new york review books twitter

Spend $75 or more for free US shipping

Notting Hill Editions

Shopping for someone else but not sure what to give them give them the gift of choice with a new york review books gift card., a membership for yourself or as a gift for a special reader will promise a year of good reading., is there a book that you’d like to see back in print, or that you think we should consider for one of our series let us know.

• Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
• Opens in a new window.

Advertisement

Supported by

editors’ choice

6 New Books We Recommend This Week

Suggested reading from critics and editors at The New York Times.

• Share full article

It’s a happy coincidence that we recommend Becca Rothfeld’s essay collection “All Things Are Too Small” — a critic’s manifesto “in praise of excess,” as her subtitle has it — in the same week that we also recommend Justin Taylor’s maximalist new novel “Reboot,” an exuberant satire of modern society that stuffs everything from fandom to TV retreads to the rise of conspiracy culture into its craw. I don’t know if Rothfeld has read Taylor’s novel, but I get the feeling she would approve. Maybe you will too: In the spirit of “more, bigger, louder,” why not pick those up together?

Our other recommendations this week include a queer baseball romance novel, an up-to-the-minute story about a widower running for the presidency of his local labor union, a graphic novelist’s collection of spare visual stories and, in nonfiction, a foreign policy journalist’s sobering look at global politics in the 21st century. Happy reading. — Gregory Cowles

REBOOT Justin Taylor

This satire of modern media and pop culture follows a former child actor who is trying to revive the TV show that made him famous. Taylor delves into the worlds of online fandom while exploring the inner life of a man seeking redemption — and something meaningful to do.

“His book is, in part, a performance of culture, a mirror America complete with its own highly imagined myths, yet one still rooted in the Second Great Awakening and the country’s earliest literature. It’s a performance full of wit and rigor.”

From Joshua Ferris’s review

Pantheon | $28

YOU SHOULD BE SO LUCKY Cat Sebastian

When a grieving reporter falls for the struggling baseball player he’s been assigned to write about, their romance is like watching a Labrador puppy fall in love with a pampered Persian cat: all eager impulse on one side and arch contrariness on the other.

“People think the ending is what defines a romance, and it does, but that’s not what a romance is for. The end is where you stop, but the journey is why you go. … If you read one romance this spring, make it this one.”

From Olivia Waite’s romance column

Avon | Paperback, $18.99

ALL THINGS ARE TOO SMALL: Essays in Praise of Excess Becca Rothfeld

A striking debut by a young critic who has been heralded as a throwback to an era of livelier discourse. Rothfeld has published widely and works currently as a nonfiction book critic for The Washington Post; her interests range far, but these essays are united by a plea for more excess in all things, especially thought.

“Splendidly immodest in its neo-Romantic agenda — to tear down minimalism and puritanism in its many current varieties. … A carnival of high-low allusion and analysis.”

From David Gates’s review

Metropolitan Books | $27.99

THE RETURN OF GREAT POWERS: Russia, China, and the Next World War Jim Sciutto

Sciutto’s absorbing account of 21st-century brinkmanship takes readers from Ukraine in the days and hours ahead of Russia’s invasion to the waters of the Taiwan Strait where Chinese jets flying overhead raise tensions across the region. It’s a book that should be read by every legislator or presidential nominee sufficiently deluded to think that returning America to its isolationist past or making chummy with Putin is a viable option in today’s world.

“Enough to send those with a front-row view into the old basement bomb shelter. … The stuff of unholy nightmares.”

From Scott Anderson’s review

Dutton | $30

THE SPOILED HEART Sunjeev Sahota

Sahota’s novel is a bracing study of a middle-aged man’s downfall. A grieving widower seems to finally be turning things around for himself as he runs for the top job at his labor union and pursues a love interest. But his election campaign gets entangled in identity politics, and his troubles quickly multiply.

“Sahota has a surgeon’s dexterous hands, and the reader senses his confidence. … A plot-packed, propulsive story.”

