I’ve wondered if it’s worth sharing “my story.” I’m a pretty private person so it feels weird to share. But I think it�s worth it bc we all need encouragement that ordinary ppl can do something about what�s happening to our country. So, why do I talk about Woke stuff?
The Woke Mob: my survival story
My husband and I co-founded a justice-oriented non-profit org 11 years ago. At the time, we knew nothing about Critical Social Justice or Critical Theory. Our motivation was to address disparities in mental health care. 1/
We�d learned that lay people (ppl without clinical training) made up the majority of trauma care providers around the world working with vulnerable populations (refugees, human trafficking survivors, etc). We wanted to help equip those lay people with good resources. 2/
We hired clinically trained mental health professionals to develop our curriculum, oversee MEL, and run the international training program. Everything went great for about 7 years. We got accolades from all the right people in academia and partnered with orgs in 50+ countries. 3/
Then a few years ago we noticed a tone shift among our program staff. They became hyper-critical of *everything.* As Executive Director, my husband felt he was always on trial. Every word and action was scrutinized. We couldn’t figure out where this was coming from. 4/
We noticed shared rhetoric among the staff. Terms we heard often:
“systems of power and oppression”
Didn’t understand the ideology behind it, started doing some reading. 5/
Then the open letters started. The letters always went to everyone in the org (from the graphic designer to the governing board), they always asserted vaguely that the organization was “causing harm,” and they always ended with demands. We were alarmed and confused. 6/
We began having all-org sessions trying to discern what was happening and what was needed. It was quickly apparent there were no specific actions or incidents that could be deemed harmful. The accusations were always vague and abstract, about “identities”, “systems,” etc. 7/
What also became apparent quickly was they didn’t want to resolve any real harm. They wanted control of the organization. They stated explicitly my husband was incapable of running an org that addresses trauma (an org he founded!) bc he’s straight, white, male, and Christian. 8/
That’s when I learned to fight. I’d been doing my homework for a while. Thanks to people like @NeilShenvi, @ConceptualJames, @wokal_distance, @WokeTemple, @D_B_Harrison and @realchrisrufo, I knew what we were facing. It was an attempted woke subversion of the organization. 9/
I wrote organizational position papers on how Critical Social Justice compromised our work by being in direct conflict with a number of our organizational commitments, namely, being evidence-based, valuing the individual, cultural humility, and allowing for true diversity. 10/
Maybe I shouldn’t be proud of it, but I also learned to use their woke rules against them. When a staff member said I couldn�t speak to a topic bc I’m straight, I told her it was wrong of her to assume about my sexuality just bc I’m married to a man. She immediately groveled. 11/
After some months, when it was clear to them we wouldn’t budge, the ones making demands left “on moral grounds,” accusing us of every phobia and calling the org “white supremacist.” We’ve always partnered with ppl of every ethnicity, creed and identity, so this is laughable. 12/
Having survived an attempted power grab and character assassination by a woke mob, I’ll say it’s painful to be mistreated by ppl you trusted. But if you care more about maintaining your integrity than what people think or say about you, you�ll emerge with your dignity intact. 13/
Don�t apologize for vague accusations of “harm.” It’s not a fair fight. They don’t want dialogue. Expose their inconsistencies – show how their demands won�t achieve what they claim to care about (helping the poor, etc). It’ll require some reading and a lot of courage. 14/
If you don’t fight this nonsense now, wherever it’s showing up in your community, there�ll be nothing good, true, or beautiful to defend soon. We will be ruled by lies and power while being told we�re progressing toward truth and justice. 15/
Open war is upon us, there is no “safe” any more. Choose which kind of “unsafe” you want. Fighting lies is always preferable to being ruled by them. I believe they can be defeated. I believe the truth will prevail.
Thanks for reading my story, I’d love to hear yours. 16/16
We’ve discussed Critical Race Theory many times on this blog. But it’s easy to forget that it’s still not exactly a household word, even though it’s been dominating so much of the current turmoil, and has found its way into schools both private and public. It’s one of the most dangerous and divisive philosophies that has ever hit this country, and people need to learn what it is and why it needs to be fought.
Here’s the article. It’s long, but that’s true of just about any treatment of CRT, and this one is shorter than many. There’s really no time to spare in getting the word out.
The Brearley School is a private all-girls school on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. It costs $54,000 a year to attend and, according to Bari Weiss, prospective families apparently have to take an “anti-racism pledge” to be considered for admission.
