Axing those who celebrate the murder of an innocent man is not ‘cancel culture’
In the wake of Charlie Kirk’s murder, there is an effort underway to equate the celebration of political assassination with the expression of conventional political opinion. Democrats and the mainstream media argue that firing, suspending, and shaming people for the former amounts to the right’s embrace of “cancel culture.” Please.
Here is Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen of Axios, writing about four “ominous trends” that “suggest America’s volatile politics, culture, and security could worsen in the months ahead.” There are “high-profile assassinations,” “school shootings,” “calls for violence,” and an “unprecedented online hunt … on conservative social media to name, shame, and contact the employers of people who mocked or celebrated Kirk’s slaying.”
The Washington Post highlights the workers sent packing over “Charlie Kirk posts.” But it’s the Associated Press that takes the cake, writing that after years of complaining about cancel culture, a “chorus of conservatives” now wants Kirk’s “critics ostracized or fired.” And by critics, they mean those who have cheered his death.
Those working to bring to the attention of employers public expressions of glee by their employees over a man’s murder are not engaged in cancel culture, the imposition of a penalty disproportionate to the transgression. Anybody saying they are is gaslighting you.
Cancel culture aimed to establish new norms of speech and debate, like the notion that publishing an op-ed arguing for a mainstream policy was inappropriate because it put employees of the New York Times in physical danger. Cheering the murder of our political opponents has long been outside the bounds of acceptable political discourse.
A disturbing number of the people fired in recent days work in education. There is UCLA’s director of race and equity, Johnathan Perkins, who wrote on Bluesky that “It is OKAY to be happy” about Kirk’s death. “Good riddance.” There is the Tennessee high school teacher who said Kirk’s murder was “worth it.”
“Don’t mourn his death,” she wrote.
Elementary and secondary education are supposed to inculcate the values and virtues that sustain a democratic society. Celebrating the murder of your political opponents does not do that. Universities, in theory, should be a place of free and open debate. Cheering the assassination of a man who engaged in that sort of debate for a living is obviously antithetical to the mission of the university.
My colleague Aaron Sibarium notes on X that the celebration of Kirk’s assassination “is, or ought to be, a fringe view that calls into question a person’s fitness to educate children.” It bears directly on their ability to do their jobs.
The casualties of cancel culture were tossed out for espousing garden-variety views that were, in many cases, held by a majority of the country. The former New York Times opinion editor James Bennet, who published an op-ed by a U.S. senator calling for the use of federal troops to put an end to the urban riots in the wake of George Floyd’s death. The Democratic pollster who shared research indicating that violent riots—as opposed to nonviolent protest—hurt Democrats at the ballot box. The former Washington Post reporter suspended for retweeting a joke that “Every girl is bi. You just have to figure out if it’s polar or sexual.”
The firings of the past few days are not an “ominous trend.” On the contrary, it is healthy for the country, and for our political debate, for those who celebrate political assassination to pay a penalty, and the response from their employers to the folks bringing this to their attention should be: Thank you.
This piece is also available at the Free Press here.