From Caoilinn Hughes’s review

Viking | $29

SPIRAL AND OTHER STORIES Aidan Koch

The lush, sparsely worded work of this award-winning graphic novelist less resembles anything recognizably “comic book” than it does a sort of dreamlike oasis of art. Her latest piece of masterful minimalism, constructed from sensuous washes of watercolor, pencil, crayon and collage, pulses with bright pigment and tender melancholy.

“Many of these pages are purely abstract, but when Koch draws details, it’s in startlingly specific and consistent contours that give these stories a breadth of character as well as depiction.”

From Sam Thielman’s graphic novels column

New York Review Comics | $24.95

Explore More in Books

Want to know about the best books to read and the latest news start here..

The complicated, generous life  of Paul Auster, who died on April 30 , yielded a body of work of staggering scope and variety .

“Real Americans,” a new novel by Rachel Khong , follows three generations of Chinese Americans as they all fight for self-determination in their own way .

“The Chocolate War,” published 50 years ago, became one of the most challenged books in the United States. Its author, Robert Cormier, spent years fighting attempts to ban it .

Joan Didion’s distinctive prose and sharp eye were tuned to an outsider’s frequency, telling us about ourselves in essays that are almost reflexively skeptical. Here are her essential works .

Each week, top authors and critics join the Book Review’s podcast to talk about the latest news in the literary world. Listen here .

Spend $75 or more for free US shipping

Shopping for someone else but not sure what to give them? Give them the gift of choice with a New York Review Books Gift Card.

A membership for yourself or as a gift for a special reader will promise a year of good reading., is there a book that you’d like to see back in print, or that you think we should consider for one of our series let us know.

• Choosing a selection results in a full page refresh.
• Opens in a new window.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Ex-New York Review of Books editor: I was 'convicted on Twitter' over essay

Publication remains silent over rift with Ian Buruma, who faced criticism over his editorial decisions on #MeToo movement

Ian Buruma, the former editor-in-chief of the New York Review of Books who was forced out of the job on Wednesday amid a row over his editorial judgment relating to #MeToo, has complained of being “publicly pilloried” and “convicted on Twitter”.

A day after the announcement of Buruma’s departure from the literary magazine, the NYRB itself has yet to give an explanation for the rift with its chief editor – only the third person to hold the top post since the review was founded in 1963. The silence means Buruma has got his side of the story out first, portraying himself as a victim of social media bullying.

In an interview with the Dutch magazine Vrij Nederland, the writer and academic said he had been “convicted on Twitter, without any due process”. He characterized his fate as “rather ironic”.

“As editor of the New York Review of Books I published a theme issue about #MeToo-offenders who had not been convicted in a court of law but by social media. And now I myself am publicly pilloried.”

The storm that toppled Buruma from one of the most prestigious journalistic seats in America erupted this month when he published a long article by the former Canadian broadcaster Jian Ghomeshi. The celebrity was acquitted in March, 2016, of sexual assault and choking relating to three women.

At least a further 17 other women have also made serious allegations of improper sexual conduct against Ghomeshi. Yet in the essay, Ghomeshi tried to defend himself against the accusations, saying they were “inaccurate”.

Ghomeshi said he wanted to give a more “nuanced” view of what had happened.

The article prompted furious debate on social media and widespread criticism of Buruma’s decision to publish on the grounds that, though Ghomeshi had been acquitted, he remained subject to multiple claims of violent behavior from many women. The dispute was aggravated when Buruma gave an interview last week to Slate in which he said it was not “really my concern” to take a view on Ghomeshi’s allegedly violent behavior and argued that there were “undesirable, or at least unresolved, aspects” aspects to the way the Canadian star had been treated.

Buruma commissioned the Ghomeshi article several months ago, and faced strong opposition to publication from members of the NYRB staff. The former editor-in-chief told Vrij Nederland: “The staff was initially not unanimously positive about publication, but once the decision to publish was made, we agreed. Also the publisher was initially positive.”

He insisted that he had not been fired from the NYRB job but had been put in a position where he felt he had to step down because of a combination of social media hounding and pressure from academic advertisers to the magazine who were not happy about the Ghomeshi scandal. “University publishers, whose advertisements make publication of the New York Review of Books partly possible, were threatening a boycott,” Buruma said.

