As I was watching the presidents of three elite universities testify before Congress on Tuesday, I wondered whether I was watching the beginning of Wokeism’s death throes.
To be clear, I’m not referring to the original use of the word “woke” by African American parents to encourage their children to be aware of their surroundings in an oftentimes dangerous nation for black youth. I’m referring to the blend of rules and expectations for modern behavior that’s more complicated than croquet and which has proliferated online, on college campuses, and with many of our institutions. Wokeism is made even more troubling by the inconsistent application of its ever-changing rules. Leaders who boldly proclaimed that marriage “is the union between a man and a woman” as Barack Obama did when running for president, or who opposed desegregation on the basis that he didn’t want his kids growing up in a “racial jungle” as Joe Biden did, are apparently acceptable in the world of woke. The latter even led the charge to discredit Anita Hill when she raised allegations of sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas. Still, he gets a pass. Others are canceled for lesser offenses – and it’s happened on the very campuses the three presidents who came to Capitol Hill this week are supposed to lead. Presumably, those past statements are tolerated because we recognize that even recent history, in some ways, is a foreign country – distant and unfamiliar. Or maybe it’s simply politically expedient for the keepers of the evolving woke code to forgive some words or actions and not others. Which brings us back to Tuesday’s hearings. None of the university presidents in that room – Harvard president Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Sally Kornbluth to testify – gets to defend their shameful equivocations as made at a different time under different cultural norms. Nor can they hide behind their disingenuous claims of protecting free speech. In fact, Harvard was recently ranked by The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) dead last when it comes to protecting speech on college campuses. What constitutes acceptable speech on their campuses appears to be whatever appeals to their sensibilities. This makes their inability to condemn calls for genocide against Jews a choice, and a deplorable one at that. America’s elite universities have subjected students and professors to censure or disciplinary action for purposefully misgendering or committing a “micro-aggression” as banal as asking someone where they are from. (If Vivek Ramaswamy had fat-shamed Chris Christie when he was a Harvard student instead of on the debate stage Wednesday night, he would have run afoul of Harvard’s written codes of conduct). To not apply a more forceful response to calls for mass murder effectively exposes their embrace of wokeism for what it is – hypocrisy. One would like to think that Claudine Gay, Liz Magill, and Sally Kornbluth are atypical. Based on reports from around the country, however, they clearly aren’t the only college administrators in America who would fail the same moral test. I understand the role of the university in encouraging intellectual conflict and being open to multiple viewpoints on a subject. But there’s a difference between calling for an end to hostilities in Gaza and calling for the elimination of millions of people. Anyone who doesn’t recognize this lacks moral clarity and is unfit to lead any organization that purports to mold young minds. In the coming weeks, members of these university boards are going to reveal whether they are simply padding their own resumes or taking their responsibilities seriously as stewards of three of our nation’s leading institutions. Over the weekend, the University of Pennsylvania, prompted by the threatened loss of a $100 million contribution and strong condemnation from the state’s governor, took a step in that direction by ousting Liz Magill. Real leadership, however, not only means addressing their morally bankrupt administrators but also redefining what constitutes acceptable behavior into something that is understandable, transparent, consistently applied, and treats everyone with dignity.
0 Comments
In recent years, the concept of being "woke" has become increasingly prevalent in society. Being woke generally refers to being aware of social issues and actively fighting against oppression and injustice. While this may seem like a positive movement, there are dangers associated with a community that is too focused on being "woke."
First and foremost, the idea of being woke can be extremely divisive. While it is important to recognize and address societal issues, constantly focusing on them can create an "us versus them" mentality. This can lead to a lack of understanding and empathy for those who may not share the same views or experiences. A community that is too woke can become intolerant of differing opinions, which can lead to a breakdown in communication and further divide society. Additionally, the pressure to be constantly "woke" can be overwhelming and lead to a sense of burnout. It is important to recognize that social issues cannot be solved overnight, and it is not the responsibility of any one person to fix everything. The constant pressure to be aware of every issue and to constantly speak out about them can be exhausting and ultimately counterproductive. Another danger of a community that is too focused on being woke is the potential for hypocrisy. It is easy to criticize others for not being woke enough or for perpetuating societal issues, but it is important to also recognize our own biases and shortcomings. The idea of being woke can create a culture of virtue signalling, where individuals may speak out against issues solely to gain social status or to be seen as "woke." Furthermore, a focus on being woke can sometimes lead to a lack of action. While it is important to recognize societal issues, it is equally important to take action to address them. A community that is too focused on being woke may become complacent in their activism, believing that simply acknowledging issues is enough to effect change. In conclusion, while it is important to be aware of societal issues and to fight against oppression and injustice, a community that is too focused on being woke can be dangerous. It can lead to division, burnout, hypocrisy, and a lack of action. It is important to strive for a balance between awareness and action, and to approach social issues with empathy and understanding for all individuals. |
Thank you for choosing to make a difference through your donation. We appreciate your support.
This website uses marketing and tracking technologies. Opting out of this will opt you out of all cookies, except for those needed to run the website. Note that some products may not work as well without tracking cookies. Opt Out of CookiesCategories
All
Archives
April 2024
|