I think trying to bring us close to Diego from the first paragraph works great. The real issue is excusing him from his mistake from the moment it is told. A much more compelling narrative would go something like this: 1. Diego is a decent guy, readers feel sympathetic towards him; 2. Diego fucks up badly, girls are affected by this kind of behavior constantly, readers feel contempt; 3. Consequences for Diego start getting out of hand, even readers who wished him to be punished think “hey, wait a minute, that’s taking it too far.” This arc would fulfill the greater purposes of a) showing how girls suffer from sexual harassment even from decent-looking guys and b) advocating that cancel culture can get out of hand.
While to some degree, the purpose of any piece of writing is to "manipulate" the reader in order to achieve an effect, I think the approach you lay out here is not one that ultimately fulfills a big picture goal of providing illumination to the subject at hand. Setting Diego up in order to then knock him down doesn't help us understand Diego or the larger dynamic.
I also think that the attempt to frame this story under the cancel culture umbrella is a serious stretch. Peer group social sanction and ostracizing is as old as peer groups, and certainly nothing new to schools. Perhaps there is a change in that the "popular" kids are now facing the kinds of pressures that the "weird" kids used to, but the idea that this is cancel culture is kind of silly. "Cancelling" is inherently about well-known, powerful figures who have acted with impunity because of that power facing consequences brought by public disapproval. To say that an ordinary, un-famous teenager has been "cancelled" is just kind of silly.
There are a number of different ways the story could be framed. It could center Fiona. It could start with that bathroom list, illustrating the tug of war between the sides. As I say near the top, there's no single right answer, but this piece is seriously botched.
I think trying to bring us close to Diego from the first paragraph works great. The real issue is excusing him from his mistake from the moment it is told. A much more compelling narrative would go something like this: 1. Diego is a decent guy, readers feel sympathetic towards him; 2. Diego fucks up badly, girls are affected by this kind of behavior constantly, readers feel contempt; 3. Consequences for Diego start getting out of hand, even readers who wished him to be punished think “hey, wait a minute, that’s taking it too far.” This arc would fulfill the greater purposes of a) showing how girls suffer from sexual harassment even from decent-looking guys and b) advocating that cancel culture can get out of hand.
While to some degree, the purpose of any piece of writing is to "manipulate" the reader in order to achieve an effect, I think the approach you lay out here is not one that ultimately fulfills a big picture goal of providing illumination to the subject at hand. Setting Diego up in order to then knock him down doesn't help us understand Diego or the larger dynamic.
I also think that the attempt to frame this story under the cancel culture umbrella is a serious stretch. Peer group social sanction and ostracizing is as old as peer groups, and certainly nothing new to schools. Perhaps there is a change in that the "popular" kids are now facing the kinds of pressures that the "weird" kids used to, but the idea that this is cancel culture is kind of silly. "Cancelling" is inherently about well-known, powerful figures who have acted with impunity because of that power facing consequences brought by public disapproval. To say that an ordinary, un-famous teenager has been "cancelled" is just kind of silly.
There are a number of different ways the story could be framed. It could center Fiona. It could start with that bathroom list, illustrating the tug of war between the sides. As I say near the top, there's no single right answer, but this piece is seriously botched.