The Guardian asked 4 writers to respond to the Harper's letter - two in favour of it (although one of those was a signatory in the first place), one sitting on the fence, and one opposing it.
Opposing it, Nesrine Malik wrote: It’s puzzling to me that a statement signed by a group of writers, thinkers and journalists, most whom have Ivy League or other prestigious credentials, would fail to at least establish a coherent definition of what it believes cancel culture is before seeming to condemn it.
Granted, many publications have paraphrased the letter as an attack on cancel culture - and it is. But the letter didn't use the term "cancel culture" at all. So why on earth should it be compelled to define it?