Yglesias: "So I wish the anti-cancellers would chill out a bit, do a bit more helping and a bit less warning, and also try to be more precise and accurate in the claims that they are making."
This is a great example of mealy-mouthed nonsense and intellectual quislingism.
Translating from the original weasel-speak it reads as:
"I know that our culture and discourse have been captured by ideological zealots who demand we all praise the Emperor's New Clothes and proclaim that math is racist and women can have penises, but could we just keep our voices down and speak in a kinder tone? When someone demonizes you for wrongthink and attempts to get you fired, be the bigger person and respond calmly w precise and accurate facts [as if this has ever worked!]...Also, me and some other famous journalists are doing well, so it can't be so bad, right?"
Liberals are just congenitally incapable of confronting Leftists, they are too afraid of being accused of being conservative-adjacent and are always supine before anyone pushing an Egalitarian agenda (however spurious), and thus will always and forever be Useful Idiots.
May 4, 2023·edited May 4, 2023Liked by The Ivy Exile
Al-Gharbi here.
So, I may be at Columbia now, but I started at a community college, attended a public land grant, and starting in the fall, will be back at a public land grant (Stony Brook).
I know a thing or two about the risks involved in speaking up. I was successfully 'cancelled' by Fox News from my teaching appointment at University of Arizona (discussed here: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/musa-al-gharbi-academic-truth-duncan-moench). It didn't lead me to grow bitter or extreme (as sometimes happens), nor did it lead me to keep my mouth shut.
Granted, I managed to 'fail upwards,' and I'm now at Columbia. But again, I was doing what I'm doing now long before I was at an Ivy League school, and I'll continue doing it as a tenure-track person at a public land grant university starting in the fall. I don't need to wait for tenure to do this. Nor do I need to be at Columbia.
Put another way, I don't speak up because I have institutional privilege at an Ivy League school, or a secure academic post. I'm driven instead by my conviction and my confidence that, in fact, most of my peers are also supportive of these ideals. And in a world where they weren't, I'd just do something else with my life. I only recently began to think of myself as an 'academic' (and came to view that term in a non-pejorative way). If this line of work actually did make it impossible to study the things I want to and speak the truth as I see it, I'd do something else with my life.
More broadly, I think people fool themselves when they say, 'if only I wait for security, then I'll speak my mind.' If someone keeps their head down and their mouth shut for 4 years while getting their BA, 5 more to get their PhD, another 6 while working through the tenure track -- at the end of this 15 year process, they are no longer the type of person who says bold things. They're a person who keeps their head down and colors within the lines. So my choice has always been to be the kind of scholar I want to be -- from the outset through the present. And if I can't be the kind of scholar I want to be, then I will choose not to be a scholar.
I didn't wait until I got into grad school to speak out. I didn't wait until after the job market to speak up. I didn't wait until I got tenure to speak up. I started doing the public-facing work I do as an undergrad, and I haven't stopped. The freedom I feel comes not from privilege, but from a confidence that, even if I were cancelled (again), life moves on. I'd do something else. It'd be alright. The other ways one can make a living are not a horror or social death for me. They're what I more-or-less expected to do with my life until circa 2016.
Thank you for the thoughtful response! I admire your work and am glad that you've forged an impressive career despite cancellation and without compromising your principles. Didn't mean to imply that you're stuck in the ivory tower or that Columbia defines you or your scholarship.
At the same time, there seem to be few rising academics of your heterodox bent who have as positive an experience. Many of the more interesting thinkers among the grad students I've known have ended up washing out of their programs, while the ones who've stuck it out have disproportionately been would-be cancellers themselves or had conventional enough views to avoid ruffling feathers.
I certainly hope the pushback we've seen over the past few months opens up more room for debate and opportunities for independent-minded scholars -- but am not hugely optimistic given all the trendlines over the past decade. Thanks again for weighing in and wishing you the best at Stony Brook!
You badly misunderstand "cancellation." People who wind up as professors at Columbia have not been cancelled.
You wrote something wrong and controversial and -- as a result -- lost a place in one graduate school. Big deal.
If you had written something offensive to the Left, it would have gotten you cancelled at every institution of higher learning in the Western world, whether it was right or wrong or only offensive to a few. After being cancelled by the Left, you'd be lucky to be assistant night manager at a 7-11.
First, I am not a professor at Columbia. I am a grad student at Columbia.
I lost a teaching position at the University of Arizona previously where I was a contingent faculty member, in the wake of being targeted by Fox News. This is why I applied to PhD programs at all. The first year I applied, in the immediate aftermath, I didn't get in anywhere despite applying to schools I thought were 'safe.' It looked like the end of the academic road for me, and so I was just going to do something else with my life (join the military like the rest of my family). However, one of my advisors suggested that I should take one more crack, aiming only at elite schools, and then if I didn't get in, join the army as I planned. Second round, I got lots of offers. So I pursued a PhD program at Columbia. Starting in the fall, I'll be a tenure-track faculty member at a land grant university.
Even now, my public profile likely did hurt me on the job market. Given I have 9 peer reviewed journal publications, a book under contract from Princeton, I check diversity boxes, and I'm coming from Columbia -- if I was towing the preferred political lines as well, it'd have been a relatively straight shot to Harvard or something. I heard through backchannel that there were people who didn't give me a flyout because of concerns about my politics v. those of the students. But again, it was more important to me to be honest than to land a job at school like Yale instead of Stony Brook. Or indeed, to land an academic job at all. If I had washed out on the job market, I'd have just done something else with my life.
