On the motivations and implications of critical social justice

This material was originally delivered as a speech at the XIX GvH Conference in May 2025.

Abstract

Erec Smith, Research Fellow at the Cato Institute and former Associate Professor of Rhetoric at York College of Pennsylvania, offers this critical examination of the motivations and consequences of the Critical Social Justice (CSJ) movement. Drawing upon his research in anti-racist activism, rhetorical studies, and classical liberalism, this essay argues that while CSJ purports to advance equity, its ideological commitments and practical applications often foster social division, psychological disempowerment, and institutional illiberalism. Through a critique of CSJ’s assumptions and outcomes, particularly within education and language instruction, Smith advocates for a return to classical liberal principles that emphasize open discourse, individual agency, and critical thinking.

The Motivations of Critical Social Justice

As the Trump Administration runs roughshod over the DEI initiatives in higher education, non-academic American citizens only see an act of bigotry, most notably anti-black racism. However, diversity, equity, and inclusion, in the original senses of those words, are not the problem. The problematic ideology and methodology collectively can be called Critical Social Justice (CSJ),and it is grounded in a Quasi-Marxist framework that interprets social relations through a lens of power, dominance, and systemic oppression. Influenced by critical theory, postmodernism, and identity politics, CSJ posits that racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression are embedded in the very structures and discourses of society.

Yes, the Trump Administrations tactics for eradicating DEI may be sloppy enough to endanger diversity initiatives not undergirded by CSJ; it is using a sledgehammer where a scalpel is in order. However, the initial impetus for the Anti-DEI sentiment that has informed the administration’s attack must be acknowledged. I believe diversity, equity, and inclusion—in the original sense of those terms—can survive through other avenues (e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and student-led initiatives). It is CSJ that must be jettisoned with extreme prejudice.

One of CSJ’s central tenets is articulated by educator and CSJ advocate Robin DiAngelo, who writes: “The question is not ‘Did racism occur?’ but ‘How did racism manifest in this situation?’”¹ This framing presumes the ubiquity of racism and demands that every interpersonal interaction and institutional outcome be interrogated for racial bias. As such, racism is not an event but a condition—a state of being woven into the fabric of society. Disparate impact—a term denoting the effect policies deemed neutral adversely affect particular groups, resulting in statistical disparity—is seen as a marker of systemic racism. No other cause for disparity is entertained. Of course, I want to be clear that scrutinizing institutions and policy is a good thing when down with fair-mindedness and a level head, and entertaining the possibility that identity discrimination may be present makes sense in a large and pluralistic society, but such scrutiny entails epistemological rigor and critical thinking before coming to a conclusion. The idea that racism is “always already” there is the opposite of that, starting with a conclusion and curating facts to support it.

This assumption that racism and other forms of discrimination are systemic fuels a form of epistemological activism. Here, perception and subjective experience, while not inherently flawed considerations, are privileged over empirical analysis. Kimberlé Crenshaw’s concept of intersectionality, for example, encourages the interpretation of all social experiences through the matrix of race, gender, and class-based oppression.² Though a sensible idea intended to illuminate structural inequality, such frameworks have been used to foster what Shelby Steele calls a “victim-focused identity” that sees agency as constrained by systemic barriers rather than expressed through individual initiative.³

The CSJ outlook encourages a psychological orientation toward grievance and suspicion. When the default expectation is that oppression is always present, individuals may become predisposed to interpret disagreement or discomfort as harm. This is exacerbated by a moral absolutism that sees dissent as complicity with oppression, thereby narrowing the range of permissible thought.

This phenomenon is exacerbated by the rise of affective “reasoning” in academic and activist circles. In place of deliberative discourse, affective reasoning privileges emotional response over rational evaluation. In such an environment, claims of harm or discomfort can be used to shut down discussion rather than initiate inquiry. This is not to say that emotional reasoning is categorically antithetical to academic development, But, as Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt argue in The Coddling of the American Mind, an overvaluation of emotional reasoning leads to the reinforcement of cognitive distortions that undermine resilience and intellectual development.⁴

The people who abide by CSJ, those who embody the mindset and methodologies I just described, have been given the label of “woke” in common American parlance.

Implications for DEI and the Academy

In higher education, CSJ has been institutionalized through Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Although well-intentioned in many cases, DEI programs rooted in CSJ ideology often function as mechanisms of ideological conformity rather than genuine pluralism. Technically, things like wheelchair accessibility, English as a Second Language pedagogy, and modifications for the mentally disabled are said to partially constitute DEI. However, as a colleague has pointed out, “good” DEI is like saying “good” socialism. The aforementioned accommodations can be handled by entities already in place (e.g., the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Human Resources offices, etc.) Henceforth, when I say DEI, I mean the kind undergirded by Critical Social Justice.

