My attribution was definitely evidence-based, but it's possible I made an error considering the evidence, or that your motives were transient and don't reflect your sustained and considered opinion.
I accept, at face value, your claim that you "care deeply about “wanting significant, proportional consequences, accurately applied.”" Although I'm happy to explain in detail why the evidence points very much to the contrary in what you wrote before, I'm content to accept your explicit claim as more authoritative and simply move forwards.
So, as you suggest, let's focus on Mike Adams.
Firstly, you characterize Culver's professionally-written article as a positive story. Culver, as befits a traditionally-trained journalist (I don't know if he was, but he exemplifies the ideals well), does not do much to give away his own thoughts on the matter. He simply asks: why hasn't Adams already been fired? And he gives the reader the (factually correct) answer: "As it turns out, there aren’t many options for the university, according to First Amendment experts."
If you have an article written about you with national distribution in which you get to say nothing, but in which your comments are characterized as "vile" and "an expression of hatred" from your boss who is "reviewing all options", and "racist and offensive" by the interviewed expert, you probably wouldn't think this was a "positive story".
(Then again, by not sharing the most offensive tweets, one could argue that Culver did Adams a favor.)
Secondly, you say, "The university asked for his resignation after a few thousand students out of a student body of more than 17,000 called for his resignation. So less than 20% of students." Factually, I think this is correct (or close enough). However, the way you speak about it makes it sound like you think 20% is a small number. If one's going to judge whether something is "serious, capable of effecting change" or "not a big deal", however, the rule is something like 3.5% (see for instance https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190513-it-only-takes-35-of-people-to-change-the-world) at least if the fraction is committed. So bear in mind that 20% is, without further information, a fraction that should be considered extremely serious.
Finally, it isn't valid to consider everyone who was in one way or another on his side for the 2006 lawsuit as a "friend" for the purposes of the 2020 event. Culture has changed considerably in the meantime, and the content also wasn't the same, so it simply isn't a warranted inference. Because you don't list who you think counts as a friend, I'm not sure whether you are doing this or not, but if you are--well, we can't necessarily count on that.
But aside from that, yes, I agree with your description of the facts on the ground.
Pretty much everything else I disagree with you on.
Firstly, let's get one thing out of the way that you don't explicitly state but I would agree with if you had stated it: Adams was a racist jerk. I don't envy UNCW the job it had in managing him.
But we're using him as an example of cancel culture, and I'm happy to use this as a case study for why cancel culture is simultaneously destructive and ineffective.
-----
Let's take the "ineffective" part first. You argue this very point yourself--if Adams was a stone-hearted asshole out for a buck who cared nothing for anyone, as you say, "He received a payout of $500K. There are myriad jobs and opportunities that would have been available because of his views and skills set at very high dollar. He would have been paid him well to say the things he loved to say about his students and co-workers."
The worse Adams actually was, the less canceling him would matter. Because there is a culture war right now, it's actually not possible to silence him (sans legal action). He could be okay financially. He could use it to boost his brand and spew more hateful rhetoric more widely.
Well, that's an awesomely bad way to accomplish anything, isn't it? If he was really irredeemably awful in all ways, how is boosting him into the limelight "significant, proportional consequences, accurately applied"?
It isn't, of course. It's a disaster. You take someone who is a problem but might nonetheless be also contributing in some productive ways, and turn them into an unmitigated monster.
But, in contrast, what if he doesn't actually want to spew ever-more-hateful rhetoric as widely as possible? What if he was relishing the role of provocateur but as such was already overstating his own beliefs and would have been responsive to some behind-the-scenes intervention to tone things down, or a frank discussion about how much more hurtful his words are than he's been willing to admit? In that case, post-firing, he's actually legitimately 100% unemployable since he's not willing to capitalize on hate. "Significant, proportional consequences, accurately applied?"
No. It's a disaster--you take someone correctable and throw them away like garbage.
