You may have heard the name Rikki Schlott recently. She’s been rising fast in journalism and commentary, especially among young people who care about free speech, cancel culture, and navigating social pressures in schools and online. In simple terms, Rikki Schlott is a columnist, author, podcaster, and activist. She writes for the New York Post, co-wrote The Canceling of the American Mind, is involved with FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression), and speaks often about how speech, belief, and identity intersect in modern America.
Why does she matter? Because she speaks from a place many young people feel: the fear of speaking honestly, of being “canceled,” or of having to hide beliefs in places where disagreement seems dangerous. Her perspective helps illuminate an issue lots of folks are trying to understand right now.
In this article I’ll walk you through who she is, what she believes, her major works, how she’s been received, and what we can learn from her — whether you agree with her or not.
Early Life and Education
Rikki Schlott grew up in the United States. (There are public details about her early schooling, but a lot of her formative ideas come from college.) She attended New York University (NYU). During that period, she witnessed and felt many of the tensions that are now central in discussions about free speech: what ideas are allowed, what ideas are shamed, what happens when someone believes differently than the majority or the loudest voices around them.
While at NYU, according to profiles, she became especially concerned about expression on campus. She felt that certain ideas — books, authors, philosophies — were under pressure or outright avoided because they might draw criticism. For example, she has said she was hesitant to have books by Thomas Sowell or Jordan Peterson visibly among her things because she thought people would judge her for them.
At some point, she made the decision to leave NYU. The reason wasn’t simply to quit school, but because she felt that her convictions, voice, and ideas couldn’t fully breathe in that environment. She believed that stepping into journalism and activism full-time would let her do more than staying in a setting where speech constraints felt real.
This turning point matters. It’s common enough for people to feel uncomfortable in college when they have non-mainstream or minority opinions, but Schlott’s choice shows what happens when that discomfort turns into action.
Why She Left NYU and Early Activism
Leaving a university like NYU isn’t small. But for Rikki, doing so enabled her to shift energy and focus to areas she found more impactful: writing, speaking, building a public platform. Some of her early activism includes her involvement with FIRE — an organization that supports free speech, including on campus. She did fellowship work there.
Her activism was driven by personal experience. She wasn’t just reading theory; she believed that some environments discouraged honest dialogue. This sense of being cautious about books or ideas stuck in her mind, and motivated her to speak out. To many people, activism feels distant or abstract; for Rikki, it was personal.
Career Path: Columnist, Author, Podcaster
After leaving NYU, Rikki’s trajectory accelerated. She began writing for major outlets, most notably as a columnist for the New York Post. That role gives her visibility: her opinions reach many who read or follow that paper.
She also contributes to other places: Reason Magazine, Newsweek, National Review, The Telegraph, The Daily Mail, The Spectator, Quillette, The Free Press, the Daily Wire. These are mostly opinion or commentary venues, where her voice on free speech, culture, politics, and youth issues finds audience.
In addition, she co-authored The Canceling of the American Mind with Greg Lukianoff (president of FIRE). The book came out in 2023. It explores what “cancel culture” means, how it happens (especially in universities and online), what harms it can cause, and how society might respond.
She also hosts a podcast called Lost Debate, where she talks through ideas, interviews people, examines arguments, often on topics related to freedom of speech, societal disagreement, ideas that are controversial. Her role on these fronts (writing, podcasting, speaking) makes her influential not just as a commentator but as someone shaping conversation.
Read Also: Esther Crawford: Product Leader, Angel Investor, and Builder of Connection in Tech
Major Work: The Canceling of the American Mind
This is one of her most visible works. The title is a nod to The Closing of the American Mind — a famous book by Allan Bloom — but the idea is very much of our time. The “canceling” refers to how people, especially young people, can lose access, reputation, platform, or relationships because their views (or perceived views) clash with dominant social norms.
What Schlott (with Lukianoff) does:
-
They look at how cancel culture operates — not as a moral panic, but as something with real social dynamics: power, shame, social penalties. They argue that sometimes people avoid saying what they believe out of fear of backlash.
-
They connect cancel culture to freedom of expression, especially in education, where ideas are meant to be challenged. They show consequences when speaking freely becomes risky.
-
They offer possible solutions: ways society, institutions, and individuals can protect free speech, encourage dialogue, reduce incentives to silence dissent.
The book has been recognized in several places. It was named among Wall Street Journal’s Best Books of 2023, in their Top Five Books on Education. Also in other “Best of” lists. That suggests that it’s not just controversial — it’s also taken seriously by many.
Key Themes and Beliefs
Here are her main ideas, as I understand them, based on her writing and public statements.
Free Speech
For Rikki Schlott, free speech is more than a right. It’s a foundational tool — necessary for honest discourse, for challenging ideas, for growth. She warns that when people self-censor because they fear backlash, what’s lost is not just what they said but what might have been said — the debates not had, the perspectives not voiced.