“They are afraid of the reactions on the campuses, where this is an inflammatory topic. Because of this, I feel forced to resign – in fact it is a capitulation to social media and university presses.”

• #MeToo movement
• US press and publishing

Most viewed

Advertisement

More from the Review

Subscribe to our Newsletter

Best of The New York Review, plus books, events, and other items of interest

May 23, 2024

Current Issue

Who’s Canceling Whom?

February 8, 2024 issue

Michael Schmelling

Illustration by Michael Schmelling

Submit a letter:

Email us [email protected]

The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust and Threatens Us All—But There Is a Solution

The instantly notorious exchange in a congressional hearing on December 5 between Representative Elise Stefanik and the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology laid bare once again the fragility of our collective commitment to free speech. Stefanik repeatedly asked the presidents whether a student calling for the genocide of Jews (which she equated with calling for “intifada”) would violate their institutions’ codes of conduct or constitute bullying or harassment. Each one replied, in effect, “It depends.”

Despite the outrage that followed, that’s actually the right answer if universities respect free speech principles. As a general matter, advocating for genocide or saying any number of other hateful things is protected by the First Amendment. If a woman stood on a street corner across from Congress holding a sign calling for the genocide of Jews, government officials could take no action against her. Even hateful speech calling for unconscionable acts of violence is protected by the First Amendment unless it falls within very narrow exceptions, such as genuine threats of violence or “incitement” that is both intended and likely to produce imminent violence. The sign would fit none of those categories.

That doesn’t mean there is nothing universities can do about hateful speech. On campus as in the workplace, denigrating speech can sometimes constitute discriminatory harassment, which is not protected by the First Amendment. Yelling such an epithet at a particular Jewish student or pinning such a sign to his dorm room door could be considered religious harassment, not free speech. Even when not directed at a particular individual, if such a statement were repeated so often that it pervaded the campus, it could create a “hostile” learning environment that would also amount to prohibited discrimination, not protected speech. And a professor in a classroom could forbid such a statement as interference with civil and robust discussion.

But a student at a campus protest against the Israel–Gaza conflict who chants “From the river to the sea” or even “Genocide to the Jews” without directing it at anyone in particular may not be punished by a school that respects free speech principles. Public universities are required to safeguard free speech, since they are directly governed by the First Amendment. Private universities are not, but many, including Harvard, Penn, and MIT , have committed to respect free speech on campus essentially as if they were bound by the First Amendment. So “It depends” was the right answer.

But it was not the right answer for the moment, evidently. Penn president Elizabeth Magill resigned under extraordinary pressure four days after her testimony. Harvard president Claudine Gay apologized and briefly held on to her position, despite donors’ and legislators’ calls for her ouster. But she, too, was forced to resign in January, after evidence emerged of plagiarism in many of her academic papers. Only MIT ’s Sally Kornbluth remains in office. Meanwhile, the GOP -led House Committee on Education and the Workforce, which held the hearing, has launched an official investigation into the “learning environment” at all three schools. That’s the price of upholding free speech principles in today’s impassioned divide over Israel and Gaza.

Some commentators, such as The New York Times ’s Bret Stephens, argued that the presidents’ unwillingness to unequivocally prohibit advocacy of genocide of Jews was hypocritical in view of previous decisions that were less than fully protective of free speech—such as MIT ’s retraction of an invitation to the eminent geophysicist Dorian Abbot to deliver a public lecture after attention was drawn to his critique of some diversity initiatives.

The principal complaint, however, was not that the university presidents had been too censorious previously, but that they were not being censorious enough now. The critics insist that they should have explicitly stated that any call for genocide would violate their school policies. And while Stefanik, a staunch Republican, led the charge, she was joined by many prominent liberals, including Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro, Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff, and Harvard constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe.

It is true that college campuses have not been paragons of tolerance and intellectual diversity in recent years, as amply illustrated by a timely book, The Canceling of the American Mind . Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott, the president of and a research fellow at the nonprofit Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression ( FIRE ), offer persuasive evidence that students, professors, and administrators at many colleges and universities across the country have been too quick to punish or “cancel” those whose views contravene progressive orthodoxy on race, gender, sexuality, and other matters.

