Last week, we explored how diversity, equity, and inclusion programs often obscure the abuse of power by granting people moral licenses based on their identities.
Generalizing my earlier comments about labor rights, the assumption in western culture is that people in education bureaucracies have basic morals that are disincentives to abuse and corruption. In other words,the legal system puts a large burden of proof on an abused employee and is biased toward managers.
When the “woke” “left” began to invade higher education after the 1960s , and the post-WW2 economic growth model of higher education began to collapse, 1970s (Eric Weinstein) morality shifted and aggressive, sociopathic personalities found it easier to get administrative positions and then virtue signal to gain status. The intense competition between victim groups can lead to further abuses, such as Asian women being discriminated against.
It is not unusual to see ethnic and other identity clusters of employees (gay, black, Hispanic) in various departments due to something like identity nepotism.
There is of course a huge taboo on discussing all of the above. Labor union leaders and org culture typically mirror the same dysfunctional patterns as management.
Good and fair responses to your critics on both the left and right, Radha! Ancient Problemz made the mistake of thinking you’re still the same person you were years ago. He makes the absurd argument that because DEI doesn’t work, we shouldn’t have efforts at diversity in the workplace at all. He ignores the fact that 1) This is the 21st Century people need to know how to operate in a diverse workplace and to treat others who are different with respect. 2) Race and gender discrimination to an extent still exist and there are still race and gender gaps to be closed in the business world. DEI just isn’t the answer for these problems. As for Jamal X, his argument was clearly made in bad faith and was a one big huge strawman. When did you ever say you don’t acknowledge the heroism of the Civil Rights Movement or were against civil rights protections? DEI has nothing to do with that. The Civil Rights Movement fought for equal opportunity for all Americans and that every man be taken on his own merits. That’s what you are looking for as well. Jamal is making a false equivalence here and making arguments you never made. Your post was totally on-point! People can be tyrannical and abuse their power regardless of their race, sex or sexual orientation. You don’t have to be a straight white man to do that. There are so many examples from history I could bring up as examples of this. This is something DEI doesn’t account for and woke leftists don’t care for. DEI is ahistorical nonsense! One could bring up the horrific war crimes that Pakistan committed against the people of Bangladesh during the 1973 Indo-Pakistan War or the Rwandan Genocide of the 1990s or the slaughter of Palestinians by the Royal Jordanian Army during Black September from 1970-72. How about when the Boxers in China massacred innocent European and American men, women and children during the Boxer Rebellion of 1899-1901? How about the mass expulsion of 20,000 ethnic Italians from Libya by Muhammar Gaddafi in 1970? Just to name a few. I could also point to the rape of German immigrant women by Confederate Guerrillas during the American Civil War or the rape of German women by Asiatic Soviet Soldiers during WWII. The Nazis committed horrific war crimes against the peoples of the USSR and Poland. So on and so forth, I could go on forever.
Thanks Noah. I found that this Jamal character trolls other people who criticize this culture. But he is also an archetype. The historical equivalence with civil rights is so incredibly disingenuous. They also never consider when critiquing anything terrible humans did that more than just white people did them, as you say. Perhaps because the west is the most advanced, it’s the easiest target.
Sorry if I seem overly impatient. My life has been spent watching something totally banal and ordinary, hardly good but not bad, and someone walks up and torches it to the ground while you're watching. Then they turn to you with an hat extended and look for applause. After 20-30 years of this, you find yourself not as generous with active arsonists as you once were.
No, I love it. I’m impatient. Took a lot of work to cultivate a modicum, and I find myself angrier at the people who should have beat trump than the ones who voted for him.
I literally said to someone just before the election, "I hate the Democrats more than the Republicans the way one hates a traitor more than an enemy."
As a populist liberal, I spent years criticizing the Democrats because I thought they were headed for putting Trump back in office, and most people who engaged only wanted to pat themselves on the back for sussing me out as a secret Trump-lover - otherwise I wouldn't say bad things about Democrats. The refusal to criticize Democrats (by liberal media outlets, particularly) has shielded the party establishment from accountability, which is how they learned nothing and hence managed to lose to Trump again.
