The subject of this article is the effect of the social justice warrior (SJW) on public discourse at Wesleyan University. First, I would like to thank the SJW. Thank you, student activists, for being unrelenting and passionate about issues concerning racism, sexism, heterosexism and the like. As an out and proud gay man, I owe the SJW a great deal of gratitude because they bring issues concerning minorities, such as these, to the forefront of society’s consciousness. Social norms, especially harmful ones, can become so ingrained into society that sometimes we need someone to remind us that the world is a less than perfect place. But to know that the world is imperfect is not enough. Karl Marx is an economist and historian that many conservatives have probably never read. He is famously quoted saying, “Philosophers have interpreted the world, the point however is to change it.” The SJWs I have encountered have done much to enlighten us about the state of o ur world, but have done very little to change it. If anything, I think they may hinder potential social progress by constricting discourse around controversial issues.
Before I discuss further, there is just one thing I would like to point out: the very simple fact that there are multiple ways to achieve positive social change. The method SJW and student activists tend to choose is radical; it-is-in your face and it demands that you cannot wait or be complacent in the name of justice. Other methods of social change, such as democratic debate and discourse, are less prevalent. These methods have a softer touch and utilize a gentler yet arguably more effective technique in bringing about social progress.
I do not wish to downplay the importance that radicalism has played in our history. Malcolm X, the Stonewall Riots and the Feminist Sex Wars are only a few examples in which radicalism has played a vital role in instigating social change. Having recognized this, I believe that social activism I see on Wesleyan’s campus is often tragically one sided. The type of radical activism that is common here accomplishes much in terms of critiquing the status quo. The problem with critiques however, is that they ignore a basic component of human nature.
Human beings hate to be criticized. When anyone is criticized, they immediately clam up and stop listening to the other person. Nobody believes themselves to be bad or evil. It only takes a casual reading of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kamf to see that he was convinced of the purity of his intentions. Al Capone, the most infamous gangster to terrorize Chicago, thought of himself an unfairly hunted man who only lived to give people “the lighter pleasures” in life. I think Dale Carnegie sums this up best in his classic book How to Win Friends and Influence People when he wrote, “Criticism is futile because it puts the person on the defensive and usually makes him strive to justify himself. Criticism is dangerous because it wounds a person’s pernicious pride, hurts his sense of importance, and arouses resentment.”
When you criticize another student for doing something you claim to be homophobic (or racist, sexist, etc.), you conflate their personhood with homophobia (or racism, sexism, etc.). When this happens, you are uniting them with sociological systems of oppression that they cannot possibly identify with as an individual who simply spoke a sentence, did a simple action or made a mistake due to ignorance. Remember, these people are not Hitlers or gangsters. They are often liberal, open-minded, and well-intentioned Wesleyan folk. Anyone who has tried to explain why the word faggot is offensive to a bunch of ignorant boys knows this all to well. They justify their use (we didn’t mean faggot as in “homosexual,” we meant faggot as in “uncool”) and are personally offended that you insinuated that they are an uncivilized. So by relentlessly critiquing and protesting, SJWs run the risk of stopping the progress they hope to make, paradoxically hindering themselves from achieving the humanitarian aims which they claim to care about so vehemently.
When I see or experience a critique from a SJW, I cannot help but notice their vulgar pride. The kind of pride where they think their morals are that much purer than everyone elses just because they are capital P progressive. This vulgarity is as toxic as it is hypocritical and inevitably leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. They preach love, equality and acceptance, but only manage to spout hatred, division, and dissension. It is liberal hypocrisy in one of its purest forms. The examples that I could give substantiating these statements are endless, but I will focus on just four. Two will be personal anecdotes and two will be controversies that have effected and changed Wesleyan’s campus during my time here. I will discuss my experience working for the Office of Residential Life (ResLife) and my experience taking Critical Queer Studies. I will discuss the co-education of Wesleyan’s residential fraternities (side note: I think it is important to disclaim that I am an active member of Psi U and a member of the first co-educated pledge class). Finally, I will address the most recent SJW flavor of the week: a controversial op-ed piece about the Black Lives Matters (BLM) movement. I’ll begin with the co-education movement. Most supporters of co-education posited that if you did not agree with them, you were a rape apologist and a misogynist. If you recall, co-education was popularized by the notion that it would prevent or at least curb sexual assault. If you do not remember, refer to the petition that was signed by numerous students and faculty members, calling the community into action.
What baffles me about this movement is that not a single female who ended up pledging Psi Upsilon’s first co-educated pledge class actually signed it. How different would things have been if instead of yelling “RAPISTS!” at our residential fraternities, the females who were actually interested in becoming members of these organizations said “We know it doesn’t seem fair to you, but we want what only you have. The administration will not give us or Rho Ep a space and we want to have access to some of the most influential spaces on campus.We don’t want to change your societies; we want to make them better. We want to make these spaces safer and more inclusive. We can help you do this. Can we talk about it?” This isn’t what happened, is it? I am not even sure if anyone even bothered to try this sensible and civil approach. What a tragedy! What a missed opportunity! How much time was wasted debating the ethics of single sexed housing? How much more simpler and ci vil would our campus have been had we approached this differently? Co-education could’ve even happened faster and smoother but instead, the hatred that was spouted towards the fraternities made these societies dig their heels into the ground.
