Allen: Is canceling back only cure for cancel culture?

He noted cases in which law firms have reprimanded or denied employment to applicants based not on their qualifications but their beliefs.

To the casual observer, Ho’s boycott looks retaliatory: if you cancel us, we will cancel you — a position that invites rebuke.

But to Ho, the boycott, which notably would apply to future but not current law students, is an effort to force change: “I don’t want to cancel Yale,” he said. “I want Yale to stop canceling people like me.”

Sometimes, drastic problems require drastic measures.

Of course, this important nuance was lost on a truculent media, which received Ho’s decision with predictable disdain.

Ho’s critics may not have read his speech (which has since been published with addendum) in its entirety, because Ho preemptively addresses many of the concerns.

To the assertion, for example, that the boycott will hurt Yale law students, Ho responds that “countless students are being hurt right now,” by an oppressive campus environment that punishes individuals for holding alternative points of view.

Doing nothing does not serve them in any way. Doing something might.

“Most of the students being hurt today have far less ability to negotiate these dynamics successfully than future Yale grads,” he adds. “Who’s worrying about hurting these students?”

But what is truly regrettable, is that in an effort to paint Ho, a Donald Trump appointee to the federal bench, as a “MAGA darling,” many critics ignore Ho’s principled support of free speech in his rulings as a federal judge.

In Oliver v. Arnold, a former Texas high school student contended that her teacher violated her First Amendment rights by trying to force her to write the Pledge of Allegiance, which she said she disagreed with as a Black woman and an atheist, retaliating against her when she refused. Ho wrote that “no legitimate pedagogical interest is served by forcing students to agree with a particular political viewpoint or by punishing those who refuse.”

Ho has also staunchly defended the speech of Texas citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal (no conservative), who was arrested effectively for asking the government questions.

Free speech issues often break along partisan lines. Ho’s critics assume that his Yale Law School boycott is exactly that. But anyone who pays attention to his jurisprudence will see that for Ho, freedom of speech is a matter of principle, not partisanship.

It’s probably too much to hope that any transformation of Yale Law School’s culture is imminent. But Ho’s boycott has at least started a conversation, which was clearly part of his intent.

It’s also a reminder to look beyond the surface-level critiques of those we disagree with, especially when it comes to freedom of speech. When someone is defending the speech of both their friends and foes, it’s time to listen.