Thanks for this, John. I also saw and appreciated the Dispatch piece. I think your observation on the difference in how cancel culture works form the right vs. from the left is intriguing. In the academic context, of course, we need to maintain the fundamental commitment to the open exchange of ideas. I think many Christian institutions, at least evangelical ones such as where I teach, often find the tough cases to be those indicated by this comment of yours: "Perhaps more commonplace is an employment or speaker decision that falls within an institution’s boundaries but risks damaging its reputation or brand." That fear of market repercussions can easily come into conflict with the academic commitment to free inquiry.
This analysis is spot on. Boards play a crucial role in ensuring the institution stays true to mission, is financially viable, and has defined policy limits. The mission charge, if not properly defined, opens the door to interventions in the guise of protecting the reputation. As I argue in my forthcoming book about Christian universities, a proactive position on academic exploration combined with healthy relationships between trustees and faculty goes a long way toward reigning in the rogue actors you describe. Looking forward to your analysis of canceling from the bottom in the university setting.
Well said, yes. I remember when George H.W. Bush was invited to speak at my college campus back in the day, and people wanted to protest and many didn't want him there. He came, gave a horrible stump speech instead of a policy-making speech, and doomed himself. I believe speakers should have the chance to change minds, raise questions, or doom themselves.
Thanks, John—I agree with all of this, and would only add to highlight two examples where I think your approach (create boundaries and manage stakeholders) can be a bit challenging. These are two examples (one of non-cancelation, one of cancelation) from my own life that I think are illustrative on that point:
A church that is closely affiliated with my own invited Russell Moore to give a talk a few months ago. I enjoyed the talk—I generally find him to be quite thoughtful, and while he'd likely be unable to be ordained in my denomination (as far as I know, he hasn't abandoned his view on paedobaptism), his theological views on most areas are well within the boundaries of what would be acceptable for an outside speaker. However, a congregant came up to me in protest, wondering whether our church had financially sponsored the event. We had not, but this congregant's specific objection to Moore was revealing: Russell Moore represents "a side" (specifically one that is openly and explicitly anti-Trump), and if we were to bring in someone like Moore, we should also bring in someone who represents "the other side." How should that perspective play into the discussion of what our boundaries for an outside speaker ought to be? (I don't have a good answer for this.)
My church's denomination (the PCA) also quite famously was embroiled in controversy when it "canceled" one David French from speaking at its General Assembly. I personally think the decision to cancel his event was wrong, but in some ways it's a product of the diffuse nature of stakeholders *at the General Assembly*. PCA churches are free to invite French to speak to their congregations (indeed, I know of at least one—the same church that invited Moore, in fact—and doubtless there are more), but the General Assembly—a confederation of a few thousand teaching and ruling elders in the denomination—is a difficult place to figure out how to coax stakeholders to "stay in their lanes." Is an organization like this simply condemned to the lowest common denominator—no one who would raise an objection from a sufficiently large and vocal minority is ever going to be invited? (To question, too, I have no good answer.)
On the first example with Russell Moore, I think the straightforward response to a request/demand for "the other side" is "no." Any speaker generates countless possible "sides" relative to individual subjective assessments of that person. For example, we could come up with a whole slate of other issues for which Russell represents a "side." So I think the fairly easy answer is that no single speaker generates any institutional responsibility to bring in a speaker representing an opposing side.
A speaker *series* might be a different issue, depending on the focus of the series and the nature of the institution. For example, a series on "Politics and Faith" that brought in only Russell Moore, David French, and Curtis Chang might raise reasonable questions about the omission of other perspectives.
The General Assembly debacle seems to me a classic case of what I've described in my post (though perhaps with the relevant players and power brokers a level down from what I discussed). Someone with the proper authority (I'm assuming someone on the planning team for the General Assembly) invited David to be part of a panel. That decision was either a reasonable judgment for someone to whom institutional authority had been properly delegated (in which case, it should have been upheld, even against backlash) or a misjudgment serious enough to transgress institutional boundaries or raise significant institutional risks (in which case, its potential reversal should have been elevated to higher levels and officially reversed with a clear explanation of the reason for reversal). My sense is the latter didn't really happen because this was really an instance of the former.