Brearley’s supposed commitment to anti-racism does not prevent it from discriminating on the basis of race in admissions and hiring. Nor does it stop the school from indoctrinating its students in the racist doctrines of critical race theory.
One parent has had enough. Andrew Gutmann has pulled his daughter out of Brearley and sent a letter explaining his decision to the families of every student body member (around 600 of them).
Bari Weiss presents the letter on her website. This is the full text:
Dear Fellow Brearley Parents,
Our family recently made the decision not to reenroll our daughter at Brearley for the 2021-22 school year. She has been at Brearley for seven years, beginning in kindergarten.
In short, we no longer believe that Brearley’s administration and Board of Trustees have any of our children’s best interests at heart. Moreover, we no longer have confidence that our daughter will receive the quality of education necessary to further her development into a critically thinking, responsible, enlightened, and civic minded adult.
I write to you, as a fellow parent, to share our reasons for leaving the Brearley community but also to urge you to act before the damage to the school, to its community, and to your own child’s education is irreparable.
It cannot be stated strongly enough that Brearley’s obsession with race must stop. It should be abundantly clear to any thinking parent that Brearley has completely lost its way. The administration and the Board of Trustees have displayed a cowardly and appalling lack of leadership by appeasing an anti-intellectual, illiberal mob, and then allowing the school to be captured by that same mob. What follows are my own personal views on Brearley’s antiracism initiatives, but these are just a handful of the criticisms that I know other parents have expressed.
I object to the view that I should be judged by the color of my skin. I cannot tolerate a school that not only judges my daughter by the color of her skin, but encourages and instructs her to prejudge others by theirs. By viewing every element of education, every aspect of history, and every facet of society through the lens of skin color and race, we are desecrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and utterly violating the movement for which such civil rights leaders believed, fought, and died.
The Wall Street Journal reports on a U.K. government finding that the U.K. “is no longer ‘deliberately rigged’ against minorities”. Apparently this is bad news.
In July the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson responded by impaneling the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. “We decided to step away from the heat and all that vitriol,” says its chairman, Tony Sewell, “and just take a cold look at the data on racism.” In doing so, “we examined ideas that weren’t to be questioned,” namely “the race industry’s articles of faith.” In its March 31 report, the commission concluded that while Britain isn’t yet “a post-racial society,” neither is it any longer a place where “the system” is “deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities.”
As a result, Mr. Sewell, who is black—only one of the 10 other commissioners is white—has come under blistering attack. It ranges from the achingly predictable (a profusion of “Uncle Tom” accusations on Twitter ) to the grotesque. A Cambridge professor of postcolonial studies likened Mr. Sewell to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. A Labour member of Parliament suggested that he belonged in the Ku Klux Klan. Add in put-downs like “house Negro,” “token” and “race traitor,” and you have a picture of the liberal rage ignited by the commission’s refusal to endorse the belief that Britain is irremediably racist.
Mr. Sewell, 62, runs a charity that coaches black schoolchildren in science and math. “It’s a STEM pipeline program,” he says via Zoom from the study of his house in London. “It starts when they’re young and takes them up to university, using summer schools.” Thousands of black kids have been given a college opportunity they “didn’t have in the first place.” Yet he’s called an “Uncle Tom.”
He characterizes the abuse as “a sort of antiracism that borders on racism.” He also detects some desperation, “not only in black lobby groups but on the white left”: “they’re frightened of the report.” Since few ordinary citizens will read its 258 pages, its opponents have busied themselves spreading “distortions” in a bid to capture public opinion. He singles out the leftist Guardian newspaper, which published a sweeping condemnation by David Olusoga, a historian of slavery, who scorns the report as “poisonously patronising” and “historically illiterate.”Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal had a student forum on the topic of the current uproar over attacks against Asian Americans.
…. Attacks against Asian-Americans are on the rise and the culprits are of many racial groups—whites not foremost among them. When Asians point out these issues with the white-supremacy narrative, we are told (often by white people) to shut up and to stop siding with “whiteness.” My message to Asian-Americans is to be wary of the progressive movement’s sudden embrace of our issues. They will toss us to the curb the moment we are no longer convenient to them.—Zak Gelfond, University of Virginia, mathematics and economics
It’s not that Asian-Americans are a blind spot for progressives. It’s that the social-justice business model requires perpetual victimhood. The well-being of minorities is important only so long as it can be used as a political cudgel. It simply doesn’t fit the left’s narrative that a minority group can succeed in the U.S. with a culture of hard work and discipline.
