The New York Times promotes cancel culture while ignoring school district's racist practices

Shortly after Christmas, The New York Times published a story cataloging the petty squabbles between two recently graduated high school students. The story itself is an oddly perfect concept for a teen drama screenplay.

Mimi Groves is a senior at a Virginia high school with a knack for cheerleading, having won many medals, ribbons, and trophies for her performances. She recently got accepted with a full scholarship to attend the school of her dreams, the University of Tennessee, host of the country’s most prestigious cheerleading squad. Goody two-shoes Groves, however, has one little secret: she once used a racial slur in a three second video recorded when she was 15, and Jimmy Galligan is not happy about it. Galligan, who puts up with racism from his peers on a regular basis, is sick of the abuse, and decides to get back at the racists who have tormented him for so long. He releases the video of Groves using the racial slur, putting her future at the University of Tennessee in jeopardy. Now Groves must race against time to heal the wounds she caused to Galligan, save her scholarship, and help establish racial harmony at her high school.

Unfortunately for Groves, chapters of life are hardly wrapped up in a nice and harmonious bow like you would expect from your typical feel-good teen drama movie. Groves was kicked off the cheerleading team, pressured to withdraw from the University of Tennessee by their cowardly administrators, and to top it all off, a supposedly full-grown adult operating under the legitimacy of one of America’s most respected newspapers decided to write a lengthy analysis documenting the high school drama, praising Galligan for holding her "accountable."

Now attending a community college, Groves is left only with artifacts of her past cheerleading glory, "reminders of what could have been."

The article immediately sparked outrage among conservatives, serving as yet another reminder of the vicious, unforgiving nature of cancel culture which fails to even recognize the impulsiveness of youth as a defense against lifelong embarrassment. Many criticized Galligan, forgetting that he too is a fallible teenager capable of poor, vindictive judgement. The word "psychopath" was thrown around on social media, reducing Galligan to a one-dimensional vengeance-seeking brat whose mistakes allegedly betray some sort of evil pathology.

Others criticized The New York Times for the article, which threw no difficult questions at Galligan for what was, to put it lightly, a morally questionable act. While they do admittedly offer some sympathy to Groves for her predicament, she receives a much more nuanced portrayal than Galligan. They point out that she had already apologized for using the slur to a black friend of hers years earlier, who seemed to have accepted the apology as sincere. They also point out that she offered support online to Black Lives Matter protesters, indicating at the very least that her opinion on using the N-word has likely changed over the years.

The most disappointing thing about the article was that the backdrop of the piece is far more interesting than the story it tells. The quarrel between Groves and Galligan takes place in a school district allegedly rife with racism. Decades after the school district openly resisted federally enforced desegregation, hurling racial slurs at black students is apparently still commonplace and teachers and administrators make no honest attempt to stop it. As a direct result of their inaction, black students in the district are tormented by their peers and white students who should and could know better are left unprepared to thrive in a multiethnic America.

The decision to largely ignore how the school district failed its students is regrettable, but not particularly surprising given how issues surrounding racism in our institutions are typically treated by the media. Whether they be high schools, universities, corporations, or government agencies, institutions are more than willing to offer complacent self-flagellation whenever an accusation of racism is levelled. These institutions will typically acknowledge that they are systemically racist and receive cheers from the media for doing so. Many of these accusations are ridiculous, nonsensical, or highly steeped in paranoia backed up by questionable academic theories, and it is often simply easier for the university to acknowledge that they are doing something wrong whether its true or not.

This formula usually works in the short run, even as conservatives express outrage over our institutions offering more affirmation to race-obsessed activists than they deserve. Another common criticism conservatives level is the classic boy who cried wolf argument, that overusing the term "racism" will water it down until it eventually carries no weight or meaning whatsoever. At that point, the real racists will emerge from the shadows, and no simple snarl words will be enough to force them back.

The latter of these criticisms appears to be the case in the Loudoun County school district. The description of a typical day for black students in the district offered by The New York Times was repugnant, offending the sensibilities of anyone with a moral compass fit for the 21st century. A school district which appears to be entrenched in the moral values of the Jim Crow South is probably a pretty important topic to investigate much more than it deserves to serve as the colourful backdrop of an exposé on the Snapchat affairs of an 18-year-old girl.

But of course, to the writers at The New York Times, that is not the case, and why would it be? In a world where every aspect of American society is racist down to the very foundations, the Loudoun County school district is not a shameful relic of an ugly past. Rather, it is an ordinary school district whose most serious blight is shared in common with Ivy League universities, hardly a pressing issue demanding immediate attention.

Just as other institutions self-flagellate and move on every time they receive a frivolous accusation of culturally-embedded racism, the Loudoun County school district will do the same despite the fact that their issue with racism appears to be very real. To the writers at The New York Times, the gross racism present at the school is business as usual, even though it should be viewed as anything but that.

As a result of the school’s inaction on racism, Groves will be forced to shoulder her worst high school misstep forever, with a quick Google search leading potential employers to her history of racism. For Gilligan, he carries even more burdens than Groves. For one, his formative years have been tainted by overt racism which no child should have to face. Similar to Groves, he too will have his name googled by future potential employers who will be immediately directed to an article displaying his petty affinity for vengeance, hardly a desirable quality for a company.

Lastly, assuming he is not the pathological psychopath many right-wingers have portrayed him as, which is very likely the case, he will one day have to reconcile with the fact that he tore a girl away from her dreams in a petulant act of emotionally-charged revenge. All of this could have been avoided had the school disciplined Groves for her behaviour when it was first reported by Galligan. What’s even more worrying is that these are only two people in a county of half a million. Who knows how many other wounds the school district has inflicted upon their students through their inaction?

Unfortunately, it is unlikely the Loudoun County school district will be held accountable in the same way Groves has. Cancel culture once again brings ruination to someone's life without any chance at forgiveness while the school district, at most, may self-flagellate over their wrongdoing and move on. As for The New York Times, the legacy media outlet can once again feel a smug sense of self-righteousness for exposing racism without posing any objection to the conduct of institutions which the free press is supposed to hold accountable.