She argues that free speech includes allowing people to speak even when socially awkward, even when unpopular, so long as they are not inciting harm. Debate, according to her, should include disagreement, discomfort, and even offense sometimes — within reason.
Cancel Culture
She tries to shift the conversation away from “is cancel culture good or bad” to “how does cancel culture work, what are its costs, how do we balance social accountability and freedom?”. She doesn’t treat the idea as purely victim-oriented; she acknowledges some harms of speech, but she’s especially concerned about the chilling effect: people avoiding ideas, avoiding books, avoiding dialogues because they worry about losing reputation or being attacked.
She sees cancel culture especially problematic in educational settings, where learning often requires wrestling with ideas. When certain views are suppressed or shut down, she believes learning suffers.
Youth / Generation Z Perspective
Schlott identifies with Gen Z. She often speaks of what it’s like growing up in a world of social media, intense moral scrutiny, polarized politics. Gen Z, she says, faces special pressures: cancel culture, virtue signaling, identity politics. She thinks people in her generation are sometimes wedged: wanting to speak, wanting authenticity, but afraid of social cost.
Her voice carries weight with younger readers who feel similarly: that they’re being asked to pick sides, fear being “canceled,” or want somewhere that allows for dissent and thought. Her experience offers both a warning and a way forward.
Campus Culture & Academia
Because she spent time in college, and partly because much of her work examines universities or schools, she often critiques how campus culture deals with dissent: safe spaces, trigger warnings, disinvited speakers, speech codes. She argues that sometimes institutions overreact to controversy, shutting down speech rather than facilitating engagement. Sometimes they do so out of liability concerns, sometimes out of fear, sometimes because of external pressure.
She also critiques how social media spills into campus: students worry about what their posting or liking might do to their reputation; sometimes ideas are judged instantly rather than thoughtfully. This, she says, can make educational spaces less about exploring truth and more about avoiding offense.
Ideology & Political Identity
Schlott describes herself politically as a “right-leaning libertarian,” independent. She doesn’t fit neatly into left vs right as some might expect. Her concern tends to lean toward individual rights, free speech, resisting pressure from institutions or peer groups to conform in belief or expression. At the same time, she writes and engages with people from multiple viewpoints.
She is critical of parts of what is sometimes labeled “woke culture” or political correctness when they suppress dissent. But she also sometimes acknowledges social harms (e.g. hate speech, discrimination) and doesn’t propose speech should be free in a vacuum. It’s more about how societies can responsibly allow more space for disagreement.
Reception: Supporters, Critics, Controversies
With a public figure like Rikki Schlott, especially someone speaking about speech, dissent, and cancel culture, reactions are mixed. She has supporters who see her as offering a much needed voice — especially for young people who feel silenced. They appreciate that she is willing to challenge norms even among people who broadly agree with the idea of social justice or progress. They see her book as thoughtful and her writing as courageous.
Critics raise questions too. Some argue that what is called “cancel culture” is sometimes necessary accountability. Others say that Schlott sometimes underplays harms of speech (harassment, threats, biased systems) or that she frames certain cultural shifts as suppression when they may be collective action. Some also challenge her ideological perspective: that certain “free speech absolutism” might neglect power dynamics, how speech can hurt marginalized people, or how speech “freedom” in one area may lead to harms in another.
There are controversies: for example, people question how she measures the harm of cancel culture, or whether she gives enough voice to marginalized groups in her critiques. Others debate whether leaving university was a privilege she could afford, or whether her experience is typical.
Still, even among critics, a common refrain is: whether one agrees with her or not, she forces people to think. She’s pushing debates about what it means to disagree well, how to tolerate dissent, how to guard speech rights in a polarized world.
Impact & Influence
Rikki Schlott has become more than just a commentator; her influence shows in a few places:
-
Among younger people: Many Gen Z readers resonate with her. They feel her fears of social backlash are real. They appreciate someone who talks about the cost of speaking one’s mind and about authenticity. That builds trust.
-
In academia and education: Her critiques of campus culture are referenced in debates over free speech policy, student life, guest speakers, speaker disinvitations. Institutions sometimes adjust when public debates get loud, and writers like Schlott are part of that pressure.
-
Media presence: She appears in major outlets, both written and on media programs. That amplifies her reach. Her book being reviewed, her voice appearing across media channels, all contribute.
-
Shaping discussion: Even critics tend to reference her arguments. She helps shift how people frame debates about free speech and cancel culture — less as binary “good vs bad,” more as trade-offs, with real human costs, with social dynamics.
Personal examples: I’ve seen students, teachers, or people who feel that expressing certain unpopular viewpoints (politically, culturally) risks their friendships, job prospects, or social standing. Hearing voices like Rikki Schlott’s can help people feel less alone, less fearful, and maybe more willing to engage.
