On occasion, I’ll watch political commentators refer to The Coddling of the American Mind, and it always brings a smile to my face. Johnathan Heidt and Greg Lukianoff share enlightening causes for the frail minds of young generations, and in 2023, Lukianoff joined Rikki Schlott with a follow-up book: The Cancelling of the American Mind. It’s an impressive summary of modern cancel culture, laying out the fallacious arguments that different sides make to attack or persecute others for their opinions. I was riveted by this sequel, and sorrowful for how active listening is destroyed by the sensitivities of the present day.

There were several thoughts from The Cancelling of the American Mind that I hope stay with me:

1. There’s an idea I like to keep in mind when thinking about a political event: If one side does something distasteful, then rest assured, the other side is probably doing the same thing. The Cancelling of the American Mind reminded me of this principal. While it wasn’t surprising to read of left-wing activists acting like bullies, the authors noted similar actions by conservatives. This is in the form of state legislatures controlling expression in college curriculums, creating an atmosphere that discourages instructors from sharing opinions. This form of censorship appears even worse than the shout-downs of protesters, since legislators are using the power of the state for their own version of bullying. To limit what teachers can teach adults is too censoring for comfort, and the laws ought to be challenged in courts and public opinion.

2. The Cancelling of the American Mind has made me reconsider my opinions on banning books in public schools. When I’ve heard of districts prohibiting certain books, like graphic novels or LGBTQ literature, I’ve felt little concern. After all, we limit access to media all the time based on the concerns of age-appropriateness. Also, it’s not like these books are being banned from publication or sales. They’re simply not allowed on K-12 school grounds, where age brings special consideration. Still, Lukianoff and Schlott argue that the restrictions represent a cultural assault on free expression. If we hold free speech to be essential for society, then restricting books in public institutions might say otherwise. I’m not sure if I’ve changed my mind on this, as I’d still rather not see pornographic materials or graphic fiction in junior high libraries. But it’s something to ponder.

3. As a science-fiction fan, this opinion was too quirky to not share. Quoting an article that criticized progressive organizations’ use of the acronym J.E.D.I. – Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: “Although there are… heroes within the Star Wars universe, the Jedi are inappropriate symbols for justice work. They’re a religious order of intergalactic police monks prone to white saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution. Violent duels with… lightsabers, gaslighting by means of Jedi mind tricks, etc.”

               My reactions to this:

                     a. I wonder what Samuel L. Jackson would say about it.

                     b. Though ridiculous, this kind of opinion reminds me that I should still try to understand the                                     perspective of the person who wrote it, though doing so here would take us off track.

                     c. The fact that some even use J.E.D.I. for the promotion of progressive causes feels a little                                         silly. Though I guess the leap from the acronym E.D.I. to J.E.D.I. is an easy one.

4. Lukianoff and Schlott describe an array of fallacies the left and right use to de-legitimize other arguments. If you’re the wrong sex or race for raising an opinion, then we disregard sizable parts of the whole population. On the other hand, if you’re a liberal, academic, or scientist, then conservatives may think that anything you have to say is too steeped in bias to be insightful. In either case, we dismiss others’ thoughts, deeming the person ignorant or malevolent.

With this in mind, my biggest takeaway from the book was seeing the many ways people will dismiss each other in life. We’ll think of people with a certain level of contempt for their views, believing they have nothing useful to share with the world. To think of others this way is a moral failing, but also an intellectual one as we don’t listen to what someone has to say. Anyone, from the avid Trump supporter to the activist who thinks too much about Star Wars, can still have a point worth sharing. We should confront societal pressures that silence their speech, and we should confront the fallacies that motivate us to do so.