Nomenclature Unlimited

Some while back I read a comment by some smart-ass (I kinda like smart-asses, the world holds too few of them these days) which attempted to define the meaning of the word ‘woke’. I sympathize with this effort because ‘woke’ is one of those words I dislike using. That is to say, while I agree that there is a way of thinking out there, adhered to by many people, that it would be good to be able to give a name, that particular word does not seem to describe it at all well. The problem is that it is a single word, and no single word can describe anything as complex as a way of thinking, so the whole endeavour is kind of futile.

Yet, it is often convenient to have a shorthand for something like a way of thinking, and it need not be entirely misleading. We might describe someone as a ‘Marxist’ for example, or a ‘Libertarian’ and have a pretty good, if not exact, idea of what that means about them.

So, what I liked about this smart-ass comment was that it combined clever acronymizing with some descriptive content: it defined ‘woke’ as Working On Knowledge Elimination.

Now, that does not capture everything that I think is wrapped up in a ‘woke’ view of the world, but it pretty well describes what that view implies. To adhere to a woke viewpoint is to set actual knowledge and facts aside.

To be even-handed, however, what one might call a ‘Trumpian’ view of the world also sets aside all kinds of facts about the world, yet is in no way woke. It is the great shortcoming of current society that all manner of people choose to set actual facts aside when those facts conflict with their view of the world. I suppose that one could say that different folks ignore different facts.

None the less, my readers can consider this post to be an alert that if and when I use the word ‘woke’ I am thinking of behavior or opinions that fit into that meaning. People avoiding facts that conflict with their strongly-held beliefs.

Let me illustrate with reference to a by-now well-covered event: the hiring, downfall and eventual suicide of Jason Arday, about which I wrote previously, as has much of the world’s media. A mention of the most recent event in that long, sad tale in The Free Press got me to thinking about that story in this context.

So….

Arday was hired as the youngest black Professor ever at Cambridge University. This hiring was done on the basis of an academic record and life story that later revelations clearly indicated was full of falsehoods and fraud.

So, an institution supposedly dedicated to expanding ‘knowledge’ had apparently failed to do rather basic due diligence in making an important hiring decision.

That’s woke.

As allegations began to surface about the falsity of the Arday life story and fraud and plagiarism in Arday’s research, Cambridge defended Mr. Arday and their decision to hire him without actually addressing the allegations directly, and Arday himself sicced a high-profile legal firm on one of the people who had made the allegations.

Also woke.

After Mr. Arday’s resignation and suicide, Cambridge announced it would open an investigation into

‘…circumstances around his [Arday’s] appointment by the Faculty of Education back in 2022, and his time here in Cambridge since his appointment nearly four years ago.’

Ok, not woke. Bravo.

What TFP alerted me to this week is that the above-mentioned investigation has now been decreed by Cambridge to be only Part Two of a two-part investigation into the Arday affair. According to the official Cambridge U posting about this,

Part One of the review will examine the support, interventions and protections available to Professor Arday during the period prior to his death.

As for the previously only investigation that is now merely Part Two, Cambridge says this:

Part Two will comprise a broader review of institutional processes and practice. The Council is currently appointing an independent external chair to lead this work and will establish an expert panel, including individuals with lived experience, to support the review.

Um, individuals with ‘lived experience’ of what? Being hired? Hiring?

So, time will tell what investigations Parts One and Two actually produce, but given that description of Part Two, I am betting that it all turns out quite woke. Plenty of people with ‘lived experience’ will be found to vehemently attest to the damage that would be done to equity-deserving groups by any re-consideration of the process that led Cambridge to hire Arday.

The essence of woke is to not learn anything new.  Cambridge will conclude that the only thing it did wrong was fail to support Mr. Arday sufficiently once the (obviously racist) allegations surfaced.

Ah, jeez, there I went again and made a prediction. Well, let’s see how it goes…..