I'm sorry you had to put up with this, refuting specifics in debate is much harder than just speaking one's own case, and the opposition almost never cares. Ancient Problemz was a loon and made the Right look contemptible. Among dozens of dizzying failures, the key one was to attack someone who has reformed, or is on the reform path (from his point of view). That's unforgivable, as it means in practice that there's no forgiveness or redemption (I'll leave the linguistic associations to him) and therefore if you're wrong, you must ALWAYS double down, and fight to the death because the Right will never leave you be. If I may say so, that's been a key problem of the Left, and he wishes to mindlessly take their worst habits.
It's inconceivable to me that likewise he doesn't recognize you're moderating your presentation not to trigger everyone when everyone in society is DEI trigger-happy right now. Anyone on the real Right is aware of this because to so much as whisper means you're going to be carpetbombed to oblivion, the way true love and tolerance demands. His implication is that unless you run screaming down the aisles waving your hands, you're not saying anything at all. That's the Purity-spiral again, as the second-worst fault of the Left he wishes to imitate. If you're not to HIS right, you're dead to me. What the literal.
Third, since this is his presentation: to attack everyone on the Left, everyone on the Center, and anyone changing their minds to be more accommodating to his view, he's really a walking billboard to never go near or associate with the Right. He can do more to destroy the Right than the Left ever could. And while this particular article didn't reach those heights, it's a grievous misstep and unforced error no one needs, not the Right, and not what once was normal discourse in the marketplace of ideas. Does the Right allow speech, sir?
This is already too long and I can't take up Jamal as they are normal bad-faith discourse the Left is famous for, lost them decades of elections, and looks to reverse the high tide they achieved, which while I disagree with, they had attained. It's every Nagging Scolding, Guilt, Shame, Remorse, Banishment, that are all the insufferable vices of the Toxic Feminine run wild we have to put up with all the time, and men find so laughable and dismissable: what if I DON'T feel guilt or shame and I really couldn't care less about sitting at the Mean Girls table because you're terrible, mean, ruthless people and we can more happily never think of you again at all? Your punishment is to expel me from a club I never heard of and don't want to be in if you're there.
Update: if you expel EVERYONE ON EARTH from your club, jolly for you, but that means you have no power, no influence, no voice...and no voters. People being accommodating to you out of human decency only goes so far as you don't abuse their excessive and generous good will with disgusting, vile accusations and evil assumptions...which is what this sort of debate really is. "All Brown women are racist" I guess. At that point, we remove the goodwill to you you were leveraging us with -- emotional extortion -- and you're powerless. The only thing you had was the goodwill and human decency I gave you -- and more's the pity, my mistake. But this hyper-feminine vice has been well covered and hides in a blizzard of worthless language that's tiresome to dissect. Cut to the root.
A person was trying to admit honest wrong and establish open, healing discourse. Attacked on all sides.
This was so validating to read Arda, and thanks for engaging with the substance of shitty arguments. I felt the need to refute these as a sort of proof of concept, since they seem to be archetypes of arguments on right and left. Hilariously neither person has gotten back to me on this yet.
When DEI became ideological moving away from the principles that many inclusion and if I may cultural intelligence practitioners followed, it was doomed to fail.
Before “DEI” the work of one of my mentors, a pioneer in the industry, Dr. Roosevelt Thomas was clear that mixing reducing “Diversity Management” down to affirmative action and social justice was bound to fail.
He started saying this in the 1990s.
A few anti-DEI bandwagon jumpers, like their “woke” polar opposites have made DEI about what they can see from a minority capture of new entrants to the field focused on critical theory and “keeping white people on the hook ” something Shelby Steele is adamant is the worst and most shortsighted mistakes black Americans have made.
Those who have taken this tactic to its extremes, or made their living from it have made it worse.
Like any nuanced industry, inclusion and diversity have had bad actors and good ones. No one has gone after the coaching business which is much bigger and there are bad coaches, some doing harm. But much quieter, of course.
Right now, being anti-DEI is popular and getting a lot of social attention especially given the EOs. And, the question is, how different are those who are speaking against DEI than those pushing ideological narratives circa 2020?
I’ve done this work for a long time. Most critics never have and only have “data” on what hasn’t and never did work way before it was known as DEI today.
The criticism is warranted. And, if there were any modicum of desire to have a more complete dialogue, I would be willing to do so. And, if the goal is to build a following the Upton Sinclair adage I’ve used for critical social justice practitioners stands,
“It’s hard for a man to understand something that his paycheck depends on him not understanding.”
