Compelled speech is increasingly being portrayed as “education.” A recent illustration has come to light. Last year, Sandia National Laboratories sent its executives to reeducation camp: The training materials and the context for the training were reported by Christopher Rufo, a filmmaker, writer, and policy researcher. On his website, Rufo states (and I agree):

It’s time to expose this taxpayer-funded pseudoscience and rally the White House and legislators to stop these deeply divisive training sessions. My goal is simple: we must pass legislation to “abolish critical race theory” in the federal government. Let’s push as far as we can.

Under economic threat (the potential threat to employment that would be felt by any employee asked to attend), this camp required the employees to listen to, and in many cases publicly acknowledge, racist and sexist absurdities, including the following:

It is difficult to count the large number of ways in which these teachings are incorrect, vague, bizarre, distorted and many-times outright false. This Tweet by Melissa Chen points out one of many general problems:

After three days of training, the participants were required to write apologies for their “privilege,” using “privilege” as a proxy for their physical appearance and their disciplined work habits:

Apparently, people in positions of economic power at a government research facility thought it was a good idea to attempt to fight racism by encouraging that attendees to use the physical appearance of other people as a proxy, as a wormhole-powered shortcut, for declaring their character, experience and competence.  This new version of racism is as unscientific as astrology.  What astrological sign are you?  What “color” are you?  Good!  Now, with one superficial piece of information I understand your nuances and complexity, whether you have earned your accomplishments and whether you are of good moral character!  Quick, humorless and devoid of any semblance of human warmth or kindness. Characterizing people by Zodiac signs or skin colors is an ideal technique for lazy and incompetent people. It excuses them from the obligation of getting to know what other individuals are really like before judging them.

The type of education we see at Sandia is in keeping with the highest standards of Wokeness, the Woke teachings that we have recently seen at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of African American History & Culture [Notice, at the end of the linked article about NMAAHC that some of their absurd and racist ideas were pulled down from the museum website after they started getting noticed, almost entirely by right-wing news media (they were almost entirely ignored by left wing media).

If one feels that one’s high prestige job might be on the line, it would probably seem to be the easiest path to lie low during this “training,” to go along with the charade, to say whatever is demanded of you, then get back to work. There are many problems with this. One of them is that compelling others to say false things (under either explicit or implicit threat) is a violation of human dignity. The forced false language stifles free and honest discussion in this setting, and subsequently in the work place. Forced false words trigger cognitive dissonance: after the reeducation, participants are faced with the dilemma that A) they want to see themselves as generally honest and principled, but also B) they willingly gave up their dignity and uttered falsehoods. Forcing the uttering of falsehoods is an attack on the character of the participants. Sure, the participants could, in principle, stand up and walk out, but, again, their are massive economic risks to doing this. Education camp of this sort corrodes vigorous and free thinking and communication.

Further, the legal rights of the participants were violated. This sort of “training,” as detached as it is from reality, takes many of its techniques from religious training. Some people, upon hearing about Sandia, have suggested a Separations clause violation (First Amendment). I don’t think courts would characterize this training as “religion,” even though the techniques parallel the techniques used as part of religious indoctrination–this was a one-time class and there is no deity involved.  A more promising legal attack is that this “education” required compelled speech by a government employer. Consider these quotes from compelled speech cases considered by the United States Supreme Court:

Justice Robert H. Jackson stated the following in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943):

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.

In Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006), Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. stated:

Some of this Court’s leading First Amendment precedents have established the principle that freedom of speech prohibits the government from telling people what they must say.

Also consider,

The Court also employed the compelled speech doctrine in Wooley v. Maynard (1977) to rule that state officials could not punish a man for covering the state’s motto — “Live Free or Die” — on his license plate. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger declared, “The right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking are complementary components of the broader concept of ‘individual freedom of mind.’ ”

In more recent years, the Court recognized the reach of the compelled speech principle in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), in which it ruled that government officials could not force parade organizers to accept a gay and lesbian group and its messages as part of its event. To do so would infringe on the private group’s autonomy and right to disseminate its own messages.

A famous phrase by Louis Brandeis comes to mind when writing about this issue: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” Abuses like those that occurred at Sandia need to be publicized and ridiculed, but the left-leaning news media has been captured and will not cover these absurdities.  University professors have been losing their jobs for speaking up on woke issues (see the article and comments here and here.  The employees of Sandia, are not in a position to speak up when these violations occur (even though someone at the class was willing to share the class materials with Christopher Rufo).

Many people are in (real) fear of losing their jobs or clients for even stating a public position on this debacle at Sandia. Many of us can’t afford to speak up because we cannot bear thought of being called names by mobs. This has got to somehow change in order for sanity to prevail.