Why The Shocking Campus Behavior Is Only The Beginning
A deep dive into why so many progressive institutions have embraced radical viewpoints, and the far reaching implications of that change.
I’ve been part of so many conversations over the past few months about the same weighty topic. People are struggling to understand why so many individuals and institutions have openly embraced antisemitic viewpoints, permitting hateful rhetoric they’d never permit against another identity group.
These actions and language are a visible manifestation of a movement that’s quickly gained traction in the past few years, largely unnoticed by those who live and work outside of large institutions. While I had only a basic understanding of this new orthodoxy, the events of October 7, and the response in the United States, compelled me to spend the past few months delving deep into a diverse range of perspectives on this subject.
To conclude all that research, I have tried to formulate what I believe is the most cogent explanation for the shocking behavior of this fall. The truth lies in the development of a new and increasingly radical progressive orthodoxy (RPO), which has come to dominate many campuses, institutions, workplaces, and online spaces.
The Goal of Radical Progressive Orthodoxy
For years, the progressive cause and ideology prioritized creating equality and securing fundamental rights for everyone. However, progressivism has recently been highly influenced—and, in many facets, arguably directed—by those on the extreme left of the ideological spectrum. These fringe thinkers’ goal is to upend the current Western social structure—which is based on freedom and meritocracy—in favor of a system largely based on identity. The goal of this ideological shift is no longer to ensure equal opportunity; it’s to produce equal outcomes in all possible contexts. This is the foundation of the RPO that has dictated so much of the rhetoric and action we’ve over seen the past few months.
Achieving equality of outcomes requires a massive transfer of strength from “oppressors” who are perceived to control the levers of power today to the “oppressed” who do not. Often, the line between “oppressors” and “oppressed" is drawn through a reductionist framework based on a weaponized interpretation of intersectionality. Rather than serving as a tool of empathy, understanding and solidarity, intersectionality has, for many, become a forced ranking system that assigns value to people based on their marginalization, often through a historical lens. For many, it is no longer about judging people based on their actions or the content of their character; instead, people are defined by immutable characteristics such as the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual identity.
What’s inherently different and dangerous about this RPO—which is rooted in Marxism and Postmodernism—is that it’s not just about building people up. Evidence is growing that it is equally important to drag others down or hold them back. One cannot simply empathize with the struggle of people who are marginalized and seek to help them advance. Under this orthodoxy, it’s equally vital to view those who are in positions of power—in business, government or civic institutions—as active oppressors who have only excelled by subjugating others, even if that characterization is inconsistent with their actual lived experience.
Believers in the RPO insist that capitalism isn’t just an economic structure—it is a fundamentally oppressive system that corrupts anyone who participates in it, especially those who do so successfully.
Under this belief set, extreme words and actions, including acts of violence, are considered righteous if employed by the “oppressed”. In contrast, words and actions that are far less damaging are rebuked if they come from those who are deemed “oppressors”. What’s fine for one group to say or do is completely unacceptable when it comes from another, and double standards are openly applied.
We have seen this clearly in the past few months—a professor might be formally reprimanded for obliviously speaking an unintentional “microaggression” in class, but a university president can state that calling for the genocide of Jews is not in violation of a school’s code of conduct and retain the backing of their institution.
The RPO approach has generated a litany of these double standards and heightened the prevalence of preferred speech over free speech on so many college campuses. This prevalence has extended beyond college spaces as students steeped in this orthodoxy graduate into the real world. To that end, this orthodoxy has become the animating force behind many Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) departments on campuses and in corporations. As a result, a concept designed to foster shared understanding and increase opportunity for marginalized people has in far too many organizations developed into something entirely different.
While the concept of DEI is noble and worthy, its execution has yielded decidedly mixed outcomes that warrant further scrutiny, improvement, and accountability. After the racial reckoning of 2020, there was a feverish market for DEI services, including “diversity trainings” that were considered table stakes for leadership teams of all organizations.
