Whither woke?

Up here in the Northern New Hampshire everybody’s asking: are we past the peak?

Yesterday, driving around and gazing at the brilliant oranges and reds glowing in the sunlight I realized that, contrary to what seems true when you look out my back window, the peak is not yet behind us. I’m glad I didn’t stay at home.

Clearly, you need a broader perspective to judge if a trend has peaked, or slowed down, or had a temporary setback or whatever.

There’s a circle of people that I tend to pay some attention to who are asking a similar question about a different trend. Have we passed “peak woke”? Unlike the foliage-obsessed, most of these folks are rooting not for a nay, but for a yay in answer to their question.

(What is woke, and isn’t there a better word for it?)  

Who are these people? They write or speak in the political podcasts and columns I read—a lot of them reside in Substack-istan. A lot of them tweet:

Wokeness has not peaked. Cancellation peaked because wokeness seized control of all the institutions it sought to control and drove out all dissenters, obviating the need for further cancellations as it imposes its agenda uncontested https://t.co/vnv2fyjqgs

— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) October 9, 2024

There are strong opinions. The most critical opponents of woke—especially victims of woke-driven cancellation like Mr. Yang—are more likely to be pessimistic. If identity politics seems to be less aggressive, it’s because it's work is mostly done, having succeeded in permeating civic institutions with woke values. Ibram Kendi’s star may be setting, but the Pulitzer Center’s 1619 project has gotten a very Kendi-esque message about the “foundational role” of slavery into US history curricula in all 50 states according to a five-year report the center issued last month.

Others seem to think that while a few bitter-enders (what someone referred to as “Blue MAGA”) continue to push radical (woke) identitarianism, these are “lagging indicators” and we’re mostly done with all that. 

A few examples that the great awakening is ending: some universities have stopped requiring diversity statements from job applicants. Corporations have cut back on DEI spending. Anti-woke writings issue from all directions on the political compass. Some news outlets have backed away from the woke advocacy that had seeped in to their coverage a few years ago.

The New York Times is the prime example. After some high profile cancellations during the 2020 “reckoning” (inquisition), the Times has adjusted its application of “moral clarity”  toward a more traditional version of journalistic objectivity. Hired in the wake of those fiascos, executive editor Joseph Kahn refused to capitulate to the demands issued in open letters by woke staffers who objected to coverage of transgender issues and the conflict in Israel/Palestine. The opinion page has also hired woke-critical writers like John McWhorter and Pamela Paul, also to the chagrin of some SJW staffers. Also, word usage. The Economist counted up the number of times “white privilege” appeared in the Times —2.5 per million in 2020 and just 0.4 in 2023.

Then there's the cyclical theory.  The movement is not dead, but has retreated to the shadows, as Freddie DeBoer puts it, “to reorganize itself and come up with new arguments” that will be unveiled at some point in the future. There really is no dustbin of history, it turns out, just rehab where out-of-fashion ideas go for rest and a makeover. 

But meanwhile, some of the ideas of the movement have become so deeply embedded into our cultural norms that we aren’t even aware of them. It’s like inflation. Prices have stopped rising, but they ain’t going back to what they were.

A key question about the current state of woke involves its current standing in the Democratic Party. Some would point to the triumph of Joe Biden, the least-woke candidate in 2020 and the fact that no significant Democrat ever endorsed “abolish the police.”

After the Democrat’s most cringe-worthy woke moment in 2020 when Congressional leaders took a knee and bowed their heads while wearing African Kente stoles in a moment of silence for George Floyd, the party has de-emphasized identity politics. 2024 nominee Harris hardly mentions that she would be the first female president and she’s abandoned most of her woke positions of 2020, like de-criminalizing border crossings.

But others think the Party hasn’t gone far enough. The decision to hand the nomination to Harris and her choice of the more liberal Tim Waltz over Josh Shapiro for VP are seen as signs that the Party isn’t going far enough. And Harris has renounced her woke 2020 stands, or said they were mistaken, or really offered any rationale for the change of position.

