It's confirmation bias all the way down. I personally tend to lean more on the right here because I went to an "elite" institution and saw firsthand, plenty of times, the same kind of totalitarian ideological bullying and groupthink that the article describes.
I do think that the reaction to this article, and the many other articles like it, are a harbinger of the near-future breakup of the United States. There is simply no possible way this country can survive when the value systems are so opposed to each other.
It's more like: if this is just the experience of a tiny handful of people, well then it's a perspective but it's not important. If it's commonplace, then it's an issue.
There were major divisions in the nation in the past - remember that so many rejected desegregation in the 1960's. I think many progressives will think that we are now re-living those kinds of divisions, i.e. it's their turn to 'fight'.
The thing is, it's quite different this time. I don't believe that any movement here has history on their side.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
- Martin Luther King Jr.
This statement is no longer progressive, in fact, it's the hallmark of many social conservatives i.e. 'I don't see race' or 'I judge on the basis of character'.
It's the woke/intersectional progressive crowd who want to re-initiate racial awareness using the logic that 'people's racial experiences matter', which while I think has some merit, is also going to be deeply divisive.
MLK won. All the way from 1960 to even now, racial disparities have been shrinking (mostly). The vast, vast majority of Americans agree with MLK's statement, and consider it a virtue.
The 'New Progressive Radicals' may have a point to make, but the inherent divisiveness of the ideal, and the focus on race/gender above character etc. leads to a pop culture civil war, amplified by social media, it plays into our worst impulses including racism. I don't think history is going to favour this movement outright.
I know social conservatives who think they aren't racist but don't care about issues like how many more black people end up in jail than white people. They don't demand justice when police forces overreact to black protests, and don't care when police forces almost don't react (and take selfies instead) to white protests.
After all this, not being able to see how serious racism is in America is one of the better signs you are racist.
I hear this kind of claims many times, and it always confuses me because I've had quite the opposite experience.
I've just received an AB from an "elite" institution (the one pictured in the Substack version of this article), and despite me being quite the textbook example of a Right Leaning White Male™ (except maybe that I'm not rich), I never witnessed the "kind of totalitarian ideological bullying and groupthink that the article describes."
Now, was I surrounded by mostly left-leaning peers? Absolutely. Did I ever feel coerced into keeping my opinions to myself? Never. As a matter of fact, I was given platforms to express my opinions in speaking and writing, and while the average reaction to them was forceful disagreement, it never felt disrespectful to me.
I've expressed my oppositions to a bunch of things happening at school (SGSO reform, unionization to name a couple) and I found the resulting conversations to be constructive in most cases. Sure, I arguably never changed anyone's mind, but that never was my goal. I've talked at length about issues like "progressive language" like Latinx/womxn terminology and personal pronouns, and I've never felt attacked in return.
What probably puzzles me the most, however, is that some of the forms of oppression that Bari Weiss talks about are so foreign to me that I really wonder whether I've been living in the same educational system as the one she describes. For example, in one article [1] she describes how some "feminists who believe there are biological differences between men and women . . . fear the illiberal left." In my four years of college, I've never once come across someone who suggested that there are no such biological differences--let alone witnessing oppression in the name of this idea. Sure, there are probably niche circles in which the idea has been discussed, perhaps even entertained; but the same can be said e.g. of Mormonism, yet I don't see anyone claiming that U.S. education is falling into the hands of Mormons.
Sometimes I wonder what makes my experience so seemingly different from that of many other folks on the conservative side. Maybe it's the fact that I'm international, which might make American interlocutors more accommodating of my different viewpoint. Or it could be that forceful disagreements (often garnished with insults and seasoned with various allegations of *isms) are the norm in the country I grew up in, so much so that I've grown to recognize them as inevitable--if regrettable--aspects of conversations about sensitive topics.
One thing that I did notice, however, is how many of my conservative friends were experiencing real anxiety around these topics, and stayed away from bringing them up as a result of the anxiety itself. As a matter of fact, I never joined any explicitly conservative social group, one reason being that most of the conversations going on in those circles were way too angsty and whiny for my tastes.
All in all, while I appreciate this kind of reporting for the light it sheds on a relatively unknown part of society, I really dislike how fear-based it is. I feel like it does more harm than good, by making conservative defensive and afraid before they've even had a real discussion with people they disagree with. Case in point:
>There is simply no possible way this country can survive when the value systems are so opposed to each other.
Nah, many countries (including the US) have been through far greater ideological clashes and got through them, if not unchanged.
That's not to say everything is rosy--if you ask me, problems abound; but exceptions are exceptions, no matter how alarming. Let's not stoop to crying wolf while there's time.
[1] https://www.deseret.com/indepth/2021/3/2/22309605/the-silenc...
Here is a FIRE survey of 1250 students on the topic of freedom of expression, sliced by field of study, race, and political leaning: https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-survey...
