It's significant that DEI is the acronym of the "WOKE." If we rearrange the letters, and add one, we get an entirely different effect. In the words of Steve Jobs, maybe we ought to, "think different."
I propose to go for a RIDE:
We start with RESPECT. Respect is the precondition of this RIDE. All humans should start out respecting one another and assuming that they will receive respect in return. Respect that we can have different backgrounds, different histories, different values, but if we can't value each other, we can't share values with each other. Respect means that your preferences are not my obligation. My preferences are not your obligation. We are empowered by our nature to agree without obligation or part ways without incident. This the roadmap to a voluntary society.
INCLUSION is the first milestone on the RIDE. Inclusion means we include whoever wants to be included up to the limit of the venue, conversation, etc. Glenn is the owner of this Substack and I respect his right to agree, disagree or ignore this comment. I don't expect insincere sentiments of any kind.
DIVERSITY is the second milestone on the RIDE. Diversity means that we will have disagreement. Not that we may have disagreements, but that we will disagree sooner or later. Diversity means that we will have disagreements based on the facts of the reality of our backgrounds and values. There is no doubt that we will have disagreements, and that's what is one of the greatest joys of being human: earnest discussion of important topics and perhaps reaching a meeting of the minds -- not by clubbing, threatening or shaming one's colleague, but by revelation of common ground through precise thinking on all our parts where we can stand proudly together.
EQUITY is the goal, the destination, the result of the RIDE. Equity means that we will find the common ground and build our understanding together. We will shake hands warmly, and part as adults. If two people cannot reach an agreement without calling names, threatening, shaming or actual violence, it is the reality of humans that we each have free will. The exercise of responsible judgement does not guarantee agreement, in the same way that the launch of a rocket does not guarantee that the rocket will get to the moon, or the submersible will find the Titanic and return safely.
Reality does not care. What makes us human is that WE care more about getting things right, than being the one who points the way, or keeping others from coming up to a level that can inspire us all.
Everything else is noise. Would you take this RIDE as an improvement on DEI?
On “Linguistics Doesn’t Like Me” - neither was Galileo liked by the Physics Bosses - aka, the Catholic Church. I predict that in the not-so-distant future, “Cancelation”, “Being fired for heresy” and “Witch” will be written in bold text at the top of resumes.
As for the cloud’s silver lining- McWhorter’s contemporaries have given him a gift, as have mine. Laziness or mental atrophy can characterize social comfort. But, adversity can force one to explore and discover. The legendary story of the normal person lifting a heavy object to rescue a trapped individual after earthquake, has an intellectual counterpart. My greatest achievements in my field have occurred since January 2019 and especially since retirement.
At best you are decent well meaning gentlemen but misguided that because you overcame the obstacles of racism that anyone unable to overcome said obstacles or any consideration by the "woke" for them is worthy of derision. At worst you trot out one thoroughly miserable individual after another like Goldblatt and Finkelstein and it is very difficult to take you seriously when you invariably disavow any embrace of those views.
Any side which has abandoned intellectual argument will almost invariably resort to violence, literal or figurative, before abandoning their position as incorrect. Progressives are there now; they have no argument.
Woke is societal decay and this is a good example.
Several years ago I guess at this point when I stumbled across lexicon valley and I was immediately enthralled.
John has such a mastery of the field and is so adept at bringing all of that into focus for everyone, this type of stance is walking backwards.
The sad thing these people will never grow up, they won't reach that stage and think, hmm, was I wrong? They will continue to reinforce internally and repel externally just like a cult.
You may as well stand up and shout, "your God is not real". Thats how they are responding to you. If this is where academia is going or has been going, then its gone.
Sooooo frustrating, John! For the record, I work with high schoolers and one of my (Bay Area!) seniors told me he loves Lexicon Valley, so there's still hope for the next generation!
That truly is sad. I probably disagree with John on a lot of matters. But what does any of that have to do with his credentials as a linguist? And even I (as a complete non-linguist) am aware of his reputation -- to be recently rejected by his own field.... is truly broken.
