Vivek Ramaswamy Is Right To Oppose the Blacklisting of Harvard Students
Being against cancel culture requires consistency.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy harshly criticized Harvard University students who signed a letter placing all blame for the Hamas attacks on Israel itself.
But he broke with many other conservatives in opposing the blacklisting of all such students, decrying this as a form of cancel culture.
"It's not productive for companies to blacklist kids for being members of student groups that make dumb political statements on campus," wrote Ramaswamy on X, formerly Twitter. "Colleges are spaces for students to experiment with ideas & sometimes kids join clubs that endorse boneheadedly wrong ideas."
The Harvard student groups who co-signed the anti-Israel letter are simple fools. But it's not productive for companies to blacklist kids for being members of student groups that make dumb political statements on campus. Colleges are spaces for students to experiment with ideas &…
— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) October 15, 2023
Ramaswamy is correct on all counts here.
Harvard students have every right to make idiotic political statements, and prospective employers have every right to judge them for it. But as foes of cancel culture have frequently pointed out, this new norm of harshly sanctioning every single problematic utterance is going to make the whole country worse off. Everyone has done or said something they eventually come to regret; in the social media era, in which our worst moments are often preserved on the internet for all time, we ought to extend more forgiveness, charity, and compassion to people who find themselves in such trouble.
Ramaswamy drew fire for taking such a consistent stance. Conservative commentators Dave Rubin and Megyn Kelly both criticized him harshly. In the process of doing so, they overstated the claims in the Harvard letter; Rubin claimed the students who signed it were "genocidal maniac[s]," while Kelly said the students "applaud[ed]" the Hamas killers. To be sure, there are plenty of examples of leftist activists whose statements tacitly endorsed Hamas, including the Democratic Socialists of America in San Francisco and Black Lives Matter Chicago. The Harvard students did not go this far—their mistake was shifting all of the blame from the terrorists to the state of Israel.
Everyone who is genuinely opposed to cancel culture should join Ramaswamy in endorsing restraint here.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
This is a misunderstanding of cancel culture. This isn’t a 3rd party demanding these students being fired. It is employers seeing their public intentional statements and saying they won’t hire them.
Cancel culture is when a 3rd party pressures and employer to cancel someone they dislike, often with non public views or advocacy from the person. See the Mozilla founder. Donated to a political group. Years later someone found the donation and went to Mozilla demanding he be fired. The 3rd party is a key part of the culture in cancel culture.
That isn’t what happened here. Here these groups publicly announced their support. The CEOs saw it and decided to rescind offers. There wasn’t a 3rd party pressuring them to do so.
>>See the Mozilla founder.
free Brendan Eich!
Blacklisting and boycotting are tools used by cancel culture.
Not all blacklisting is cancelling. Not all cancelling involves blacklisting.
Yet people will use the terms interchangeably, and most non-pedants will know what ideas they are trying to convey. Even if the words are imprecise.
It’s not cancel culture, IT’s consequence culture.
Isn’t this game fun?
Different actions using the same tools. People are attributing the tools to the wrong action.
Who contacted these employers? Name one. From what I've seen it is the CEOs asking for the information.
I get you've supported this shit in the past, but what journalists are calling the companies?
Can you reply without "you're supported" or "sarc .. desperate to justify" and behave like an adult?
Can you answer the questions rather than trying to distract from them?
I AM Making a Good Salary from Home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing, under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone. go to home media tech tab for more detail reinforce your heart
This Website➤---------------➤ http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Another example. A journalist finding someone rapping on YouTube as a high schooler and calling their employer 10 years later. The employer never watched the kids high school youtubes. That is cancel culture. Not a CEO acting on their own impetus.
But sarc and QB are desperate to justify past uses by the left of doing exactly that and are equating anything they can to scream both sides. They 100% never denounced this prior.
If you could stop being a dick you might be worth a conversation.
Stop justifying misusing the term yourself last weekend. Especially after crying whataboutism defending Hunter against FARA. Lol.
You're like a teacher trying to correct the grammar of kids on a playground.
Blacklisting and boycotting are tools used by cancel culture.