While diversity training seemed like a natural first step, the reality was murkier. For example, there have been multiple long-term studies, including from organizations such as Harvard Business Review, that question the effectiveness of these programs or express concern that they may do more harm than good. Plus, when demand spikes this quickly without proper oversight, there are always opportunists and bad actors looking to jump on the gravy train. This is evident in the number of diversity trainers who lacked requisite experience or credentials and in the massive case of DEI fraud at Facebook.
Of course, while this case may be an anomaly, it underscores the need for meaningful and constructive scrutiny, as well as open debate, in the execution of DEI initiatives. However, individuals who raise questions or express concerns about certain controversial or extreme approaches within DEI programs frequently face criticism or are labeled as obstructive to the cause.
In far too many cases, DEI has evolved into a bureaucratic apparatus, driven by a specific ideology that diverges from its core aim of fostering universal inclusivity. Its administrators have also been unlawfully anointed as the arbitrators of acceptable speech and open dialogue in many organizations and institutions. Furthermore, too many prominent figures in the current DEI movement don’t seem motivated to make everyone feel included and welcome, rather they are motivated by the RPO, aspiring to overturn established societal norms and create new power structures based on identity. They seek to dismantle the culture of achievement and replace it with one of grievance and victimhood, based largely on historical context, rather than present circumstances.
Our New Culture of Victimhood
“Have we reached the ultimate stage of absurdity when some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, while other people are not held responsible for what they themselves are doing today?” - Thomas Sowell, 2022
History is complex, containing not only tales of oppression and injustice that should not be overlooked, but also stories of resilience, innovation, and triumph over adversity. These narratives include many individuals who defied challenges or societal norms and are remembered for their remarkable achievements and contributions.
Today’s radical progressive orthodoxy dictates followers to ignore the latter and fixate on the former, and that has invariably led to the cultivation of a victim mindset. This victim mindset can strip individuals of their agency and sense of self-determination, which are fundamental to confidence and general well-being. It has become normal for Americans, especially young Americans, to allow their implied or actual sources of oppression to define them, rather than imagining ways to rise above their present circumstances.
I've rarely encountered successful individuals who have attributed their success to a mindset of grievance or victimhood. And when I say successful, I don’t just mean financially wealthy; I largely refer to people who have used their lives to build organizations, create progress, affect change, and make a positive impact on others, or society as a whole. I challenge you to quickly think of the name of someone who has championed the victim mindset and who has made a materially positive contribution to society.
An emphasis on victimhood is also generally discouraged in psychotherapeutic practice, as it's understood that fostering a sense of victimization seldom benefits patients' development or well-being. Emphasizing agency, empowerment and resilience, in an environment with equal opportunity, offers a far more constructive path forward.
The victim mindset also sends us tumbling down the slippery slope of competitive victimhood, where people who should be advocating for each other end up competing to prove who is more disadvantaged. This practice has been frequently coined the “Oppression Olympics”. Eventually, in these debates, the head swallows the tail; the infighting that led to the cancellation of the nearly fifty-year-old Boston Pride Parade is a cautionary example of this phenomenon.
Perhaps most damagingly, perpetuating a victim mindset frequently fosters animosity—and, in some cases, violence—towards people based predominantly upon the actions of their historic predecessors, rather than the actual behaviors and characteristics of those individuals. Acknowledging and learning from history is important, living in it is inherently disempowering. We each have one life to live from when we were born and should be focused on how we do that best.
If people believe that they can't succeed in the world as it is, they will naturally be compelled to change the world to fit their vision of what is right and embrace throwing out the baby with the bathwater. This is where the shift from equality of opportunity to equality of outcomes comes into play.
The Dangers of Equality of Outcomes
“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” – Aristotle
When people feel the deck is stacked against them, it’s only natural to want to change the game. However, there are many inherent dangers in moving from a society that strives for equity of opportunity to equality of outcomes.
First, it’s important to understand the difference between the two:
Equality of Opportunity: Society evens out the playing field for everyone by closing the gaps in circumstances between people. Equality of opportunity can be pursued by, for example, ensuring kids from more challenging socioeconomic backgrounds have scholarships that allow them to attend college, or by making efforts to ensure that the candidate pool for any job is varied and diverse and that interviewers are pressed to consciously consider their own potential biases in hiring.
