Cancel Culture on the Ropes

Norman Wang v. University of Pittsburgh

Cancel culture wasn’t invented in 2020, but it became much more divisive and heavy-handed after the protests marking George Floyd’s death. Many powerful institutions in America sought to ingratiate themselves to social justice protestors by adopting a DEI agenda that often included the caustic notion that all people could be divided into an oppressor or oppressed class based on their race. To enforce conformity with that agenda, they cracked down on anyone whose speech contested their assertions and sometimes illegal polices.

The most troubling censorship came from college administrators, who began punishing students and professors who questioned the use of racial preferences in academic admissions and hiring, which had always been highly controversial and subject to spirited debate. After years of litigation, we are seeing the fruits of our legal efforts to vindicate individuals who were mistreated for their speech. Today we’re pleased to report that cancel culture is on the ropes.

In the past year, CIR secured favorable settlements for three individuals who were fired for expressing private views, often outside of work, when their employers surrendered to heckler protests. Those settlements include substantial monetary damages to Dan Mattson, Kate Riotte, and most recently, Greg Krehbiel. But our most recalcitrant opponent continues to fight on with public university resources. As we previously reported, University of Pittsburgh cardiology professor Norman Wang wrote a now-famous, peer-reviewed study in the leading cardiology journal arguing that the pervasive use of racial preferences in medical education is counterproductive and likely illegal—and then faced the wrath of university officials for refusing to retract his truthful article.

Dr. Wang’s academic honesty was a serious threat to university officials committed to a racial preference agenda. Within hours of learning of the article, Pitt administrators settled on a plan of harassment and intimidation of Dr. Wang to force him to withdraw it. When he refused, they sent defamatory emails to the medical journal, in violation of university academic procedures, and retaliated against Dr. Wang, including declaring that he was “too dangerous” to have any contact with the cardiology residents he used to instruct.

CIR sued over Dr. Wang’s denial of free speech and filed a claim against the university for retaliation under the civil rights laws. Dr. Wang’s refusal to retract his truthful article made this national-profile case possible. Happily, Dr. Wang’s courageous stand is swiftly moving toward trial where university officials will have to answer CIR’s questions in open court. Depositions and document discovery ended last spring.

There is now no doubt that when Dr. Wang refused to retract his speech, the medical school dean and others wrongly retaliated against him. Heroic clients like Dr. Wang encourage others to speak freely. Given the high profile of this case, victory for Dr. Wang would send a strong message to college officials throughout America that they cannot silence speech opposing racial preferences.