I spoke out as I wanted as an undergrad. I did so as a contingent faculty member. I did so as a grad student. I will as an untenured, tenure-track professor. I did so at community college. I did so at a public land grant. I did so in the Ivy League. I'll continue to do so at a new public land grant.
The 'lucky to be a manager at 7-11' comment is very telling. Precisely my point in my initial comment is that I don't view it as some kind of horror story to be an assistant night manager at 7-11. What I was doing before I came to Columbia was working as a shoe salesman in the mall at Sierra Vista, AZ. And for the years prior, worked largely as a manager at retail stores. If I went back to that, it wouldn't be a source of horror or shame for me. The fact that some are very committed to their elite positions is why they keep quiet.
The irony, of course, is that there's a sense in which the author of this post got the situation backwards. He said I speak out because I'm a rising star academic. It's the opposite. The reason I'm a rising star is because I speak out. In a world where many other people are self-censoring, etc., there's a lot of opportunity for someone willing to speak their mind. There are risks too, of course, as again, I know first hand. But unlike some people, I'm sincerely not troubled at the prospect of being a normie who works as a manager at 7-11, so I can take those risks.
And before you say, "well some people have obligations" or something like that, I should emphasize, I have a wife and two kids I'm supporting. And we're all on the same page with this. They weren't ashamed of me when I was a shoe salesman, and we got by just fine. If I was instead a manager of a 7-11, we'd get by too. More realistically, someone with a PhD has many options beyond just professor or manager at a 7-11. But even if the latter was the only prospect left, it'd be fine. My confidence on this point is precisely the source of my freedom.
For the purposes of this response, I'm going to assume that your experience was presented truthfully by B. Duncan Moench in that TABLET article -- with no falsehoods, and nothing significant left out.
(That statement does not come from a place of paranoia; in fact I suspect the details of your experience were truthfully presented in Moench's piece. But you'll see, in a few paragraphs, why I said that.)
Hi Musa.
You seem like a thoughtful guy. I know how people's views can be "set" by their bad experiences. I am sorry you were cancelled by Fox News. (I say that freely, but I've never been that much of a Fox News fan; so I have less stake in the game than some, maybe.)
I am also gratified that you have found success in the years since.
However. (You knew that was coming.)
That you were, in fact, cancelled, and cancelled from the Right, is a bad thing. It was for a ludicrous reason. But you seem to believe, or to feel, at least, that it evens the scales between the Left and Right when it comes to "Cancel Culture", so-called. But it doesn't; it's not even close.
As the TABLET article notes, your "cancellation" was in 2014, "before America even had the term 'cancel culture'." That might not seem so long ago to you, because -- and I completely understand this -- you were there, and (to swipe a phrase from Douglas Adams) it had a profound effect on you at the time.
But I couldn't help but notice that you wear your cancellation proudly, like a badge of honor. You mention it in the first sentence of the first (major) paragraph of both your Comments in this thread. All the facts are neatly packaged: cancelled, TABLET, faculty at University of Arizona, lost teaching appointment. It's an effective cite.
My point is not that you are "placarding" yourself with your experience, although you are doing that in this thread. (In the context of a Comment thread, it's fine; with back-and-forth responses and replies, it helps readers keep track of who's who.) I'm trying to make another point. I don't know if you bring up this "cancellation" experience much in your academic life -- when seeking positions and such. But since you seem like an intelligent person, I suspect that you do -- because (and here is what's different about your experience): to the academic Left, your experience IS a badge of honor.
"Really? An African-American Muslim, cancelled by Fox News?" It is simply a fact that most faculty in America's universities would want to talk to you just from knowing that alone. (In fact, since it sounds like an interesting story, I think most CONSERVATIVE professors would be curious.)
Notice what I am not saying. I am not saying the Right does not cancel. I am saying the Left cancels more -- a lot more -- MUCH more. And more importantly, I am saying that the cancelling is occurring in a particular context: a Left-dominated context. Your cancellation is different, and unusual, because it was done by the Right, in a space (academia) that is overwhelmingly dominated by the Left.
Moench fully acknowledges the unusual, indeed almost ironic, nature of your cancellation. Quoting from his TABLET article:
"Al-Gharbi put forth a leftist position, for which he was pilloried by Fox News. He is an African American Muslim, which presumably should have given him intersectional identity cred. Yet before America even had the term 'cancel culture,' he became one of its casualties."
Moench is correct, and fair, to point out how much your "cancellation" differs from the usual. However, immediately thereafter, Moench's article continues as follows:
"How that happened helps illuminate a general misunderstanding about cancel culture, and the nature of the university system where it largely originated.
Conservatives claim that American universities are bastions of left-wing radicalism, but the reality is far more complicated, and ridiculous. At its core, America’s higher education industry is neither left nor right, per se."
With your example as his lead-in, Moench now wishes to debunk (or at least argue against) the "claim" of "Conservatives" that "American universities are bastions of left-wing radicalism". Which he is perfectly entitled to do.
However.
On the way to making that argument, wishing to lay some groundwork first, Moench states -- as "reality" -- that "America's higher education industry is neither left nor right, per se."
I am not trying to make fun of B. Duncan Moench. He seems like a pleasant person, and writes well.
However.
Here is a link to a study (or rather an article summarizing the study's results) by a Brooklyn CUNY professor, which bears on Moench's statement.
"In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of ACADEMIC QUESTIONS already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.
