Cancel Culture at MIT

Is there a cancel culture problem at MIT?

In the last few years there have been two visible, egregious incidents of cancellation at MIT.

In 2020, Father Daniel Moloney was removed as MIT Chaplain at the behest of members of the MIT administration. Father Moloney’s sin was that he sent a pastoral email to Catholic students at MIT early in the wake of the George Floyd killing suggesting that Catholics avoid rushing to judgment about the role racism might have played in his murder.
In 2021, Professor Dorian Abbot of the University of Chicago had his scholarly presentation cancelled at the prestigious, MIT-sponsored Carlson Lecture. Dr. Abbot’s appearance was cancelled because two months previously he had co-authored an editorial advocating that university hiring be based on merit, fairness and equal treatment of candidates.

Other evidence suggests that these were not isolated, unrepresentative examples of speech suppression and cancel culture at MIT. Rather, these incidents were just visible signs of an encroaching climate that supports suppression of the speech of disfavored viewpoints and identity groups. When a visible incident of speech suppression occurs in a culture in which that suppression is obviously tolerated, then the rest of the community reacts defensively by engaging in broad self-censorship to avoid being the next cancellation victim.

There is a wide range of evidence that the speech suppression culture at MIT has driven a large portion of the community to engage in self-censorship.

MIT consistently ranks below the midpoint of over 200 four-year colleges in campus openness to free speech in annual surveys by FIRE. The FIRE annual reports cover both administration policies and perceptions by undergraduate students. The most recent FIRE survey showed some improvement as MIT approached the midpoint.
An anonymous survey of the MIT faculty after the Abbot Cancellation indicated that over half of the faculty answered Yes to the question Do you feel on an everyday basis that your voice, or the voices of your colleagues are constrained at MIT?.
In a focused study of MIT by FIRE in 2022, which covered faculty, graduate students and undergraduates:
- 40% of faculty reported that they were more or much more likely to self-censor on campus compared to two years earlier (i.e., before the Abbot Cancellation)
- 48% of students expressed that they were uncomfortable expressing views on a controversial political topic in common campus space.

MIT has formal institutional mechanisms aimed at controlling speech, and which have been weaponized for speech and viewpoint suppression on other college campuses.

A system for anonymous reporting of speech which someone finds offensive, biased, or harmful; the reports create a permanent record in employee or student files.
Bias response teams and related administrative processes for investigating and punishing freely expressed viewpoints, not just actual discriminatory, biased, harmful, or harassing actions.
Compelled speech programs which require obeisance to specific political or ideological viewpoints and which punish intellectual disagreement, in the form of DEI statements such as that of the Communication Lab or Mechanical Engineering that are required of all faculty applicants.

Particularly following the visible and egregious Abbot Cancellation, many people outside of MIT have noticed. Most outside observers have expressed concern, condemnation or disdain over MIT’s cancel culture. MIT’s willingness to suppress some speech and viewpoints has become embarrassingly public.

MIT has strong mechanisms to suppress selective speech and viewpoints, and a significant part of the MIT community has reacted by practicing self-censorship in the classroom and around the campus.