Axes are tools used by axe murders, therefor those who split logs for firewood are axe murderers.
This is a misunderstanding of cancel culture. This isn’t a 3rd party
You, by endorsing this right now, are the 3rd party. The people that attempted to publish their names are the 3rd party. This was actively pushed as an effort to make these kids unemploymable and your technicality falls apart with any context.
never mind
I don't see a major distinction between someone that is called out on social media for a racist remark or sexual misbehavior with the following social media pile on and what's happening (or was attempted) here. These names were posted online specifically to harm their future employment prospects and the social media pile on is ongoing.
The firings occurred before that list was posted and Google took it down in under an hour. This is not the same as digging up statements a decade old to get someone fired.
Your false equality is literally bullshit lol.
Why do you bother with all these technicalities to qualify cancel culture? Why not just say it's not cancel culture when my side does it?
The problem is that this tactic has been normalized.
If the enemy kills your guys with poison gas guess what happens next.
Yes, this makes sense.
Doesn’t it?
Because only leftists do cancel culture. Good-think people do not. That means cancel culture must be strictly defined so as to not include good-think people.
Wouldn’t it be cool if you could judge both equally?
Nah!
I don’t see a major distinction between someone that is called out on social media for a racist remark or sexual misbehavior with the following social media pile on and what’s happening (or was attempted) here.
Then you must have the IQ of a turnip.
What total bullshit. Which CEO have I called to terminate their employment? The CEOs themselves did it on their own.
Are you aware even the first person to rescind a job offer was a law firm who did it without any prompting the day the letter came out?
What a retarded attempt.
Are you claiming that cancel culture only occurs when someone directly contacts a CEO or hiring manager? Doxxing, social media smearing, publishing names; that's all fine?
Yes dumbass. The entire cancel culture has been activists finding old posts to ruin the careers of people. From metoo to blm. Activists and Journalists calling employers to fire someone. Such as with Mozilla. A political donation almost a decade prior. Digging up old acts to cancel them now. That is what it has been for years. Not arguments against concurrent acts. But acts well in the past.
But keep equating them.
And the other good point is canceling due to politics and not supporting violent acts. Two very different things.
It's only cancel culture if it's dug up from the past and directly given to a CEO?
OK, then we agree, by that highly contrived definition, this is not cancel culture.
Are you claiming that cancel culture only occurs when someone directly contacts a CEO or hiring manager?
Let's put this in terms so simple that even a dumbass like you ought to be able to understand it:
Cancel culture involves mobs applying pressure to private parties to take some action to punish some 3rd party that said mob decides needs to be destroyed. The cases under discussion do not involve any such thing, and are instances of private parties deciding completely of their own volition to exercise their right of association.
If you're too stupid to grasp that very significant difference then you're just one small step away from a persistent vegetative state.
Cancel culture involves mobs applying pressure to private parties to take some action to punish some 3rd party that said mob decides needs to be destroyed.
Which is exactly what is happening here. It's what your doing right now.
Even if this is what was happening (it’s not, unless the people enjoying the schadenfreude of it all are out there pressuring these companies), it’s still not the same as the cancel culture that Robby has been reporting on for nearly a decade.
You know, because those people being canceled before were because of things like not towing the government line on masking and vaccines or 10 year old inappropriate/racy tweets vs. endorsing and celebrating literal fucking terrorist.
Hi DesiNate. I appreciate your well reasoned argument without any personal insults. I wish we I could have more arguments like this. Also, I get what you're saying. I agree that the grievance here, supporting terrorists, is much more serious than traditional cancel culture issues, especially the covid stuff.
I just disagree with most here in that I think that sharing on social media IS pushing or pressuring especially when it was shared explicitly stating the reason "so future employers could avoid these students." I see doxxing, social media sharing and blacklisting as part of cancel culture. I spent years opposing cancel culture and want to be careful not to be a hypocrite just because I despise the statements of the canceled in this case.
Let me give you two scenarios.
One: a person shows up to an interview in a Hitler outfit
Two: a person has worked for you for 10 years and someone shows you a costume party from HS of them dressed as Hitler.
