Earlier this week Nikole Hannah-Jones, the New York Times writer in charge of the 1619 Project, was denied a tenured professorship at the University of North Carolina’s journalism school. The faculty recommended her for a job, and a committee headed by a UNC trustee expressed doubts about her suitability. Other trustees reportedly said they would not approve her for tenure. The faculty countered by suggesting that she be hired for a fixed five-year term, and the committee and Hannah-Jones agreed.
Should we say Hannah-Jones was “canceled,” or just “held accountable” by a university whose rules give its administration the chance to veto tenured appointments? Many who hate the term cancel culture have suddenly found it appropriate in her case, and a few who use it habitually have found reasons not to use it here. The best argument for the Board of Trustees, an inherently political body in a state with a Republican legislature, is that its decision is no more political than the initial appointment. Hannah-Jones is a political journalist. By hiring her, the faculty surely meant to side with her over the critics on the left and the right who have swarmed over her work in the past two years. How could hiring her not be political?
