Unjust

Social Justice and the Unmaking of America

Noah Rothman

• Publisher: Regnery Gateway
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781621579052
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Conservatism & Liberalism
• Index: Politics & International Relations

"An elegant and thoughtful dismantling of perhaps the most dangerous ideology at work today." — BEN SHAPIRO, bestselling author and host of "The Ben Shapiro Show" "Reading Noah Rothman is like a workout for your brain." — DANA PERINO, bestselling author and former press secretary to President George W. Bush There are just two problems with "social justice" it's not social and it's not just. Rather, it is a toxic ideology that encourages division, anger, and vengeance. In this penetrating work, Commentary editor and MSNBC contributor Noah Rothman uncovers the real motives behind the social justice movement and explains why, despite its occasionally ludicrous public face, it is a threat to be taken seriously. American political parties were once defined by their ideals. That idealism, however, is now imperiled by an obsession with the demographic categories of race, sex, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, which supposedly constitute a person's "identity." As interest groups defined by identity alone command the comprehensive allegiance of their members, ordinary politics gives way to "Identitarian" warfare, each group looking for payback and convinced that if it is to rise, another group must fall. In a society governed by "social justice, " the most coveted status is victimhood, which people will go to absurd lengths to attain. But the real victims in such a regime are blind justice—the standard of impartiality that we once took for granted—and free speech. These hallmarks of American liberty, already gravely compromised in universities, corporations, and the media, are under attack in our legal and political systems.

CHAPTER 1

Identitarianism

K-Sue Park volunteered with the American Civil Liberties Union as a law student, but by the time she was a Critical Race Studies Fellow at UCLA a few years later, she had concluded that the ACLU “should rethink how it understands free speech.” Its “narrow reading of the First Amendment,” she wrote in the New York Times, blinds it to the illegitimacy of “hate-based causes.” “More troubling,” Park continued, “the legal gains on which the ACLU rests its colorblind logic have never secured real freedom or even safety for all.”¹

This is as naked an expression of hostility to the rights enshrined in the First Amendment as you’re likely to find. Park sees American society as so stratified that an absolutist commitment to free expression is no virtue. “Colorblind logic,” she insists, is a naïve pretense that should be discarded.

Park wrote in the wake of a heavily publicized violent clash between white supremacists and counter-demonstrators in Charlottesville, Virginia, that left one young woman dead—a horrifying episode that prompted many people to reconsider the limits of free speech. Park’s argument is a familiar one, but it is incompatible with the civic traditions that buttress the right of all Americans to engage in free expression and assembly. In effect, Park argued that the only cure for the ills of bigotry is more bigotry.

“For marginalized communities, the power of expression is impoverished for reasons that have little to do with the First Amendment,” she continued, citing the power of money, fifty years of Supreme Court precedents, and the history of exploitation and violence against minorities. First Amendment rights, she concluded, conflict with the demands of a just society. “Context” is vital, and that “context” should be racial. What she called “spurious claims of ‘reverse racism,’ ”—that is, the notion that anyone, not just women and minorities, can be subjected to persecution—must be dismissed without a second thought. “Sometimes standing on the wrong side of history in defense of a cause you think is right is still just standing on the wrong side of history,” Park concluded.

Unabashed arguments for race-based discrimination intended to thwart economic, legal, and social fulfillment were once rarely encountered in the wild. Sadly, the views expressed in Park’s op-ed seem to be becoming increasingly widespread.

Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Laura Weinrib of the University of Chicago Law School agrees that the ACLU has lost its way. Once dedicated to protecting “free speech as a tool of social justice,” the ACLU now protects the rights of not only neo-Nazis but corporations and public-sector employees who don’t want to contribute dues to unions of which they are not members.² The rogues!

Weinrib argues that the ACLU’s commitment to protecting the rights of white supremacists in the twentieth century was not a matter of principle but a deft political gambit designed to support Democratic political causes by giving the public a good look at their unsympathetic opponents. In Weinrib’s view, free expression and assembly are valuable only insofar as they advance progressive policy goals.

Even many of the ACLU’s own staffers no longer believe in the organization’s absolutist commitment to free speech. More than two hundred employees signed a letter in late 2017 asserting that the ACLU’s statement of purpose conflicts with its objectives. “Our broader mission—which includes advancing the racial justice guarantees in the Constitution and elsewhere, not just the First Amendment—continues to be undermined by our rigid stance,” the letter reads.³ These and other “racial justice” advocates have convinced themselves that their objectives are incompatible with the Constitution. One or the other has to go.

Park and Weinrib are remarkably candid advocates for social justice. In their view, principles must be tempered in partisan fires. For them, “colorblind” is a four-letter word. Free speech isn’t an unalloyed good if it is applied universally and, therefore, licenses the wrong sort of behavior by the wrong people. This is a curious definition of “justice,” but it is one with a growing constituency.