Are those situations the same? Thats what you're arguing.
we were looking for a Hitlerian custodial hire. perfect!
Except your assertion that it is cancel culture is just that - an assertion. Backed up by nothing.
And you are incorrect that this was actively pushed. Literally no one 'pushed' it - we just said it was fine when other people decided to do it on their own.
We are under no obligation to try to convince these people to *not* take a course of action. Not doing so is not cancel culture.
And you are incorrect that this was actively pushed. Literally no one ‘pushed’ it
If it wasn't pushed, we wouldn't know about it.
We are under no obligation to try to convince these people to *not* take a course of action. Not doing so is not cancel culture.
Sure, I'm not saying anyone has any obligation to oppose. My argument is against those promoting/defending it, especially those that were vocal against cancel culture used by the left.
We know about it because everything is public data these days and no one can help themselves posting online.
If it wasn’t pushed, we wouldn’t know about it.
I don't know if that's the most stupid assertion I've ever read here, but it's certainly a solid contender.
“I have been asked by a number of CEOs if @harvard would release a list of the members of each of the Harvard organizations that have issued the letter assigning sole responsibility for Hamas’ heinous acts to Israel, so as to insure that none of us inadvertently hire any of their members,” billionaire hedge fund manager Bill A. Ackman ’88 wrote in a Tuesday post on X that has since garnered more than 11,000 reposts. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/10/11/student-groups-withdraw-israel-statement
Various folks obliged by doxxing group members.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/13/hamas-israel-cancel-culture-students-speech/
Classic cancel culture. Reposts = pushing
We would know about it because it was reported on.
It is not a misunderstanding, it is an intentional lie to misdirect.
Fuck me, I agree with JesseAz.
Yes of course...there are many dumb/ignorant people who don't understand what cancel culture is. A CEO choosing not to hire a low IQ student with absurd views...because that person would not be an asset to his company, and workforce is clearly NOT related to cancel culture.
Fuck them. Cancel away. Poor little progtards.
What they said was much worse than using a racial slur - it was condoning brutal terrorist murder.
If you would even hesitate to hire someone who called you a nagger, you should pass on these fools.
Remember "private companies" Robby, as you petulantly explained they can do whatever the fuck they want according to your own prior statements, so fuck off. These are leftists celebrating terror attacks on civilians that you want us to feel sorry for them getting consequences for standing with genocidal maniacs, fuck that.
Well, they can do what they want. And other people can complain about it and argue against it if they want.
that's why they're still kids, 'cause they're stupid.
I'll repeat what I said in Mourning Lynx:
If I thought these little assholes would learn a lesson from this episode about why doxxing is harmful, I’d be a lot more generous about saying that these socially left corpo dickheads need to knock it off.
But they aren’t going to learn that lesson and continue to believe “It’s okay when we do it,” so fuck ’em.
Are we allowed to say "blacklisting"?
capitalize the B or you're on the list.
You think you’re joking.
Last company I worked for I lost a full developer for months because he had to change shit like "blacklist" and things far more innocuous based on some list of potentially offensive words. We even had to put in trigger warnings -- in code -- where a developer might run into a word like "master" if it couldn't be easily excised. Like some fucktard millennial would suffer trauma if he saw the term "master" in a filename.
SO, yeah. Not a joke. Well, not that kind of a joke.
“It’s not happening, and I’m glad it’s happening.”
Vivek is a living example of what happens to undergraduates when when woke educational institutions sever their historical roots.
I’m on the side of the prospective employers. These kids are going to be wanting their employers to take stands on every social issue, no matter how irrelevant to the mission, location and products/services of the company, and it's downright disruptive. I wouldn't want my widget company to have to start taking sides in the culture wars.
Shut the fuck up, faggot.
You and your ilk have a whirlwind to reap.
There seems to be confusion between the actual people who approved these statements and the rank-and-file members of the groups in whose name the statements were issued.
Suppose you’re a foreign medical student at Harvard, and some friendly *landsman* invites you to join an association of conationals and fellow medical students. You join up in hopes of meeting, socializing, etc., but having little time for politics, you’re glad that some other members take on the responsibility of being officers of the group.
