The Cult of Postmodern Social Justice

College campuses, among other areas of discourse, have more recently become hotspots for social justice. With each year that sweeps by, more and more colleges are implementing regressive policies that are mascaraed in the name of diversity, and inclusivity.

Policies such as affirmative action, and ‘safe spaces’ have been applauded, and even demanded in the case of safe spaces; those who don’t agree with opposing viewpoints feel as though it is the institutions responsibility to shelter them from such discomfort.

This new coddling environment has plagued college campuses and has giving birth to a new generation of ideologically driven folks, pursuing an Utopian world, riddled from inequalities. These ideologically driven individuals seek out the victimized, and the disadvantaged, and make it their focus to empower them, at any cost.

Programs such as affirmative action are then justified (in the eyes of social justice), because the person benefiting from the program was a victim in the first place.

The term social justice has been around for several hundred years, dating way back to the 1800’s. According to Thomas Patrick Burke, the original term social justice was supposed to be a formal concept, rather than a philosophical view of the world. Contrary to a political movement, it was another branch of justice, equivalent to criminal justice.

To quote from Burkes paper: The Origins of Social Justice: Taparelli d’Azeglio, “the concept of social justice was initially an extension of the existing, traditional idea of justice into a new area, society, so that it did not require developing any content new to the idea, but just new conditions for its application”.

When looking at social justice today, it has grown from it’s roots into a new branch, with a new agenda. While equality is propagated, it’s the wrong type of equality. Equality of opportunity should be the paramount that we strive for, but, what instead is being put into action is the pursuit of equity (equality of outcome).

Equity prescribes the idea that we should all be equal, across the board. An example of this is the number of minorities students attending a college. If the percentage of minority students attending the college isn’t equally representative of the minority population in society, that can then be interpreted as oppressive, or discriminative, and then would justify programs such as affirmative action.

Rather than building a merit-based society, in which equality of opportunity is the cornerstone to ensure everyone has an equal chance to learn new abilities to achieve certain accomplishments, social justice ideology says the ultimate society organizes itself in the egalitarian matter, in which everyone is equal, and if they’re not, that then justifies the homogenizing of the group.   

Social justice in the last several years has ramped up its political affiliation, becoming and acting more cult like in its group behaviour. Speaking out against the core beliefs of social justice, even as an advocate of social justice reform, in most cases, will deem you a heretic to the tribe. One reason as to why the immediate outcast upon even simply questioning their ideology occurs is because most of the beliefs they hold, aren’t back by facts, or objective truth, and rely merely on a belief system. And to question the ideology questions your validity, and commitment to acting on those beliefs.

So, when social justice warriors are presented with counter-arguments, they are quick to rebuttal with chant mobs, de-platforming of speakers, and derogatory slurs, to ensure the person making the counter-argument is drowned out and silenced through de-platforming, and deformation of their character.

In the case of Christina Hoff Sommers, Jordan Peterson, Yaron Brooks, Ben Shapiro, or Charles Murray to name a few, each of these speakers have had their names dragged through the dirt, multiple times, by being called racists, white supremacists, anti-Semite’s, bigots, transphobes, sexists, the list goes on.

But what I haven’t seen once, is an actual debate, or dialect from an advocate of social justice, arguing their key issues, against someone who disagrees with them, in a civil mannered discussion.