There are several actual, but presumably inadvertent problems with civil rights laws and some severe problems with how they were implemented, destroying free speech. See Christian Caldwell, a conservative scholar.
The implementation problem: civil rights law was hijacked by corrupt RACE GRIFTERS (as documented by John McWhorter) and eventually, "woke" neo-communist totalitarians.
I get that to you, DEI is not the right method, but what is the goal that institutions should develop a strategy to achieve?
Is it fairness for all? The elimination of racism from our social attitudes? Applying focus and resources to cultivate success in underperforming population segments? Closing material inequality gaps wherever they might be? Achieving parity in all the important metrics?
Strip out all of the neo-communism, neo-marxism and postmodernist totalitarianism from DEI, and see what remains. See the "Ground Experience", a leftist spent something like a decade doing that while trying to keep from being stabbed in the back by the "woke" "left".
Or, look at the similar reforms of DEI by Tabia Lee that got her fired by the woke totalitarians for "not being the right kind of black person".
According to the court’s decision, the arguments were not supported well enough to make the case. 3 of the claims are eligible to be brought forward again if done better. So, it was essentially a sloppy case and the plaintiff needs to do a better job bringing forth the merits. I hope she does. Maybe she needs a better lawyer to argue it? As commenter Pierce said, “Dr. Lee should have carefully documented any such conduct by abusvie managers (or co-workers).”
The dismissal of the case is pretty similar to what I saw as a labor union activist for several decades. Managers can and do engage in severe abuse of employees without legal consequences unless the "victim" copiously documents the allegedly discriminatory behavior of the manager and turns their life into a living hell of compliance with the absurd demands of such abusers.
The lack of information about the wrongful termination part of the case is baffling. Maybe I missed something in quickly scanning the document.
Abusive managers typically frame their abuse of a "dissident" employee in terms of non-compliance of the dissident with managerial guidance or orders (some of which can be abusive).
Dr. Lee should have carefully documented any such conduct by abusvie managers (or co-workers).
The main point is that an employee that is being bullied, subject to psychological violence, is typically not in a good position to carefully document the bullying and to engage in "un-natural" levels of behavior to avoid eliciting discrimination from managers and/or co-workers, UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE.
Faculty labor unions are SUPPOSED to provide helpful guidance and support to workers that are being bullied, but such unions themselves sometimes engage in ideologically hostile "pro-woke" behavior.
A worker has a right to also sue (in California PERB has administrative judges that rule on "bad union" stuff) a discriminatory labor union they belong to for failing to do the right thing, but the evidentiary requirements for doing so are probably even worse than in the case of abusive managers.
Basically, the "system" is set up to screw over dissidents that aren't willing or able to be obsessive and play silly bureaucratic games, sometimes for years.
Thanks for this. I’m tired of answering this question. Humans can’t just be subjected to HR policies to force fairness. And, I don’t think this is a problem for institutions to solve; it’s a problem for women specifically to work on among ourselves. As I see it, women stand just as much in the way of fairness at work as men. And now there’s a backlash because people see that in DEI.
This stuff is usually very stressful because abusive "wokies" tend to be sociopathic and hard for "normies" to deal with.
(I was lucky I could retire just as some really insane woke stuff was starting to happen, but the psychological damage is still ongoing from many previous years of mild "woke" workplace nonsense.)
There are several support groups that support academics in his position, attempting to identify how to reform "bad DEI". Not sure about non-academics, but the material the are working on is broadly similar.
He has written voluminously for a long time (trying to convince the "woke" left to reform), so it is a little daunting to process his work. I've personally known him for several years through a dissident group in the integral theory community (Ken Wilber's stuff), so I got the private, summary version of his struggles with academic woke craziness.
Generalizing my earlier comments about labor rights, the assumption in western culture is that people in education bureaucracies have basic morals that are disincentives to abuse and corruption. In other words,the legal system puts a large burden of proof on an abused employee and is biased toward managers.
When the “woke” “left” began to invade higher education after the 1960s , and the post-WW2 economic growth model of higher education began to collapse, 1970s (Eric Weinstein) morality shifted and aggressive, sociopathic personalities found it easier to get administrative positions and then virtue signal to gain status. The intense competition between victim groups can lead to further abuses, such as Asian women being discriminated against.