There is practically no path to a good outcome here.
-----
Now, regarding as to whether it's an attempt at canceling:
With 20% (?) of students demanding that he be fired, and people circulating online petitions to not donate money to UNCW until he's gone, it's very clear that the goal here is: say the wrong thing, pay with your job even if your job is supposed to be protected from firing when you say the wrong thing.
That's exactly what cancellation is: ostracizization to the maximum extent possible as the primary reaction to unwanted speech or behavior (or the rumor thereof--verification not necessary, though in Adams' case the tweets were super-easy to verify before they were deleted).
If you claim this isn't cancel culture, well, whatever you call this, most people I talk to understand this as "cancel culture", and it's what I call this. Whatever you call it--consequence culture, cancel culture--or even if you have no name, this is the thing that I object to, and which I believe is what TaraElla objects to. If you're not talking about this, there's no point talking.
It might fail for various reasons, but the attempt was to remove and silence him, it's cancellation.
-----
Next, let's deal with some of your counterarguments and objections.
You ask, "Why is his use of demeaning language acceptable but those who oppose his viewpoints not acceptable?"
Do you honestly believe that this is the proposition that is being advanced? Really?
You seriously cannot conceive of any option other than (1) accepting his demeaning language, and (2) a response that was "focused, intense, and demanded immediate termination" and thereafter "angry phone calls and emails" plus "threatening and harassing messages", and when he commits suicide, writing "hundreds of absolutely ghoulish tweets gloating about his death" lest anyone else be brave enough to say anything else remotely unpopular?
I can think of lots of other alternatives. But what I can't think of is any way to marshal an angry mob to demonize someone and then expect that all the stuff under (2) doesn't happen.
-----
You ask, "What differs between a “woke mob” and a principled stand against ideas that have been proven toxic in the “marketplace of ideas?”"
That's easy. The first one goes after people. The second one goes after ideas.
-----
You ask, "Do the students have to tolerate abuse from a professor?"
No. As Culver's article quotes Clay Calvert as saying, "If he had made a comment like that in the classroom, then the only way it would be protected would be if it was ‘germane’ to the subject matter."
If his classroom behavior were abusive, that would be a serious dereliction of his responsibilities, and he ought to be removed.
You continue, "[Lukianoff] laments that Mike Adams wasn’t treated more gently. Isn’t this a completely double standard?"
No, because Adams wasn't, at this point, sending threatening emails and phone calls to his students, or trying to get them expelled from the university.
Is this even a serious question?
Likewise, "Would his defenders accuse a student that fell into depression because their professor was publicly tweeting about how “Foolish” his students looked be given the same courtesy and consideration?"
No, they wouldn't and shouldn't be given the same consideration because the severity is orders of magnitude weaker! It's like saying--"John ran Steve over with a car, and you're all concerned about Steve. But Steve stepped on John's toe. Why doesn't John get the same consideration?"
Does this really not make sense to you? Do you have no conception of how some things are stronger and worse, and others are weaker and less bad?
The students should get some consideration, absolutely--but certainly not the same consideration because the insult was less.
So when you ask, "Is it okay for a professor at a time of high emotional strain, drama and trauma to add to that collective weight for their students?"
the answer is, no, it really is not okay. But the nature of the reaction to the not-okayness of it was far worse.
It's entirely appropriate for people to object to Adams. The question is: what form does that objection take? Is it focused on retribution or on reformation?
You make other factual mistakes about the venue of his comments. For instance, you say, "If you call someone a “fool” in an academic setting" but the premise is wrong: he did not call anyone a fool in an academic setting. It was a tweet about how people look "in public".
-----
You ask, "If the people whom you are hired with public dollars to teach do not have confidence that you are qualified to do so, how should they go about removing you?"
