-Palestine. In 2007, the pro-Palestine scholar Norman Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul University after a lobbying campaign by the pro-Israel law professor Alan Dershowitz. In 2014 another pro-Palestine scholar, Steven Salaita, was denied tenure at the University of Illinois following pressure from wealthy donors. Over the last year, many others have faced sanctions in connection with pro-Palestine campus activism.
To see whether these recent cases are part of a broader trend, I analysed the Scholars Under Fire Database. This is a dataset comprising 1,350 “targeting incidents” at US colleges going back to 2000. Each incident involves an attempt to professionally sanction an academic for constitutionally protected speech. The dataset was compiled by researchers at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).
A useful feature of the dataset is that it specifies for each incident whether the attempt to sanction came “from the Left” or “from the Right” of the individual concerned. The chart below plots the total number of incidents in each category over time. (I excluded incidents where it was unclear or irrelevant which direction the attempt came from.)
| Academic cancellations are now far more likely to come from the Right |
| Attempts to sanction professors for speech, by political affiliation |
 |
Both lines start rising in the mid 2010s before reaching a peak in the early 2020s and then falling afterwards, with the red line peaking one year earlier than the blue line. What’s interesting, however, is that for the past two years the blue line has been substantially higher. Since the start of 2023, there have been 67 more incidents involving efforts to sanction “from the Right”. This represents a substantial break with the previous pattern of roughly equal numbers of incidents in the two categories — or, in the case of 2020, many more involving efforts to sanction “from the Left”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeDuh!
Now could it possibly be that academics on the right are ganged up on and ousted by leftists because their research uncovers inconvenient truths, whereas leftish ‘pro-Palestinians’ are likely to be ousted because they organise massive disruption and victimise Jewish students and colleagues?
And the ‘speech’ they are sanctioned for will be things like ‘globalise the intifada, kill the j…s’ rather than things like ‘sex in mammals is binary’.
According to the compilers of the database, every incident involves an attempt to professionally sanction an academic for constitutionally protected speech.
Trump has vowed to crack down on people who censor constitutionally protected speech.
Oh dear, Noah, you’re a bit hard of thinking. The constitution protects the right to free speech and that includes hate speech and racist language. It doesn’t mean that there are no consequences for speech when it violates the codes of professional conduct. Do you get it now. Your idealogically driven agenda – that there’s a co-ordinated effort to shut down left-wing academics for anti-Israel speech – is all too clear. We get where you’re coming from.
The expression of political dissent always feels unpleasant to the side whose views support the object of that dissent but that does not affect one bit whether or not those expressions should be censored. Rather than reifying what is deemed beyond the pale by only one side, take up arms in your own struggle and exercise the very same right of free speech which is guaranteed by the same constitution.
I don’t see any evidence from the author that recent cancellations “of the Left” are being initiated “from the Right.”
Considering the absolute rarity within academia of influential and outspoken professors “on the Right” (after the many purges over the years), the far more plausible explanation is that these cancellations “of the Left” are being initiated “from the Left.”
In other words, if one is looking for new-age Nazis they merely need to pay a visit to an influential Ivy League university campus and speak with self-righteous antisemitic professors and students “on the Left” who have evidenced their desire both in word and via their targeted campus violence to eradicate the Jewish people “from the river to the sea.”
Good and decent people on the Left who’ve witnessed this abhorrent acceptance and promotion of antisemitism by others on the Left have started to police their own.
He’s fairly (not very) clear that ‘from the right’ means ‘conventionally right of the view being expressed’ ie does not exclude left-left conflict.
The author doesn’t provide evidence for his assertion that the new cancellations “of the Left” are coming “from the Right.”
Considering the absolute dearth within academia of popular and outspoken professors “on the Right” (after the many purges of such ‘undesirables’), the far more plausible explanation is that good and decent people “on the Left” have uncomfortably witnessed the rise of new-age Nazism (and a corresponding rise in violence directed toward Jews at university and calls for the eradication of Jews “from the river to the sea”) from fellow compatriots “on the Left,” and have therefore decided it’s in their best interest to police their own.
Dup
Your first word came to mind instantly. Talk about a Master of the Obvious.
They forgot that the right to free speech is explicitly for the protection of the minority. They then forgot they are the minority.
“The right” are cancelled for having the temerity to question radical ideas that are clearly unscientific and based on ideology rather than robust evidence. “The left” according to this article are cancelled for anti-semitism and offering support for terrorists. Hmmm! Now can I see any difference?
Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism. Many orthodox Jews are against Zionism. In what weird world are they anti-Semitic?