Equality of Outcomes: Society attempts to even out the possible gains a person can make in society. This can include ensuring progressive taxation to cap income at a certain level, or lowering academic standards and opportunities to a level that everyone can attain. This also requires sacrifices to personal freedoms and may cap our ability to achieve excellence both individually and as a society.
An effective example of the difference between these goals can be seen in the audition process for a high-level orchestra. The majority of orchestras have blind auditions, where the auditioning musicians are hidden from the conductor making the selection. This approach is designed to ensure the conductor is unaffected by biases and makes the selection purely based on the applicants’ ability.
This practice was once considered to be the gold standard in terms of fairness. Today, it has come under fire from an anti-racism lens for not ensuring a fair distribution of seats to different representative classes. Anti-racist advocates suggest that it’s necessary to remove anonymity from the process so that selections can be directly influenced by demographics.
Equality of opportunity in an audition context would ensure that every applicant is evaluated on an equal footing. More broadly, equality of opportunity would require ensuring that all kids had equal access to musical instruction and instruments at the same age. The musicians’ background, experience, or identity would not matter—only their interest and ability.
Equality of outcome says that outcomes need to be normalized, and that blind auditions should be replaced by a forced demographic distribution, or diversity determined arbitrarily by some governing person or group.
While equality of outcomes in theory may be seen as a greater form of justice, it comes with significant risks and costs to freedom. Attempts at equality of outcomes inevitably limit the potential of others to ensure everyone meets the same standard. And when you add in the historical oppressor/oppressed framework, it becomes even harder to assess who is being justly promoted and who is being unfairly punished.
This is further complicated by the fact that redistributing power to ensure equality of outcomes is a deeply fraught practice for which there cannot be a truly neutral arbitrator. Furthermore, humans have different innate strengths and weaknesses that manifest differently in different parts of their lives. A kid from an underprivileged background may struggle with math but happens to be a music prodigy. A kid from a wealthy background may have a significant learning disability that makes it difficult for them to perform up to the level of their peers. How can we possibly create a system that “fairly” arbitrates advantage and disadvantage when there are so many confounding variables?
Consider the example of LeBron James and his family. James is a once-in-a-generation basketball talent who amplified that ability through his extreme work ethic and astute personal decision-making. Between his NBA earnings and his lucrative career as a businessman, James has become one of the world’s wealthiest self-made people, despite growing up in poverty in a single-parent household.
Two of James’ sons are excellent basketball players and aspire to play professionally. Not only are they likely blessed with at least some of James’ prodigious talent, but they also have a wealth of other advantages: access to the best basketball mentorship and coaching from a young age, as well as the financial resources to attend the best private schools, hire the best coaches and even have an indoor basketball court in their home.
I think it would be pretty fair to say that his kids have lived a privileged life in most respects. Given the significant advantages they have—both in terms of talent and circumstance—I would ask anyone pushing for equality of outcomes to explain how that philosophy would apply here. Should James’s kids have to wear weights that hamper their running and jumping ability to reduce their advantage over someone who is not as gifted? Should they have to attend a public school or practice at a local park to match people who do not have their resources? Should they not be able to try out for basketball at all, given their pedigree and financial advantage? Should other kids without those same resources or less natural talent be allowed to take steroids? Would the answers to any of these questions change if their skin color was different? And finally, who exactly makes those decisions?
It’s also worth pointing out that I haven’t heard any similar criticism of the merit-based system for professional athletes, where hard work, innate talent and merit are still openly embraced, as are the financial and status-based rewards that come with athletic achievement.
In a world with competition and finite resources, there simply is no “equitable” way to ensure equality of outcomes. There are inevitably winners and losers, and believers in the RPO simply propose moving from a system that, while flawed, has a high level of self-determination to one where your future potential, or the potential of your kids, is in the hands of people who arbitrarily determine advantages and disadvantages.