Many of the stories are familiar. A professor at Hamline University in Minnesota was sanctioned for showing a painting depicting the Prophet Muhammad in an art history class. The head of a Yale residential college and his wife were hounded by students for questioning a request from the administration that students not wear Halloween costumes that reinforce stereotypes. A conservative judge invited to speak at Stanford Law School was shouted down by students, as was a conservative lawyer at Yale Law School.

But FIRE , which specializes in defending free speech on campus, has learned of many more incidents, much less well known, and reading about them all in one place makes clear that these are not isolated instances. They include a professor at the University of Southern California who was pressured to stop teaching a class after he explained that Chinese speakers say nega (meaning “that”) as filler, much as English speakers use “like” or “you know,” and students objected that it sounded like a racial slur; a professor at UCLA who was suspended after citing Martin Luther King Jr. in a sarcastic email rejecting a request that he grade Black students’ exams more leniently following the police killing of George Floyd; and, in an instance of conservative canceling, three professors at Collin College in Texas who were terminated for complaining that the school’s Covid policies were insufficiently strict.

Lukianoff and Schlott, in short, have documented a serious problem. But like many advocates, at times they indulge in rhetorical excess. They assert, for example, that the past decade has seen repression of speech akin to or worse than that of the McCarthy era—a period when millions of Americans were required to swear loyalty oaths and endured official inquiries into their political views, and the full force of government was behind much of the repression. As disturbing as cancel culture is, it is just that: a culture of largely private intolerance, not a system of official repression. There is a huge difference. Among other things, cancel culture can’t land you in jail. And while the First Amendment prohibits the kind of government intolerance so prevalent in the McCarthy era, it affirmatively protects the right of private individuals and institutions to be intolerant. (That’s why Nazis had a right to march in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, for example.) So while cancel culture is undeniably troubling, we are not reliving the McCarthy era.

Lukianoff and Schlott’s contention that cancel culture began in 2013 and is worse today than ever before also seems questionable. The sad reality is that intolerant efforts to silence those with whom we disagree have long been a staple of our culture. That’s why the First Amendment is so necessary. At various times and in various places during our nation’s history, Jeffersonian Republicans, Hamiltonian Federalists, Catholics, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists, labor organizers, anarchists, pacifists, socialists, communists, civil rights activists, white supremacists, women’s liberation advocates, LGBT rights proponents, and fundamentalist Christians have all been victims of the intolerance of substantial parts of American society, and often of government censorship as well. And while social media has undoubtedly enabled new modes of cancellation, its ready availability to all has simultaneously provided a megaphone to unpopular speakers, making it more difficult to cancel them effectively. So while the closed-minded behavior Lukianoff and Schlott catalog is profoundly disturbing, it’s not clear that things are worse today than in any previous period.

Indeed, as a legal matter, speech is freer today than at any point in our history. Shortly after the First Amendment was adopted, Congress in the Alien and Sedition Acts made it a crime to criticize the government; the Supreme Court never ruled that legislation unconstitutional. During World War I more than two thousand people were arrested and prosecuted for speaking out against the war. Many were sentenced to as much as twenty years in prison. For nearly half a century Communists were excluded or fired from government posts, deported, criminally prosecuted, and blacklisted for nothing more than their associations. In the civil rights era, state governments and private individuals, businesses, and groups targeted people advocating for equal rights, arresting them, refusing to serve them, and unleashing public and private violence against them.

It is largely because many of those targeted fought tenaciously for the right to speak and associate that First Amendment law evolved to provide robust protection of speech. Today, outside of a few very narrow categories of unprotected speech such as obscenity and incitement, the government cannot punish speech because of its content or viewpoint unless doing so is necessary to promote a compelling state interest, a standard that is nearly impossible to meet. Moreover, while no one would accuse the current Supreme Court of being especially rights-friendly, First Amendment freedoms find support across its often stark ideological divide.