The differences in tone in the reporting on the Amsterdam riot perfectly illustrate the need to be clear on this issue. Naturally the New York Times called the attacks antisemitic but less biased outlets called them what they actually were, anti-Israel. This doesn’t make the attacks any less reprehensible, of course. They were still racist. But they weren’t “antisemitic.”
Sure, chasing down Jews to give them a life changing kicking isn’t anti Semitic.
Oh, wait
They were every bit as anti-Jewish as the Maccabi fans were anti-Arab.
They weren’t even necessarily anti Israel. The Maccabi fans are animals, and had caused trouble all over Amsterdam leading up to the match. A reaction from the more punchy of the home fans was to be expected
Maccabi fans (I won’t make excuses for them, they are hooligans) tear down several Palestinian flags and sang songs . But what happened in this night was a carefully planned action, which was agreed upon on social media networks. The participating local fans were not native Hollands – they were from Turkey, Morocco and Iraq. Drowning people in icy water, checking their passport, trying to run over them with a car – this is a different level of violence.
In the world where a thin veneer of anti Zionism justifies the beating, torture, rape and murder of jews
Sorry, but anti-Zionism can really only mean one thing: the eradication of the Jewish state. How is this not only not anti-Semitic but also genocidal? This is most definitely what is meant by those who call themselves ‘anti-Zionists’ today. This is why so-called anti-Zionism is often seen as either antisemitic or a close proxy to it.
Important point. Anti-zionism has to now, by definition, be anti-semitic. Being anti-zionist before the formation of Israel fair enough. Many jews were too, and some even foresaw the problems we face now. But 77 years later – means one is supporting the liquidation of a Nation. It’s ok to contend the decision to create Israel was wrong, but that’s for historians and not for politics today which has to deal with the realities of now. Liquidation of a nation a totalitarian mentality.
Whether Anti-Zionism genocidal perhaps a slightly different matter though. It could mean one state solution with all having equal rights. It could mean ethnic cleansing and population movement, but not deliberate extermination – although lesson is things slip into the genocidal very quickly. What it does mean though is it’s adherents want an end to a Jewish state defined by it’s religion, and thus it is anti-semitic.
A one state solution won’t work. The antecedents of at least half the Jews in Israel came there to escape persecution in Arab countries legitimised by some interpretations of the Qur’an and most interpretations of the Hadith.
Many Orthodox Jews are under against Zionism, but that doesn’t make them anti-Israel; it is a religious issue to do with divine v human action in the remaking of the nation of Israel. The excuse that Muslim and current left-wing extremism’s anti-Zionism is different from anti-Semitism is pitiful. You cannot logically call for all Jews to be cleared from the region without knowing it will harm Jews; and you cannot blame Jews for all the capitalist ills of the West and pretend it’s anti-Zionism.
Zionism is the movement to provide Jews with a Jewish-majority state where, as individuals, they are not at the mercy of non-Jewish majorities. If an ultra orthodox Jew is anti-Zionist because he thinks that Jews have to remain at the mercy of non-Jews by divine decree, it might be debatable whether it represents authentic Judaism, but that is an intra-Jewish debate. But for a non-Jew to think that Jews everywhere should always remain at the mercy of non-Jewish majorities, and should be denied a refuge, is indeed antisemitic.
As someone who works in a British university, I can tell you that so-called Left-wing academics very much have an easy ride with respect to ‘cancel culture’. They have to say something demonstrably and extremely antisemitic to face sanction – something that might be classed as gross misconduct, leading to possible arrest. On the other hand, all it takes for someone else to face investigation and/or sanction is to say something as simple and true as ‘sex is immutable’. This shows the imballance. The only reason Left-wing academics are now showing up in the stats is because they’re saying some pretty disgusting things by any standard.
How can an academic – regardless of their own views- seek to shut down alternative opinion ? It is inconsistent with the very concept of academia to deny research and discussion.
Good. I hope it is now dawning on even the dimmest lefty academic that ‘cancel culture’ has got completely out of hand. Universities should be havens of free speech, where the way to deal with differences of opinion is through vigorous debate.
The only limitation to this is that students and academics alike should feel safe and welcome on campus. Individuals and groups which threaten this, should be jumped on from a great height by the university authorities.
Campus is not a place where you go to feel safe. You go there to be challenged and to grow up.
I agree… but i suspect David was referring to being safe from threat of actual physical violence, not having one’s sensibilities threatened.