"My sample of 8,688 tenure track, Ph.D.–holding professors from fifty-one of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. NEWS 2017 report consists of 5,197, or 59.8 percent, who are registered either Republican or Democrat. The mean Democratic-to-Republican ratio (D:R) across the sample is 10.4:1, but because of an anomaly in the definition of what constitutes a liberal arts college in the U.S. NEWS survey, I include two military colleges, West Point and Annapolis. If these are excluded, the D:R ratio is a whopping 12.7:1."
There is an antelope known as the Oryx, which is large (for an antelope) and has horns of an unusual length and strength. I have actually seen Oryxes in the wild, at which time I was assured, by gamekeepers whom I thought credible, that Oryxes sometimes kill lions.
I was skeptical. So they described how they did it. Standing their ground as the lion charges at them, certain Oryxes will dig in their heels -- and just as the lion leaps upon them, they will suddenly whip their head downward, bringing their horns to bear upon the predator's torso; and if their aim is true, they can spear them through and through.
I looked into this claim after I heard it, and although reports are sketchy, I am fairly certain that this, in fact, an actual thing; it is rare, but it does occur. However, at no point did it ever occur to me to say to anyone, anywhere, something like this: "In Africa's ecosystem, antelopes are not always PREY animals, per se."
Because that would be silly.
With respect to you, and to Moench: unless you believe that these studies are faked -- invented, I mean -- or you devalue logical argument as a matter of principle, then I do not think it is possible to believe that "America's higher education industry is neither left nor right, per se."
That sentence makes me question whether I should believe ANYTHING in Moench's article. Like the thirteenth strike of a clock, it calls into question everything that follows, and everything that has come before.
Not all of this effect falls on you, of course. As I said earlier, it's different when it happens to you. But some of it does fall on you, because you cited the article without hesitation or qualification. I can tell you this: if I were linking to Moench's article to back up something *I* was writing, I would include a disclaimer. (Something along the lines of "Without criticizing or endorsing any of the article's conclusions, I can affirm that his account of my cancellation is accurate.")
That is why I brought up Moench's credibility at the start of my reply.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors -- whether in "America's higher education industry", or outside it.
So Moench's framing on this is not how I would have put it. I am absolutely aware of the skewed ideological lean of the academy. Overall, the professoriate skews about 5:1 liberal to conservative, although within the social science fields, the skew is closer to 10:1. And in some disciplines, it's even more dramatic, as I myself illustrated here: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/ideological-underrepresentation-compared-to-race-gender-sexuality/
The point Moench was trying to make (as I understand him, based on some of his other stuff) is that many of these 'leftist' professors don't really put their money where their mouths are. They're leftists in name only. Elitists who put on a big show of being egalitarians. But that is not to undermine the point, and the importance of the point, that academics overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic Party and the ideological left.
This is an issue that is very dear to me. I served as the communications director for Heterodox Academy (an organization with which I continue to be deeply involved), where a key part of my work was not only reviewing the evidence, but helping to explain people why it mattered. I responded to getting targeted by Fox News by trying to engage more with the right, and to get others to do the same. A lot of my research is on how academics consistently misunderstand and misrepresent folks like Trump voters (https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/n8bkh).
Nonetheless, one thing that is very clear in the available data is that cases like mine -- faculty being fired as a result of right-aligned campaigns -- are far from rare. Actually, in terms of sheer numbers, most faculty fired for political speech are actually on the left. However, this is in part a function of the very ideological skew you mention. Per capita, right-aligned professors are more likely to be fired, even though most professors fired for speech overall are on the left (more on this here: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/vox-consistent-errors-explained/). The takeaway from this to my mind is that these are not partisan issues. The firing and suppression of people on the left doesn't justify doing the same to people on the right or vice-versa. Everyone has an institutional stake in trying to preserve and enhance freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.
And as I showed in my research and forthcoming book (We Have Never Been Woke: https://musaalgharbi.com/2021/05/05/book-announcement-we-have-never-been-woke/), we might not have coined the term 'cancel culture' yet, but my firing actually did occur in the context of what is now called the 'Great Awokening.' As I show looking through tons and tons of data (a roundup of some of the relevant data here: https://musaalgharbi.com/2023/02/08/great-awokening-ending/), the Awokening seems to have kicked off in late 2010. It was well underway at the time I was swept up into things in November 2014.
OK, you are a grad student at one of the most elite universities in the world, not a faculty member. My point remains: Your future is very bright and you have very definitely not been cancelled.
As I wrote, if you had offended the other side of the political spectrum, you would be lucky to be assistant night manager at a 7-11. You say that this is no problem and you used to sell shoes.
I used to do much more unpleasant tasks than selling shoes and I would go back to them if I had to. But that experience doesn't remotely -- not remotely -- mean that losing much more prestigious, lucrative jobs for political views isn't a tragedy for the person and for society.
If you claim otherwise, you are dishonest, a medieval ascetic, or too dense to be a grad student in anything, anywhere.
So, two points to summarize:
1. Cancellation is a very real phenomenon that is crippling thinking and communication in our society. And it happens more-or-less exclusively to people who offend the Left.
2. You were not cancelled. You were not even close to cancelled.
Oddly, I can't seem to reply to Musa al-Gharbi, so I guess that I will have to reply to myself and hope that Musa sees it.
1. Only an academic could possibly think that those were "quick points."
2. Becoming a grad student at Columbia more than reverses being "terminated" from a teaching position. I know that you are desperate to claim that you've been oppressed, but you simply haven't been.
3. There is some hope if you challenge the Left, but only for people of sufficient fame, power and/or wealth (or a great deal of luck). Most of us are simply fired.