Brianna Wu recently cited a “Musicians for Kamala” YouTube event as typical of the way that “superficial identity politics” still dominate the Democrats' messaging and argued that the Party’s supposed “course correction” has been inadequate and is why Harris hasn’t pulled far ahead of the deeply unpopular Republican nominee.

Whether or not she is right about the party’s current direction, I think she is correct about the impact on Harris’s current standing in the polls. The great awokening has done perhaps irreparable damage to the Democratic Party’s ability to win elections and especially to the prospects of progressive reform within the party’s coalition.

As I was working on this essay, a Substack post from the Democratic strategist Ruy Teixeira landed in my inbox. His piece, “The Progressive Moment is Over,” diagnosed how the great progressive movement that was personified in Bernie Sanders, has been completely discredited and abandoned even by some of its most ardent supporters. 

He blamed four “terrible” progressive ideas, at least three of which can be categorized as “woke.” 

More on that soon: "Woke-the damage done."

DEI and the left critique

 

In January, Times reporter Nicholas Confessore published the results of his investigation of what he said was a concerted effort by “conservative activists” to abolish DEI on public university campuses. They had managed to get almost half the states to at least consider banning campus D.E.I. programs “even as polling has shown that diversity initiatives remain popular.”

Based on “thousands of documents obtained by The New York Times” including “casual correspondence” among “like-minded allies around the country,” full of “unvarnished views on race, sexuality and gender roles” in private emails, the report left the impression of a sinister right-wing conspiracy among racist homophobes against blameless and popular diversity programing.

After that report, Confessore decided he “needed to see D.E.I. programs up close,” so he traveled to the campus of the University of Michigan, home of a particularly extensive and longstanding DEI program.

It turns out that it’s not just far right, politically motivated conspirators who have a problem with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs.

Some excerpts from his very long piece, published Wednesday in the Times Magazine, which I assume gets into today’s print edition.

Programs across the university are couched in the distinctive jargon that, to D.E.I.’s practitioners, reflects proven practices for making classrooms more inclusive, and to its critics reveals how deeply D.E.I. is encoded with left-wing ideologies….

Some researchers argue that teaching students to view the world chiefly through the lens of identity and oppression can leave them vulnerable instead of empowered. Psychologists have questioned whether implicit bias can be accurately measured or reduced through training. The notion that microaggressions are not only real but ubiquitous in interracial encounters is widespread in D.E.I. programs; a 2021 review of the microaggressions literature, however, judged it “without adequate scientific basis.”...

Some evidence suggests that the steady expansion of D.E.I. into campus life is actually constraining student interaction across political and cultural divides. One recent analysis by the political scientist Kevin Wallsten found that the larger the D.E.I. bureaucracy at a university, the more discomfort students felt expressing their views on social media and in informal conversations with other students....

Even some liberal scholars believe D.E.I. looms too large. Amna Khalid, a historian at Carleton College in Minnesota, argues that modern D.E.I. is not, as some on the right hold, a triumph of critical theory or postcolonialism but of the corporatization of higher education, in which universities have tried to turn moral and political ideals into a system of formulas and dashboards. “They want a managerial approach to difference,” Khalid said. “They want no friction. But diversity inherently means friction.”

According to Confessore, UMich has spent a quarter of a billion dollars on DEI programs and expanding administrative positions and has had profound effects—largely negative—on campus culture and politics.

These growing bureaucracies represented a major — and profoundly left-leaning — reshuffling of campus power. Administrators were even more politically liberal than faculty members, according to one survey, and far more likely to favor racial preferences in admissions and hiring. They promulgated what Lyell Asher, a professor of English at Lewis & Clark College in Oregon, has called “an alternate curriculum,” taught not in classrooms but in dorms, disciplinary hearings and orientation programs.

Some administrators discovered that student activists could be a potent campus constituency. The former president of one top research institution recalled for me how students once came to his office with demands, presented in a kind of theatrical performance, to enhance the university’s D.E.I. program. The former president, who asked for anonymity for fear of risking his present job, later learned that some of the program’s senior staff members had worked with and encouraged the students to pressure the administration on their behalf. “That was the moment at which I understood that there was a whole part of the bureaucracy that I didn’t control,” he said.