Then one day you learn that the group leaders are proterrorist assholes and that a bunch of rich dudes want you on a blacklist. They didn’t even give you a chance to quit or to replace your asshole proterrorist leadership.
Consider the possibility that a student “leader” who is capable of supporting terrorism is equally capable of lying about the extent of his support, even within his own group. Consider the possibility that these “leaders” are the political dregs of the student body who rise to the top of student politics, and now they’re trying to drag down other students with them.
You have to be careful to examine the student body before joining any college group. In fact when I was in college I would join groups for the sole purpose of examining some of those bodies.
I think I see what you did there.
Someone asked them to sign their name to a statement - and they claim they didn't read the statement?
Nah.
The Swamp-rat cannot save his sorry-ass campaign.
Do I need to update my list of ethnic slurs?
I don't speak good enough Georgian Klansman to know who Pluggo's inveighing against today.
“Cancel culture” is when a small mob of activists destroys people’s lives and causes businesses to fire them using lies and propaganda. “Cancel culture” is not private businesses choosing not to hire anti-Semites, fascists, or communists based on truthful information.
A company freely choosing to use an accurate, public list of membership in a communist/fascist/anti-Semitic organization (a “blacklist”) is fully consistent with libertarian principles. Not only is it consistent, it is this kind of voluntary private action that allows libertarian societies to get by with few laws and limited government.
I think Robbie is right here. It would be just wrong to cancel someone for chanting "Death to the Jews". Cancelling is reserved for true crimes, like misgendering someone.
walking in a BLM-painted crosswalk total felony.
These are not small bake shop owners in the middle of nowhere; they are America’s future elite, given the keys to power the moment they were admitted to Harvard. These people don’t get to make “youthful mistakes” anymore, and they will never grow out of it, as you can see by looking at the teaching staff at Harvard.
If they screw up, they need to face harsh consequences, because if they don’t they will impose their reprehensible views on the rest of us by force, from the bench, from government bureaucracies, from pulpits, and from lecterns.
The same people who didn't utter a peep against cancel culture with activists who dig up 10 year old tweets to employers reacting to concurrent acts is amazing. They are doing so to justify the prior behaviors.
Alissa Heinerscheid came out of Harvard. At this point it's probably worthwhile to avoid hiring from any of the ivies, unless they've been deprogrammed.
You and the rest making this argument overlook the very obvious thing that these people are celebrating and encouraging violence.
Not calling someone by their pronouns is not violence. Saying men shouldn't compete in women's sports or use women's locker room is not violence. It's not "genocide" as people like Lia Thomas claims.
You know what is violence? Actually killing people. And raping and torturing them. Including babies!
The idea of equating the two things, having a political view and not just celebrating, but advocating actual violence is absurd.
The question is not whether cancel culture is good or whether the country will be worse off if it continues. I believe the question is whether it's okay to let one group of people successfully continue to cancel people they disagree with while they themselves remain immune from similar treatment. No doubt feuds are destructive and self-fulfilling. But it seems to me that the strategy of one side in the feud simply refusing to defend itself will not end the feud, either in the culture wars or in the Middle East. Israel had consistently practiced game theory's "modified tit-for-tat" strategy for decades before admitting it failed to bring peace to the region. And right-wing Americans ignored the cancel culture onslaught for quite a while before they finally started fighting back.
How come Harvard doesn’t haven’t a campus near Hamas?
But it’s not productive for companies to blacklist kids for being members of student groups that make dumb political statements on campus.
Noted.
It actually is productive, though. It saves the employers from having to spend a fuckload of workplace time dealing with those students' easily avoided, immature theatrics.
If only the State Department had produced this list of students, then ordered them not to be hired, then Reason would be defending this as a "private corporation" choosing to police its own platform.
I don’t think it’s fair to keep a running blacklist of names that makes these people permanently unemployable. One of the most dangerous things about cancel culture is the lack of possibility for redemption: that people aren’t forgiven for sins that are years and decades old.
But yeah, I’d make these kids distance themselves from these statements first. I would absolutely interrogate any views I think might reflect on their employability.