The Biden administration dropped the Justice Department lawsuit against Yale that alleged discrimination against Asian-American applicants. It isn’t interested. But when a deranged gunman strikes—in an attack that may have had nothing to do with race, we don’t yet know—President Biden flies over immediately to denounce anti-Asian-American discrimination. This one fit the narrative.
This is why it’s called social justice. The modifier gives progressives the discretion to determine which groups deserve justice at which times. It’s a detraction from one of the most profound thoughts ever to reach the human mind: Justice is blind.—Rafael Arbex-Murut, Virginia Tech, computer science and mathematics
ANDREW SULLIVAN: When The Narrative Replaces The News: How the media grotesquely distorted the Atlanta massacres. We have yet to find any credible evidence of anti-Asian hatred or bigotry in this man’s history. Maybe we will. We can’t rule it out.
Paul Joseph Watson reports at Infowars on a recent YouGov survey that asked: “Which potential forms of sexual harassment do European women most commonly experience?”
One of these forms of “sexual harassment” is “Asked you out for a drink.” This is placed on a par with men flashing their genitals and physically assaulting women.
One wonders how men and women are ever going to meet each other if asking a woman out on a date is deemed to be a form of misogynistic harassment.
However, such views aren’t just shared by women.
Men have had all their confidence and natural masculine inclinations so browbeaten out of them by modernity that a survey by the Economist in 2017 found that a full 25% of millennial men in the United States think “asking to go for a drink” is a form of sexual harassment.
The numbers now are probably even higher.
Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic is worried that liberals are pushing the Black Lives Matter movement too hard in school.
In a piece titled, “What Happens When a Slogan Becomes the Curriculum,” he warned readers of the indoctrination of kindergarteners by BLM.
….Which is why Friedersdorf wrote, “In all such campaigns, a distinction can be drawn between the galvanizing slogan, which by design is popular and difficult to oppose, and the ideological and policy goals of the people promoting it. In other words, people might believe deeply that Black lives matter while disagreeing with Black Lives Matter organizers about specific claims. But for the BLM at School movement, agreeing with the broad slogan implies a particular approach to anti-racist activism—one that draws on academic approaches such as critical race theory and intersectionality; rejects individualism and aspirational color-blindness; and acts in solidarity with projects including decoloniality, anti-capitalism, and queer liberation.”
Source: BLM and the limits of propaganda
Oh, the extreme places they’ll go. Last week, when Dr. Seuss Enterprises announced that it would no longer publish six Seuss books said to contain racially offensive imagery, foes of cancel culture (this author among them) cried foul. Many others shrugged, noting correctly that this isn’t an issue of censorship: A book publisher is free to decide it wants to cease publishing a very old book.
But now those books are being pulled from the shelves of some public libraries as well. “We are part of the broader community who have identified these books as being harmful,” Manny Figueiredo, director of education for a school board in Ontario, Canada, said in a statement. “The delivery of education must ensure that no child experiences harm from the resources that are shared.”
They actually had it right the first time. But nonracism—the idea that skin color should be overlooked—has lost popularity among progressive activists, and anti-racism—the idea that skin color matters a great deal—is in vogue. The former is an egalitarian message at the heart of many Dr. Seuss books; the latter is a smokescreen for all sorts of policies that have very little to do with combating racism: like abolishing standardized tests or spending more time renaming schools than reopening them.
I would not be surprised to find the entire Seuss canon under attack a few years from now. To quote the last lines of The Butter Battle Book, “Who’s gonna drop it? Will you or will he?” (To which the narrator’s grandpa replies: “Be patient. We’ll see. We will see.”)
Source: Why Dr. Seuss Is Worth Defending
HBO’s Bill Maher has become the voice of reason amongst those on the left. He frequently says what most Americans are thinking: that the Democratic Party and progressives have taken things too far.
The moderate Democrat warned Americans of one overarching reality: everyone is online and everyone faces the threat of being canceled for something they said in the past.
“If you think it’s just for celebrities, no. In an era where everyone is online, everyone is a public figure,” Maher explained.
He used the example of a Hispanic electric worker in San Diego. The man was fired because someone reported him for holding up a “white supremacy” symbol outside of his truck. According to Maher, he was doing something as simple as “flicking a booger.”
“Is this really who we want to become, a society of phony, clenched a**hole avatars, walking on eggshells, always looking over your shoulder without getting ratted out for something that has nothing to do with your character or morals?” Maher asked rhetorically. “Think of everything you’ve ever texted, emailed, searched for, tweeted, blogged, or said in passing.”