Amen. The level of discourse on university campuses would be improved if the response to “I have been injured” was “Show me the bruise.” Tormenting someone emotionally is beyond the pale, but claiming you have been hurt by a “microaggression” is waaayy beyond that.
Politics should stay out of academia. Too many social “scientists”, communication and journalism majors, gender studies, DEI studies, social workers, racial studies, etc. An academic is there to teach all ideas, and allow the students to form their own opinions, not preach their own beliefs. Also, keep DEI out of STEM. I am glad to see the left academics cancelled. They have had too much influence.
This paper confirms what would be common knowledge to any reasonably educated person reading events of the past ten years. Whether it is important or not is moot. Perhaps we need another reformation to “rid us of troublesome academics “ in the non-STEM subjects.
Dissolution of Monasteries did the job.
I might even be tempted to go further. Three higher grades in STEM subjects and the state will pay your fees provided you agree to work in the UK for 5 years after graduation. It will also help you manage the transition from Uni to work, and support higher courses such as Masters and PhDs. After the next complete university cycle, student loans will cease for non-STEM subjects, especially PPE courses at ancient universities. Students will fund their own courses in non-STEM subjects. Parents, in the short term, will be encouraged to start putting funds away in tailored insurance policies directed at further education. Primary and Secondary education will be transformed by the introduction of vouchers, where parents may choose the appropriate school for their child. These vouchers are good for 15 years in all stages of education and may be redeemed at any point in the life of the student. Students can leave secondary education at any stage after they are 14. This will need tidying up a bit, but it should get rid of producer capture, destroy non-subjects, and encourage parents to become more informed and perhaps more involved in the lives of those they have seen fit to bring into the world.
If you want to know who holds power over you look at who you cannot talk about
Reap what you sow!
Read this, then thought about, then thought “I don’t care”, let them eat each other.
Is this really an academic problem? After my PhD, I started my career in Mathematics at a British University. Nobody was interested in my political opinions, and when I occasionally volunteered them in the pub, nobody seemed bothered.
Perhaps the opinions that seem to cause so much anger, are not proper academic topics.
Yes, all the tensions do seem to erupt in particular studies. Which, if true, makes one wonder why they think their opinions matter so much? Is it a particular person drawn to those studies or the studies themselves that bend students out of shape?
I worked in an educational branch of the civil service, most staff were teachers, it was a horrible stultifying atmosphere (at least for anyone with traditional/conservative views). All these orgs have DEI programmes. This means forced attendance at what amounts to political indoctrination events, progressive messaging presented as if everyone of goodwill agrees with it, recruitment/promotion based on ethnic/gender characteristics.
What this proves is the old stage “anything you can do I can do better”. Time to cancel the cancel culture.
I’m afraid this article and the data it uses mean zilch. The left is renowned as being litigious and having thin skins when it come to slights against them. Given that the majority of academics are of the left and hard left I could well imagine that crying wolf would give themselves a satisfaction of calling out the other for any imagined slight.
I am reminded of the period immediately after the Brexit vote when it was falsely claimed that there had been an increase of racist attacks but upon analysis of the data and events there was no demonstrable or statistical evidence for any such claim.
My feelings about this consist primarily in an intense Schadenfreude.
Useful article which complicates the picture convincingly
Massive shoehorning of the word ‘right-wing’ here. Do these Pro-Netanyahu regime lobby groups cancel leftists for any other reason than their opposition to Israel?
no.
It might be relevant whether the targeting of anti-Israel events took place before or after the event. Hi It may also be relevant in what form this targeting took. Criticism, perhaps? Complains about unacceptable behaviour, or incitement to violence? The analysis seems extremely simplistic to me.
The main difference between the two groups may be summed up thus:
The left indulge in cancel culture, if they do, in order to protect the underdog. In contrast the right do so in order to keep harrying the underdog.
The main difference between the two groups is that the left censor their opponents, while their opponents censor themselves for fear of losing their jobs.
Kamala Harris an underdog?! Wow, you have a funny idea of what constitutes an underdog. If I had openly said anything against Harris or her lavishly funded (greatest in history) campaign, I would have been cancelled immediately in my university by Left-wing loonies, that’s for sure!
Well, the Palestinians are the underdogs. And on the evidence of the present article, my contention is amply justified. Even Harris is against the Palestinians!
Oh, that old chestnut! I thought that was behind your whinging. Got it out of you eventually.
I have the feeling that you know not the meaning either of the underdog or of chestnut.
In other words, left-academics have an arrogant saviour complex. Right-academics mostly keep their mouths shut, being unable to ‘harry’ anyone.