I stopped reading at point 5. If you have something important to say, don't encase it in 1,000 words serving as packing peanuts.
1. I was brought into this conversation in the first place because it was suggested that I have some kind of unusual protection that enables me to speak freely.
2. In fact, I spoke freely as an undergrad at a public landgrant. I spoke freely as an adjunct at a public landgrant. I speak freely as a grad student at an Ivy. I'll speak freely as a untenured, but tenure-track professor at a public landgrant starting in fall 2023.
3. I've been terminated from an academic teaching position for political speech. This is just a fact. The only reason that wasn't the end of the road for me was some caprice and my unwillingness to be silenced despite being terminated.
4. Your comments suggest that if you challenge the left, there's no hope. My work routinely and aggressively challenges the left. I've done tons of work defending Trump voters. I very publicly work for an organization that advocates for more political and ideological diversity on campus (not exactly popular with the left!). I push back aggressively on preferred narratives on race. My forthcoming book will also extend the same treatment to gender and sexuality. There are not many academics who more consistently and fearlessly push back on unhelpful left orthodoxies than myself. Even among those with tenure, etc.
5. I do this without tenure, or indeed, any kind of permanent academic appointment. This is a simple fact. I wrote inconvenient essays not just as an undergrad hoping to get into grad school, or as an adjunct, but also when I was getting ready for the academic job market. My main job market book is brutal critique of wokeness. Not exactly playing it safe! I still got a job. Although I won't be tenured for several more years, I'll continue to aggressively challenge folks on the right AND the left.
And this goes back to Yglesias' point. Yes there are real risks. Both professional and social. But there's more freedom than many seem to suspect, if they're willing to push the envelope. And Yglesias' point is that excessive fear mongering just leads to more self-censorship. To claim that one cannot offend the left without getting cancelled is a gross overstatement. I do it all the time.
My latest essay, for instance, is a big summary of the empirical literature on how conservative and religious folks tend to be happier, while progressives have higher rates of mental illness -- closing with an exploration of how the 'Great Awokening' likely exacerbated these divides. It presents evidence that internalizing certain left views has a pernicious effect on adherents, including and especially people of color, etc. I published it in American Affairs. It was widely shared by conservatives including Ann Coulter, Jordan Peterson and Ross Douthat. Many on the left, on the other hand... did not love it. I knew that it would not be warmly received in many left circles before publication. That did not stop me from publishing it: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2023/03/how-to-understand-the-well-being-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives/
You said someone getting fired for their political views is a big loss for that person and society. Again, this is something I have first-hand experience with. I was fired from a position for my political views. But the 'loss for society' bit is actually why it's important to speak out. If people self-censor, they might as well be cancelled. It's the same effect for society, and for our informational environment. What does it matter if they're technically in the system but don't actually dissent or resist in a meaningful way v. not being in the system at all?
Again, my position has always been I'm going to be a type of scholar I can be proud of, I'd rather not do this at all. There was a real prospect of washing out multiple times. I was fired from my academic job for my politics. The first time I applied to grad school I didn't get into anywhere. The first time I went on the job market, I left empty handed. I didn't let any of that dissuade me from speaking out, including speaking out aggressively against many cherished dogmas of the left. Largely because, if it hadn't worked out for me in academia, I'd have done something else with my life. If my future employer decides to pull the plug before I start because of something I say in this intervening period, again, I'll just do something else.
But even for people who really see themselves as academics/ scholars and can't imagine themselves as anything else -- even for them, they have a lot more freedom than the popular narratives suggest if they're willing to use it and incur a little risk. And in speaking up, they can empower others to do the same.
The real issue to my mind is that the kind of people who become academics are just generally speaking not the kind of people who are actually likely to take risks or engage in confrontational dissent. We may hold up people like Copernicus or Galileo as our role models, but what these institutions actually select for is risk-averse, competent and conscientious conformists. I've explored that at length here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AujOpvyQ0Ns&list=PLXUJh3viVi1_W64_J8BkFczqp-a3rcR-T&index=11
And so most people who fall into that camp will be disinclined to really make use of their academic freedom no matter how robust the protections, no matter how open the culture. But for those who have a bit of backbone, for those who have interesting things to say, my advice to them would be to speak up more, even if it is 'safer' to be silent. The institutional protections and culture will always be wanting. If people say 'let's eliminate the risk and then I'll speak up,' that's the same as saying, 'I'll never speak up.' The only time it's actually important or valuable to speak up is when there's risk involved of some kind or another! Whether people take me up on that suggestion will be a matter of their own conscience and priorities. But that's my two cents.
I experienced cancel culture at Ameriprise. I lost quite a lot of the respect I once had for them. I feel sorry for the salesmen who lost my accounts. That wasn't his fault. But, I could find equally competitive financial services elsewhere so I did.
You have a point, I could have been more courageous at the time -- but it wouldn't have accomplished anything but costing me my livelihood. The Substack is subtitled "Redemption of a Recovering Flack" because I'm speaking out now, better late than never. Courage is great, I wholeheartedly encourage it, but let's not labor under the illusion that individual courage (particularly among those early in their careers) has much chance against larger systemic forces/incentives discouraging freedom of debate/expression.
Yglesias: "So I wish the anti-cancellers would chill out a bit, do a bit more helping and a bit less warning, and also try to be more precise and accurate in the claims that they are making."
This is a great example of mealy-mouthed nonsense and intellectual quislingism.