Our current meritocratic system, despite its many recognized flaws, remains superior to any large-scale alternative implemented historically. There are no documented examples of mass exoduses from societies grounded in freedom, meritocracy and capitalism. In stark contrast, tens of millions have fled from countries with outcome-equality based systems such as communism and socialism. These societies often are marred by economic struggles or authoritarian regimes, which are unfortunate byproducts often found in systems claiming to prioritize equal outcomes for all.
Even today, America's borders are experiencing an overwhelming influx of migrants seeking to escape these regimes and have an opportunity to bet on themselves.
The concept of meritocracy itself isn’t the problem; instead, the real culprits are favoritism, elitism, nepotism, and overprotective parenting that push us away from meritocracy’s principles. We can and should address those problems without relying on solutions that inadvertently create new forms of injustice, foment divisions in our society or undermine the principles of freedom and self-determination that have built some of the greatest achievements in human history.
The Call Is Coming From Inside The House
“An institution of higher education is a partnership among students and alumni, faculty and administrators, donors and trustees, neighborhoods and more, to build a community – and a culture.” – Ben Sasse
The great irony is that some of the largest contributors to the current disruption of our meritocratic system are the elite educational institutions in the United States and abroad, which have become breeding grounds for everything they despise.
Each year, these schools—which talk so loudly about inclusivity—proudly reject more students than the year before as they chase vanity rankings that highlight their exclusivity. They also consistently find ways to decrease their affordability.
Despite their outward commitment to diversity, our elite learning institutions predominantly cater to the wealthiest one percent and are costlier than most kids and families can afford today without crushing levels of debt.
These universities’ incessant tuition increases predominantly fund sprawling layers of bureaucracy in their administrations as well as the construction of bigger and better facilities as part of an arms race against other schools.
For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Stanford University had more administrative staff and faculty than it did students. Specifically, there were 15,750 administrators, 2,288 faculty members, and 16,937 students. There is absolutely no data that shows better facilities and more administrators lead to better education outcomes; however, they are highly effective for branding and recruiting, and they create a lot of high-paying jobs for bureaucrats who don’t even teach students.
Higher education is embroiled in a paradox where many elite institutions propagate the radical progressive orthodoxy that criticizes societal structures that create inequality while simultaneously being a primary driver and beneficiary of those same structures. Many professors, particularly in the humanities, teach subjects that are deeply intertwined with their political ideologies or dogmatic viewpoints. These lecturers increasingly teach students what to think, rather than how to think. They also neglect to present a balanced, or even historically comprehensive perspective on the topics, presenting personal opinions as facts and bypassing the critical scrutiny, peer review, and rigor typically expected in elite academia.
These professors teach courses that demonize the successful people in our society, whose achievements in the merit-based system just so happen to allow them to be able to afford paying upwards of $60,000 a year for tuition; or to donate to endowments that fund their professor tenure and help students who could not otherwise afford the tuition. These educators also impart this victim ideology to a student body that is, by any standard, among the most privileged due to either their level of wealth or the inevitable career opportunities their elite education affords. Really, how intellectually honest is it to paint a Harvard University student as oppressed on a global scale? I would imagine there are millions of people around the world willing to trade places with each student at Harvard.
The layers of irony in this scenario reflect deep contradictions within the current system of higher education and its relationship with societal values and economic realities. These universities—which depend upon entrenched power structures to fund their massive payrolls and impressive new buildings—seek to increase the prevalence of the oppressor/oppressed framework that upends those power structures. They are also heavily and directly funded by state actors such as Qatar, and indirectly funded by state actors like China and Russia. I think it’s fair to question what strings come attached with the billions of dollars received from those who don’t support traditional Western values of meritocracy and liberty.
Furthermore, this transformation has taken place against the backdrop of a significant decrease in the ideological diversity of the faculty members themselves. Many prestigious universities use interview and performance review systems designed to ensure that people who don’t agree with the preferred speech and narratives are purged from the system. In many instances, these systems weigh viewpoints on diversity above subject matter expertise, academic credentials, and professional work history.