They have the employment option as cannon fodder or human shield for their glorious revolution in Palestine. It's what they deserve.
So, some Nazis are nice people?
I think Vivek just lost the election.
I think Vivek is like Donald (and The Squad-R). A Democrat plant, trying to fleece the Right. And doing a pretty good job of it. (People on the right are desperate for - and absolutely glom onto - people who tell them precisely what they want to hear, and the more obnoxiously the better, in the face of a narrative machine that is constantly telling them what they don't.)
I think he may have just won the Republican nomination. It is now Republican dogma that all hatemongering is to be enabled.
Should they lose college places? No. Should prospective employers be pressured into not hiring them? No. Should prospective - private - employers consider their opinions when deciding whether to hire them, or to rescind a prior offer? Yes.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it's not reasonable to judge them on it. And, frankly, it should be fair game during interview.
"I see from the background check we did that you're a bit of an anti-Semite. Can you please tell me how you think that will affect interoffice morale and productivity when working alongside our Jewish employees?"
It's just like the pronouns thing. If you publicly advertise that you are highly likely to be a HR/legal nightmare - then why shouldn't that be taken into account in an objective determination of the value/risk you bring to the company?
Our legal and ethical traditions do tolerate employers cancelling employees and applicants for their words. There are two reasons why this is so.
– Speech can be evidence of character. – More importantly, employees are often on the hook for what employees say.
There is of course, a clear difference between a fry cook at a taco stand who was discovered to have told a homophobic joke 13 years ago in middle school, and a communications director of a gay rights organization who went on a homophobic tirade on live national television last night. Between these two extreme examples, there is a lot of gray.
Fuck you, I'm not going to hire someone who wants me dead. Nazi, Hamasshole, or Commie, they can all go starve on the streets as pariahs, as far as I'm concerned.
Harvard is a 40 billion dollar hedge fund running a lefturd madrassa on the side as a PR operation, and they just showed their asses to the world. Employers have a duty to protect their colleagues from such people.
-jcr
This is not cancel culture, this is stopping the violent propaganda to incite idiots to act out violently against the Jewish people.
There are much better reasons here than mine, but It’s also not cancel culture because these doofuses could easily get a job and remain relatively anonymous anywhere but one these companies (if they chose to). Not that it’s a hard rule of what defines “cancel culture”, but maybe if they got Debanked or something I might give a fuck about “consistency” or “dangerous precedents”. This is just an own goal from spoiled pinkos. Companies probably shouldn’t hire politically motivated racist activist commies. They’re probably waking up to this (see Disney).
It’s also probably a case of entitled rich twats not getting exactly what they thought they bought when they purchased an education and their skeleton key to the world at Harvard. When it’s some grade school teacher in Iowa making national news because she dressed as a someone of a different race for Halloween years back and has her life destroyed by the media circus, then let me know.
I realize “it’s hard to feel sorry for them” would be a crappy principle on its own. But in this case it’s just the icing on the cake.
Being against cancel culture requires consistency.
1. Its not ‘cancel culture’, Soave. Its ‘consequences culture’. That’s what they said it was. They said cancel culture doesn’t exist, remember?
2. Fuck ’em. ‘Make your enemies live by their principles’ – now they can lay in the bed they made.
3. If my 'consistency' is going to be used as a weapon to destroy me - then I'm not going to be consistent.
Yeah, I'm becoming more of a "I'll fight for people who would fight for my rights" kind of guy. These dipshits would love to get somebody's life ruined if they offended them.
Some of the reasoning in the article is tortured. The students' mistake was not simply to place *all* of the blame for the ISIS-inspired atrocities on Israel. It was to use the nightmarish mass savagery of an explicitly genocidal organization against Israeli civilians as an opportunity to blame Israel at all. Some of these students may not have understood the issues or what happened and were just jumping on the bandwagon. Others did not know that their groups' leaderships had signed on.
