Some of the language in this article is a little breathless: it makes the claim that this instance is "quantitatively different," but the instance is the same kind we've seen before: a professional or academic having dislikeable views outside of their field.
It's also not clear whether this man (whose name I honestly can't remember after reading the article) has been "cancelled" in any meaningful sense: he now has an article in a leading liberal magazine defending him, written by another highly titled and positioned academic. Oh, and then he ended up speaking on behalf of MIT anyways, except not in a public venue where inviting him could be seen as an endorsement of him qua person.
It's also not clear whether this man (whose name I honestly can't remember after reading the article) has been "cancelled" in any meaningful sense: he now has an article in a leading liberal magazine defending him, written by another highly titled and positioned academic. Oh, and then he ended up speaking on behalf of MIT anyways, except not in a public venue where inviting him could be seen as an endorsement of him qua person.