For these and other activists, getting on the “right side of history” requires that we recalibrate the scales of justice to favor the “marginalized” and their descendants. But who has a legitimate claim to such a privileged status? Identity politics prescribes a particular moral code, but it is not a governing program. It is merely the philosophy. Social justice is that philosophy in practice.

Social Justice

If we think of the objective, blind justice associated with the rule of law as analogous to free-market capitalism, modern social justice is the equivalent of a command economy. In such a system, justice is a finite commodity, like aluminum or wheat, but there is no supply chain. If one person has it, another is deprived of it. Therefore, it falls on a society’s most enlightened to distribute justice to the most deserving. The phrase “social justice” itself would seem to describe a value-neutral proposition to which anyone in his right mind would subscribe. It is, in fact, less a theory of justice than a new way of thinking about how society should be ordered.

The definition of social justice has evolved over the decades. Retributive social justice developed out of the utopian theological movements of the nineteenth century, but it only became an element of the left’s governing program in the mid-to-late twentieth century.

The identity politics practiced by today’s social justice activists has retained its vestigial quasi-religious traits. Though this dogma has traditionally been most attractive to the collectivist left, it has recently found an audience on the populist right. Those who see themselves as members of a “marginalized” class and who seek payback against their perceived oppressors through both state and non-governmental institutions are social justice advocates, whether they know it or not.

Many who dedicate themselves to social justice are pursuing a noble goal: equality and reparation for genuine historical crimes. But harboring a grievance is toxic, and in the hands of an influential set of activists, social justice has turned poisonous. It appeals to our pettiness and stokes envy. It compels us to think of ourselves and those around us as victims inhabiting a complex matrix of persecution. While robbing us of our sense of agency, it entices us to take out our frustrations on our neighbors. It demands that we define people by their hereditary traits and insists that we take subjective inventory of the “privileges” we acquire at birth. It rejects as folly the idea that we are free to rise as far as individual aptitude and merit allow. For social justice’s devotees, the American idea is a lie.

Millions of Americans, even savvy and ideologically astute political observers, assume that the tenets of social justice are just another extension of the American creed. Equality and fairness—what’s so un-American about that? Some might even see attempts to compensate the victims of real historical injustices as a necessary precondition for broader social reconciliation. That’s a decent impulse, but that project has been terribly mismanaged.

American liberals have allowed their movement to be hijacked by an ideology that mimics their style but betrays their traditional values. Liberals appreciate diversity within a cohesive whole; social justice advocates resent assimilation into American culture. Liberals cherish equality; social justice advocates see objective notions of equality as inherently unfair. Liberals support free expression; social justice advocates think free speech normalizes intolerable ideas. Liberals treasure nonconformity; social justice advocates view a failure to conform to certain precepts as a threat.

So how was an ethos of equality and egalitarianism across lines of class, race, and sex transformed into a bitter ideology that resents classically liberal policies? The mixing of identity consciousness with the precepts of social justice seems to have a lot to do with it. As inherited or ingrained traits supplant experience and deeply held principles as sources of identity, a new kind of identity politics has arisen. When this identity politics is fused with the obligations that social justice activists see as vital collective imperatives, you get something that resembles a religion.

The Cult of Identity

To tell his masterly short story “Harrison Bergeron,” Kurt Vonnegut needed to encumber his characters with a familiar plot device: the ubiquitous and inflexible Big Brother. Published in 1961 and set 120 years in the future, the tale explores the dystopian nature of any society in which everyone is equal. Here, however, equality is measured by incapacity. Every person bears an impairment forced on him by a remote bureaucracy—a mask for the exceptionally attractive, leg weights for the athletically gifted, constant acoustic distractions for the highly intelligent, and so on.

Vonnegut’s story illustrates the moral hazards of ensuring not just equality of opportunity but equality of outcomes. At a time in which Moscow seemed set on exporting Marxism-Leninism to every corner of the globe, Americans recoiled from such hostility to individualism. Vonnegut reasoned, therefore, that such a bleak form of social organization must at first be imposed on a population. Only after it knew no alternative would it turn freely to dreary uniformity as a remedy for freedom’s natural inequities. Vonnegut was wrong. Compulsory homogeneity does not have to be forced on the public by Big Brother. Today, it is being imposed from below and by popular demand.

As the totalitarianism of the twentieth century recedes from living memory, some have begun to look favorably upon alternatives to classically liberal laissez-faire republicanism. Some of today’s most popular alternatives—populism and tribalism—are the primordial ooze out of which despots crawl.

The New York Times is not in the habit of publicizing arguments that appeal exclusively to the fanatical fringe. The sentiments expressed by people like K-Sue Park, who holds a law degree from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Berkeley, are sentiments with broad purchase. The definition of “diversity” in terms of inherited traits has made those who fancy themselves diversity’s most dedicated champions less tolerant of genuine diversity. Those who adhere to a regimented code of identity politics have confused a punitive, retaliatory ethic with a kind of karmic fairness.

This is the final result of a fanatical devotion to identity politics. It exhibits the traits of a religion, and that is how I intend to treat it. “Identitarianism” suffices to describe a set of values and beliefs based on the politics of personal identity.