But that's the thing--because the confidence of the public is fickle and changing, universities have long sought to buffer themselves against the tides of whatever might be popular at the time by shielding professors from the bulk of changes in confidence. The idea is that professors should have an abundance of freedom to explore unpopular ideas, in full awareness that some of the unpopular ideas may be flat-out wrong, with the bet being that the value in finding out which popular ideas are flat-out wrong is considerably greater than the errors.
What you are enunciating is a fundamentally illiberal and anti-classical-intellectual viewpoint.
If this viewpoint had been in effect at the time of the Vietnam War, for instance, many hundreds or thousands of professors who opposed the war would have been fired for losing the "confidence" of the public (prior to when the war was widely seen as a mistake).
Nonetheless, when professors are not just bearers of unpopular ideas but actually legitimately unqualified to teach, universities have various options, from flat-out firing, to changing the professor's role to reduce or eliminate teaching, to mandating training.
This suggestion of yours--that this is okay, that this is a thing to aspire to--must be vehemently and consistently rejected in any society that intends to govern itself on the basis of the wisdom of the people, because people need a constant diversity of ideas and opinions in order to gain wisdom and not simply be slavish followers of charismatic leaders or seductive ideas.
----
"My 28 year old had four of his best friends die deaths of despair that summer."
That's really terrible. The United States does a really poor job of actually valuing everyone, also does a poor job making everyone feel valued in principle even if the implementation falls short, and a really poor job of fostering cognitive traits that promote healthy attitudes towards challenge and hardship that you need when the previous two fail.
If you are suggesting that we need to try to make professors who make objectionable statements commit suicide to spare black and brown people (or anyone else) from committing suicide, I utterly reject that. I don't think an environment of fear and hostility is likely to provide the emotional security to feel valued and non-suicidal for anyone.
If you are simply saying that we have to worry about people other than racist jerks who happen to also be university professors--absolutely.
Society works when it asks everyone to contribute something of value and when it values everyone. It works when it tries to redeem not vilify people; and when consequences must be levied, does so in a transparently fair and restrained way, so the spectacle results not in widespread fear of an harsh and unpredictable process, but in the confidence that antisocial behavior will be curbed so that the rest of us can get back to being valued and contributing value.
But I don't see how cancel culture can contribute to this. As Lukianoff says, "once you transgress, you can be unpersoned into a caricature of societal evil, an object of scorn — no longer a real person, but an evil abstraction".
This possesses none of the qualities needed for significant, proportional consequences, accurately applied.
-----
It might surprise you to learn that I think Adams should have been fired.
The reason?
For trying to engage the right-wing cancel culture mob against a UNCW student.
In 2016, he wrote an article for the Daily Wire that named and belittled a particular UNCW student (details: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/free-speech-or-hate-speech-controversial-professor-tests-limits-n689841), revealing her name, religion, and sexual orientation (which is not one commonly accepted by that religion).
Completely predictably, this provoked a cancel culture mob response, thereby endangering the student. This is not just free speech. This is actual endangerment. It's not exactly doxxing, because the woman wasn't trying exceedingly hard to keep her identity secret on campus, but it is dangerous nonetheless. Fortunately, the woman survived.
Maybe Adams realized at that point he'd gone too far; maybe not. I don't think he ever did something quite that flagrant again. But this kind of disregard for students' safety can't be ignored. He should have been fired. As far as I can tell, he may have partly learned his lesson. But he had no right to expect to be given a chance. You don't mess with students' safety.
Now Adams is the one who is dead. Karma, one might say.
But I don't take this as evidence that the cancellation of him in 2020 was justified. To me, it's yet more evidence that the whole thing is completely morally bankrupt and should be condemned.
-----
You keep conflating a lack of criticism with a lack of cancellation.
But that's not right. Cancellation, directed against individuals, is a demand for action, for removal, for ostracizing, for demonizing, for firing.
Criticism holds no demand, save the implicit one that bad ideas be rejected and replaced with good ones.
Therein lies a world of difference.
I support criticism culture.
I do not support cancel culture.