Jim Geraghty of National Review Online explores the latest targets of “consequence culture.”
For about a decade, a largely progressive-driven “cancel culture” movement meant an utterance deemed sufficiently controversial could lead to instant firing, ostracization, and infamy. … Meanwhile, a whole bunch of progressives got used to venting their spleen on social media with a level of rage that would make Hezbollah urge them to switch to decaf, without any significant professional consequence. But in the aftermath of the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, the shoe is on the other foot. And boy, do those progressives find it uncomfortable. …
… [I]f somebody posts something abominable, stupid, or hateful on social media after a tragedy, his employer doesn’t necessarily need to fire that employee. But the employer really should have some sort of intervention, some sort of action that says to the employee, “Don’t do this. It’s not good for the company, it makes all of us look bad, and it’s really not good for you, either. You look and sound like a cruel maniac. We really don’t want a cruel maniac in our workplace.” …
… (It is more than fair to wonder if someone who reacts to shocking violence with glee or celebration will someday feel tempted to commit their own act of shocking violence.)
The appropriate response could be one of those long uncomfortable meetings with HR, a temporary suspension, a chewing out by the boss — mutatis mutandis. An employer is justified in treating a well-liked, productive, otherwise good employee who had an uncharacteristic intemperate outburst differently than an employee with a history of troubling behavior or other work problems.
And in many cases, the employer will be perfectly justified in cutting ties. If you’re a teacher, and you post something horrific, many parents will not want you teaching their children. (Another argument for school choice!) If you are a doctor or nurse, many patients will wonder if you give them the best care if you disagree with their politics.