In Europe, Identitarianism is the opposite of egalitarianism, and it’s closely associated with militant right-wing movements. In France, Génération Identitaire is the youth wing of the Bloc Identitaire party. Members of the German New Right proudly call themselves Identitarians. In the United Kingdom, Generation Identity is a self-described Identitarian movement ostensibly dedicated to the preservation and defense of Europe. It has adopted the Spartan Lambda as its symbol and warns that “self-destruction through a multicultural zeitgeist” is bringing about a Muslim conquest of Europe. This disparate transnational movement is united by the belief that immigration from outside Europe is dangerous, that Islam is incompatible with European values, and that the European Union is a corrupt vehicle dedicated to the destruction of the European identity.⁴

These sentiments represent only one strain of Identitarian thought. But they are what you get when a political movement commits to abandoning “colorblind logic.” Perhaps the ACLU’s social justice activists don’t realize that they are mirroring the racially anxious nationalist right in Europe and America, but they are.

The Pace of Change

Today, the behavioral imperatives of the social justice movement can be seen everywhere, from the absurd behavior of America’s cultural elite in the boardroom to its youth on campus. From imposing restrictions on speech to weakening the very foundational notions of English common law—most notably the presumption of innocence—social justice is altering the American compact right before our eyes.

According to the New York City Commission on Human Rights, it can now be considered a civil offense punishable by termination and a fine of up to a $250,000 to fail to “use a transgender employee’s preferred name, pronoun, or title.”⁵ Ignorance is no excuse. Malice is presumed. Therefore, it is recommended that the public make use of fabricated “gender-free” pronouns like “ze” (singular) and “hir” (plural). Forcing made-up words loaded with ideological connotations on the public with the threat of punishment represents nothing less than ideological coercion by the state.

The demands of social justice in the workplace long ago expanded beyond diversity consulting and equal employment opportunity compliance. Firms as large as Comcast and as small as Silicon Valley startups have begun factoring lost productivity resulting from their employees’ political engagement into their operating costs. Following the onset of the pronounced recession that began in 2007–2008, for example, Citigroup began offering its prospective employees the opportunity to defer their work responsibilities for one year to do philanthropic or volunteer work in exchange for 60 percent of their salary.⁶ This was not a decision based in altruism. Millennials were simply less interested in a career in the financial services sector if it did not make allowances for their heightened sense of social conscience.

Some firms have begun providing their employees with paid time off specifically to engage in political protest, as long as it is the right kind of political protest. The clothing company Patagonia, for example, will even provide bail money for its employees who are arrested while peacefully protesting environmental issues, a category that is loosely defined by the progressive firm. Patagonia employees are also eligible for paid time off for court appearances and meetings with their lawyers. “We hire activists,” said Patagonia’s vice president of human resources, Dean Carter. “If you’re hiring a wild horse because of its passion and independence and then you keep it in the pen, that’s ridiculous.”⁷

Of course, the social justice left is pretty particular about the forms of political expression it sees as valuable. Particularly on American campuses, some speech is considered so dangerous that it must be suppressed.

In 2015, the University of California system provided its professors with a list of “microaggressions”—modest slights, as the prefix “micro” suggests.⁸ Often, students are instructed not to shrug off these irritations but to dwell on them and exaggerate their importance. Among the sprawling list of “microaggressions” are expressions that we used to consider boilerplate patriotism:

• “America is the land of opportunity.”

• “Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.”

• “When I look at you, I don’t see color.”

• “Gender plays no part in who we hire.”

• “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.”

These phrases promote what the UC system dubbed the “myth of meritocracy.” It is the social justice left’s inviolable conviction that prejudice is a shackle around the ankles of women, minorities, the transgendered, and homosexuals. They are taught that they cannot rise above prejudice without the aid of benevolent progressive authorities.

That conviction has also led its adherents to attack those who do find success, particularly if they do not check the right demographic boxes. Consider the ordeals of the scientists Tim Hunt and Matt Taylor. Sir Richard Timothy Hunt received the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine in 2001. Taylor, a British astrophysicist, helped design and land a man-made object on a speeding comet in 2014. By all rights, these men should be celebrated for their triumphs. Instead, they were brought low by organized attacks executed by those who did not share their talent but were devoted to social justice dogmas.

“Let me tell you about my trouble with girls.” These were the words that cast Hunt into a maelstrom. He uttered them at a scientific conference in South Korea hosted by an organization dedicated to promoting women in the sciences. “Three things happen when they are in the lab,” he continued. “You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry. Perhaps we...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Dedication
• Introduction
• Chapter 1: Identitarianism
• Chapter 2: A Nation or a People?
• Chapter 3: Truths and Transgressions
• Chapter 4: Lifting the Veil
• Chapter 5: Entry-Level Politics
• Chapter 6: Victimocracy
• Chapter 7: Violent Delights
• Chapter 8: “Throw It the Hell Out”
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgments
• About the Author
• Notes
• Index
• Copyright