When I read Confessore’s January piece, I knew he was leaving something out. It’s true that conservatives have used DEI and other examples of what they call the woke ideology to discredit any policy or politician they don’t like. While some of their criticism is affirmed by this new reporting, much of it is cynical and dishonest.

The more incisive, measured, and accurate criticisms of both woke ideology and diversity programs have come from the left or the center—or from non-politicized subjects of DEI programming.

For example:

* Back in June of 2020, journalist/podcaster Katie Herzog interviewed with Shannon Loys, a graphic designer who participation in DEI training at the Seattle Repertory Theater, run by none other than Robin DiAngelo, the “Patron saint of DEI.” At the end of the interview, Loys and Herzog, both progressives, concluded that the training did more harm than good. Loys said she became “more cautious” in her interactions with Black co-workers, more likely to avoid interactions rather than risk causing offense.

* Like many self-identified Marxists, Freddy De Boer, has been a frequent critic of the woke left for its focus on racial and gender identity (what fellow socialist Adolph Reed refers to as “ascriptive” categories) to the exclusion of class. His book “How Elites Ate the Social Justice Movement,” is a scathing and revealing explanation of how Woke identity politics like DEI serve the interests of elites at the expense of the truly disadvantaged. DeBoer and Reed see DEI as essentially a conservative effort to coopt progressive movements. These critiques are nothing new. Reed has been sounding the alarm for decades, and in 2001, Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn published Race Experts claiming that the race relations consultants that proceeded DEI had “hijacked the Civil Rights Revolution.”

* In 2022, Maurice Mitchell, national director of the very progressive Working Families Party, which touts him as “a nationally-recognized social movement strategist, a visionary leader in the Movement for Black Lives, and a community organizer for racial, social, and economic justice,” wrote an essay, “Building Resilient Organizations,” in which he revealed how identity politics like DEI had hampered the progressive organizations he has served in.

* Other critics from the left that come to mind at the moment include Tyler Austin Harper, Michael Powell, Jonathan Haidt, Greg Lukianoff, Yasha Mounk, Sam Harris, Matt Yglesias, Catherine Liu, the socialist magazine, Jacobin (sometimes), and Musa al-Gharbi.

And then there are very quiet critics, like those quoted in Wednesday's article, who work or study at the institutions where these programs have proliferated. One Michigan professor who had been investigated for causing offense in his class said the school has created a “gotcha culture,” in which students scrutinize their teachers’ comments for offensive words or comments and the “Bias Response Team” launches investigations based anonymous complaints, often for “offensive” or “disrespectful” word choices.

Unlike the conservative anti-woke activists or the many left-leaning critics outlined above, these mostly left-leaning folks keep reservations about diversity programs to themselves to avoid conflict or  discipline imposed by administrators whose job is to enforce DEI cultural norms.

Michigan may be an extreme example, but based on my own experience, and the research Confessore did beyond Michigan, the problems catalogued in the article seem to be typical of institutions that have introduced these programs. 

But Confessore's expose seems to be an indication that DEI and other elements of identity politics are on the wane at institutions like the Times itself.  A burning question among observers: have we passed "peak woke?" 

Also, isn't there a better word for woke?

Political socialism

"Some on the left see Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s endorsement of Mr. Biden as a betrayal of progressive values"

 A reader of this blog (yes there is one) read my “Bernie won” post (Aug. 22) and asked why Sanders has been “less prominent” of late and if I thought his supposed victory had actually made things better for American workers.

Part of my response was to say that Bernie is more of a pragmatic politician than his socialist label and his refusal to join the Democratic Party would suggest.

It would be hard to show that any of the concessions he won from Biden and that have resulted in legislation during the last four years has had a significant impact on the life of workers. And of course his “victory” doesn’t represent an ultimate triumph of socialism, but a socialist might be pleased. 

Sanders is not one of those socialists that Bernard Crick says are “grossly unrealistic, often in too much of a hurry” and often “impatient of political means.” (If you don’t know who BC is, I’ve explained it here). “Great changes can only come in stages,” Crick writes, and politically oriented socialists should pursue “short-term tactical reforms within the system to build a basis of popular confidence for advance.”

It is not selling out to work within existing institutions, contrary to what AOC’s vociferous critics (eg, like DSA) are saying about her.  Bernie Sanders did not abandon his larger goals by endorsing Biden, and now Harris, and refraining from loud criticism of the administration.

As Crick says, socialists (and you might say this about any ideologues without representation among viable political parties) can push for incremental reforms within the current system and simultaneously work on “long-term persuasion” that might “change the climate of expectation,” leading to more dramatic changes down the road. FDR’s New Deal, for example, led to a sea change in Americans’ expectations of what the government would do to assure prosperity.

Sanders seems to have nudged the Democrats away from neoliberal policies toward more worker-oriented policies or at least poses, like Biden walking on a picket line, which might change voters' expectations for future policies.

Crick’s political socialism is informed by the failure of past revolutions that failed. He concludes in his note to impatient socialists:

From a base camp established amid representative or parliamentary institutions, the time needed for the establishment of a socialist society may appear desperately long. But the built-in political necessity of socialist governments having to carry with them an enfranchised public opinion, as well as an already organized trade-union movement, guarantees that each move of the camp further and further up the mountain will be on solid ground, less likely to slip backwards or simply to get stuck… great changes can only come in stages.

---

(Crick quotes: 241, 239) 

Source of the quote under the picture: New York Times

There were a lot of unrealistic and impatient socialists after Bernie lost the 2020 Democratic nomination. 

Don't say "Woke"

Since right-wing politicos appropriated “woke” as a cudgel to bash all things left (Ron DeSantis thought he could ride to the presidency on this strategy), more thoughtful critics, many of them liberal or leftist themselves, have felt a need to apologize whenever they use the term and to acknowledge its limitations. Some have tried to come up with a better word or phrase.

After hearing Lawrence Summers, in an interview, refer to the “social-justice-proclaiming left,” I decided to start collecting these. Here is surely an incomplete list, in no particular order, along with who I think coined the term.

1. The Great Awokening. Matt Yglesias. This might be my favorite, with its historical allusion to religion.

2. Successor Ideology. Wesley Yang. It points to a world-historic intellectual paradigm replacing the Western enlightenment. Yikes!

3. Critical Social Justice. James Lindsey et al. Interested in how he and the coauthors of his book, Cynical Theories, arrived at this term? Read this. Lindsey waged a contentious social media campaign against “cynical theories”—which exposed him to the worst defenders of woke and seems to have unhinged him. He started out as a liberal but his interactions with rabid wokesters turned him into a Trump voter and got him thrown off Twitter.

4. Identity Synthesis. Yasha Mounk coined this term for his recent book, The Identity Trap, explaining the intellectual and historical roots of Woke.

5. Cultural Marxism. Chris Rufo. More below. 

6. Performative Social Justice. I’m not sure who came up with this apt term, but Bates College professor Tyler Austin Harper uses it his critique of woke from the left (it is loud but toothless and not redistributive) in an Atlantic article on campus radicalism.

7. Identitarian Moral Panic. Sam Harris. Harris also likes to add the suffix “-istan” to movements he hates: hence, Trumpistan and Wokistan.

8. Luxury Beliefs. Rob Henderson. This term covers the whole woke spectrum (and then some) that you might encounter on any college campus.

9. Third Wave Antiracism. John McWhorter. In his book Woke Racism,” the title of which could also be considered a term for woke. The book frames the phenomenon as a religion.

10. The Shadow Party. Ruy Tuxiera and John Judis, in their book Where Have all the Democrats Gone. Woke attachment undermines the Democratic Party's support. 

11. Racial Reckoning. For a while, everyone was having one of these. The Washington Post had a link to a standing Racial Reckoning page on its website for quite a while. And on June 11, 2022, the American Nurses Association Assembly, “took historic action to begin a journey of racial reckoning by unanimously voting ‘yes’ to adopt the ANA Racial Reckoning Statement.”  Why is everything a journey these days?

It would be interesting to look at the subtle and not-so-subtle differences among these terms and discuss how they reflect different critiques of the Woke Left.

I’m not doing that here, but for a revealing look at the difference between the anti-woke right and the anti-woke left, listen to this Free Press debate between Mounk and Rufo, the right’s anti-woke tribune who was whispering in Gov. DeSantis’ ear in the lead-up to his presidential run.

Rufo tried to get the world to use the term “Critical Race Theory” or CRT as a substitute for “woke” but then gender identity became more salient than race in Wokistan. More telling was “Cultural Marxism” which he used in his book, America's Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything, which tries to paint everyone left of The Donald as a woke radical aiming to destroy civilization. Mounk sees identitarians as a heretical element of the left that betrays its fundamental values and undermines its purpose.

Lies, damned lies, and politics

There’s been a lot of commentary in the press this past week about the role of lies in politics.

In his Tuesday column https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/08/opinion/helene-trump-vance-fema.html on Donald Trump’s lies about the federal response to Hurricane Helene, Jamelle Bouie wrote: “Politics is not the place for perfect honesty, but some measure of truth telling is necessary to the project of collective self-government.”

We all know that politicians bend the truth in making their case. Joe Biden and Tim Waltz, to name two prominent examples on the other side of the isle, have gotten caught in some whoppers.

If lying is an unavoidable part of politics, where is the line between what Bouie refers to as “some measure of truth” and lying that could destroy “collective self-government.”

It's a question that has become particularly urgent this hurricane season as Trump-flavored politicians circulate lies as brazen as Margorie Taylor Greene’s suggestion that the government is somehow causing catastrophic weather events.

Bouie vaguely suggests the line between acceptable and unacceptable lying is whether politicos “strive for some correspondence to reality when they make their case to the public.”

You-tuber Vlad Vexler is more precise. He defines the unacceptable liars as “post-truth populists” who “have consciously given up on trying to make their lies internally consistent,” so that it becomes impossible to tell the difference between truth and lies.” Their goal, he argues, is to destroy faith in institutions and politics itself and to foster the feeling that leaders “prioritize others over you.”

Vexler said this before Trump started claiming that FEMA disaster relief money was being channeled to illegal immigrants.

Where Bouie argues that brazen lies are anti-democratic, Vexler suggests instead that they are anti-political. They lead citizens to believe that “there is nothing you can do to inflect the political process.”

I think that’s a better explanation.

Bouie writes that without access to the truth, we can’t perform what he says is an essential part of democracy : reasoning and deliberating with fellow citizens.

In his book, In Defence of Politics, Bernard Crick separates democracy from politics, and the book includes a chapter with the title “A Defence of Politics Against Democracy.”

The democratic concept of “sovereignty of the people”—the right of “the people to choose the government they want”—suggests that in democracy, the people get their way.   In theory, “all power is supposed to stem from an undivided and indivisible ‘people,’” Crick writes.

But another essential concept of democracy—“majority rule”—means that minorities—the losers in elections—do not get their way.

“Sovereignty of the people” doesn’t address Crick’s incisive question: “which people?” (Crick, 59-60).

A key feature of populism is to define “The people” against an enemy. Trump has referred to journalists as “enemies of the people”; Bernie Sanders’ to “billionaires.” Enemies like that must be suppressed, populists say, but Crick defines politics as “the activity by which differing interests within a given territory are conciliated,” not suppressed.

But if democracy is elevated over politics, democracy is at risk. Tocqueville spoke of "democratic despotism" and worried that if ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority."

Hannah Arendt, a survivor of totalitarianism, was quoted in my local newspaper last week on how the destruction of politics in a democratic system leads to authoritarian government: “Keeping listeners constantly trying to defend what is real from what is not destroys their ability to make sense of the world. Many people turn to a strong man who promises to create order. Others will get so exhausted they simply give up.” Established authoritarian dictatorships, Anne Applebaum wrote in the June Atlantic, suppress citizens yearning for democracy not by discrediting the notions of popular sovereignty or majority rule, but by promoting apathy and cynicism about the potential of political action to create a better world. “Their goal is to persuade people to stay out of politics.”

---

Leftovers

Hannah Arendt was quoted by Lynn Wurzburg of St. J. Oct. 9, 2024, Caledonian Record Crick talks about the problem of sovereignty on pp. 59-60 of Defence of Politics. Danielle Allen also confronts this problem in her book on citizenship, which I wrote about elsewhere on this blog:

One of the most important lessons students need to learn to become democratic citizens is that in spite of the individual freedom and sovereignty that democracies promise their citizens, we don’t always get our way even in a well-functioning democracy and are often asked to sacrifice our personal preferences and interests for the good of the whole, the survival of democracy, and the maintenance of peace. When our candidate loses the election, when we are drafted and sent into battle, and when policies favored by the majority disadvantage us or go against what we think is good, we are sacrificing something. https://www.billjordan.net/2022/08/teaching-citizenship-in-polarized.html

Thoughts on artificial intelligence

AI: The end of thinking?

I’ve been in denial about Artificial Intelligence since I dipped into a book on the subject about 10 years ago. In The Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future (2015) an AI company executive predicted that in 15 years 90 percent of news articles would be “written algorithmically” (85). The book also included an algorithmically written article that made the claim seem plausible.

I put the book down and tried not to think about it. Then, last year (or so), Open AI launched Chat GPT and suddenly everybody was either using or talking about artificial intelligence and quite a lot of students were using it to write papers. 

For five decades I’ve made my living in large part by writing or teaching writing, and now technology was coming for my job.

In the short term, while I still had employment, I would have to pay attention to the AI monster, since even my students might be tempted to turn in AI-written work. All this makes me wish I could sign up for a modern-day Luddite movement—the 19th-century British textile workers who broke up the mechanical looms that were eliminating their jobs. The closest I could come to vandalizing the AI machinery was to issue this statement to my students:

YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO USE CHAT-GPT, BARD OR ANY OTHER ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE DEVICE IN THE PRODUCTION OF WORK FOR THIS CLASS.

And I wrote it all caps!

I also started assigning more in-class writing assessments; but truly, I’ve mostly remained in denial. Unlike some of my younger colleagues, I never actually tried using AI myself.

Until this summer, when AI imposed itself on me via my Google Pixel phone.

On a Sunday in August I received this text in my message app:

Hi, I’m Gemini in Google Messages. Chat with me to draft messages, brainstorm ideas, plan events or simply have a fun conversation.”

Right. “Fun conversation” … with a machine. Eventually, though, I couldn’t resist.

My first conversation involved finding employment for my artsy daughter and it turned up some websites that list jobs in her field. My next question was more whimsical: “What’s the point of remembering dreams, anyway?” I got a paragraph on each of four points: Emotional processing; problem solving; personal growth; inspiration. Essentially it was a summary of what you’d get in an internet search but it saved a lot of time. It took one second instead of maybe a half hour.

Google has inserted Gemini into my internet search results as well. A few weeks later a Google search for a famous comment by Karl Marx about the nature of work in the communist utopia came up with the quote (“hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon,” etc.) along with a brief commentary by Gemini at the top of the results.

Later I called up the Gemini app on my laptop for the first time and asked: “How would this quote apply to the life of a retired person?” The first response wasn’t helpful, but after a few follow-up questions I got another good summary of the sorts of things you get when you watch You Tubers give advice to retirees (feel free to skip this if you aren’t worried about how you’ll spend your retirement):

1. Embrace Diversity of Interests: Just as Marx envisioned a society where individuals could engage in various activities, you can strive to explore different interests and hobbies. This can enrich your life and prevent boredom.

2. Challenge Societal Expectations: Don't feel pressured to conform to societal expectations about how retirees should spend their time. If you have a passion for something unconventional, pursue it.

3. Build Strong Relationships: While Marx focused on economic structures, strong relationships are crucial for a fulfilling life. Invest time in building and maintaining connections with family, friends, and community members.

4. Give Back: Consider ways to contribute to your community or society. Volunteering can provide a sense of purpose and connection.

5. Learn Continuously: Just as Marx believed in intellectual growth, you can continue learning throughout your retirement. Take classes, read books, or explore new subjects. 6. Prioritize Health: A healthy lifestyle is essential for enjoying retirement. Make time for exercise, proper nutrition, and adequate rest.