> I've never once come across someone who suggested that there are no such biological differences
It is the difference between equality and equivalence: not everybody is equal in quality, but everybody is equal in value. When this difference is not made, saying that female managers have, on average, different (some negative, some positive) qualities than male managers, then translates to saying: female managers are of lesser value than male managers. So talking of different (biological) qualities often leads to confrontation with the illiberal left, even if closely on their side with regards to equal value for all.
Suggesting there even are biological differences between genders which have causal effects -- "females, on average, have higher emotional intelligence and empathy, and thus prefer to work with people and children, and so are overrepresented in nursing and kindergarden teaching, this is not dominantly the result of male oppression or gender discrimination or lack of chances" -- already got multiple tenured professors fired. In industry, Damoore's facts on biological differences, in context of gender representation in job roles, was cause for firing: the difference between equality and equivalence was not made, and so "Damoore had made female colleagues feel like lesser value, and this is unacceptable".
> One thing that I did notice, however, is how many of my conservative friends were experiencing real anxiety around these topics, and stayed away from bringing them up as a result of the anxiety itself.
All study surveys confirm this. Left progressive socialist viewpoints are not speaking truth to power, this is already the ruling power. By field of study, in the humanities and education, many right-leaning people, especially if not from a minority/victimized group, rationally keep their mouth shut. Not underbelly anxiety, but legit fear of reprisal or spoiling the work place a la Damoore, until forced to speak up, because silence is violence, and two sides of the coin is a racism apology or denial.
> Let's not stoop to crying wolf while there's time.
Many are only just now realizing this is even a problem, and that the anti-racist or social equality movement can be very discriminatory on skin color or in favor of inequality (promoting employees to fill an ideal skin color quota, as if that is any merit). My conferences are now putting in place code of conducts, where "participants made uncomfortable or insulted by your scientific work or presentation warrants an investigation" or "anything you say on social media as a participants can be monitored and acted upon if it goes against the stated goals (diversity & inclusion) of the organization". People from American companies which take military funding are checking computer vision colleagues' work for ethical mentions of adverse use against Uyghurs. Part of my work as engineer is now being aware that whites benefit from a systemic racist society and can't be discriminated against, because they are in a position of power. It is here. No time to lose.
That strikes me as a rather hyperbolic take. It's rather like the Jordan Peterson vision of reality in which certain ideological shifts in the educational realm are portrayed as being a wholesale reworking of society in general rather than what they actually are -- namely, just some aspects of the life of schools, which don't actually do that much to change or affect anything in the power structures that overwhelmingly dominate the rest of life.
For instance, a recent survey showing 29% of respondents would support breaking up the US: http://brightlinewatch.org/american-democracy-at-the-start-o... The source is apparently legit and founded by Yale / Dartmouth professors.
Combine this with the increasing demands of the new ideology, the massive inequality of the modern age, the future automation job losses, and tons of pressure from foreign nations who would love to see a weaker US - I think in 10 years there could easily be some crisis.
Edit: Forgot to mention that I don't think this is constrained to the educational realm. I can certainly tell you that in Big Tech Company Inc, we get emails every day about ending white supremacy, anti racism, yada yada.
This is the most hilarious part of all to me. This ideology is being pushed by the richest, most elite elements of left-wing society but they have substituted actual reform (i.e. redistributing their wealth and social prestige) with absurdist speech codes and manners that the middle and lower classes don't bother learning (because it's fucking stupid and they don't have the time). It's a way of preventing non-insiders from becoming public figures and rising up, because the moment anyone says anything publicly they can be brought down for violating some bizarre -ism rule.
I think the core group that actually believes this nonsense is pretty small, although some are using it tactically to destroy superiors and rise quickly. There is definitely an element of self-sorting going on where the woke-est people get eliminated from groups (social and business) because they are insufferable and exhausting to deal with.
If you truly want a good education for your kids, move to Finland.
On the contrary, the conservative position on actual social justice is the mainstream view of social justice. The very notion of it ultimately comes from conservative (namely catholic) social thought.
The fake ideology of Woke so-called "Social Justice(tm)" is about something entirely different, that ultimately doesn't stand up to even the most casual intellectual scrutiny.
You failed to answer the question - what is the conservative opinion on social justice, but rather claimed that it's the mainstream view. There is nothing in your post to back it up, let alone provide proof that a mainstream view even exists.
http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/docume...
http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documen...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/docu...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/docu...
http://www.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documen...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/do...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/do...
http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/do...
http://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/do...
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/docum...
http://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortation...
These are just a few examples. Besides that, there is all the work that Catholic, Christian and other religious organizations due in charity work and providing the only functioning schools in a community.
There is also a more libertarian-leaning (i.e., people who don't like being called "conservative") approach that points out (1) capitalism has done more to lift people from poverty than any other human invention, and (2) too often, government regulations actually get in the way of social justice (see, e.g., housing regulations).
It strikes me as stunningly ignorant that someone can believe that there is no "conservative position on social justice."
