Treating people based upon group identity, rather than as individuals, leads to the moral and intellectual obtuseness of the Ivy college presidents.
ROBERT ROBB
I don’t know whether the moral and intellectual obtuseness shown by the Ivy college presidents when asked whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their codes of conduct will be a turning point against the pernicious woke ideology. So entrenched has it become that I doubt it. However, it did provide a moment of clarity that has been missing, at least in such a public and widely noticed way.
Let’s start with some definitions and discussion of the “woke” label, which grates on some people.
Before the term “woke” gained such currency, I referred to the ideology in question as identity and grievance politics. That remains an accurate, and fuller, description. But “woke” is more efficient and I will use it in this column for convenience, understanding that the term’s concision may be in the process of being outweighed by negative association with MAGA Republicanism. Anti-wokeism, however, is much, much broader than MAGA Republicanism.
The woke ideology rejects the American creed of aspiring to be a meritocracy in which people are regarded and treated as individuals. According to wokeism, the creed of an American meritocracy is a delusion and a snare, intended to prop up a web of privileges and obscure their existence.
Instead, wokeism holds that people should regard themselves, and be treated by others, primarily on the basis of group identity, the most common being race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.
Society, according to wokeism, should be regarded as stratified based on these group identities and relative privilege associated with them. Those with low-ranking group privilege are entitled to compensatory treatment, irrespective of individual circumstances. And those with high-ranking group privilege should support that compensatory treatment, again irrespective of individual circumstances.
“Woke” began as a term of self-congratulation by those ascribing to identity and grievance politics. It has been successfully hijacked by critics, although, as mentioned, a backlash to the use of the term as a political pejorative has developed in some quarters.
The movement obscures its fundamental challenge to the American creed by using the patina of diversity, equity, and inclusion. But its objective is to displace the emphasis on individualism with group identity. It shouldn’t be confused with affirmative action, which is a good faith, if flawed, effort to increase access to an expanded American meritocracy. Wokeism advocates a new creed that partitions benefits in large part on group identity rather than individual merit and effort.
Americans who have not endured a DEI training/indoctrination session have no idea the extent to which wokeism has departed from the traditional civil rights movement and affirmative action policies, and have difficulty believing it. However, a flavor of it was on display in the obtuseness of the Ivy presidents.
College campuses have been ruled by wokeism for several years now. If the university presidents had been asked the same question about lower-ranking groups on privilege, there would have been no equivocation. If asked whether calling for the killing of all blacks — or Latinos, or gays — violated their codes of conduct, the college presidents would have elbowed each other aside to be the first to say “yes, absolutely.” No hemming and hawing about context.
In wokeism’s stratification of group privileges, however, Jews and Asians present a problem. They have faced extensive historical discrimination, yet now rank high in achievement, measured by income and educational attainment. How to explain that if American meritocracy is a delusion and snare?
In any event, the university presidents are steeped in wokeism’s stratification based upon ascribed privileges, and the deference higher-ranking groups owe lower-ranking ones. So, under pressure, they didn’t have the same reflexive response about killing all the Jews they would have had about killing all blacks, Latinos, or gays.
The same pernicious effect of identity and grievance politics is on display in the harassment of Jewish students on their campuses that occasioned the congressional hearing. Students have also been steeped in identity and grievance politics. If you regard and treat people as individuals, rather than as members of groups with differential privileges and compensatory entitlements, harassing Jewish students on American college campuses to protest Israel’s actions in Gaza is self-evidently idiotic. No Jewish student on an American campus has bombed or invaded Gaza. They may or may not support Israel’s response to Hamas’s terrorist attack. The only logical object of a protest, if that is one’s inclination, is the Israeli embassy or a consulate.
But in addition to collective compensatory entitlements, wokeism necessarily involves collective guilt irrespective of individual complicity.
The harassment of Jewish students on college campuses is being attributed to anti-Semitism, and the obtuseness of the presidents to indifference to it. I don’t doubt the continued presence of anti-Semitism in American society, as I don’t doubt the continued presence of all the forms of discrimination and prejudice that have darkened the soul of humanity throughout history, and stained the American narrative.
However, I think the larger explanation is the pernicious effect of regarding and treating people based upon group identities and perceived group privilege rank, rather than as individuals.
Group identity and culture are real and an enriching element in a pluralistic society. However, in a pluralistic society, group identity and culture need to be a matter of private association and practice, not the basis of partitioning benefits or entitlements.
Throughout American history, there have been people locked out of the American meritocracy based upon group identity. However, adhering to the American creed of aspiring to be a meritocracy based upon treating people as individuals has steadily reduced the obstacles to participation in that meritocracy. And created the most successful pluralistic polity in human history.
The American creed of aspiring to be a meritocracy is not a delusion nor a snare. Identity and grievance politics undermines it and leads to destructive places and interactions. Such as blaming American Jewish students for the actions of a foreign government. And highly educated college presidents not reflexively regarding the call to kill all Jews as, per se, unacceptable conduct for one of their students.
