# data[].attributes.body
Cancel culture at universities suppresses intellectual freedom by enforcing conformity through fear than debate, undermining free speech and First Amendment values, with concerns over how accountability needs to be balanced against censorship, an issue rooted in the modern trend of public shaming and ostracization.

# data[].attributes.body
"What campuses need is less regulation of speech, not more."

Carter suggests that there are too many rules of speech that do not make the environment open to ideas. When institutions put up strict rules to prevent conflicts, people are reluctant to talk about important issues. This kind of fear prevents education from doing its job. By limiting restrictions instead of adding them, colleges can keep open a place for genuine intellectual discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
"The inculcation of fear as part of daily work on campus is very McCarthyist; more McCarthyist, even, than hauling college presidents before Congress to try to force them to place even more speech off limits."

The comparison of McCarthyism suggests how fear instead of reason is used to make people think alike on campus. Under McCarthy, people were blacklisted and excluded based on their political beliefs, generally with little proof. Likewise, the author says the present campus climates create an atmosphere where students and professors fear to have differing opinions. This fear-based culture is, in a sense, even more restrictive than what the government can do, as it prevents honest discussion from occurring within rather than through external legal regulations.

# data[].attributes.body
"The sharp line between propounding a position and trying to suppress dissenting voices is one that the campus should always honor."

There is a vital distinction between making a case for a point and closing down opposing viewpoints. Hence, students and teachers are intimidated into an agreement rather than challenged to make their case. By protecting the right to disagree, campuses preserve the principles of free inquiry and intellectual diversity that are essential to a healthy academic community.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Value of Engaging with Opposing Views

# data[].attributes.subject
The Value of Engaging with Opposing Views

# data[].attributes.body
"The commitment to curiosity includes a commitment to understanding why those whose views are objectionable think as they do."

Carter claims that this inquisitiveness must be applied even to opinions that are deemed objectionable or offensive. Rather than just rejecting or "cancelling" those who hold controversial beliefs, an intellectual environment strives to understand their reasoning. This does not mean one supports harmful ideologies but rather seeks to engage with them critically to challenge, modify, or strengthen one's opinion.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Cancel Culture conflicts with the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
How Cancel Culture conflicts with the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
Cancel culture and the First Amendment are complex when put side by side. For example, cancel culture does not necessarily violate free speech but is in conflict with the philosophical basis of free expression. Rather than promoting open debate, cancel culture encourages punishing speech through boycotts, firing, and social ostracism, contrary to the market-place of ideas principle that speech must be responded to with more speech, not censorship. This has a significant impact on intellectual discussion, as professors and students are afraid of retaliation and self-censorship instead of engaging in fruitful discussions. As the article also highlights, most campus policies are designed to create emotional safety, but classrooms must prioritize intense debate over comfort.

# data[].attributes.headline
How Cancel Culture Aligns with the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
How Cancel Culture Aligns with the First Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
The First Amendment protects free speech but not individuals from the consequences of the speech. Likewise, cancel culture allows student organizations and schools to disaffiliate with individuals whose ideas they believe are dangerous and exercise their rights rather than infringe on free speech. For example, if a professor is teaching racial superiority, the academic community will shun them, not as censorship but as a choice to uphold shared values.

# data[].attributes.body
Cancel culture is typically represented as a force for accountability, but in practice, it more frequently suppresses free speech and discourages open discussion. While protecting marginalized communities from hate speech is preferable, the silencing of opposing viewpoints by social stigma or professional punishment undermines the premises of free speech. Speech must be met with debate, not censorship. Just as they are owed their opinions, so too should they be owed freedom of speech so that they won't risk getting ostracized or professionally demolished for unpopular opinion. Rather than encouraging moral responsibility, cancel culture encourages ideological sameness, whereby individuals are coerced into aligning with prevailing narratives rather than exercising independent thinking. Punishing professors and public figures should be done through intellectual opposition, not boycotts and forced resignation that muffle discourse. True inclusivity is achieved not by shutting up individuals but by hearing all voices and engaging them in debate, even though they are unpopular or uncomfortable.