It is not unusual to see ethnic and other identity clusters of employees (gay, black, Hispanic) in various departments due to something like identity nepotism.
There is of course a huge taboo on discussing all of the above. Labor union leaders and org culture typically mirror the same dysfunctional patterns as management.
Good and fair responses to your critics on both the left and right, Radha! Ancient Problemz made the mistake of thinking you’re still the same person you were years ago. He makes the absurd argument that because DEI doesn’t work, we shouldn’t have efforts at diversity in the workplace at all. He ignores the fact that 1) This is the 21st Century people need to know how to operate in a diverse workplace and to treat others who are different with respect. 2) Race and gender discrimination to an extent still exist and there are still race and gender gaps to be closed in the business world. DEI just isn’t the answer for these problems. As for Jamal X, his argument was clearly made in bad faith and was a one big huge strawman. When did you ever say you don’t acknowledge the heroism of the Civil Rights Movement or were against civil rights protections? DEI has nothing to do with that. The Civil Rights Movement fought for equal opportunity for all Americans and that every man be taken on his own merits. That’s what you are looking for as well. Jamal is making a false equivalence here and making arguments you never made. Your post was totally on-point! People can be tyrannical and abuse their power regardless of their race, sex or sexual orientation. You don’t have to be a straight white man to do that. There are so many examples from history I could bring up as examples of this. This is something DEI doesn’t account for and woke leftists don’t care for. DEI is ahistorical nonsense! One could bring up the horrific war crimes that Pakistan committed against the people of Bangladesh during the 1973 Indo-Pakistan War or the Rwandan Genocide of the 1990s or the slaughter of Palestinians by the Royal Jordanian Army during Black September from 1970-72. How about when the Boxers in China massacred innocent European and American men, women and children during the Boxer Rebellion of 1899-1901? How about the mass expulsion of 20,000 ethnic Italians from Libya by Muhammar Gaddafi in 1970? Just to name a few. I could also point to the rape of German immigrant women by Confederate Guerrillas during the American Civil War or the rape of German women by Asiatic Soviet Soldiers during WWII. The Nazis committed horrific war crimes against the peoples of the USSR and Poland. So on and so forth, I could go on forever.
Thanks Noah. I found that this Jamal character trolls other people who criticize this culture. But he is also an archetype. The historical equivalence with civil rights is so incredibly disingenuous. They also never consider when critiquing anything terrible humans did that more than just white people did them, as you say. Perhaps because the west is the most advanced, it’s the easiest target.
Yep. Mongolian Hordes, Arab/Berber and Ottoman invasions of Europe.
"White" tribes/nation states killing each other off for 5,000 years, the pattern didn't start with "non-white" people.
Woke/DEI/CRT/etc. is a cult.
The neo-marxist/postmodern aspects of it are rehashed communism that reject scientific rationalism.
The identity politics part is race grifting.
Sorry if I seem overly impatient. My life has been spent watching something totally banal and ordinary, hardly good but not bad, and someone walks up and torches it to the ground while you're watching. Then they turn to you with an hat extended and look for applause. After 20-30 years of this, you find yourself not as generous with active arsonists as you once were.
No, I love it. I’m impatient. Took a lot of work to cultivate a modicum, and I find myself angrier at the people who should have beat trump than the ones who voted for him.
I literally said to someone just before the election, "I hate the Democrats more than the Republicans the way one hates a traitor more than an enemy."
As a populist liberal, I spent years criticizing the Democrats because I thought they were headed for putting Trump back in office, and most people who engaged only wanted to pat themselves on the back for sussing me out as a secret Trump-lover - otherwise I wouldn't say bad things about Democrats. The refusal to criticize Democrats (by liberal media outlets, particularly) has shielded the party establishment from accountability, which is how they learned nothing and hence managed to lose to Trump again.
I didn't have the words for it before, why I detest them more than the other side. You hit the nail on the head for me.
I'm sorry you had to put up with this, refuting specifics in debate is much harder than just speaking one's own case, and the opposition almost never cares. Ancient Problemz was a loon and made the Right look contemptible. Among dozens of dizzying failures, the key one was to attack someone who has reformed, or is on the reform path (from his point of view). That's unforgivable, as it means in practice that there's no forgiveness or redemption (I'll leave the linguistic associations to him) and therefore if you're wrong, you must ALWAYS double down, and fight to the death because the Right will never leave you be. If I may say so, that's been a key problem of the Left, and he wishes to mindlessly take their worst habits.