Translating from the original weasel-speak it reads as:
"I know that our culture and discourse have been captured by ideological zealots who demand we all praise the Emperor's New Clothes and proclaim that math is racist and women can have penises, but could we just keep our voices down and speak in a kinder tone? When someone demonizes you for wrongthink and attempts to get you fired, be the bigger person and respond calmly w precise and accurate facts [as if this has ever worked!]...Also, me and some other famous journalists are doing well, so it can't be so bad, right?"
Liberals are just congenitally incapable of confronting Leftists, they are too afraid of being accused of being conservative-adjacent and are always supine before anyone pushing an Egalitarian agenda (however spurious), and thus will always and forever be Useful Idiots.
Al-Gharbi here.
So, I may be at Columbia now, but I started at a community college, attended a public land grant, and starting in the fall, will be back at a public land grant (Stony Brook).
I know a thing or two about the risks involved in speaking up. I was successfully 'cancelled' by Fox News from my teaching appointment at University of Arizona (discussed here: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/musa-al-gharbi-academic-truth-duncan-moench). It didn't lead me to grow bitter or extreme (as sometimes happens), nor did it lead me to keep my mouth shut.
Granted, I managed to 'fail upwards,' and I'm now at Columbia. But again, I was doing what I'm doing now long before I was at an Ivy League school, and I'll continue doing it as a tenure-track person at a public land grant university starting in the fall. I don't need to wait for tenure to do this. Nor do I need to be at Columbia.
Put another way, I don't speak up because I have institutional privilege at an Ivy League school, or a secure academic post. I'm driven instead by my conviction and my confidence that, in fact, most of my peers are also supportive of these ideals. And in a world where they weren't, I'd just do something else with my life. I only recently began to think of myself as an 'academic' (and came to view that term in a non-pejorative way). If this line of work actually did make it impossible to study the things I want to and speak the truth as I see it, I'd do something else with my life.
More broadly, I think people fool themselves when they say, 'if only I wait for security, then I'll speak my mind.' If someone keeps their head down and their mouth shut for 4 years while getting their BA, 5 more to get their PhD, another 6 while working through the tenure track -- at the end of this 15 year process, they are no longer the type of person who says bold things. They're a person who keeps their head down and colors within the lines. So my choice has always been to be the kind of scholar I want to be -- from the outset through the present. And if I can't be the kind of scholar I want to be, then I will choose not to be a scholar.
I didn't wait until I got into grad school to speak out. I didn't wait until after the job market to speak up. I didn't wait until I got tenure to speak up. I started doing the public-facing work I do as an undergrad, and I haven't stopped. The freedom I feel comes not from privilege, but from a confidence that, even if I were cancelled (again), life moves on. I'd do something else. It'd be alright. The other ways one can make a living are not a horror or social death for me. They're what I more-or-less expected to do with my life until circa 2016.
Thank you for the thoughtful response! I admire your work and am glad that you've forged an impressive career despite cancellation and without compromising your principles. Didn't mean to imply that you're stuck in the ivory tower or that Columbia defines you or your scholarship.
At the same time, there seem to be few rising academics of your heterodox bent who have as positive an experience. Many of the more interesting thinkers among the grad students I've known have ended up washing out of their programs, while the ones who've stuck it out have disproportionately been would-be cancellers themselves or had conventional enough views to avoid ruffling feathers.
I certainly hope the pushback we've seen over the past few months opens up more room for debate and opportunities for independent-minded scholars -- but am not hugely optimistic given all the trendlines over the past decade. Thanks again for weighing in and wishing you the best at Stony Brook!
You badly misunderstand "cancellation." People who wind up as professors at Columbia have not been cancelled.
You wrote something wrong and controversial and -- as a result -- lost a place in one graduate school. Big deal.
If you had written something offensive to the Left, it would have gotten you cancelled at every institution of higher learning in the Western world, whether it was right or wrong or only offensive to a few. After being cancelled by the Left, you'd be lucky to be assistant night manager at a 7-11.
First, I am not a professor at Columbia. I am a grad student at Columbia.
I lost a teaching position at the University of Arizona previously where I was a contingent faculty member, in the wake of being targeted by Fox News. This is why I applied to PhD programs at all. The first year I applied, in the immediate aftermath, I didn't get in anywhere despite applying to schools I thought were 'safe.' It looked like the end of the academic road for me, and so I was just going to do something else with my life (join the military like the rest of my family). However, one of my advisors suggested that I should take one more crack, aiming only at elite schools, and then if I didn't get in, join the army as I planned. Second round, I got lots of offers. So I pursued a PhD program at Columbia. Starting in the fall, I'll be a tenure-track faculty member at a land grant university.
Even now, my public profile likely did hurt me on the job market. Given I have 9 peer reviewed journal publications, a book under contract from Princeton, I check diversity boxes, and I'm coming from Columbia -- if I was towing the preferred political lines as well, it'd have been a relatively straight shot to Harvard or something. I heard through backchannel that there were people who didn't give me a flyout because of concerns about my politics v. those of the students. But again, it was more important to me to be honest than to land a job at school like Yale instead of Stony Brook. Or indeed, to land an academic job at all. If I had washed out on the job market, I'd have just done something else with my life.
I spoke out as I wanted as an undergrad. I did so as a contingent faculty member. I did so as a grad student. I will as an untenured, tenure-track professor. I did so at community college. I did so at a public land grant. I did so in the Ivy League. I'll continue to do so at a new public land grant.