Thanks for this, John. I also saw and appreciated the Dispatch piece. I think your observation on the difference in how cancel culture works form the right vs. from the left is intriguing. In the academic context, of course, we need to maintain the fundamental commitment to the open exchange of ideas. I think many Christian institutions, at least evangelical ones such as where I teach, often find the tough cases to be those indicated by this comment of yours: "Perhaps more commonplace is an employment or speaker decision that falls within an institution’s boundaries but risks damaging its reputation or brand." That fear of market repercussions can easily come into conflict with the academic commitment to free inquiry.
Yes, exactly. And here is where clarity of mission and maintaining mission alignment with relevant stakeholders matters so much. But it's not easy!
This analysis is spot on. Boards play a crucial role in ensuring the institution stays true to mission, is financially viable, and has defined policy limits. The mission charge, if not properly defined, opens the door to interventions in the guise of protecting the reputation. As I argue in my forthcoming book about Christian universities, a proactive position on academic exploration combined with healthy relationships between trustees and faculty goes a long way toward reigning in the rogue actors you describe. Looking forward to your analysis of canceling from the bottom in the university setting.
Looking forward to your book!
Thanks so much! I’m eager for it to be out there.
Well said, yes. I remember when George H.W. Bush was invited to speak at my college campus back in the day, and people wanted to protest and many didn't want him there. He came, gave a horrible stump speech instead of a policy-making speech, and doomed himself. I believe speakers should have the chance to change minds, raise questions, or doom themselves.
Well said. Thank you!
Thanks, John—I agree with all of this, and would only add to highlight two examples where I think your approach (create boundaries and manage stakeholders) can be a bit challenging. These are two examples (one of non-cancelation, one of cancelation) from my own life that I think are illustrative on that point:
A church that is closely affiliated with my own invited Russell Moore to give a talk a few months ago. I enjoyed the talk—I generally find him to be quite thoughtful, and while he'd likely be unable to be ordained in my denomination (as far as I know, he hasn't abandoned his view on paedobaptism), his theological views on most areas are well within the boundaries of what would be acceptable for an outside speaker. However, a congregant came up to me in protest, wondering whether our church had financially sponsored the event. We had not, but this congregant's specific objection to Moore was revealing: Russell Moore represents "a side" (specifically one that is openly and explicitly anti-Trump), and if we were to bring in someone like Moore, we should also bring in someone who represents "the other side." How should that perspective play into the discussion of what our boundaries for an outside speaker ought to be? (I don't have a good answer for this.)
My church's denomination (the PCA) also quite famously was embroiled in controversy when it "canceled" one David French from speaking at its General Assembly. I personally think the decision to cancel his event was wrong, but in some ways it's a product of the diffuse nature of stakeholders *at the General Assembly*. PCA churches are free to invite French to speak to their congregations (indeed, I know of at least one—the same church that invited Moore, in fact—and doubtless there are more), but the General Assembly—a confederation of a few thousand teaching and ruling elders in the denomination—is a difficult place to figure out how to coax stakeholders to "stay in their lanes." Is an organization like this simply condemned to the lowest common denominator—no one who would raise an objection from a sufficiently large and vocal minority is ever going to be invited? (To question, too, I have no good answer.)
On the first example with Russell Moore, I think the straightforward response to a request/demand for "the other side" is "no." Any speaker generates countless possible "sides" relative to individual subjective assessments of that person. For example, we could come up with a whole slate of other issues for which Russell represents a "side." So I think the fairly easy answer is that no single speaker generates any institutional responsibility to bring in a speaker representing an opposing side.
A speaker *series* might be a different issue, depending on the focus of the series and the nature of the institution. For example, a series on "Politics and Faith" that brought in only Russell Moore, David French, and Curtis Chang might raise reasonable questions about the omission of other perspectives.
The General Assembly debacle seems to me a classic case of what I've described in my post (though perhaps with the relevant players and power brokers a level down from what I discussed). Someone with the proper authority (I'm assuming someone on the planning team for the General Assembly) invited David to be part of a panel. That decision was either a reasonable judgment for someone to whom institutional authority had been properly delegated (in which case, it should have been upheld, even against backlash) or a misjudgment serious enough to transgress institutional boundaries or raise significant institutional risks (in which case, its potential reversal should have been elevated to higher levels and officially reversed with a clear explanation of the reason for reversal). My sense is the latter didn't really happen because this was really an instance of the former.