It's inconceivable to me that likewise he doesn't recognize you're moderating your presentation not to trigger everyone when everyone in society is DEI trigger-happy right now. Anyone on the real Right is aware of this because to so much as whisper means you're going to be carpetbombed to oblivion, the way true love and tolerance demands. His implication is that unless you run screaming down the aisles waving your hands, you're not saying anything at all. That's the Purity-spiral again, as the second-worst fault of the Left he wishes to imitate. If you're not to HIS right, you're dead to me. What the literal.
Third, since this is his presentation: to attack everyone on the Left, everyone on the Center, and anyone changing their minds to be more accommodating to his view, he's really a walking billboard to never go near or associate with the Right. He can do more to destroy the Right than the Left ever could. And while this particular article didn't reach those heights, it's a grievous misstep and unforced error no one needs, not the Right, and not what once was normal discourse in the marketplace of ideas. Does the Right allow speech, sir?
This is already too long and I can't take up Jamal as they are normal bad-faith discourse the Left is famous for, lost them decades of elections, and looks to reverse the high tide they achieved, which while I disagree with, they had attained. It's every Nagging Scolding, Guilt, Shame, Remorse, Banishment, that are all the insufferable vices of the Toxic Feminine run wild we have to put up with all the time, and men find so laughable and dismissable: what if I DON'T feel guilt or shame and I really couldn't care less about sitting at the Mean Girls table because you're terrible, mean, ruthless people and we can more happily never think of you again at all? Your punishment is to expel me from a club I never heard of and don't want to be in if you're there.
Update: if you expel EVERYONE ON EARTH from your club, jolly for you, but that means you have no power, no influence, no voice...and no voters. People being accommodating to you out of human decency only goes so far as you don't abuse their excessive and generous good will with disgusting, vile accusations and evil assumptions...which is what this sort of debate really is. "All Brown women are racist" I guess. At that point, we remove the goodwill to you you were leveraging us with -- emotional extortion -- and you're powerless. The only thing you had was the goodwill and human decency I gave you -- and more's the pity, my mistake. But this hyper-feminine vice has been well covered and hides in a blizzard of worthless language that's tiresome to dissect. Cut to the root.
A person was trying to admit honest wrong and establish open, healing discourse. Attacked on all sides.
This was so validating to read Arda, and thanks for engaging with the substance of shitty arguments. I felt the need to refute these as a sort of proof of concept, since they seem to be archetypes of arguments on right and left. Hilariously neither person has gotten back to me on this yet.
When DEI became ideological moving away from the principles that many inclusion and if I may cultural intelligence practitioners followed, it was doomed to fail.
Before “DEI” the work of one of my mentors, a pioneer in the industry, Dr. Roosevelt Thomas was clear that mixing reducing “Diversity Management” down to affirmative action and social justice was bound to fail.
He started saying this in the 1990s.
A few anti-DEI bandwagon jumpers, like their “woke” polar opposites have made DEI about what they can see from a minority capture of new entrants to the field focused on critical theory and “keeping white people on the hook ” something Shelby Steele is adamant is the worst and most shortsighted mistakes black Americans have made.
Those who have taken this tactic to its extremes, or made their living from it have made it worse.
https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxugsDj70Czv7Kl3cNl9GJKy0GgBrChuQM?si=zBH92Up2eM9usJAK
Like any nuanced industry, inclusion and diversity have had bad actors and good ones. No one has gone after the coaching business which is much bigger and there are bad coaches, some doing harm. But much quieter, of course.
Right now, being anti-DEI is popular and getting a lot of social attention especially given the EOs. And, the question is, how different are those who are speaking against DEI than those pushing ideological narratives circa 2020?
I’ve done this work for a long time. Most critics never have and only have “data” on what hasn’t and never did work way before it was known as DEI today.
The criticism is warranted. And, if there were any modicum of desire to have a more complete dialogue, I would be willing to do so. And, if the goal is to build a following the Upton Sinclair adage I’ve used for critical social justice practitioners stands,
“It’s hard for a man to understand something that his paycheck depends on him not understanding.”