The 'lucky to be a manager at 7-11' comment is very telling. Precisely my point in my initial comment is that I don't view it as some kind of horror story to be an assistant night manager at 7-11. What I was doing before I came to Columbia was working as a shoe salesman in the mall at Sierra Vista, AZ. And for the years prior, worked largely as a manager at retail stores. If I went back to that, it wouldn't be a source of horror or shame for me. The fact that some are very committed to their elite positions is why they keep quiet.
The irony, of course, is that there's a sense in which the author of this post got the situation backwards. He said I speak out because I'm a rising star academic. It's the opposite. The reason I'm a rising star is because I speak out. In a world where many other people are self-censoring, etc., there's a lot of opportunity for someone willing to speak their mind. There are risks too, of course, as again, I know first hand. But unlike some people, I'm sincerely not troubled at the prospect of being a normie who works as a manager at 7-11, so I can take those risks.
And before you say, "well some people have obligations" or something like that, I should emphasize, I have a wife and two kids I'm supporting. And we're all on the same page with this. They weren't ashamed of me when I was a shoe salesman, and we got by just fine. If I was instead a manager of a 7-11, we'd get by too. More realistically, someone with a PhD has many options beyond just professor or manager at a 7-11. But even if the latter was the only prospect left, it'd be fine. My confidence on this point is precisely the source of my freedom.
"if I was towing the preferred political lines" With a toe truck?
For the purposes of this response, I'm going to assume that your experience was presented truthfully by B. Duncan Moench in that TABLET article -- with no falsehoods, and nothing significant left out.
(That statement does not come from a place of paranoia; in fact I suspect the details of your experience were truthfully presented in Moench's piece. But you'll see, in a few paragraphs, why I said that.)
Hi Musa.
You seem like a thoughtful guy. I know how people's views can be "set" by their bad experiences. I am sorry you were cancelled by Fox News. (I say that freely, but I've never been that much of a Fox News fan; so I have less stake in the game than some, maybe.)
I am also gratified that you have found success in the years since.
However. (You knew that was coming.)
That you were, in fact, cancelled, and cancelled from the Right, is a bad thing. It was for a ludicrous reason. But you seem to believe, or to feel, at least, that it evens the scales between the Left and Right when it comes to "Cancel Culture", so-called. But it doesn't; it's not even close.
As the TABLET article notes, your "cancellation" was in 2014, "before America even had the term 'cancel culture'." That might not seem so long ago to you, because -- and I completely understand this -- you were there, and (to swipe a phrase from Douglas Adams) it had a profound effect on you at the time.
But I couldn't help but notice that you wear your cancellation proudly, like a badge of honor. You mention it in the first sentence of the first (major) paragraph of both your Comments in this thread. All the facts are neatly packaged: cancelled, TABLET, faculty at University of Arizona, lost teaching appointment. It's an effective cite.
My point is not that you are "placarding" yourself with your experience, although you are doing that in this thread. (In the context of a Comment thread, it's fine; with back-and-forth responses and replies, it helps readers keep track of who's who.) I'm trying to make another point. I don't know if you bring up this "cancellation" experience much in your academic life -- when seeking positions and such. But since you seem like an intelligent person, I suspect that you do -- because (and here is what's different about your experience): to the academic Left, your experience IS a badge of honor.
"Really? An African-American Muslim, cancelled by Fox News?" It is simply a fact that most faculty in America's universities would want to talk to you just from knowing that alone. (In fact, since it sounds like an interesting story, I think most CONSERVATIVE professors would be curious.)
Notice what I am not saying. I am not saying the Right does not cancel. I am saying the Left cancels more -- a lot more -- MUCH more. And more importantly, I am saying that the cancelling is occurring in a particular context: a Left-dominated context. Your cancellation is different, and unusual, because it was done by the Right, in a space (academia) that is overwhelmingly dominated by the Left.
Moench fully acknowledges the unusual, indeed almost ironic, nature of your cancellation. Quoting from his TABLET article:
"Al-Gharbi put forth a leftist position, for which he was pilloried by Fox News. He is an African American Muslim, which presumably should have given him intersectional identity cred. Yet before America even had the term 'cancel culture,' he became one of its casualties."
Moench is correct, and fair, to point out how much your "cancellation" differs from the usual. However, immediately thereafter, Moench's article continues as follows:
"How that happened helps illuminate a general misunderstanding about cancel culture, and the nature of the university system where it largely originated.
Conservatives claim that American universities are bastions of left-wing radicalism, but the reality is far more complicated, and ridiculous. At its core, America’s higher education industry is neither left nor right, per se."
With your example as his lead-in, Moench now wishes to debunk (or at least argue against) the "claim" of "Conservatives" that "American universities are bastions of left-wing radicalism". Which he is perfectly entitled to do.
However.
On the way to making that argument, wishing to lay some groundwork first, Moench states -- as "reality" -- that "America's higher education industry is neither left nor right, per se."
I am not trying to make fun of B. Duncan Moench. He seems like a pleasant person, and writes well.
However.
Here is a link to a study (or rather an article summarizing the study's results) by a Brooklyn CUNY professor, which bears on Moench's statement.
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty
Here is a followup post by the author, correcting a few details:
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/3/author_correction_homogenous_the_political_affiliations_of_elite_liberal_arts_college_faculty
The article begins:
"In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of ACADEMIC QUESTIONS already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.
"My sample of 8,688 tenure track, Ph.D.–holding professors from fifty-one of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. NEWS 2017 report consists of 5,197, or 59.8 percent, who are registered either Republican or Democrat. The mean Democratic-to-Republican ratio (D:R) across the sample is 10.4:1, but because of an anomaly in the definition of what constitutes a liberal arts college in the U.S. NEWS survey, I include two military colleges, West Point and Annapolis. If these are excluded, the D:R ratio is a whopping 12.7:1."