When a candidate today interviews for a job at a school system, university, hospital, or research institution, they are frequently screened based on their adherence to the radical progressive orthodoxy’s approach to DEI before their actual experience or credentials are considered. This ideological screening, often in the form of required diversity statements, forces aspiring educators, administrators and researchers into an uncomfortable choice: either subscribe to an ideology with which they may not fully agree, or lose out on the job. This may not ensure the most capable people get roles at these institutions, but it’s highly effective at shutting out differing ideological opinions.
If you believe this statement is hyperbolic in any way, I encourage you to talk to your friends in these fields and listen to their stories, as I have done over the past six months. Many moderate people are too afraid to speak out unless asked—in private. Many employees in these systems are required to show unwavering loyalty to the increasingly broad and undefined demands of DEI and to those who oversee these standards. Any non-compliance, pushback, debate, or expression of skepticism or apprehension could cost them their job or tenure. For most, that risk just isn’t worth speaking up.
All of the above brings us to the particular events of the past few months.
The RPO and Antisemitism
"When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time." - Maya Angelou
The acceleration of these same developments has created the world we see today, where calls for the elimination of the Jewish people are excused by college administrators and students freely assert that one of the most violent and depraved terrorist attacks in recent history was an act of righteous liberation against oppressors.
Through the lens of the radical progressive orthodoxy, Jews are labeled as oppressors. This labeling is based on American Jews’ disproportionate wealth and perceived access to power, but it conveniently overlooks the constant, systematic oppression Jews faced for thousands of years. This same oppression culminated in the Holocaust, but that was just one horror in millennia of calamities.
Even after many Jews escaped total extermination and immigrated to America, most arrived with nothing but the clothes on their backs and started at the bottom of the societal ladder, often working in factories or trades. After all, antisemitism in the early 20th century was hardly limited to Europe—many titans of American life in the early 1900s, from Henry Ford, to Charles Lindbergh, to Walt Disney, famously hated Jewish people.
Despite all this, Jews today are labeled as oppressors by the arbiters of radical progressive orthodoxy. These arbiters assert that Jewish people’s disproportionate success could not be because of culture, talent, hard work or sacrifice—it must have been built on the backs of oppressed people. Jews are also broadly categorized as “white”, even though most Israelis in the US would likely be visibly identified by others as people of color.
This is where the RPO ideology becomes dangerous. Oppressors, by default, are not considered worthy of empathy or sympathy. Perhaps that is why so many people are comfortable excusing or justifying the atrocities of October 7th, including women’s rights groups who have largely been silent or incredibly slow to condemn the premeditated, brutal sexual violence that occurred, which was proudly documented by Hamas’s own GoPro cameras.
Here’s the clear data on this ideological shift, especially from those under 40, as seen in a recent Harvard/Harris poll:
The RPO ideology is at the root of the modern antisemitism you see today, especially among younger generations, whether people will admit it or not. It has actually become trendy to declare oneself an “anti-Zionist.” It is something people now put in their social media bio and declare in posts, including those in DEI leadership roles, even though Zionism is no different than any form of modern nationalism: the aspiration of a people or culture for self-rule. The hypocrisy in vehemently supporting Palestinian self-rule while simultaneously demonizing the same for Jews is exactly what antisemitism is all about: to these people, Jews don't "deserve" the same self-determination as others. They are less than.
One of the reasons for the intense backlash after the morally bankrupt congressional testimony of the Presidents of UPenn, MIT, and Harvard on the topic of rising antisemitism on their campuses was the disingenuous attempt to hide behind the principles of free speech. Objectively, these same leaders and schools have embraced or tolerated a coordinated effort to suppress free speech in favor of DEI-monitored and preferred speech on their campuses over the past decade. In fact, both Penn and Harvard were the lowest-rated college campuses for free speech by the latest rankings conducted by FIRE Foundation, which also surveys students at the schools.
Does anyone believe for a single second that the same “it depends on the context” answer or invoking free speech principles would have been acceptable in response to similar threats to other minority groups on campus? Had these leaders equivocated about calls for hate crimes or extermination of Black students or students in the LGBTQ+ community, they would have been fired or forced to resign by the end of the day.
People of all demographics should take note of how quickly public sentiment has soured toward Jews. It remains to be seen which group will be in the crosshairs of this RPO movement next, but it seems inevitable there will be more targets of the same selective anger and rage.