I received a Ph.D. In Linguistics from Stanford in 1974, when things were very different (I.e., normal). My profs, for the most part, thought logically, and some were very smart, indeed. Chomsky was big in those days, and was practically worshipped by some of my colleagues. Transformational-generative grammar spawned a whole slew of acolytes who spent their time doing node raising and other similar stuff. I got into psycholinguistics, which at least dealt with real phenomena, rather than the brain-scratching of theoretical linguistics; I conducted some useful studies, and found my niche outside of theory. I did not stay in academic linguistics, although I remained a member of the LSA for a while.
I later came to the conclusion that Chomsky believed his own hype—that he was a genius and had a particular understanding of everything because of his superlative intelligence. (I thought in some ways he was a snake-oil salesman.) When he got into Middle East matters, I was done with him. I still loved linguistics, however, and have enjoyed everything John McWhorter has had to say. I’ve also learned a lot.
Woke-ism is chewing away at all areas of scholarship, destroying professional lives, squelching freedom of speech, turning students into idiots. I can only hope that I live long enough to see it die.
I am very, very, sorry to hear that both of you are paying a price for speaking your minds. Thank you for all the ideas and thoughts you have put forth these last few years. I am learning from both of you and plan to continue being challenged by your thinking. Thank you for shedding light and raising questions and doubts on such highly charged subjects. I wish you both the very best.
When I started my Substack in February, I had to make the decision whether to stand up for what I perceive as being right in the face of Wokeism, or err on the side of caution and not risk crashing my film career. When I took stock of it, the reality was that I'm a filmmaker who lives in Los Angeles, but I'm not actually part of the Hollywood system; I've mostly worked abroad my entire career. There's not that much at stake, and I really should be focusing on being a "real" writer, anyway.
The first phase of the newsletter — deconstructing Wokeism in four parts — is complete. What I've noticed is that while friends and colleagues don't support me in public even though I know they share my views, they don't penalize me by unfriending, unsubscribing, or distancing themselves socially, either.
I think most people in my circle can see just how OTT all of it is, that this version of inverted McCarthyism is in many ways far worse than the original. They're just waiting for it all to blow over. But it can't blow over unless the Quixotic few like us get out there and tilt at those windmills, or very real dragons, as the case may be.
I know exactly how lonely and disrespected it can feel. I thank Darwin for a balancing, encouraging therapist after every session.
I think bullies have existed since the beginning of time and so what is happening to you is horrible but not unusual. You are in the company of other greats throughout history that stood for truth. Your courage may eventually result in encouraging others to stand up.
In some parts of academia, researchers are rewarded for reproducing data that supports a given dominant theory. This happens even the sciences. If you are researching dementia and you propose a project that counters the amyloid theory, funding will be hard to find. Similarly, if you suggest lipids are not the key to solving atherosclerosis, finding research report is hard to find.
John is in unfortunate position. Nikole Hannah-Jones, on the other hand benefited from the backlash received after publishing the 1619 Project. Despite receiving a major grant, Jones could not join the faculty at UNC. The opposition came mostly from Conservative politicians and businessmen. The relentless attack led to Jones gaining support from the Black community. She has a professorship and a documentary on Hulu. John is unlucky enough not to have a large enough support base.
While many on the Right will howl about Jones getting preferential treatment, it should be pointed out that Black historians have published papers addressing errors in the 1619 Project. In classes that include the 1619, the corrective disinfectant is applied in the light of day. It should also be noted that Conservatives who whine about 1619 have no problem watching Fox News, a network that has admitted to lying.
A classic far left tactic. Don't go after the academic accomplishments but go after the opinions. Truly sad State of Affairs our colleges are in these days.
John, I suspect if your colleagues could refute your positions with empirical argument, they'd likely do so. If the best they can muster is passive-aggression, then I think you having shut up a group of linguists says all there is about the validity of your position. Many people conform their beliefs in order to be popular or out of self-interest, which is intellectual corruption. Live for their boos, John!
You are right to express your disappointment with your so called progressive colleagues. I only hope some of this woke craziness sees the light of reason someday soon. Stick to your beliefs. You have lots of supporters.
It's significant that DEI is the acronym of the "WOKE." If we rearrange the letters, and add one, we get an entirely different effect. In the words of Steve Jobs, maybe we ought to, "think different."