There is an antelope known as the Oryx, which is large (for an antelope) and has horns of an unusual length and strength. I have actually seen Oryxes in the wild, at which time I was assured, by gamekeepers whom I thought credible, that Oryxes sometimes kill lions.
I was skeptical. So they described how they did it. Standing their ground as the lion charges at them, certain Oryxes will dig in their heels -- and just as the lion leaps upon them, they will suddenly whip their head downward, bringing their horns to bear upon the predator's torso; and if their aim is true, they can spear them through and through.
I looked into this claim after I heard it, and although reports are sketchy, I am fairly certain that this, in fact, an actual thing; it is rare, but it does occur. However, at no point did it ever occur to me to say to anyone, anywhere, something like this: "In Africa's ecosystem, antelopes are not always PREY animals, per se."
Because that would be silly.
With respect to you, and to Moench: unless you believe that these studies are faked -- invented, I mean -- or you devalue logical argument as a matter of principle, then I do not think it is possible to believe that "America's higher education industry is neither left nor right, per se."
That sentence makes me question whether I should believe ANYTHING in Moench's article. Like the thirteenth strike of a clock, it calls into question everything that follows, and everything that has come before.
Not all of this effect falls on you, of course. As I said earlier, it's different when it happens to you. But some of it does fall on you, because you cited the article without hesitation or qualification. I can tell you this: if I were linking to Moench's article to back up something *I* was writing, I would include a disclaimer. (Something along the lines of "Without criticizing or endorsing any of the article's conclusions, I can affirm that his account of my cancellation is accurate.")
That is why I brought up Moench's credibility at the start of my reply.
I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors -- whether in "America's higher education industry", or outside it.
PBUH, and be well.
Hey Don,
So Moench's framing on this is not how I would have put it. I am absolutely aware of the skewed ideological lean of the academy. Overall, the professoriate skews about 5:1 liberal to conservative, although within the social science fields, the skew is closer to 10:1. And in some disciplines, it's even more dramatic, as I myself illustrated here: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/ideological-underrepresentation-compared-to-race-gender-sexuality/
And here (with updated data): https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/how-well-do-u-s-faculty-reflect-america-spoiler-not-well/
The point Moench was trying to make (as I understand him, based on some of his other stuff) is that many of these 'leftist' professors don't really put their money where their mouths are. They're leftists in name only. Elitists who put on a big show of being egalitarians. But that is not to undermine the point, and the importance of the point, that academics overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic Party and the ideological left.
This is an issue that is very dear to me. I served as the communications director for Heterodox Academy (an organization with which I continue to be deeply involved), where a key part of my work was not only reviewing the evidence, but helping to explain people why it mattered. I responded to getting targeted by Fox News by trying to engage more with the right, and to get others to do the same. A lot of my research is on how academics consistently misunderstand and misrepresent folks like Trump voters (https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/n8bkh).
Nonetheless, one thing that is very clear in the available data is that cases like mine -- faculty being fired as a result of right-aligned campaigns -- are far from rare. Actually, in terms of sheer numbers, most faculty fired for political speech are actually on the left. However, this is in part a function of the very ideological skew you mention. Per capita, right-aligned professors are more likely to be fired, even though most professors fired for speech overall are on the left (more on this here: https://heterodoxacademy.org/blog/vox-consistent-errors-explained/). The takeaway from this to my mind is that these are not partisan issues. The firing and suppression of people on the left doesn't justify doing the same to people on the right or vice-versa. Everyone has an institutional stake in trying to preserve and enhance freedom of inquiry, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression.
And as I showed in my research and forthcoming book (We Have Never Been Woke: https://musaalgharbi.com/2021/05/05/book-announcement-we-have-never-been-woke/), we might not have coined the term 'cancel culture' yet, but my firing actually did occur in the context of what is now called the 'Great Awokening.' As I show looking through tons and tons of data (a roundup of some of the relevant data here: https://musaalgharbi.com/2023/02/08/great-awokening-ending/), the Awokening seems to have kicked off in late 2010. It was well underway at the time I was swept up into things in November 2014.
Hi Musa al-Gharbi,
Erich Honecker here again. I will be brief.
OK, you are a grad student at one of the most elite universities in the world, not a faculty member. My point remains: Your future is very bright and you have very definitely not been cancelled.
As I wrote, if you had offended the other side of the political spectrum, you would be lucky to be assistant night manager at a 7-11. You say that this is no problem and you used to sell shoes.
I used to do much more unpleasant tasks than selling shoes and I would go back to them if I had to. But that experience doesn't remotely -- not remotely -- mean that losing much more prestigious, lucrative jobs for political views isn't a tragedy for the person and for society.
If you claim otherwise, you are dishonest, a medieval ascetic, or too dense to be a grad student in anything, anywhere.
So, two points to summarize:
1. Cancellation is a very real phenomenon that is crippling thinking and communication in our society. And it happens more-or-less exclusively to people who offend the Left.
2. You were not cancelled. You were not even close to cancelled.
Cheers, Erich
Oddly, I can't seem to reply to Musa al-Gharbi, so I guess that I will have to reply to myself and hope that Musa sees it.
1. Only an academic could possibly think that those were "quick points."
2. Becoming a grad student at Columbia more than reverses being "terminated" from a teaching position. I know that you are desperate to claim that you've been oppressed, but you simply haven't been.