What Comes Next?
“It is not in the stars to hold our destiny, but in ourselves.” – William Shakespeare
As I mentioned earlier, I do understand the urgent need to reform our current system. Years of income inequality, social injustices, crony capitalism, and a failure to address and learn from history have led to a rigged playing field in many facets that requires a drastic leveling effort.
However, I remain convinced the best solution is working to restore the integrity and fairness of our meritocratic, opportunity-based system and remove its flaws, rather than dismantling it entirely.
When considering social and political reforms, it's entirely appropriate to scrutinize policy changes that disproportionally benefit the economically privileged and socially powerful. These changes include but are not limited to, term limits, legacy admissions, pay equity, nepotism hiring, unequal access to education, gerrymandering, capital gains treatment, lobbying, 1031 exchanges, regressive tax rates, and carried interest, just to name a few. These are substantial issues that require thoughtful examination and potential action. If the people who benefit disproportionally from these policies aren’t receptive to advocacy for changes, then the calls for bigger changes will inevitably become louder and more radical.
Nevertheless, it’s crucial to acknowledge that true freedom does produce some degree of inequality. Total equality, if pursued without restraint, encroaches upon individual freedom and self-determination; striking a balance between equality and freedom is a nuanced and complex task, but we should not abandon that work.
The path forward should not prioritize tearing down the structures of self-determination, success, and achievement; rather, it should attempt to make the starting line more equitable for everyone. This involves addressing systemic issues and biases while preserving the principles of freedom and merit that have been pivotal in fostering innovation, progress, and prosperity. By focusing on enhancing opportunities for all, rather than imposing uniformity of outcomes, we can create a society that is both fairer and freer, where merit and hard work are recognized and rewarded, and where everyone has a chance to succeed based on their abilities and efforts.
I think you give away why you're so upset about diversity training and everything else in this article when you write: "Western social structure—which is based on freedom and meritocracy". Really? For whom has Western social structure been based on freedom and meritocracy? As I white male I can answer that- white males. You can't say Western social structure has been based on freedom and meritocracy when women couldn't have a credit card in their own name until the 70's for example never mind all of the treatment of everyone who wasn't a white male in this fabled merit based free Western Society. Have gay people been free and judged by their merit? How about Alan Turing who is a major reason we're not speaking German today being chemically castrated? Was that based on freedom and merit? I'd say chemically castrating someone for being gay who helped defeat fascism and preserved our freedom is a radical viewpoint. Denying women credit cards is a radical viewpoint. Denying huge sections of the population the full rights of freedom and merit because of their gender, race, and sexual orientation is a radical viewpoint. I think you're so bent out of shape about this topic because you feel threatened by the changes in society and by people who have been locked out of this supposed merit based society no matter how much merit they possess. You should celebrate this supposed Western freedom and merit that is being practiced by students, gays, people of color, women and everyone else denied freedom and the ability to live based on their merit. They are struggling and fighting and working on living up to a society based on freedom and merit. We and you should celebrate their efforts. Are they getting everything right? Do they have all the answers? Nope and nope. But, after what 1000+ years of us dudes getting a lot wrong surely we can make some room for other view points and opinions and mistakes. That's not a radical viewpoint. That's progress.
Incredible! What a great piece of writing. You said so much in such a limited space, too. This article helps clarify what I've been sensing for some time, you have identified it exquisitely. As most social and intellectual shifts occur relatively slowly over time and therefore, by their creeping nature go largely unnoticed until attention is drawn to it, the bottom line is that warnings go mostly unnoticed. People don't want to know the ugly truth.
Winston Churchill warned of growing Fascism in Europe during the 1930's but those that needed to listen were more concerned about avoiding war than they were about preventing it, and there IS a difference.
With the creeping onslaught of ultra-liberalism or even radical conservatism (if you want to call it that) lies the danger of waking up too late.
I've read some of the other comments and I feel that some of those responding to your article have taken it personally. An article does, after all, lack the benefit of open dialogue so that is one downside of your terrific piece.
My own view on this is based on my background in European and American history studies.