The race to the bottom of victimhood and “social justice” culture

In “A Different Kind of Diversity Fear” Matthew Reed writes of a junior professor who

mentioned that many faculty of his age group get really quiet when diversity comes up because they’re afraid that in saying something inadvertently off-key, they’ll get tagged as anti-diversity. Rather than take the chance, they simply wait for the subject to change.

I’ve witnessed similar things in schools where I’ve taught, and this is happening because the diversity coalition is, weirdly, eating its own supporters. At Seliger + Associates we see related challenges in grant writing and wrote about a particular instance in “Cultural Sensitivity, Cultural Insensitivity, and the ‘Big Bootie’ Problem in Grant Writing.” The story at the link is hilarious and demonstrates the dangers of saying almost anything about diversity or related matters, since the line between cultural sensitivity and cultural insensitivity barely exists and moves constantly, without warning.

It’s virtually impossible for people, even well-meaning people sympathetic to the social justice worldview, to know whether they’re saying the right thing or the wrong thing about diversity, inclusion, or related matters. Inadvertently saying the wrong thing means being accused of insensitivity—or worse (Scott Alexander touches similar themes in “Radicalizing the Romanceless“). People who are actively trying to be sensitive can’t predict whether they’ll be accused of being insensitive.

Jonathan Haidt has also written about the dangers of victim culture, in “Where microaggressions really come from: A sociological account” and “The Yale Problem Begins in High School:”

Their high schools have thoroughly socialized them into what sociologists call victimhood culture, which weakens students by turning them into “moral dependents” who cannot deal with problems on their own. They must get adult authorities to validate their victim status.

Victimhood culture has also taken root in universities. It isn’t a purely left-wing phenomenon anymore, either: right-wing students can also take on the mantle of oppression, especially in a university context when right-wing students are the minority. In the United States, can a religious Christian be a victim? What about Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? That line of thinking, and the competition to be the bigger victim, can lead to a race to the bottom over who is a victim and who isn’t.

From a professor’s point of view, it takes only one well-meaning but inadvertent comment to end up pilloried. As noted previously, the likely reception of the comment is unknowable, while the accusation can be almost as damning as conviction. In that environment, the optimal solution for someone who values their job is the one Reed’s prof came up with: silence.

Silence around important issues is probably bad, but one doesn’t need elaborate game theory to see why it happens. There is no defense against insensitivity or “triggering.” In “The Coddling of the American Mind,” Greg Lukianoff and Haidt write:

Because there is a broad ban in academic circles on “blaming the victim,” it is generally considered unacceptable to question the reasonableness (let alone the sincerity) of someone’s emotional state, particularly if those emotions are linked to one’s group identity. The thin argument “I’m offended” becomes an unbeatable trump card. This leads to what Jonathan Rauch, a contributing editor at this magazine, calls the “offendedness sweepstakes,” in which opposing parties use claims of offense as cudgels. In the process, the bar for what we consider unacceptable speech is lowered further and further.

I’ve seen the offendedness sweepstakes play out in classrooms. It’s ugly. It’s also impossible to adjudicate different people’s different levels of offendedness because there’s no real standard to compare one person’s level of offense to another’s. I can tell whether a paper is poorly written or well written or whether an argument is well-researched or poorly researched, but I can’t tell whether student x has a better “claim” to victimhood than student y.

The obvious counter to perpetual offendedness is that living in the world requires some level of fortitude and resilience. The flipside to that, however, is that people (including professors) can use “fortitude and resilience” as excuses for being jerks or being deliberately provocative in a non-productive manner.

Still, the current academic climate seems to have swung too far towards the offendedness sweepstakes and too far from fortitude and resilience. But we’re unlikely to see a fortitude coalition form, and even attempting to do such a thing risks the “insensitive” label. So we get more and more offense and less thought.

Outside of academia and some media circles none of this matters.

10 responses

  1. Unfortunately it is spreading. I work in a large tech firm in San Francisco. Many employees try their hardest to get offended at everything.

    Recently the CEO sent an email congratulating a woman for her promotion. The email was sent at 4am. The CEO was accused of being sexist and trying to hide the woman’s good work by sending the email in the middle of the night when no one will read it. It turns out the CEO was travelling in Asia.

    There was an ethics training video we had to watch where 4 people (two men, two women, White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic) were each individually involved in a circumstance. Each time the man who hosts the show tells the person how they should behave ethically. E.g. “Next time your boss asks you to lie and creates fake invoices, talk to the legal department instead.”

    Of course even though the same type of scenario occurred for every race and gender, it was “called out” for “mansplaining” and the type of thing responsible for the lack of women in tech.

    I could go on for a long time with anecdotes about this.

    These people pat themselves on the back and feel like they are doing God’s work each time they publicly call out someone out for some imagined un-PC behavior.

    Of course, since I value my career, I make sure to always keep my mouth shut about anything with this.

    Women in this company even tried to create a blacklist of people the company should never hire because they took the other side in a public online political disagreement. (Of course they framed it as we should never hire this person because they have sexist beliefs and would lead to a hostile environment. Luckily management shot down the idea).

    I’m really concerned about the future. Those kids at Yale are going to be running the country not too long from now.


  2. Pingback: Links: Book smell, writers and money, the dream factory, victimhood culture, and more! « The Story's Story

  3. Pingback: Links: The color of money, social justice nonsense, the shape of the city, and more! « The Story's Story

  4. Pingback: How do you know when you’re being insensitive? How do you know when you’re funny? « The Story's Story

  5. Pingback: Good books I read in 2016 « The Story's Story

  6. Pingback: Links: Wi-Fi kinda sucks, alcohol, coffee, and civilization, free speech and free lives, and more! « The Story's Story

  7. Pingback: Links: Victimhood culture, drugs, healthcare prices, legal absurdity, and more! « The Story's Story

  8. Pingback: Postmodernisms: What does *that* mean? « The Story's Story

  9. Pingback: Dissent, insiders, and outsiders « The Story's Story

  10. Pingback: Links: Sanctimony literature, the purpose of literature, the new literary bad boys, and more! « The Story's Story

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: