Table of Contents
What’s The Problem With Social Justice?
When FIRE criticizes institutions for assessing students based on their commitments to concepts such as “social justice,” one common question we hear is: what’s so wrong with that? Can’t everyone agree that social justice is a good thing?
The problem is that in academia, certain terms, including social justice, have become politically and ideologically loaded. Mark Bauerlein, a professor of English at Emory University, provides interesting insight into this phenomenon today on Inside Higher Ed. Bauerlein discusses how academics first propagated the notion that that language has “implicit meaning…much of it political or identity-oriented,” and yet are now falling back on the traditionally “conservative” notion that words should be taken at face value in order to defend themselves against charges of bias (such as the charge that it is inappropriate to judge people on their commitment to social justice.)
Bauerlein also notes that academics tend to issue denials when charged with bias in their use of politically-charged language. Of these people, Bauerlein asks: “Have they lived so long and so closely to ‘social justice,’ ‘social change,’…and ‘gender equality’ that they do not recognize them as loaded terms? ... By their own instruction, we should regard the widespread attention to race, gender, and social construction as emanating from a world view and signaling an ideological commitment.”
Those who do not see the danger inherent in judging people on the basis of their commitment to terms like “social justice” would do well to read Bauerlein’s thought-provoking article.
Recent Articles
Get the latest free speech news and analysis from FIRE.
VICTORY: Court vindicates professor investigated for parodying university’s ‘land acknowledgment’ on syllabus
Ninth Circuit rules UW violated the First Amendment by punishing a professor for putting a satirical land acknowledgment on his syllabus.
Can the government ban controversial public holiday displays?
If the government invites holiday displays, it can’t ban the ones it dislikes. Open the forum, lose the veto — even for Satanic statues.
DOJ plan to target ‘domestic terrorists’ risks chilling speech
DOJ plans to target “domestic terrorists” blur crime and ideology, revive McCarthy-era tactics, and risk chilling protected political speech.
‘Let them sue’: Iowa lawmakers scoffed at First Amendment in wake of Charlie Kirk shooting, records show
Iowa lawmakers urged ISU to punish speech about Charlie Kirk’s killing, shrugging off lawsuits and betting taxpayer money against the First Amendment.