3. There is some hope if you challenge the Left, but only for people of sufficient fame, power and/or wealth (or a great deal of luck). Most of us are simply fired.
I stopped reading at point 5. If you have something important to say, don't encase it in 1,000 words serving as packing peanuts.
Cheers. Erich
Some quick points to summarize my position:
1. I was brought into this conversation in the first place because it was suggested that I have some kind of unusual protection that enables me to speak freely.
2. In fact, I spoke freely as an undergrad at a public landgrant. I spoke freely as an adjunct at a public landgrant. I speak freely as a grad student at an Ivy. I'll speak freely as a untenured, but tenure-track professor at a public landgrant starting in fall 2023.
3. I've been terminated from an academic teaching position for political speech. This is just a fact. The only reason that wasn't the end of the road for me was some caprice and my unwillingness to be silenced despite being terminated.
4. Your comments suggest that if you challenge the left, there's no hope. My work routinely and aggressively challenges the left. I've done tons of work defending Trump voters. I very publicly work for an organization that advocates for more political and ideological diversity on campus (not exactly popular with the left!). I push back aggressively on preferred narratives on race. My forthcoming book will also extend the same treatment to gender and sexuality. There are not many academics who more consistently and fearlessly push back on unhelpful left orthodoxies than myself. Even among those with tenure, etc.
5. I do this without tenure, or indeed, any kind of permanent academic appointment. This is a simple fact. I wrote inconvenient essays not just as an undergrad hoping to get into grad school, or as an adjunct, but also when I was getting ready for the academic job market. My main job market book is brutal critique of wokeness. Not exactly playing it safe! I still got a job. Although I won't be tenured for several more years, I'll continue to aggressively challenge folks on the right AND the left.
And this goes back to Yglesias' point. Yes there are real risks. Both professional and social. But there's more freedom than many seem to suspect, if they're willing to push the envelope. And Yglesias' point is that excessive fear mongering just leads to more self-censorship. To claim that one cannot offend the left without getting cancelled is a gross overstatement. I do it all the time.
My latest essay, for instance, is a big summary of the empirical literature on how conservative and religious folks tend to be happier, while progressives have higher rates of mental illness -- closing with an exploration of how the 'Great Awokening' likely exacerbated these divides. It presents evidence that internalizing certain left views has a pernicious effect on adherents, including and especially people of color, etc. I published it in American Affairs. It was widely shared by conservatives including Ann Coulter, Jordan Peterson and Ross Douthat. Many on the left, on the other hand... did not love it. I knew that it would not be warmly received in many left circles before publication. That did not stop me from publishing it: https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2023/03/how-to-understand-the-well-being-gap-between-liberals-and-conservatives/
You said someone getting fired for their political views is a big loss for that person and society. Again, this is something I have first-hand experience with. I was fired from a position for my political views. But the 'loss for society' bit is actually why it's important to speak out. If people self-censor, they might as well be cancelled. It's the same effect for society, and for our informational environment. What does it matter if they're technically in the system but don't actually dissent or resist in a meaningful way v. not being in the system at all?
Again, my position has always been I'm going to be a type of scholar I can be proud of, I'd rather not do this at all. There was a real prospect of washing out multiple times. I was fired from my academic job for my politics. The first time I applied to grad school I didn't get into anywhere. The first time I went on the job market, I left empty handed. I didn't let any of that dissuade me from speaking out, including speaking out aggressively against many cherished dogmas of the left. Largely because, if it hadn't worked out for me in academia, I'd have done something else with my life. If my future employer decides to pull the plug before I start because of something I say in this intervening period, again, I'll just do something else.
But even for people who really see themselves as academics/ scholars and can't imagine themselves as anything else -- even for them, they have a lot more freedom than the popular narratives suggest if they're willing to use it and incur a little risk. And in speaking up, they can empower others to do the same.
The real issue to my mind is that the kind of people who become academics are just generally speaking not the kind of people who are actually likely to take risks or engage in confrontational dissent. We may hold up people like Copernicus or Galileo as our role models, but what these institutions actually select for is risk-averse, competent and conscientious conformists. I've explored that at length here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AujOpvyQ0Ns&list=PLXUJh3viVi1_W64_J8BkFczqp-a3rcR-T&index=11
And so most people who fall into that camp will be disinclined to really make use of their academic freedom no matter how robust the protections, no matter how open the culture. But for those who have a bit of backbone, for those who have interesting things to say, my advice to them would be to speak up more, even if it is 'safer' to be silent. The institutional protections and culture will always be wanting. If people say 'let's eliminate the risk and then I'll speak up,' that's the same as saying, 'I'll never speak up.' The only time it's actually important or valuable to speak up is when there's risk involved of some kind or another! Whether people take me up on that suggestion will be a matter of their own conscience and priorities. But that's my two cents.
I experienced cancel culture at Ameriprise. I lost quite a lot of the respect I once had for them. I feel sorry for the salesmen who lost my accounts. That wasn't his fault. But, I could find equally competitive financial services elsewhere so I did.
So in other words, you're a coward, but you think it's justifiable. Ok, fair enough. At least you are honest about it.
You have a point, I could have been more courageous at the time -- but it wouldn't have accomplished anything but costing me my livelihood. The Substack is subtitled "Redemption of a Recovering Flack" because I'm speaking out now, better late than never. Courage is great, I wholeheartedly encourage it, but let's not labor under the illusion that individual courage (particularly among those early in their careers) has much chance against larger systemic forces/incentives discouraging freedom of debate/expression.