Institutional Power and Cancel Culture

Who decides when a person or perspective is out of bounds?

Getty Images (from The Dispatch)

I have been thinking recently about the relationship between institutional boundaries, institutional power, and cancel culture. These connections crystalized last week when The Dispatch invited me to share some reflections about a recent Newsweek piece by Rachel Dobkin on cancel culture at Christian colleges and universities. Dobkin defines cancel culture as when “an individual perceived to have acted in an unacceptable manner is ostracized.” I also see Dobkin’s examples illustrating institutional cancel culture—when an institution decides that a person or perspective is out of bounds.

In my Dispatch essay, I recounted my own recent brush with institutional cancel culture:

After giving hundreds of public talks over the past decade—many of them on controversial topics like religious freedom, protests and policing, and the challenges of pluralism—I finally proved too risky. The reason: an article I wrote eight years ago in USA Today, “How to Unite in Spite of Trump.”

I had been scheduled to speak at a private Christian school this fall on my latest book, Learning to Disagree. Last week, I was informed that someone influential in the school had learned I was coming, discovered my USA Today article, and decided I had been too critical of Trump. Based on his concerns, the school disinvited me from coming to talk about how Christians can work toward better disagreement across differences. 

In reflecting on this experience, I noted “sadness for my erstwhile host and other educational institutions that do not seem to understand when and why people and perspectives should be excluded from their ranks.”

Of course, not all exclusions are improper. In fact, many are necessary to maintain institutional health and coherence. As a I noted in my Dispatch essay:

Every institution draws boundaries. Many religious organizations require their leaders to adhere to certain faith commitments. Honor societies require members to maintain certain grades and credentials. Professional orchestras reject talentless musicians, and professional sports teams pass on unathletic contenders. None of those exclusions is the least bit objectionable—nobody is canceled simply because they do not fit within an institution’s boundaries. 

The relevant question is not whether an institution sets boundaries, but why it chooses those boundaries, whether it enforces them consistently, and who decides when a person or perspective falls outside of them. This last question relates to institutional power and authority. A healthy institution will make clear who has this decision-making authority, and as importantly, who does not. But not all institutions are this clear.

The problem is exacerbated by a general lack of familiarity with how institutional power actually works, and in particular, the function, culture, and best practices of governing boards. In my world of higher education, for instance, most students and faculty are largely unaware of the role of the university’s board of trustees. A related and distinct concern is major donors who are not part of the governing board but who exert informal influence over an organization’s leadership.

Donors and trustees are important institutional partners, but healthy institutions will ensure that these partners have appropriately limited and well-defined roles. Donors can convey their preferences but should not expect to exert direct influence over an institution’s strategic or tactical decisions. Trustees steward the finances and mission of the institution and supervise the CEO but do not control operational decisions. The board speaks as a whole, never through individual members.

My hunch is that some of the most egregious examples of institutional cancel culture on the right (like those profiled in Rachel Dobkin’s Newsweek piece) occur when individual board members or donors insist on their own line drawing rather than allowing an institution’s employees to exercise judgment and discernment.

Institutional cancel culture on the right, in other words, is often top-down. This differs from many examples of institutional cancel culture on the left, which, at least anecdotally, often begins with lower level employees—or, in the case of universities, students—shaming, disinviting, or otherwise ostracizing someone.

Neither left nor right is doing this well. Canceling—in contrast to protecting legitimate institutional boundaries—is regrettable whether it begins with students, trustees, or anyone in between. But if I am right about the causes of institutional cancel culture on the right, it might be that a better understanding of institutional power and proper limits on authority can help curb this trend.

Institutional leaders, trustees, and donors can help by remembering the larger ecosystem in which they are a part. With the important exception of the board’s oversight of the CEO, neither donors nor trustees should be making decisions about whether an individual employee or invited speaker transgresses an organization’s boundaries. If the CEO mishandles a particular situation to a degree that warrants board oversight, then the full board (or its authorized subcommittee) should address the matter. But those situations ought to be quite rare—they signal a major malfunction not a common misstep.

Perhaps more commonplace is an employment or speaker decision that falls within an institution’s boundaries but risks damaging its reputation or brand. This might be the case when an institution wants to bring in a well-known but highly controversial speaker or hire someone who falls within its formal boundaries but whose background would likely draw negative media attention. In those cases, the CEO ought to notify the board in advance and give them the opportunity to weigh in. But even here, individual board members should take care to respond in their role as board members (“Is this decision likely to damage the institution’s reputation, and is the risk acceptable to the institution?”) rather than based on their own subjective impressions (“Does this decision offend or upset me personally?”).

In other words, one way to mitigate institutional cancel culture is to help relevant stakeholders stay in their lanes. Stewarding an institution’s mission—and the people, resources, and tradition that embody that mission—is not for the faint of heart. But neither is it for the self-interested or self-absorbed. The most egregious actors should be screened out during the process of cultivating, nominating, and selecting institutional partners. But it is equally important for existing leaders, donors, and trustees to work together to ensure that everyone understands and appreciates the larger ecosystem of which they are a part.

---

Learning to Disagree update: Advisory Opinions

I was delighted to join David French and Sarah Isgur this week on Advisory Opinions to talk about Learning to Disagree. Sarah said:

My number one book to law students is now going to be Learning to Disagree because I think it will teach you more how to go into law school with the right frame of mind and openness to what they’re going to try to teach you than anything else I’ve read.

And David added:

I love the book. It’s not a dry academic tome. It’s stories. It’s readable. You can relate to the things that he’s talking about.

Thank you to Sarah and David for a wonderful conversation and such gracious comments. Zondervan: file these away for the cover of the paperback version!