More from our inbox:
To the Editor:
“This Is How Wokeness Ends” (column, May 14) puzzles me because David Brooks seems to be bothered more by the intellectual excesses of wokeness proponents than the reason that wokeness is necessary.
Making things right in society is particularly the moral responsibility of those who are privileged and wish to live in a more just society. I would go for the intellectual excesses of the “woke” any day if that brings about a more just America.
Michael Granger
Glencoe, Ill.
To the Editor:
“Woke” is a term originally used by Black activists. A sixth-grade English teacher would admonish it as bad grammar, much like other forms of “Black English.” That’s the point. I doubt that the Black activists intended for the term to spread much outside their community.
So it’s puzzling to see “woke” so quickly evolve to describe intellectuals talking down to others. The seemingly bad grammar is supposed to emphasize that the term comes from the streets, not the ivory tower.
It’s downright offensive for this term to become a pejorative used by some conservatives. The Black organizers who used “woke” before it became an insult won’t be ashamed or intimidated, but instead empowered and emboldened.
Loren Taylor
Chicago
The writer is a co-founder of AwokeNet.com, a website about social justice organizations and the work they do.
To the Editor:
I agree with David Brooks in large part, but I’m sorry he doesn’t explicitly address how Republicans and conservatives so often cry “wokeness” or “political correctness” or “cancel culture” when people simply disagree with them.
William Horwitz
Briarcliff Manor, N.Y.
To the Editor:
David Brooks is troubled by some words he regards as “woke.” On the contrary, these are useful analytical concepts.
“Heteronormativity” draws our attention to our cultural assumption that everyone is heterosexual. “Cisgender” refers to people who experience their biological sex and gender identity as compatible. “Intersectionality” means that race, class and gender are interconnected phenomena.
These concepts are not that complex, not that radical and not evidence of discourse performance.
Kersti Yllö
Providence, R.I.
The writer is professor emerita of sociology at Wheaton College.
To the Editor:
Much of what David Brooks wrote resonated with me, because the early phases of wokeness are much like the early phases of its predecessor, the P.C. culture. Both the far right and far left employ a culture of purging anyone guilty of apostasy. Regardless, tyranny from either the left or the right is still tyranny.
My concern, however, is that our culture is out of balance. We are very good at creating wealth and power, but not good at all at helping those in need.
Success is a two-sided coin: “To whom much is given, much will be required” (Luke 12:48).
To not spend the second half of the coin is to waste the opportunity you were given.
Bruce Higgins
San Diego
To the Editor:
Before David Brooks repeats assessments of the Unitarian church as “broadly admired but commanding only a modicum of passion and commitment,” he should read some history about it.
Unitarians were leaders in the abolitionist movement against slavery, as well as the movement for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s. We continue to lead on issues of social conscience in many areas — from economic justice to L.G.B.T.Q. rights to Black Lives Matter.
Our faith punches above its weight. Four U.S. presidents were Unitarian, and Barack Obama attended Unitarian Sunday school.
Despite Mr. Brooks’s misimpression, Unitarians will continue to lead with “passion and commitment” to have real impact for good in the world.
Eric W. Orts
Philadelphia
The writer is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and a worship associate at the First Unitarian Church of Philadelphia.
To the Editor:
In his anti-wokeness column, David Brooks cited “absurdities” like a guide to inclusive teaching for math instructors and mockingly quoted its critique of standards like “getting the ‘right’ answer.”
Fortunately, the editorial included a link to the guide in question. The full quote questions the emphasis on correct answers over “understanding concepts and reasoning,” which would be a valid point for any kind of teaching. Cherry-picking this quote and presenting it out of context is a disservice to the educators who prepared this guide to help overcome longstanding inequities in math education.
As a university administrator who works in faculty development, I would say that this is one of the most effective texts I’ve seen on anti-racist pedagogy, and I encourage all readers to examine it themselves.
Tom Schrand
Philadelphia
The writer is associate dean for general education and a professor of history at Thomas Jefferson University.
To the Editor:
I am normally a fan of David Brooks. But in this column he asserts that the use of such words as patriarchal, cisgender and intersectional are simply the privileged elite engaging in “savage word wars among the highly advantaged.”
This is the grousing of someone who is the direct beneficiary of a patriarchal world in which cisgender men can “other” and placidly ignore transgender women like me and what we endure on a daily basis.
Chloe Schwenke
Silver Spring, Md.
A White Power Hand Gesture on ‘Jeopardy!’?
To the Editor:
“I’ll Take ‘Hand Gestures of QAnon’ for $1,000,” by Ben Smith (The Media Equation, May 17), was the first I’ve heard of the controversy over a “Jeopardy” contestant’s hand gesture. I’m not a big fan of the social media lynch mob or jumping to emotional yet uninformed conclusions, but I was as surprised by Mr. Smith’s certainty as he was of the accusers’.
In my experience, when one counts to three with fingers, it goes pointer, middle, ring finger. Kelly Donahue used his pointer to signal his first win, his pointer and middle finger for the second, but his middle, ring and pinkie to signal the third? Where’d his pointer go? Seemingly its tip was touching the tip of his thumb, the way most people make an OK sign.
I’ve never seen anyone count to three that way, but where I have seen that hybrid gesture before? I remember! In The New York Times! In a 2019 article titled “Supremacists Have Seized the OK Sign as Their Own.”
I don’t know Mr. Donahue’s true intention, but is it as irrational as Mr. Smith thinks it is to believe that he may have in fact intentionally used a white supremacist hand gesture to signal his third win? I sure hope he didn’t, but how can anyone really be so certain about another person’s intention?
Eric Zohn
New York
To the Editor:
As a liberal who tends to believe the worst of Trump supporters, I found Ben Smith’s article on the social media storm over a “Jeopardy” contestant’s innocent gesture — which some viewed as a white power symbol — both hilarious and sobering. My favorite part was Mr. Smith’s insistence that these are smart, nice people who respect facts — none of which immunized them against social media.
I see wild conspiracy theories as belonging to “them.” Apparently, they belong to “us” as well.
Carol Taylor
Black Mountain, N.C.
"many" - Google News
May 25, 2021 at 05:58AM
https://ift.tt/3ffkKBB
Opinion | The Many Facets of Wokeness - The New York Times
"many" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2OYUfnl
https://ift.tt/3f9EULr
No comments:
Post a Comment