7. Find Meaningful Work: Even if you're retired from a traditional job, consider finding meaningful work or projects that align with your values. This can provide a sense of purpose and fulfillment.

Remember, while Marx's quote is a powerful ideal, it's important to be realistic about the constraints and opportunities you face in your own life. By embracing a diverse range of activities, building strong relationships, and finding meaning in your retirement, you can strive for a fulfilling and enriching experience.

Having watched probably hours of YouTube videos about retirement, I recognized most of this as the standard advice. And I also noticed that it took five minutes instead of hours to get Gemini to get me this information.

I had to wonder: why anyone would ever again bother to do the kind of writing that makes up 90 percent of our work-related writing tasks—mundane reports, cover letters, grant applications, teacher comment slips, summaries of things.

Productivity growth has slowed in the US in the last few years, from 3% annually to 1.5%. I can’t imagine that AI won’t be incorporated into just about every industry to boost productivity—just like mechanical looms did in the 19th century. As bad as it was for the Luddites, it was good for wearers of clothing, a larger group than the weavers.

As much as I sympathize with the Luddites, I’m afraid we can no longer just simply ban artificial intelligence from the classroom. Instead of a policy that bans it altogether we will have to come up with ways to help our students learn how to use this tool they’ll inevitably need to use in the workplace of their future.

So is it pointless for a teacher to ban AI and to spend so much time teaching students to write, rather than teaching them how to use AI to write everything?

I do think my total ban no longer makes sense. We don’t tell students they can’t use spellcheck or software like Noodle-tools or Zotero that automatically produce citations.

We’ll have to figure out how to integrate AI into our teaching—probably in every discipline. I agree with writer Stephen Marche, who said, “The transition will be a humongous pain for people who teach students how to make sense with words.”

But I hope Marche is wrong when he predicts the end of the undergraduate essay.

I’ve had no problem with my students using auto-citation software, but if they’ve never had to write footnotes and bibliographies manually, they don’t know how to notice when auto-cite messes up, as it often does.

Similarly, I imagine that you won’t be able to get the best results from AI-written essays without having some experience writing yourself.

The process of writing also facilitates the thinking process. I often don’t know just what I think on a particular topic until I’ve gone through the difficult process of writing about it (it's why I keep a blog). In-class writing assignments aren’t a good substitute for take-home writing where students have the time to reflect and think and revise and rethink. 

Last spring I attended a few different congressional hearing on AI. Democrats on the committees were generally more concerned about mitigating the harms by imposing regulations while the Republicans were more worried about the US falling behind other countries, and opposed government regulation that might slow down research and development. 

I think my first impulse was to adopt a Democratic Party approach, with my ban on the use of AI in my classes, but the Republicans have a point, and I don't want my students to fall behind in their ability to use a ubiquitous tool.  I’m at a loss as to how to balance these two concerns in my teaching, but more tech-savvy (and probably younger) teachers seem confident it can be done. 

Marche talks about assigning less formulaic prompts on “established problems,” because that’s all that AI is able to handle (for now!), and said that AI will end up being to writing what the microwave oven was to cooking—just another tool. I didn’t find his optimism all that convincing but like anything, it will take a lot of trial and error and probably a matter of years not weeks to work out satisfactory solutions.

---

Note: I got the stats on productivity from this Bookings Institute article.

We should all LOVE politics

Last spring, I gave students in our Washington Internship Program an excerpt from Bernard Crick’s insightful book, In Defense of Politics. Crick defines politics as “that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion, and chooses it as an effective way by which varying interests can discover that level of compromise best suited to their common interest in survival” (30). In diverse societies with conflicting interests, it is the alternative to authoritarian or totalitarian systems, which aim to eliminate or suppress interests that conflict with the interests of those in power. 

More simply put, it is government that relies on conciliation rather than coercion.

What I love about Crick's book is how he identifies “anti-politics,” behaviors and ideas that undermine conciliation, compromise and peaceful coexistence among diverse people.  We've got a lot of anti-politics in the US today.  