Other characteristics round out the CSJ disposition. Virtue signaling, what I’ve come to call “optic” rhetoric, is a common characteristic of activist circles. Sara Ahmed, a leading theorist of institutional diversity, acknowledges that diversity work often becomes a bureaucratic means of signaling virtue rather than effecting meaningful change.⁵ That is, optics matter more than concrete results. More critically, DEI efforts can entrench identity essentialism—the belief that individuals can be understood primarily through their racial, gender, or sexual identities. This essentialism is often paired with what Olúfémi O. Táíwò calls “epistemic deference,” a norm that encourages people to outsource moral judgment to those deemed marginalized.⁶ This is not to say that marginalized perspectives should not be voiced or hear, but in many activists and academic contexts, speech is policed not on the basis of logic or evidence but on the social identity of the speaker. The more hegemonic one’s perceived identity is, the less one has a voice when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

This has serious implications for academic freedom and discourse. In my own experience, the assertion that self-reliance and individualism are valuable traits has been met with accusations of “perpetuating white supremacy.” (Being called a white supremacist by white people is something I will never get used to.) Such allegations are grounded not in arguments but in presuppositions: that traits historically associated with Enlightenment liberalism are inherently Eurocentric and, therefore, oppressive.

Indeed, CSJ-inspired DEI efforts often endorse what philosopher Elizabeth Anderson calls “segregative egalitarianism”—an approach that pursues equality through separation rather than integration.⁷ This manifests in many exclusive racial affinity groups, segregated training sessions, and curriculum design centered on racial grievance rather than universal principles. These programs may unintentionally (or intentionally) reinforce the very divisions they seek to eliminate.

In some cases, DEI policies have moved from mere advocacy to coercion. In faculty hiring, promotion, and evaluation, mandatory diversity statements have served as ideological litmus tests, filtering out applicants who dissent from CSJ orthodoxy. Diversity statements would not be such a detriment if they were allowed to be ideologically diverse! The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has documented multiple instances in which faculty members have been disciplined or ostracized for questioning DEI dogma.⁸ This not only chills academic freedom but also undermines the diversity of viewpoints necessary for intellectual rigor.

Thus, it is ironic that those who abide by a CSJ ideology that thwarts free speech are now feeling like their own free speech is being thwarted. Of course, they tend to think it fine for them to suppress speech; they either are or are in support of the downtrodden. They are “punching up,” and they see anti-DEI legislation at both state and federal levels as “punching down.”

The Pedagogical Crisis: Language, Power, and Opportunity

One of the most contentious applications of CSJ principles is found in writing instruction, an endeavor taken on by my own field of Rhetoric and Composition (Rhet/Comp). A growing movement within Rhet/Comp argues that teaching standard academic English is a form of linguistic imperialism that marginalizes students from non-dominant backgrounds. Proponents of “antiracist writing assessment ecologies,” contend that grading language according to dominant standards is inherently racist.⁹ When such logic is applied to mathematics education, it has been labeled “ethno-mathematics.” We can call the aforementioned writing pedagogy “ethno-composition.”

While sensitivity to linguistic diversity is important, the rejection of standardized language instruction as an inherent harm poses serious risks. As John McWhorter and others argue, facility with standard English remains a crucial tool for socioeconomic mobility in a society—and, increasingly, a world—that still uses that language as a gatekeeping mechanism.¹⁰ Whether one likes this gatekeeping or not, to suggest otherwise is to lower expectations for students already said to face systemic challenges. Standard English is the lingua franca of international communication. It is a “bridge language.” What is easier and more beneficial for our students, having them learning this language of global communication or convincing the world to start over with another language?

Furthermore, CSJ-inflected pedagogy often equates rigor with oppression. Asao Inoue, the scholar most directly associated with “antiracist writing assessment ecologies,”  explicitly calls for “labor-based grading contracts” that decenter quality in favor of effort, arguing that traditional assessment perpetuates white supremacy culture. That is, grading is a form of racism.¹¹ But this shift undermines meritocratic values and denies students the opportunity to master the communicative tools necessary for professional and civic success.

The consequences are profound. Students educated under these premises may enter the workforce or public life lacking the rhetorical dexterity to engage across difference. They may also internalize a sense of fragility, believing that any encounter with normative expectations constitutes harm.

Moreover, a pedagogy that treats linguistic proficiency as a form of oppression risks creating a new caste system, one in which the elite retain access to the language of power while the marginalized are consigned to linguistic separatism. The promise of education as a pathway to opportunity is thereby betrayed.