But what about the ones who organized this monstrous letter? They were morally deformed long before they wrote it, and businesses have every right not to want to hire them, just as they would have a right not to want to hire members of a mass movement that supports lynching black Americans, child molestation, or using rape as a weapon of war. These entitled brats would extend far less consideration to anyone who doesn't toe their line, and we have to limit the spread of this cancer through our culture. By the way, don't worry about the brats. They'll be just fine. They can always work for mommy and daddy. In the meantime, we should be focused on de-Nazifying Harvard and other institutions of higher learning.
Freedom of association. Decent people don’t want to be around these nasty little cretins. And they shouldn't be forced to hire them, either.
You don't get to have fun college experimenting with the idea of genocide.
Especially by cheering on people who are actively trying to carry it out.
Sorry, Vivek.
All the anti cancel culture folks here would hire Hamas supporters. Not me. Some people need to be cancelled.
World of difference between actively making an ass of yourself and digging up crap from decades ago to attack people.
Your stance is similar to saying that a jaywalker and Jeffrey Dahmer are the same thing since they both broke laws.
If this is cancel culture, then I guess I support it now. Some ideas are beyond the pale. These "students" should be viewed like juvenile convicts. They don't get to play like the rest of the population. Mark them and force them to prove they've learned. I don't believe they can un-learn the ignorance and bigotry that lead them to support Hamas, but I hope they prove me wrong.
Robby Soave is very smart, but something has gone wrong here. One possibility is that he has the right instincts but doesn't grasp the crucial facts of this situation. He may not appreciate how central pro-Hamas ("pro-Palestinian") propaganda is to the hard left, which would explain why he had trouble countering Hamas apologist Briahna Joy Gray's remarks.
In Gray's disgustingly cynical framing, Israel is motivated by "revenge" and should constrain its response so that the number of Palestinian children killed doesn't exceed the number of Israeli children killed. (This is a sophomoric conception of proportionality that one finds in Chomsky.) The correct response to icky propagandists like Gray is to say that Israel's goal is to protect its population from further atrocities, that Hamas is responsible for every innocent life lost, and that Hamas's privileged enablers—people like Briahna Joy Gray, Cornel West, Rashida Tlaib, Amy Goodman, and Josh Wilcox—are deeply complicit in its crimes against Palestinians and Israelis alike.
Sigh. A complete misunderstanding of what cancel culture is. "Cancel culture" as a cancer is getting fired/doxxed/banned etc for something that's NOT WORTH GETTING FIRED/DOXXED/BANNED FOR.
Siding with murderous terrorists is certainly worth it, so whatever happens to these people is not cancel culture.
plus its not technically blacklisting ... its evaluating credentials.
-antisemite , check
-nanny statist, check
good fit for your company? ... nope
totally fine decision making
Working from home has become increasingly popular in recent years, and there are now many opportunities available for those who want to work remotely. However, Now Its Very Simple
.
.
Make It Here———————–>>> http://Www.Smartcash1.com
Well, Thomas Sowell, one of the most reputable conservative philosophers of today, was a Marxist in his 20s. What you are saying amounts to the need to destroy those young people and make them unemployable because they were idiots in their 20s. I have news for you: everybody was an idiot in the 20s. However, this problem has an additional layer: these students were indoctrinated into a cult, by their woke professors. It makes no sense to punish students and leave professors in place. If we are contemplating any punitive actions, we should get rid of the professors and DIE personnel who have indoctrinated them into the cult of woke first, Those professors and the DIE personnel are the real culprits for this embarassment.
Spot on.
If you want your employees to focus on the goals of your company rather than their personal goals, you have to know their history. Otherwise, you might hire a committed LGBTQ/Communist activist that ruins your brand by pissing off your customers by hiring a tranny for a spokesperson. It wasn't misguided. That was an example of a person pushing a private agenda with complete disregard for the organization they are supposed to be working for.
There is nothing punitive about not hiring any of these ass-hats. It is a natural product of rational value considerations. What value does a vile, brainwashed, toxic NPC bring to a company? Maybe some woke pro-palestinian terrorist company virtue signalling the power of the dark side will hire them. Then you can be happy. But for companies that dont want to embedd such immature, irrational toxicity into their workplace – being on the lookout to NOT hire such a cretin is entirely non-punitive.