As bad as the situation may be, it is also not obvious that intolerance on college campuses is worse today than before. Until the 1960s elite universities, a principal focus of Lukianoff and Schlott’s critique, were relatively homogeneous. There is little reason to believe that those communities were more tolerant than today’s more diverse student bodies. There may have been fewer conflicts when universities admitted only a small subset of the population, largely white, male, and privileged. The conformity of consensus is not the same thing as tolerance. You might even call this “structural cancellation.”

Still, Lukianoff and Schlott are right that on too many campuses today, there is a reigning progressive orthodoxy, and those who do not subscribe are likely to feel excluded or dismissed. The faculties and students at elite universities are overwhelmingly liberal to progressive in their views, and conservative voices are often scarce. According to one study Lukianoff and Schlott cite, only one in ten professors nationwide identifies as conservative. In my experience, the ratio is probably more extreme at the most elite schools.

For this reason, “cancel culture” is a charge that the right tends to invoke. But to their credit, Lukianoff and Schlott are equal opportunity critics of cancellation. As they demonstrate, the right can be just as intolerant. And in recent years, its unwillingness to hear opposing views has taken the form not just of private turning away but of official state censorship. Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, for example, has ushered in legislative micromanagement of what can and cannot be said in the classroom. Among other proscribed ideas, it prohibits state university faculty from endorsing any argument that “a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.” The law appears to preclude any classroom statement supportive of affirmative action. In cases brought by the ACLU , the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and FIRE , a federal court has declared the Florida law unconstitutional as an abridgment of academic freedom. This is not just cancel culture; it is government censorship. And many other states have passed similar laws.

Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law, which restricts grade school teachers’ ability even to discuss sexual orientation, similarly constitutes direct state suppression of speech, as do the many efforts across the country to ban books expressing liberal views on sexuality, race, and parenting from school and town libraries. And most recently, Florida denied recognition at its state college campuses to Students for Justice in Palestine because of state officials’ disapproval of comments made after the Hamas terrorist attacks on October 7 by the group’s national chapter—thereby simultaneously punishing protected speech and imposing guilt by association. (The ACLU is challenging this action.)

So the right’s passion for free speech seems less than universal. Where liberal or progressive views are concerned, the right has not only shown little tolerance, but has invoked state power to suppress them.

With so much cancellation from all sides, free speech is undoubtedly imperilled on college campuses. The academic enterprise demands a commitment to open debate and free inquiry. In the words of a 1974 Yale faculty committee report, written by the historian C. Vann Woodward in response to students shouting down speakers fifty years ago, “The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.”

This is why many if not most private universities have adopted free expression policies that largely mirror the rules that would apply to a public university directly bound by the First Amendment. * These policies are not the problem. Rather, the challenge has been to realize them in practice. The unwillingness of liberals and conservatives alike to be exposed to views with which they disagree has had a chilling effect on campuses. In annual surveys taken by FIRE , large percentages of students report self-censorship and a hesitation to voice their views for fear of being pilloried by their classmates. Many professors are understandably reluctant to address controversial topics, fearing that they or a student might say something that offends—and ends up in a viral social media post or official inquiry.

And the problem is hardly unique to universities; a broader culture in which people often get their news and opinion from outlets that express only one point of view means many have lost the habit of engaging seriously with ideas they find disturbing, wrong, or offensive. We ask a lot of students when we tell them to rise above all that. But as the 1974 Yale committee noted, that is precisely what intellectual growth requires.

The prevalent notion that hearing something one finds offensive inflicts harm that should be avoided, and concomitant demands for “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” make open conversation challenging. In response, it’s not sufficient to invoke the playground rhyme “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” We have all at some point been hurt by someone’s words. Speech is undeniably powerful, and it can be used for good or bad ends. But just as playing soccer inescapably poses the risk of injury, so the free exchange of ideas will inevitably leave some feeling bruised. The costs must be acknowledged but cannot justify suppression if speech—and academic inquiry—are to be free.

Lukianoff and Schlott’s subtitle promises solutions, and they propose many. Yet as is often the case when addressing deep-rooted problems, this is the weakest part of the book. They suggest, for example, that parents “revive the golden rule” and “emphasize the importance of friendships,” that K-12 schools “emphasize curiosity and critical thinking,” and that universities adopt free speech policies, teach students about free speech “in orientation,” and “survey students and faculty about the state of free speech on campus.”

