The radical left has lost its moral compass

How postmodernism, nihilism and “social critical theory” have undermined ethical decision making

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Martin Niemoeller, 1946

After the abhorrent terrorist attack on innocent, largely apolitical young people, defenseless children and grandmothers by Hamas last week, one would have thought it would be easy to stand with Israel and express support for our colleagues, friends and employees.  This was not Palestinian self-defense but an act of aggression, as defense never includes intentionally killing people who are not a threat. The intentional killing of children is a hallmark of terrorism and genocide, both crimes against humanity, and even in war, a war crime. Nevertheless, a large number of left-leaning academic institutions reacted with a collective shrug and days were allowed to pass in thundering silence. Finally, many released short, corporate-sounding messages, carefully avoiding blame, instead acknowledging “a complex history”, leaving us to wonder about the undoubtedly vigorous discussions that must have taken place behind closed doors. This is in stark contrast to the academic reaction to other shocking acts of violence, for example the murder of George Floyd, which precipitated countless messages including encouragement to go protest and time off to develop anti-racist programming at work, the terror attack in Paris, and the invasion of Ukraine. No one asked if Ukraine had invited violence through the “long and complex history” between the two countries. The question would have seemed preposterous.

How did we get here? In short, postmodernism and nihilism have infiltrated our academic institutions. Right and wrong no longer exist, everything is relative, talking points are prioritized over genuine discussion, performative acts are commonplace and “kindness is everything”. Humanist values, tolerance and open inquiry are increasingly replaced by “critical social theory”, a deterministic construct with Marxist roots. Its worldview reduces us to our immutable characteristics, devoid of individual agency. This academic theory has been adapted as an ideology and made a meteoric ascent into the highest echelons of academic leadership, seemingly unstoppably. Creating lucrative positions and a well-paid market for self-appointed expert consultants with the ability to make or break careers overnight, nothing is what it seems in “critical social theory”: it cloaks itself in misleading and euphemistic labels and terms such as “equity”, “inclusion”, “anti-racism”, while harboring disturbing totalitarian, racist, misogynistic, and antisemitic tendencies. 

First they came for free speech: Despite the uniquely strong first amendment rights in the US, words were successfully declared “violence”, and “harmful”. A large majority of universities enthusiastically supported this development, despite it being fundamentally at odds with the mission of the university as a place for discussion and debate. Legitimate discussion and dissent was stifled, accelerating adoption of this new, cult-like ideology, culminating in “cancel culture” and self-censorship. As is often the case, women’s rights were on the chopping block first: in the name of “inclusion”, women were not allowed to call themselves women anymore, but instead needed to accept being referred to as “birthing parents”, “womxn*”, or “women-identifying employees”. No one asked women for their consent – implementation was swift and absolute. Women who spoke up against being forced to share sorority, dorm and locker room spaces with people of the opposite sex were ridiculed, harassed and violently attacked under the guise of “trans inclusion”. Is this truly “inclusion,” or plain old misogyny in a new rainbow outfit: the age-old demand for women to step aside, make space for men, and be silent while others speak?

Then “anti-racism” was used to justify the blatant application of anti-Asian racism while making it sound like a righteous deed by the morally superior. “Fighting racism with more racism” summarizes the idea. Data revealed during the Supreme Court case on affirmative action showed that the way “holistic admissions” were implemented was not preferential choice between largely equal applicants, but systematic and pronounced discrimination against highly qualified candidates of the “wrong” ethnicity. The fact that the majority of Americans strongly disagrees with Affirmative Action has been brushed aside with noteworthy arrogance. “Anti-racist” ideology has successfully been used to systematically undermine teacher minimum qualification requirements, merit-based testing, the K-12 math curriculum, advanced placement classes and gifted and talented education. These interventions harm not only the broader educational apparatus, but also underrepresented groups themselves. They have accelerated the race to the bottom for all Americans relying on the educational system, exacerbating inequities.

And then they came for the Jews. No longer able to tell right from wrong in the face of a modern pogrom, many Academic institutions retreated to the safe harbor of “everyone is responsible and we have compassion with all victims” to avoid upsetting the strong “anti-colonialist”, pro-Palestinian and socialist fraction in contemporary DEI departments and student groups. All are equal, but some are more equal than others. We have to face the fact that under the guise of “decolonizing the university”, a worldview has taken hold that propagates open antisemitism, justifies violence and cheers on the removal of Jews from not only their homeland but universities and positions of power and influence. 

This is the time to acknowledge that we have let a radical few get much too far with an ideology the majority disagrees with. Under the guise of “critical social theory”, supporters of radical, terrorist organizations were allowed to run rampant in the academy, influencing and training generations of young people with flawed ideas and propaganda. It is time to speak up strongly and ensure this harmful ideology is made transparent and vigorously debated, which will make its flaws easily visible. Too many have remained silent, chosen to “check the box” and move on with their work, hoping that common sense will prevail somehow. In the process, we have become increasingly confused, without the open spirited discussions necessary to distill our ideas into well-formed opinions.  It is time to remagnetize our moral compass and remember that objective truth exists - while it can be difficult sometimes to tell right from wrong, there are other cases where it is incredibly clear.