The Classical Liberal Alternative

Against this backdrop, a classical liberal framework offers a more empowering and inclusive vision. Classical liberalism affirms the dignity and agency of the individual, regardless of group identity. It promotes epistemic humility, free inquiry, and open debate—the hallmarks of a pluralistic society.

Rather than assuming that identity determines truth, classical liberalism encourages the evaluation of ideas on their merits. This is essential for both academic integrity and democratic health. As Jonathan Rauch writes in The Constitution of Knowledge, the liberal epistemic order is sustained not by consensus but by the open contestation of ideas.¹² CSJ, by contrast, often treats disagreement as harm, thereby subverting this order.

Moreover, classical liberalism promotes resilience. It encourages individuals to confront adversity with agency rather than interpret hardship through the lens of collective victimization. This does not mean ignoring structural inequities; rather, it prompts people to see systemic issues as molehills and not mountains. It means empowering people to navigate and transform them through reasoned action.

Figures like Frederick Douglass provide historical examples of this ethic. Slavery was definitely a mountain and not a molehill. Regardless, Douglass championed both systemic reform and individual agency, calling upon Americans to live up to the universal ideals of liberty and justice. His legacy underscores the compatibility of classical liberalism with the pursuit of racial equity.¹³

A classical liberal approach to pedagogy would uphold high standards while supporting all students in meeting them. It would cultivate intellectual virtues such as curiosity, courage, and charity. And it would foster classrooms in which disagreement is not feared but welcomed as the engine of learning.

Conclusion: Toward a More Inclusive Future

Critical Social Justice is fraught with contradictions. Its insistence on omnipresent oppression, its reduction of individuals to identity categories, and its suspicion of dissent ultimately undermine the very inclusion and equity it seeks to promote. By pathologizing success, stigmatizing resilience, and suppressing open discourse, CSJ threatens the intellectual and civic foundations of a free society.

All this said, I would be remiss to forego mentioning the misguided actions of the distinctly anti-DEI Trump Administration and its MAGA base. The emergence of a so-called “woke right” offers little comfort. If it is merely a mirror image of the ideological left—favoring culture war over cultural understanding, censorship over curiosity, optics over results, or loyalty over liberty—then it, too, needs medicine. A reactionary movement is not a cure; it’s a symptom of the same disease: the desire for clarity without complexity, power without responsibility.

But we are seeing progress. Many schools have eradicated DEI programs or banned diversity statements as requirements for employment. The Trump Administration’s Executive Orders prohibiting DEI mandates from college accreditors¹⁴ as well as the use of “disparate impact” as a primary determinant of policy.¹⁵ However, more institutions must realize that a better way forward lies in the classical liberal tradition—one that affirms universal human dignity, values individual agency, and fosters robust dialogue. Only by rejecting essentialism and embracing a more open, resilient, and pluralistic ethic can we build institutions that truly empower all people. If we were to do this well, I wonder if we’d need DEI initiatives at all.

Endnotes

1. Robin DiAngelo, White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism (Boston: Beacon Press, 2018), 7.
2. Kimberlé Crenshaw, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (1991): 1244.
3. Shelby Steele, The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America (New York: Harper Perennial, 1991), 9–11.
4. Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt, The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure (New York: Penguin Press, 2018), 29–32.
5. Sara Ahmed, On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012), 21–24.
6. Olúfémi O. Táíwò, Elite Capture: How the Powerful Took Over Identity Politics (and Everything Else) (Chicago: Haymarket Books, 2022), 83–85.
7. Elizabeth Anderson, The Imperative of Integration (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010), 135–138.
8. Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, “Scholars Under Fire: The Targeting of Professors for Speech in the United States, 2022,” https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/fire-reports/scholars-under-fire-2022.
9. Asao B. Inoue, Antiracist Writing Assessment Ecologies: Teaching and Assessing Writing for a Socially Just Future (Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse, 2015), 17–21.
10. John McWhorter, Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America (New York: Free Press, 2000), 158–160.
11. Asao B. Inoue, “A Grade-less Writing Course that Focuses on Labor and Assessing,” Asao B. Inoue Blog, November 2014, https://asaobinoue.blogspot.com/2014/11/a-grade-less-writing-course-that.html.
12. Jonathan Rauch, The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2021), 74–78.
13. For a thorough treatment of Douglass’ attitude, see Timoty Sandefur, Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man (Washington DC: The Cato Institute, 2018).
14. White House, Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reforms Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, April 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/04/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-reforms-accreditation-to-strengthen-higher-education/?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
15. White House. Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy. Executive Order, April 23, 2025. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/restoring-equality-of-opportunity-and-meritocracy/.