As I read the book I came to see anti-politics in "We are the 99%" populism of Occupy Wall Street; MAGA populism of Jan. 6; parent teaching their children to fear strangers; librarians who purge their collections of political views they oppose; schools and universities that don't train their students to talk to each other across difference and foster political mono cultures; media outlets that cater to their audiences' biases ("audience capture" if you prefer); members of Congress who denigrate compromise; moralism, virtue signaling, cancel culture and other features of the culture war.

To elaborate on one example, cancel culture moralism is a form of anti-politics that is performed by well-intentioned progressives but makes progressive reform less likely to be achieved. Lisa Featherstone explained the problem well in the socialist periodical, Jacobin. The feminist argument that “the personal is political,” she writes, has been changed to “the political is personal.”

As an idea, “the personal is political” helped women to understand that an abusive boyfriend or a sex-pest boss was neither their own fault nor their problem to bear alone, but rather a political problem with political solutions. But the notion that the political is personal does the reverse. It takes our political impulse, or desire to analyze the world in political terms and change it, and turns it inward.

In a world where the political is personal, it becomes important to perform your essential political goodness. Put an “In This House, We Believe” sign on your lawn. Kick off that corporate board meeting with a land acknowledgement. These may sound harmless, but the corollary to all this individual goodness is the hunt for badness. When the political is personal, we must work to identify those individuals who embody everything that is politically bad—perhaps someone who has made a bad tweet—and punish them as such (Winter 2022, p. 94).

I asked my students to reflect on how Crick’s conceptions of politics and anti-politics informed their work in congressional offices and/or their understanding of current events.

Leo, who follows European politics more closely than most Americans connected Crick’s ideas to Giorgia Meloni, Italy’s right-wing prime minister.

When looking at her example, it's easier to see the value of an adept politician and the folly of following an “outsider” like Trump or Obama. Neither were able to build consensus, indeed both of them created deep divisions within the country. Obama with the “Obama Coalition” and the rise of identity politics, and Trump with his harsh rhetoric. Neither was able to achieve any major bipartisan accomplishment. In fact, Joe Biden is arguably the first President since Clinton to pass a major bipartisan piece of legislation. Senator [Thom] Tillis [R, NC], for instance, was an important backer of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Acts.

Brenda connected her experience on the Hill to Crick’s writings and another piece we’d read, about 1990s House Speaker Newt Gingrich, “The Man Who Broke Politics.” Among other changes, Gingrich shortened the House work week to just three days:

It’s necessary not just for politicians but for voters to engage in discussions across the aisle, no matter how much our instinct tells us we hate the other party.

Now, politicians are flying back to their district on a Thursday afternoon, with no incentive to talk to lawmakers on the other side. Thus, we've seen intense polarization that limits bipartisanship and the work of Congress. We begin to believe all Democrats are lazy and dishonest, and that all Republicans are close-minded.

Clara saw first hand how compromise is essential in governing. Her comment reflects the experience of many of my interns who tend to arrive in DC with more of a campaigning mindset but leave with an appreciation for the importance of deliberation, conciliation and compromise in governing.

Rep. [Salud] Carbajal [D-CA] is more of a moderate Democrat than I had hoped to work for way back in November. Yet I’ve found that interning for him has opened my mind to more viewpoints and the value of compromise than ever before. The office keeps track of whether the bills he cosponsors are bipartisan, a number now hovering at 64%. I found myself feeling proud when that number rises. In the least productive Congress of all time, it is of the utmost importance to make concessions within each bill. Is it worse to pass an imperfect bill, or nothing at all?

Clara may have had in mind the very weak Civil Rights Act of 1957, which she’d read about in Robert Caro’s book, Master of the Senate. Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson agreed to so many compromises to get it past the segregationist Southern senators that many liberal supporters of Civil Rights were inclined to vote against it. Johnson, according to Caro, won the liberals over by arguing that if they passed “one civil rights bill, no matter how weak … others would follow.” Also, “Once a bill was passed it could be amended: altering something was a lot easier than creating it” (893).

Perhaps Johnson was thinking of the Social Security Act of 1935, which excluded agricultural and domestic workers, thus excluding 65 percent of Black workers in deference to the Southern segregationist bloc. By 1957 the act had been amended six times with more to follow, and the 1950 amendment extended coverage to farm and domestic workers.