I propose to go for a RIDE:
We start with RESPECT. Respect is the precondition of this RIDE. All humans should start out respecting one another and assuming that they will receive respect in return. Respect that we can have different backgrounds, different histories, different values, but if we can't value each other, we can't share values with each other. Respect means that your preferences are not my obligation. My preferences are not your obligation. We are empowered by our nature to agree without obligation or part ways without incident. This the roadmap to a voluntary society.
INCLUSION is the first milestone on the RIDE. Inclusion means we include whoever wants to be included up to the limit of the venue, conversation, etc. Glenn is the owner of this Substack and I respect his right to agree, disagree or ignore this comment. I don't expect insincere sentiments of any kind.
DIVERSITY is the second milestone on the RIDE. Diversity means that we will have disagreement. Not that we may have disagreements, but that we will disagree sooner or later. Diversity means that we will have disagreements based on the facts of the reality of our backgrounds and values. There is no doubt that we will have disagreements, and that's what is one of the greatest joys of being human: earnest discussion of important topics and perhaps reaching a meeting of the minds -- not by clubbing, threatening or shaming one's colleague, but by revelation of common ground through precise thinking on all our parts where we can stand proudly together.
EQUITY is the goal, the destination, the result of the RIDE. Equity means that we will find the common ground and build our understanding together. We will shake hands warmly, and part as adults. If two people cannot reach an agreement without calling names, threatening, shaming or actual violence, it is the reality of humans that we each have free will. The exercise of responsible judgement does not guarantee agreement, in the same way that the launch of a rocket does not guarantee that the rocket will get to the moon, or the submersible will find the Titanic and return safely.
Reality does not care. What makes us human is that WE care more about getting things right, than being the one who points the way, or keeping others from coming up to a level that can inspire us all.
Everything else is noise. Would you take this RIDE as an improvement on DEI?
On “Linguistics Doesn’t Like Me” - neither was Galileo liked by the Physics Bosses - aka, the Catholic Church. I predict that in the not-so-distant future, “Cancelation”, “Being fired for heresy” and “Witch” will be written in bold text at the top of resumes.
As for the cloud’s silver lining- McWhorter’s contemporaries have given him a gift, as have mine. Laziness or mental atrophy can characterize social comfort. But, adversity can force one to explore and discover. The legendary story of the normal person lifting a heavy object to rescue a trapped individual after earthquake, has an intellectual counterpart. My greatest achievements in my field have occurred since January 2019 and especially since retirement.
At best you are decent well meaning gentlemen but misguided that because you overcame the obstacles of racism that anyone unable to overcome said obstacles or any consideration by the "woke" for them is worthy of derision. At worst you trot out one thoroughly miserable individual after another like Goldblatt and Finkelstein and it is very difficult to take you seriously when you invariably disavow any embrace of those views.
Any side which has abandoned intellectual argument will almost invariably resort to violence, literal or figurative, before abandoning their position as incorrect. Progressives are there now; they have no argument.
Woke is societal decay and this is a good example.
Several years ago I guess at this point when I stumbled across lexicon valley and I was immediately enthralled.
John has such a mastery of the field and is so adept at bringing all of that into focus for everyone, this type of stance is walking backwards.
The sad thing these people will never grow up, they won't reach that stage and think, hmm, was I wrong? They will continue to reinforce internally and repel externally just like a cult.
You may as well stand up and shout, "your God is not real". Thats how they are responding to you. If this is where academia is going or has been going, then its gone.
Sooooo frustrating, John! For the record, I work with high schoolers and one of my (Bay Area!) seniors told me he loves Lexicon Valley, so there's still hope for the next generation!
That truly is sad. I probably disagree with John on a lot of matters. But what does any of that have to do with his credentials as a linguist? And even I (as a complete non-linguist) am aware of his reputation -- to be recently rejected by his own field.... is truly broken.
This is terrible. People are not allowed to have differences of opinion? John keep up your good work this is a new religion you have spoken about.
I’m so sorry this is happening to you.