There are several actual, but presumably inadvertent problems with civil rights laws and some severe problems with how they were implemented, destroying free speech. See Christian Caldwell, a conservative scholar.
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/the-law-that-ate-the-constitution/
The implementation problem: civil rights law was hijacked by corrupt RACE GRIFTERS (as documented by John McWhorter) and eventually, "woke" neo-communist totalitarians.
I get that to you, DEI is not the right method, but what is the goal that institutions should develop a strategy to achieve?
Is it fairness for all? The elimination of racism from our social attitudes? Applying focus and resources to cultivate success in underperforming population segments? Closing material inequality gaps wherever they might be? Achieving parity in all the important metrics?
Strip out all of the neo-communism, neo-marxism and postmodernist totalitarianism from DEI, and see what remains. See the "Ground Experience", a leftist spent something like a decade doing that while trying to keep from being stabbed in the back by the "woke" "left".
Or, look at the similar reforms of DEI by Tabia Lee that got her fired by the woke totalitarians for "not being the right kind of black person".
https://www.newsweek.com/dei-college-director-fired-not-being-right-kind-black-person-1813481
It seems this lawsuit against the College was dismissed on all counts.
That doesn’t mean there wasn’t merit to the case.
According to the court’s decision, the arguments were not supported well enough to make the case. 3 of the claims are eligible to be brought forward again if done better. So, it was essentially a sloppy case and the plaintiff needs to do a better job bringing forth the merits. I hope she does. Maybe she needs a better lawyer to argue it? As commenter Pierce said, “Dr. Lee should have carefully documented any such conduct by abusvie managers (or co-workers).”
I have not kept up on the progress of the case. Did you find court records or news reports or both? Thanks.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-n-d-cal/116145425.html
Thanks again.
The dismissal of the case is pretty similar to what I saw as a labor union activist for several decades. Managers can and do engage in severe abuse of employees without legal consequences unless the "victim" copiously documents the allegedly discriminatory behavior of the manager and turns their life into a living hell of compliance with the absurd demands of such abusers.
The lack of information about the wrongful termination part of the case is baffling. Maybe I missed something in quickly scanning the document.
Abusive managers typically frame their abuse of a "dissident" employee in terms of non-compliance of the dissident with managerial guidance or orders (some of which can be abusive).
Dr. Lee should have carefully documented any such conduct by abusvie managers (or co-workers).
The main point is that an employee that is being bullied, subject to psychological violence, is typically not in a good position to carefully document the bullying and to engage in "un-natural" levels of behavior to avoid eliciting discrimination from managers and/or co-workers, UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE.
Faculty labor unions are SUPPOSED to provide helpful guidance and support to workers that are being bullied, but such unions themselves sometimes engage in ideologically hostile "pro-woke" behavior.
A worker has a right to also sue (in California PERB has administrative judges that rule on "bad union" stuff) a discriminatory labor union they belong to for failing to do the right thing, but the evidentiary requirements for doing so are probably even worse than in the case of abusive managers.
Basically, the "system" is set up to screw over dissidents that aren't willing or able to be obsessive and play silly bureaucratic games, sometimes for years.
Well puts
And no news reports…..the silence is interesting
If she won, it probably would have been.
A leftist reforms DEI and (barely) lives to tell the tale:
https://substack.com/@groundexperience
Thanks for this. I’m tired of answering this question. Humans can’t just be subjected to HR policies to force fairness. And, I don’t think this is a problem for institutions to solve; it’s a problem for women specifically to work on among ourselves. As I see it, women stand just as much in the way of fairness at work as men. And now there’s a backlash because people see that in DEI.
This stuff is usually very stressful because abusive "wokies" tend to be sociopathic and hard for "normies" to deal with.
(I was lucky I could retire just as some really insane woke stuff was starting to happen, but the psychological damage is still ongoing from many previous years of mild "woke" workplace nonsense.)
There are several support groups that support academics in his position, attempting to identify how to reform "bad DEI". Not sure about non-academics, but the material the are working on is broadly similar.
correction on his substack:
https://groundexperience.substack.com/
He has written voluminously for a long time (trying to convince the "woke" left to reform), so it is a little daunting to process his work. I've personally known him for several years through a dissident group in the integral theory community (Ken Wilber's stuff), so I got the private, summary version of his struggles with academic woke craziness.