In today’s digital age of constant connectivity, silence is safer than honesty. What began on social media as a movement of accountability slowly evolved into a pandemic of fear that spread into our school, social community, and daily interactions. This sickness manifests in fear to voice our opinions because of reputations, careers, and even whole lives that dangle perilously at the edge of a cliff, with only one word capable of tipping the balance into oblivion. Countless eradicated identities have fallen victim to an aggravating crisis that we’ve often overlooked: cancel culture, a prevalent trend in teen culture that silences voices. In a community supposedly centered around conversations, Milton neglects to confront cancel culture’s pervasiveness, normalization, and anti-empathetic public ostracization.
Although all 47 of the respondents to a Measure poll replied that they have heard about the term “cancel culture,” 15 respondents have managed to provide an accurate definition. In essence, “cancelling” refers to the withdrawing of public support to punish a person for voicing certain opinions or challenging societal norms. In radically judging and discrediting others’ opinions, we risk disregarding the empathy of other points of view and the diversity of opinions that Milton strives to embrace.
Out of the responses, around merely 60% of students believe that cancel culture is detrimental to the First Amendment of free speech; nonetheless, most extreme backlashes toward speeches root their stems much more deeply within our community. Charlie Kirk’s recent assassination has already exemplified the violation of citizens’ First Amendment rights, and the consequent suspension of late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel further showcases the embedding of cancel culture around us. After Jimmy Kimmel made several comments on both Kirk’s death and the following investigation, ABC abruptly suspended his show “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” under pressure from the Trump Administration. That these comments caused Kimmel’s suspension, and that a shooter responded to Kirk’s rhetoric with murder, unravels a worrying threat to the most fundamental right of free speech and suggests that a single wrong word can lead to the termination of an entire career.
The public commonly mistakes cancel culture for another similarly prevalent and undesirable culture among teen communities: “call-out culture.” In simple terms, call-out culture encourages the action of voicing out loud one’s dissent towards an opinion in public. Call-out culture promotes a kind of public humiliation that doesn’t necessarily harm one’s career or life yet still causes unnecessary public degradation. Regardless, neither cancel culture nor call-out culture approaches confrontation properly.
For example, Meghnaa Balasubramani ‘27, a member of the Speech and Debate Team, noticed this pandemic of cancel culture and call-out culture even in her daily interactions. In her previous Public Forum debate tournaments, Balasubramani often felt uncertain about voicing her arguments. She recalls that a fellow debater’s “yelling at [her]... for something that [she] said,” not only “[made her] feel stupid,” but also “stressed out.” While debate should mainly aim to inquire about and acknowledge other perspectives through a healthy culture of discussion, she argues, certain arguments have become “glorified” as debaters all push to “win an argument.” Balasubramani claims that the hostile environment urges her to waver before speaking because she feels “not educated enough on an opinion” and thinks that “people will shame you because of that.” Cancel culture and its repercussions defeat the purpose of debate: debaters hesitate to make arguments even though the essence of debate provides a space for civil discussions and respect for different perspectives. She has since switched away from debates to speech events.
In the end, our generation does not need public denunciation—what we need is a “call-in culture:” a culture in which people can learn from and reflect on their hurtful words through one-on-one conversations, rather than being publicly shamed. Cancel culture and call-out culture both fail to achieve what they aim to nurture: accountability. In contrast, call-in culture, an alternative to its more public and derogatory cousin of call-out culture, encourages a meaningful dialogue with the sincere intent of addressing problems without humiliation, allowing peers to rebuild rather than be erased. As students and digital citizens, we must make this change—to empathize before judging, to discuss before dismissing, and to call in before condemning. Only then can we “cancel” cancel culture’s detrimental impact and regain a community where honesty is safer than silence.