Recently, for the New Yorker, Emma Green published an article titled, “Is It Possible to Be Both Moderate and Anti-Woke?” The piece was largely focused on FAIR (Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism) and the way the organization more or less imploded in the first two years of its existence.
Green is right. It did implode. But she didn’t quite capture what was going on in the background.
The article focuses on two main components of FAIR’s failure. One is that the organization didn’t really do much. One volunteer state coordinator is quoted saying “fair was basically virtue-signalling for the anti-woke…It was not an organization designed to actually do anything.”
This strikes me as a reasonable criticism. Although, as I am now myself deeply involved in a start-up at the Mill Institute at UATX, it’s a little hard for me to separate which part of FAIR’s low productivity was due to internal dysfunction and which part was simply the result of the time it takes to ramp up, especially when you’re starting from zero. So, as far as a condemnation goes, while low output is clearly not a good look, it doesn’t make for a singular smoking gun.
The other observation Green makes is of a philosophical rift in the organization. Bari Weiss, one of FAIR’s founders—who subsequently stepped back from the organization—is quoted as saying it was not “not muscular enough.” At the same time, two members of the advisory board, Kmele Foster and Chris Rufo, publicly argued over messaging. Foster described Rufo’s more incendiary methods as inciting “all kinds of reactionary hysteria.”
At the same time, Green reports Rufo as saying FAIR advisers were “transgressive enough to generate attention, but not transgressive enough to achieve results. It’s almost worse than doing nothing, as it creates the illusion of action and absorbs political energy that would be better spent elsewhere.”
So, was the problem that FAIR was just not aggressive enough? This is where things get confusing.
There’s a difference between simply being “muscular” and creating meaningful change. And for as long as organizations like FAIR see the problems of “wokeness,” critical race theory, and related ideologies as lies that need to be replaced with truth—truth that they alone stand ready to deliver—we can expect more of the same ideological warfare. That means more political polarization and more demands for the other side to yield.
To be sure, there is a problem with what Rufo and FAIR refer to as “wokeness.” But the fundamental problem is certainty, not craven dishonesty or malicious lies. Its weakness is its failure to recognize, let alone engage with, questions that matter—questions that it treats as given. Here are a few examples:
On Identity
Instead of asserting that our race, ethnicity, gender, etc… are the most important aspect of who we are, ask: While identity matters, what happens when we make it everything? Can we lean into it endlessly without there being negative consequences? How do we know when we’ve leaned in too much? Who decides?
Inequality
Instead of asserting that disparities between groups are evidence of a racist system, ask: Are disparities an indictment of a racist system or are they a phenomenon that still needs explanation? How do we know? What if we’re wrong? What’s more, even if disparities could be entirely attributed to a racist system, would that necessarily answer the question of what to do now?
Pronouns
Instead of asserting that our social identities are entirely self-determined, ask: Do I get to define my identity however I want and then expect those around me to reflect it back to me? Or is social identity the result of a negotiation—where it’s partly how I see myself and partly how others see me?
And so on and so forth with every contentious issue we face.
When we fail to understand the nature of the problem that animates organizations like FAIR, we end up with solutions that require an equally smug and self-righteous view of the world. In other words, we replace a problem of certainty with more certainty.
It is entirely possible—desirable even—to be “muscular” and also be intellectually coherent and consistent. We’re doing this every day at the Mill Institute. When we say no ideas, beliefs, values, or principles are exempt from questioning, criticism, or examination, we mean it. And when we say that declaring policies or values right or wrong only makes sense when we’re clear about what we’re trying to accomplish or optimize for, we mean that too.
FAIR didn’t fail because it wasn’t muscular enough. It failed because it misunderstood the problem.
Thank you for writing this, Ilana! I've been following FAIR since its early inception, but I was not aware of the New Yorker article. Having just finished it, it's unfortunate to see what went on in the background.
What initially attracted me to FAIR was their approach seemed more focused on being pro-human over anti-woke, on building bridges over starting wars, on fighting ideas over fighting people that carried these ideas. I appreciated FAIR's calm, reasoned YouTube videos that explained why ideas commonly associated with "wokeness" were reductive and counterproductive to the social justice causes they claimed to help. Their approach seemed to be in the humanist spirit of a Martin Luther King, not a Malcolm X. But after reading the article, it seems at least one core conflict within FAIR was a clash between these 2 different approaches/philosophies.
That said, did either side introspect as to the deeper values they were aiming to espouse or know why they espoused them in the first place? Can businesses become successful without having to rely on excess appeals to pathos (e.g. hyperbole, polarization, heroes vs villains)? I genuinely wonder that, if nuanced discussions such as the ones you promote through the Mill Institute can only be limited to the academic realm in this day and age.
Questions aside, this article really got me thinking! Thank you again for writing it, and I hope I can visit the Institute in the future! I applied twice to UATX to no avail, but hopefully the 3rd time's the charm!
These are the best lines of this piece: "To be sure, there is a problem with what Rufo and FAIR refer to as “wokeness.” But the fundamental problem is certainty, not craven dishonesty or malicious lies. Its weakness is its failure to recognize, let alone engage with, questions that matter—questions that it treats as given." Engaging the questions is hard work; yet, this is what creates the conditions for action and meaningful change. Thank you for writing this, Ilana!