I personally believe that this anger, which seems to saturate the SJW mindset, is derived from how Wesleyan indoctrinates its students. Taking Critical Queer Studies my sophomore year proved to be an invaluable experience for me as a gay male. Despite this, I was distressed by how negative and pessimistic the articles we read were. I remember going to my professor’s office hours and asking her, which may have been a stupid question at the time, if we were going to read anything positive about being queer. My professor looked me in the eye and said to me, “Ignorance is bliss. If you are happy, it is because you are too stupid to understand what is really going on in the world.” Her response was tragic. It was a missed opportunity for us to engage in each other’s perspectives and have an enlightening conversation. I used the word “indoctrinate” deliberately because this conversation I had with this professor was not about teaching. She was not teaching me how to thi nk; she was teaching me what to think. This is the very definition of indoctrination. It is troublesome that many students here may not be able to tell the difference between the two. I should also point out that not all of my experiences with professors have been like this but if this happened to me, it’s happened to other students too. This is indicative of a larger cultural problem on this campus.
This type of indoctrination is also present in the Wesleyan’s Office of Residential Life. I worked for ResLife for four semesters and underwent social justice training four times. In this training, any voice that deviated from the very liberal status quo was silenced. The best example of this occurred during a seminar on heterosexism. A DKE brother shared a personal story about how he thought that one of their members might be gay when he brought another man to their formal, but since he never came out, they were unsure how to navigate the situation. “WHY DOES HE HAVE TO COME OUT?!” I remember everyone yelling at him. He explained that it would’ve been nice to know so he could ask him on a double date. “HE SHOULDN’T HAVE TO COME OUT!” They gave him no room to learn and he left that seminar just as unsure how to handle the situation of the potentially closeted brother. What a tragedy! What a missed opportunity! The point of social justice training is not so the capital P progressive Wesleyan students can feel good about the purity of their morals; it’s so the fraternity brother stereotype can maybe learn something. As I said though, this was not about education. It was about indoctrination. It was about silencing, not speaking.
Lastly, consider how the campus has reacted to the most recent SJW controversy: the article critiquing the BLM movement. I am not going to comment on the content of this article, but I would like to examine the campus’ response. I have yet to read an official article that refutes Bryan’s claims. Every single one I come across calls him ignorant and racist yet I am still confused on exactly how he is any of these things. As a “privileged white male,” I am sure I could benefit from reading a piece that would enlighten me further about the necessity of the BLM movement but I am still waiting to read such a piece that takes on Bryan’s article line by line. No one that disagrees with Bryan has asked him to coffee or proposed to have a discussion with him. He remains just as he was before but is most likely more determined to stick to his views. It was a completely wasted opportunity for education on both sides.
The majority of public commentary that I have seen merely denounces the article and blames the Argus for publishing it. If you claim to believe in the freedom of speech but… not racist speech… but not sexist speech… but not hateful speech… you end up classifying all of these “buts,” which actually carve out a profound disbelief in the freedom of speech. It’s that simple. You don’t have to support free speech, just don’t pretend you support it if you clearly don’t. You cannot have it both ways. I would argue that the correct response to this controversy should be refutation, not censorship. Censorship begets censorship and the activists at Wesleyan have managed to turn what could’ve been a pivotal moment for our campus in discussing BLM into a campus debate over free speech. What a tragedy! What a missed opportunity! Once again, the SJW has succeeded in preventing a discourse that our campus so clearly needs surrounding issues of race and instead is tryin g to defund our student newspaper, driving myself and many other potential supporters away from their cause.
I think I should point out my own slight hypocrisy in giving the SJW a critique; critiquing someone for being critical is a tricky thing. Arguably, my critique was given in a much different manner than the type I have discussed. I want to reiterate that most times, I agree with the intent of the SJW. I usually agree with their ends, just not their means. I believe their reactionary methods (such as being quick to protest or to petition against the Argus) can potentially worsen the situation they’re trying to fix by retarding the progress they hope to achieve. In conclusion, I would like to end with a quote by a historian and economist that many liberals have not read. Thomas Sowell writes, in his book Intellectuals and Society, “The capacity to grasp and manipulate complex ideas is enough to define intellect but not enough to encompass intelligence… Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all—the ability to combine intellect, know ledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding… Wisdom requires self-discipline and an understanding of the realities of the world, including the limitations of one’s own experience and of reason itself. The opposite of high intellect is dullness or slowness, but the opposite of wisdom is foolishness, which is far more dangerous.”
Nucci is a member of the Class of 2016.