Lukianoff and Schlott do not acknowledge it, but in recent years universities and colleges have in fact undertaken substantial efforts to promote free speech on campus (no doubt in part because of FIRE ’s and others’ persistent advocacy). The tide may well be turning. In 2023 alone faculty and administrators undertook an impressive range of initiatives to foster environments in which students and faculty feel free to express disagreement and to engage ideas with which they disagree.

Yale Law School has launched a Crossing Divides program designed to bring people from opposite sides of major issues to the law school community, and to feature speakers whose minds were changed by confronting ideas they initially opposed. Harvard faculty have formed a Council on Academic Freedom to promote intellectual diversity, free exchange, and civil discourse. Stanford has announced similar undertakings focused on applicants and first-year students, to reinforce these values at the outset of the college experience. A group of thirteen colleges, including Cornell, Claremont McKenna, Duke, Dartmouth, Wesleyan, and the University of Pittsburgh, issued a “Campus Call for Free Expression.” My own university, Georgetown, has formed a task force on free speech and campus culture (which I chair) charged with identifying concrete measures to promote tolerance, intellectual diversity, and civil engagement. Columbia announced a Dialogue Across Difference program to encourage just that. Even the University of Chicago, long lauded for its robust defense of free speech, saw fit to create a Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression to ensure that its free speech policies are matched by a free speech culture. It won’t be easy to change long-standing attitudes of intolerance or to counter the chilling effects they foster. But many universities are newly determined to try.

Representative Stefanik’s grilling of the three university presidents may give them pause. That exchange and its aftermath will undoubtedly tempt universities to police speech viewed as hateful, violent, or antisemitic. When a university president has to resign because she stands up for free speech principles, those principles are likely to bend. Universities have been down this road before. In the 1980s many enacted “hate speech” codes to prohibit speech that offended particular groups, even if the speech was not harassing, threatening, or an incitement to violence. The problems in doing so were legion; such codes afford too much unfettered discretion to university administrators and deter potentially controversial speech, so they have generally failed. In the academy, the fact that speech offends someone, or some group, cannot be a sufficient reason to prohibit it.

Committing to free speech means respecting everyone’s right to speak, even and especially those we deem most offensive. Advocating the genocide of Jews is unconscionable. None of the college presidents who responded to Stefanik’s hypothetical gotcha question thought otherwise. If and when anyone actually says that in the real world, they should be forcefully condemned. When used to target individuals, to create a hostile learning environment, or to undermine the mutual respect necessary for a robust classroom discussion, such calls can and should be prohibited. But outside those settings, advocating genocide is not, on its own, a justification for punishment. So yes, Representative Stefanik, it depends. And our commitment to free speech depends on that recognition.

— January 11, 2024

February 8, 2024

The Bernstein Enigma

Ethical Espionage

Subscribe to our Newsletters

More by David Cole

February 24, 2024

A number of cases before the Supreme Court this term will determine the future of free speech on the Internet.

March 21, 2024 issue

March 7, 2024 issue

David Cole is the National Legal Director of the ACLU and the Honorable George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy at the Georgetown University Law Center. (March 2024)

The leader in this regard has been the University of Chicago, which adopted an excellent statement on free expression in 2014. That statement has since been adopted by more than one hundred universities.  ↩

Leonard Schapiro (1908–1983)

December 22, 1983 issue

Short Review

July 20, 1972 issue

Ronald Dworkin (1931–2013)

March 21, 2013 issue

Dorothy Day (1897–1980)

January 22, 1981 issue

Dying for Life

May 9, 1996 issue

Cheer Up, John Paul II

October 22, 1987 issue

Discreet Charm of Nihilism

November 19, 1998 issue

Tolnay’s Michelangelo

December 3, 1964 issue

Subscribe and save 50%!

Get immediate access to the current issue and over 25,000 articles from the archives, plus the NYR App.

Already a subscriber? Sign in