Practical Takeaways: What We Can Learn From Her
Whether you agree with every idea or not, there are lessons in her journey:
-
Speak even when it’s uncomfortable
Avoiding difficult conversations may feel safer short term, but silence often amplifies misunderstanding. If you believe something, expressing it carefully and respectfully can help. Sometimes the risk of being misunderstood or criticized is necessary. -
Value disagreement
Learning often comes not from agreement but conflict. Hearing someone challenge your belief, or challenging theirs, can sharpen your thinking. Try to see arguments as ways to test ideas, not just attack them. -
Be aware of your platform and its limits
Social media, college, work — each context has norms (spoken or unspoken). It’s useful to know what those norms are, what is considered acceptable or not, so you can decide whether to conform, push back, or stay silent. Not every fight is the right fight. -
Build your voice
Writing, speaking, reading diverse viewpoints all help. For Rikki, writing op-eds, doing a book, and speaking publicly widened her reach. For you, that can be blogs, local media, community events. It’s less about fame, more about being heard. -
Balance freedom with responsibility
Free speech is not license for harm. Being responsible: avoiding hate, slander, incitement, or direct harm. Understanding that words have weight. Rikki’s arguments often recognize that harsh speech or irresponsible speech can hurt people, but the answer isn’t to silence all dissent. -
Support institutions that defend free speech
Organizations like FIRE are examples. Encourage policies in schools, companies, organizations that protect expression, open debate, fairness toward minority ideas. Volunteer, read, donate, or just spread awareness.
Personal Reflections / Opinions
If I may offer my perspective: I think voices like Rikki Schlott’s are especially needed right now. In many spaces — online, schools, workplaces — the pressure to conform can be strong. Sometimes that pressure comes subtly (you sense what people think without anyone saying it), sometimes overtly (outrage, social media pile-ons). Either way, it shapes behavior.
I’ve noticed that people often self-censor without even recognizing it: they avoid certain topics, tone down views, avoid reading certain books. That shrinks intellectual curiosity. When that happens, trust erodes — you don’t know what is truly believed, what people are hiding. This doesn’t just hurt individuals; it hurts public discourse.
At the same time, I don’t believe “free speech” is absolute. I think we must guard against abuse, hate, disinformation. And I think we need compassion: some people speak without knowing effects, some are hurt, some marginalized. The challenge is how to protect people from harm and protect spaces for honest discussion. That tension is hard, but I see in Schlott’s ideas a serious effort to walk that line.
FAQ
Here are some questions people often ask about Rikki Schlott, and how I’d answer them.
Q: What is “cancel culture” exactly, according to Rikki Schlott?
A: It’s a social phenomenon where people or ideas are ostracized, removed from platforms, or boycotted because they conflict with prevailing social norms. It often involves fear of reprisal, pressure not just from institutions but from peers, peers online, or even self-censorship. Schlott emphasizes not just the loud controversies, but the small, everyday ways people adjust what they say or think to avoid backlash.
Q: Is Rikki Schlott against accountability for offensive speech?
A: No. She acknowledges harms of speech: when people spread hate or slander, or when speech causes real harm. Her concern is more about overreach, about social pressure silencing legitimate dissent, and about institutions shutting down speech rather than engaging it. She argues accountability can happen without shutting off dialogue or reducing diversity of thought.
Q: Why did she drop out of NYU?
A: Because she felt constrained. She believed that academic culture, peer pressure, fear of being judged, social norms were limiting free expression. She felt that to make the kind of impact she wanted — speaking, writing, activism — she needed to step outside that environment. It wasn’t easy, but she decided it was necessary to pursue her mission.
Q: What is Rikki Schlott’s political leaning?
A: She describes herself as a right-leaning libertarian, independent. She doesn’t neatly fit into standard left-right political boxes. Her focus is on individual freedom, free expression, resisting conformity, especially among young people. She critiques both liberal and conservative extremes where they limit open dialogue or silence dissent.
Q: Is Schlott’s work controversial?
A: Yes, in some circles. When you push against prevailing norms about what can and can’t be said, people will push back. Some accuse her of underestimating the harms speech can cause, others of giving too much weight to “cancel culture” stories. But her work is also respected in many places; it has been reviewed positively, given speaking invitations, cited broadly.
Conclusion
Rikki Schlott is a voice for a part of our society that feels squeezed: wanting authenticity, wanting to think freely, but feeling the cost of speaking out is high. Her journey from NYU student to author, columnist, and activist illustrates what happens when someone decides to stop hiding their beliefs and start building a platform for them.
Her arguments remind us that free speech matters not just in drama-filled headlines, but in quiet moments: in classrooms, in friendships, in choosing what to say or read, or whether to speak at all. Her critiques of cancel culture aren’t perfect; no one’s are. But they bring clarity: what’s at stake when speech becomes too risky, when disagreement is seen as disloyalty, when people feel the need to self-censor.
If you’re interested in exploring these issues, I’d encourage you to read The Canceling of the American Mind, listen to her podcast, follow her columns — not just to agree or disagree, but to understand. Because grappling with difficult ideas, wrestling with discomfort, is how we grow.
