On May 25, 2020, four police officers arrested George Floyd, a black man, for using a counterfeit $20 bill. While Floyd was lying face down on the ground, handcuffed, officer Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck for more than eight minutes, killing him.1 This flagrant injustice spurred nationwide riots and protests. Many Americans were outraged over what they assumed was a racially motivated murder. The sales of books on racism soared, from Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist to Ijeoma Oluo’s So You Want to Talk About Race, to Robin DiAngelo’s _White Fragility:_Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. According to a Monmouth University poll taken shortly after Floyd’s death, 78 percent of Americans believed the protesters’ anger was justified, though they didn’t fully agree with the protesters’ actions.2 And a Pew poll showed that two-thirds of Americans support the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement.3
The riots, the unrest, the protests, the turmoil, however, overshadowed something else. Floyd’s killing accelerated an ominous trend that has grown in recent years. Started in universities, this trend has spread like a virus throughout our culture. One example is the story of David Shor, a political data scientist who worked for Civis Analytics.
On May 28, 2020, Shor tweeted research by Princeton professor Omar Wasow. Summarizing Wasow’s findings, Shor wrote that peaceful civil rights protests have led to more votes for Democrats whereas riots have led to fewer votes.4 This crossed the line for activists such as Arianna Trujillo-Wesler who tweeted, “This take is tone deaf . . . and reeks of anti-blackness.”5 She also tagged Civis Analytics CEO Dan Wagner, writing, “Come get your boy.”6 Shor then backpedaled, tweeting, “I regret starting this conversation and will be much more careful moving forward.”7 After reviewing what happened, Civis Analytics fired Shor. A couple of weeks later, the electronic mailing list “Progressphiles,” which Shor participated in, announced that it kicked him out for his “racist tweet.”8
Yes, you read that correctly. In some circles, examining the repercussions of riots is considered racist. . . .
This was not an isolated incident but just the tip of the iceberg. Welcome to this brave new world, a world without room for dissent or debate, a world that punishes independent thought while demanding intellectual conformity. This is the world toward which we are heading—thanks to the woke social justice movement.
Being “woke” means being hypersensitive to any alleged injustices concerning group identities. According to the woke view, a person’s identity is determined not by his choices, actions, and convictions, but by his race, gender, and sexual orientation. Being woke does not mean merely opposing racism, sexism, and the like; it means embracing a particular ideology. If you oppose racism and sexism, yet don’t embrace this ideology, you’re not woke; you’re part of the problem.
You might wonder: Aren’t woke social justice activists just calling for equal treatment for marginalized groups? Isn’t their main goal a laudable one: combating hate, bias, and discrimination against women, racial minorities, gay people, and transgender people? The social justice movement may appear noble because it ostensibly takes the right side of a legitimate issue. But this is a facade. The problem with the movement is that it illegitimately redefines basic concepts, trumpets false narratives, and peddles a toxic ideology. It projects a virtuous, shiny aura that masks a corrupt, rotten core.