The cure for a fallacious argument is a better one, not the suppression of ideas.
- Carl Sagan, astronomer

Rehabilitative justice, a methodology of justice used to reform offenders to prevent future criminal activity, is popular among the Left. The majority of left-leaning individuals will agree that a society which helps to prevent future crime by reforming its criminals is a better society than one which uses extreme punitive measures to incarcerate offenders. But through the emergence of a new phenomenon called “cancel culture”, these same left-leaning individuals have been resorting to extreme punitive measures to discipline those who speak insensitively about sociopolitical issues. So, why do so many liberal individuals “cancel” individuals who espouse uncomfortable or anti-liberal views, instead of engaging them in debate and discussion? Why can’t members of the Left apply their rehabilitative philosophy to both justice and culture? 

Cancel culture, or the act of silencing an individual whose views run heterodox to liberal values, is a real and consequential phenomenon. Though celebrity figures who have been “cancelled” by the mainstream media are often able to find employment opportunities elsewhere (for example, Louis C.K Lewis, J.K. Rowling, and Dave Chappelle), cancellation has the potential to limit opportunities for normal people who can’t afford the same luxuries and networking opportunities as celebrities.

In today’s age of cancel culture, the person being “canceled” can easily be denied scholarships, educational opportunities, and job opportunities. Because social media can easily be weaponized, the consequences of saying something insensitive on social media platforms can be life-altering. For example, a prominent university decided not to consider a student’s admission after a video of her saying a slur as a 15-year old was circulated on the internet. What’s more, a data analyst was fired from their job after posting a scientific study on Twitter which showed that peaceful protest was more effective than violent protests, and the publishing house Harper Collins stopped working with English author Gillian Philip after Philip tweeted on Twitter that she “stood with JK Rowling”, an author notorious for anti-trans comments. This thread of incidents points to a highly unforgiving culture, in which moments of ignorance and insensitivity can permanently alter the course of a person’s life. There is no margin for error, no room for growth, and no ability to redeem oneself within the rigid system of cancel culture. 

Supporters of cancel culture often say that accountability and reprimand for insensitive behavior is a necessity for creating a more just society. But for this reasoning to hold, the punishment should fit the crime: normal, working-class people shouldn’t have the ground pulled out from under them for voicing opinions that may be insensitive to the current political climate. A disproportionately severe punishment for an offense is unjust, and unlikely to inspire meaningful change in the long run.
​
A possibility to remediate the effects of cancel culture may be to reduce its punishment, and instead increase the system’s comprehensiveness. Insensitive behavior on social media or in a social setting should always be addressed, but it should be addressed in a way in which the offender does not risk losing their employment or future opportunities. A culture of debate and civil discussion would help to lessen ignorance and promote a shame-free method of social rehabilitation. This way, people can be held accountable for their actions, either ongoing or past, without fear of their lives being permanently ruined.

​​The age-old idea of American superiority which primarily rests upon the belief that we bear no resemblance to autocracies like Russia and China is long overdue for a paradigm shift. America scorns the aforementioned countries for practicing the suppression of speech, and in the same breath, she silences marginalized authors by removing their books from circulation. Much to the chagrin of our founding fathers, the chasm which separates this country from authoritarian regimes is gradually being doctored due to America’s despotic implementation of censorship. Republican state representative Scott Cepickey recently introduced a state-wide bill in Tennessee attempting to ban in-school reading materials that grapple with grave topics, such as prejudice and religious intolerance. Large parts of the conservative movement and its leaders have sought to prevent the youth from learning about pervasive interracial and interfaith schisms, leading members of the group to challenge and ban books such as Maus, All Boys Aren’t Blue, and Lawn Boy on the basis that they make students feel uncomfortable. These books delve into Jewish trauma resulting from the Holocaust and anti-semitism, the ostracization of black queer Americans, and the myopic lens used to view Hispanic people, making it imperative that these authors have a platform on which their voices can be heard. By no means do these books broach a level of impropriety that makes them unsuitable for younger readers. They are simply honest accounts of what it is like to grow up in a country that has misconstrued what it means to be a “true American”. 

While this country grants numerous benefits to its citizens, its downfalls must also be taken into account in order to initiate growth. For decades in America, the microphone has, for the most part, been handed to men unaffected by the injustice which lurks beneath the red, white, and blue flag we so proudly wave. To learn from the experiences of marginalized authors at a young age is a stepping stone to cultivate the social conscience of Americans, and cleanse them of their predetermined prejudices. It also gives future generations an opportunity to show more amiability towards minorities than their ancestors did. Education is the only way our country can hope to deconstruct its prejudices which have been inculcated into us at birth, which is why the expurgation of material that sheds light on inequality in America is a senselessly cruel act. 
 
Prohibiting these books from libraries is not only antiquated and representative of a dysfunctional government, but it is also discriminatory. This country has repeatedly shown jaundice towards minorities, what with the Indian Removal Act of 1830, and Japanese internment camps in 1942. Our history is scarred by our ignorance and inability to listen to others. To repeat this mistake by silencing BIPOC and ethnic groups is to say that their issues are not worth our time- that the injustices they suffered at the hands of our country should be forgotten in the name of preserving the innocence of our youth. This is an eminently prejudiced take because it exacerbates the divide between white and non-white Americans by belittling minority struggles. Change will never be possible if we are unwilling to face the demons of our past and how we were responsible for unleashing them, meaning we must open up discussions about race and prejudice instead of shutting them down.

The First Amendment grants citizens the right to publish reading material freely without fear of censorship. To trample this right of certain authors because they expose America’s tainted past is a direct violation of human rights that allows only a select few to control the narrative of what this country’s history should entail. Like any other country, America has made its mistakes- some more egregious than others. However, if children are never taught about how America strayed from the path of morality during its darkest hours, they develop the mentality that this country can do no wrong. This type of thinking engenders bigotry and xenophobia, leading future generations into treacherous territory. 

Moreover, it is of the utmost importance for children to learn about injustices that plague this country because of their growing minds. Studies show that at age 12, kids start to become increasingly influenced by social factors. By sheltering white children from serious topics, namely racism and discrimination, their ability to develop empathy for people of color will be hindered. If they are not educated about such matters at a young age, their ignorance will lead them down the wrong path, and it is infinitely harder for them to unlearn prejudice when they are much older. A child’s formative years is a period when education and learning should be maximized; not restricted. What's more, adults often underestimate how much adolescents and teens are able to handle. Children watch movies with profanity, play video games consisting of killing, and are taught about war and 9/11 in school- they are more than capable of learning about America´s pejorative history towards minorities. If it is taught correctly, then there would be no problem with allowing reading materials which deal with America’s treatment of marginalized groups to be freely accessible in school libraries. And if it brings such a degree of wariness for conservatives to teach their children about America’s history that they resort to censorship, perhaps our nation needs a significant amount of change before it can be one we are proud to call home.