I don’t know why anyone cares to be labeled a racist anymore considering the term has lost almost all meaning.
Parents and pupils are AFRAID to be labeled CAPITALISTS? That's nuts. What are they supposed to ID with, Cuba, Venezuela?
I cannot find any other comparison more apt than the cultural revolution. The received doctrine was right and any question was counterrevolutionary and deserving of punishment in the harshest terms.
How is fearing to be labeled a capitalist different than fearing to be labeled a socialist or communist?
I don't think it's fair to imply that the only alternative to being a capitalist is identifying with Cuba or Venezuela.
McCarthyism or, until recently, being labeled LGBTQ seem like apt comparisons. My point being that the right engages in the same sort of behavior when given the chance.
It’s like Communists going to indoctrination camp not wanting to be labeled communists themselves. Or lgbt being ashamed of being lgbt. Hence my Cuba reference. If they are ashamed of our economic system does that mean they want a socialist economy like VZ? Note Denmark is capitalist and not socialist.
Also although what mr McCarthy did was akin to today’s cancel culture (mere accusation can lead to job loss) he wasn’t completely wrong in that quite a few of his subjects were communists who wanted sovietism in the USA.
They will obtain a better education, better peers, with none of this article's indoctrination at a cheaper cost.
I will not risk my (white) children believing they are inferior to anyone else in academics.
I do not trust the American education system to bring them up. I have seen my (white) relatives learn they are inferior to their (asian) peers in the American system. I have seen my (white) relatives either buy into the American education system's ideology and also I've seen them reject it in its entirety.
This must be avoided at all costs.
Honestly, it probably won't be such a bad thing for the world to have SOME country moving the ball forward on science and technology. Seems like the US is being increasingly enveloped by the ideology - see the recent "math is racist" campaigns.
Side note - it is hilarious to me that Dr. Seuss is apparently too harmful to be read by kids now, but it's totally fine for them to be exposed to explicit rappers like Travis Scott and Lil Yachty in their McMeals and cereals. Because "green eggs and ham" is more dangerous than "poppin pills is all we know" apparently...
I loathe woke thinking, but I wouldn't deny that racism is a problem in the US. Paradoxically, I think you could safely say that China is a Han Supremacist state.
Those that are not Han, are a threat to Han Supremacy and are literally thrown in prison or directly suppressed.
I think continental Europe might be a good place to get educated. There is some self-awareness, but it's not overrun with ideologues either.
I went to high school in the US. I've seen too many of my (white) friends claim they are inferior to my (asian) friends in mathematics. No race is naturally better at any race at anything. I consider their capitulation a byproduct of the US educational system that fails to teach its domestic students mathematics to-par with their international peers. I had to fight my mathematics teachers and counselors for further mathematics education in high school. The US system is completely unacceptable. That is why I plan on sending my children to a Chinese public school and to be cared for by my relatives.
>Why would being a minority in a authoritarian communist society make your children feel more secure?
This is besides the point. US citizens can securely raise children in China. Some Chinese minorities can securely raise their children, like Manchus and Mongols. Other Chinese minorities cannot, like Uighurs.
edit: I read through your previous comments and I see you have made previous disparaging comments about conservatives in the US. I am far more suspicious of your comment now.
LA is one of the worst areas because getting cancelled means certain loss of your job and any friends, both inside and outside your industry.
While i have heard people issue the sentiment of this article, its hard to take anyone seriously when they use the term "woke". The word is only ever used in a derogatory manner, which is a give-away that the author has clear bias and agenda (as opposed to reporting on the parents and opinions themselves).
Not that it matters to anyone here, but "woke" is def not a class-marker.
If "woke" is verboten, please suggest an alternate word for this groupthink phenomena which is aping all the worst aspects of Catholicism (catechisms, original sin, inquisitions, etc.)?
I have no will to ex-communicate anyone. But this article, and many similar ones, use "woke" as a straw-man argument against "leftist" ideas. Proof is in your description of the word:
> If "woke" is verboten, please suggest an alternate word for this groupthink phenomena which is aping all the worst aspects of Catholicism (catechisms, original sin, inquisitions, etc.)?
This request is for a word meant to describe a perceived wrong. Woke is the correct word for what you're asking to define because only people with this agenda would use it, esp like that and thats what you want it for. As a more in-group word, try just describing your issue when a situation comes up, instead of grokking a word that carries aggressive culture-war baggage. Eg. try saying what you think, without making it a whole culture war group-think argument (because maybe life is actually more nuanced).
Maybe you're right though. Maybe my in-group knowledge is what allows me to say this. I roll my eyes at this word like when someone old asks a kid if they "tweeted on their face-gram" or someone who doesn't watch sports says "scored a homerun at their hockeyfoot game" but maybe people genuinely make good-faith assumptions that a homerun is a hockey-foot term because all sports are a single concept.
It's trending towards derogatory but still commonly used.
[1] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/03/04/cnn_don_l...
Has a proven totalitarian history. /s