I received a Ph.D. In Linguistics from Stanford in 1974, when things were very different (I.e., normal). My profs, for the most part, thought logically, and some were very smart, indeed. Chomsky was big in those days, and was practically worshipped by some of my colleagues. Transformational-generative grammar spawned a whole slew of acolytes who spent their time doing node raising and other similar stuff. I got into psycholinguistics, which at least dealt with real phenomena, rather than the brain-scratching of theoretical linguistics; I conducted some useful studies, and found my niche outside of theory. I did not stay in academic linguistics, although I remained a member of the LSA for a while.
I later came to the conclusion that Chomsky believed his own hype—that he was a genius and had a particular understanding of everything because of his superlative intelligence. (I thought in some ways he was a snake-oil salesman.) When he got into Middle East matters, I was done with him. I still loved linguistics, however, and have enjoyed everything John McWhorter has had to say. I’ve also learned a lot.
Woke-ism is chewing away at all areas of scholarship, destroying professional lives, squelching freedom of speech, turning students into idiots. I can only hope that I live long enough to see it die.
I am very, very, sorry to hear that both of you are paying a price for speaking your minds. Thank you for all the ideas and thoughts you have put forth these last few years. I am learning from both of you and plan to continue being challenged by your thinking. Thank you for shedding light and raising questions and doubts on such highly charged subjects. I wish you both the very best.
When I started my Substack in February, I had to make the decision whether to stand up for what I perceive as being right in the face of Wokeism, or err on the side of caution and not risk crashing my film career. When I took stock of it, the reality was that I'm a filmmaker who lives in Los Angeles, but I'm not actually part of the Hollywood system; I've mostly worked abroad my entire career. There's not that much at stake, and I really should be focusing on being a "real" writer, anyway.
The first phase of the newsletter — deconstructing Wokeism in four parts — is complete. What I've noticed is that while friends and colleagues don't support me in public even though I know they share my views, they don't penalize me by unfriending, unsubscribing, or distancing themselves socially, either.
I think most people in my circle can see just how OTT all of it is, that this version of inverted McCarthyism is in many ways far worse than the original. They're just waiting for it all to blow over. But it can't blow over unless the Quixotic few like us get out there and tilt at those windmills, or very real dragons, as the case may be.
I know exactly how lonely and disrespected it can feel. I thank Darwin for a balancing, encouraging therapist after every session.
I think bullies have existed since the beginning of time and so what is happening to you is horrible but not unusual. You are in the company of other greats throughout history that stood for truth. Your courage may eventually result in encouraging others to stand up.
In some parts of academia, researchers are rewarded for reproducing data that supports a given dominant theory. This happens even the sciences. If you are researching dementia and you propose a project that counters the amyloid theory, funding will be hard to find. Similarly, if you suggest lipids are not the key to solving atherosclerosis, finding research report is hard to find.
John is in unfortunate position. Nikole Hannah-Jones, on the other hand benefited from the backlash received after publishing the 1619 Project. Despite receiving a major grant, Jones could not join the faculty at UNC. The opposition came mostly from Conservative politicians and businessmen. The relentless attack led to Jones gaining support from the Black community. She has a professorship and a documentary on Hulu. John is unlucky enough not to have a large enough support base.
While many on the Right will howl about Jones getting preferential treatment, it should be pointed out that Black historians have published papers addressing errors in the 1619 Project. In classes that include the 1619, the corrective disinfectant is applied in the light of day. It should also be noted that Conservatives who whine about 1619 have no problem watching Fox News, a network that has admitted to lying.
Sorry to hear about John’s situation.
A classic far left tactic. Don't go after the academic accomplishments but go after the opinions. Truly sad State of Affairs our colleges are in these days.
John, I suspect if your colleagues could refute your positions with empirical argument, they'd likely do so. If the best they can muster is passive-aggression, then I think you having shut up a group of linguists says all there is about the validity of your position. Many people conform their beliefs in order to be popular or out of self-interest, which is intellectual corruption. Live for their boos, John!
You are right to express your disappointment with your so called progressive colleagues. I only hope some of this woke craziness sees the light of reason someday soon. Stick to your beliefs. You have lots of supporters.