WHERE DID “WOKENESS” COME FROM?

(Derived from “How Wokeness Prevailed – Thomas F. Powers, National Review)

To look at origins, you have to start by defining key terms. 

Defining Features

1.   Moralizing accompanied by training

2.   Impressed on us by fellow citizens, not by law, which means it is ever-present and unavoidable

3.   Hypersensitivity to perceived slights accompanied by confrontation

4.   Involves punishing the “perpetrator” often by firing

5.   Silencing and censoring by protected groups against those considered by those groups to be privileged.

Important Terms

Getting rid of terms that used to be seen as critical such as “freedom”, “representation”, “toleration”, and “interest,” substituting: identity, inclusion, equity, social justice, microaggressions, trigger warnings, safe spaces, etc.

Origin in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA)

Many believe “wokeism” came from the universities, but it actually started much earlier.  Specifically, Title VII of the CRA was serially expanded to cover situations thought to be critical to advancing our nation to the state of hypervigilance we experience now.  The word “discrimination” in terms of the CRA meant only disparate treatment, generally in employment decisions.  The first change was to add the idea that what people thought of a class was important.  Harassment was added including “hostile environment”; the goal was to make us think differently, not just act in a more race-blind way. 

While the CRA was really intended to be applied only to employers, these changes started impacting everyone, and made managers responsible for anything that happened within their purview.  If two people had a dispute, instead of having the people work it out or get help from HR, the manager was expected to consider the kind of people involved supposedly to intuit if one of the parties was a racist.

Another incursion to the law was when people were asked to figure out inequalities; this was added to the idea of “discrimination.”  Inequalities were largely arbitrary, as a well-to-do Black would be considered a victim, while a poor employee who happened to be White would be considered privileged.  The Obamas like to play this game.

The Cost

As the initially, well-intended bill was expanded to cover more and more woke ideas, lawsuits abounded costing employers millions, as well as hurting their brand.  Few employers had the nerve to challenge this, but my father was not one of them.  As head of QA for a large pharmaceutical firm, he once fired a lab worker who had been “pencil-whipping” her testing of drugs ready to go to market.  This means she pretended to test while actually doing nothing.  As a Black woman, she sued, but ultimately lost. Fortunately, the jury saw the risk to themselves and believed her firing was justified. But only because my father insisted on pursuing it, instead of giving her a big payoff.

Another cost was in prevention.  Even in the ‘80’s, I remember being forced into diversity classes, where confused students were lectured on how bigoted they were.  (my group certainly wasn’t).  A typical exercise was to put all the pejorative terms we could think of on a series of large sheets on the wall headed by names such as “Asian,” “Jewish,” “Black,” “Female.”  Our group had fun with it, finding our own group and lavishing tons of terms on the charts.  We were then asked to tear down the one we were most offended by.  Needless to say, no one got up.  But all this training and vigilance comes at a great cost.  Not the least of which was the inevitable firings of good people who crossed an increasing difficult-to-see line. 

I remember an engineer at Google who sent out a note talking about things he felt might make women more likely to apply or be happy to work there.  He also felt that HR might not do as good as job as they could in focusing on the value the opposite sex brought.  He was hoping to see the applicant pool expand and to benefit from the strengths women could bring.  He was fired.  Of course, men and women are identical and you are putting women down to imply that they might have different needs or interests when seeking a job. 

The Result

We can all see the result today.  How many of us, educated long ago wonder how long they could survive at a university today?  Or a job?  We used to believe that we could have our own view of things, even if it was wrong, as long as we treated our co-workers with respect.  The goal of the Woke Bureaucracy is to force us to change our minds and opinions to coincide with theirs.  And their view is how to separate people from each other, instead of encouraging cooperation. They enforce this through education and punishment.

Instead of informal governance, the Chief Diversity Officer is treated more as an officer of the law, determining “victims” and “oppressors,” and insisting on a system full of reporting, monitoring, managing claims and punishing people.  Sounds a bit 1984 to me.

I remember a situation in the ‘80’s where a temp worker in my office got incredibly upset. She reported that we had called her a “dogleg.”  The truth came out.  At the end of a service order, when it has been approved and ready to be executed, the operator keys in a dogleg character which tells the application it is ready to go.  Our group was discussing a program change when she walked by; we didn’t even really notice her and no one said anything to her.  At the time, she was advised to check her understanding instead of accusing people of being mean.  Today, we would have been fired.

We now have to be ultra-careful and no matter what, can fall into a trap.  This impedes teamwork and such powerful things as brainstorming.  If you are constantly guarding what you say and worrying about possible offense, you say less.  Your work contribution is hurt.  The EEOC is happy to see almost anyone (oppressor) fired and the law has the teeth in it to make it happen.

Censorship started in the office but now you see cancellation on social media and even, in some cases, cancelling of access to services, such as banking.  Employers force people to write diversity statements to gain employment.

The Civil Rights Movement was a good thing, addressing a real and temporary problem.  By catering to every political whim of a group who celebrates victimhood, a concept I have yet to understand, we have lost our freedoms and our tradition of tolerance while giving law and politicians way too much power.  You can’t “regulate morality.”

Fight back, where you can.  We need to return to a world where competence, skills, ability…whatever you call it, supersede your ancestry and any accident of birth or genetics.  When you expect the best from ALL people, you generally get it. When you give them a pass as a victim, you ask for little, get less and deprive them of reaching the standard they are fully capable of realizing.

Steve Hilton on Woke