In an April 5, 2021 article at Reason, Jesse Singal reports on an incident at Lake Washington Institute of Technology, a Washington State public institution with 6,000 students. Newly tenured professor Elisa Parrett was labeled insolent, insubordinate and disruptive for having the gall to stand up at a compelled and segregated “anti-racism” college assembly based on the preachings of Robin DiAngelo and stating the following:

“Over the past couple of weeks, a lot has happened,” Parrett began. “Protests have occurred, riots have broken out, people have been killed. And across the United States, companies, organizations, and schools have proclaimed their support of a movement called ‘Anti-racism'”—here Parrett was referring to the capital-A variety. Parrett went on to complain about the segregated setting of the training and what she saw as the generally closed-minded nature of the nation’s post-Floyd discourse. “Democracy thrives on conversations, but what we are seeing happening right now in the United States is not a conversation,” she read. “It is a coup. Everyday Americans of all colors, creeds, backgrounds, and beliefs are being held hostage. Zealots are telling us, ‘You’re either with us or against us, and if you’re against us, you’re an evil bigot.’ They are telling us, ‘You’re either part of the solution, or you’re part of the problem.’ They are telling us that all people may be classified into two sides: us or them, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, people of color or white, righteous or bigoted, oppressed or privileged. I don’t accept such false dichotomies, and I don’t accept the ad hominem implications that come with it. Too often, words like ‘privileged,’ ‘defensive,’ and ‘fragile’ are just ways to dismiss what another person has to say. Too often, words like ‘racist’ are just a way to intimidate someone into silence.” Parrett argued that people should work together to solve “real problems like wealth disparity, poverty, job insecurity, unemployment, the high cost of living, or the fracturing of the nuclear family, whatever form that family takes,” but are waylaid by those who claim the “real problems” are “racism, sexism, transphobia…[and] hateful words.”

“Thank you, Elisa,” said the facilitator, cutting Parrett off about three minutes into her remarks. “No, you don’t get to cut me off—I’m going to finish what I have to say,” she responded. “I’m going to ask that you share the platform with the rest of the 200 nearly people who are here today,” replied the facilitator. But Parrett continued for about another minute, telling the all-white attendees of the mandatory, segregated conversation that universities should be places where “ideas could be discussed, explored, debated, and assessed”—and that “this is not that.”

Prior to the session, Parrett was bothered by the fact that the college had segregated the attendees of this session, separating the “whites” from the others. The college referred to this technique as “race based caucusing.”  Singal quotes another professor who spoke out in an email to senior administrators: a “conference based on segregation by skin color does nothing to build a community of belonging.”

The favorite technique by people captured by Woke ideology is the ad hominem attack and Washington Institute of Technology did not disappoint.  Following the struggle session, a college administrator wrote to Parrett, indicating that her: “egregious behavior which has led to substantial harm to hundreds of colleagues on campus.” The charge was that Parrett’s behavior was “downright scary, startling, and bewildering as she yelled a diatribe.”  The college told Parrett that she had used her “new positional power [as a tenured professor] in a very corrupt, insolent and insubordinate manner.” She was placed on leave and denied access to her college email account. The President of the college sent an email blast to every member of the college community indicating that she was “disappointed, angry, and shocked” by Parrett’s dissent during the training.

Jesse Singal spoke to one of the administrators who criticized Parrett. She said,

a large cohort of professors and academic administrators were so emotionally devastated by hearing someone raise concerns about White Fragility–style diversity trainings that they could no longer do their jobs.

What happened next? A college “investigation” that has so far officially cost $80,000. Unofficially, it’s closer to $250,000.

LWTech went to war against a tenured faculty member, launching a cartoonishly over-the-top disciplinary process that included the hiring of a private investigator, dozens of interviews, and claims of widespread trauma.

As you’ll see if you read Singal’s entire detailed article, the college’s arguments comedically and instantly disintegrated when they encounted Singal’s mild cross-examination of the administrators, especially after his revelation that he had a copy of a secretly recorded audio file of Parrett’s statement at the session.

Parrett kept her job because her behavior was not fire-able, not even close.  On March 26, 2021, the college issued a vague reprimand.  One might be tempted to say that this reprimand was intentionally vague in order to stifle Parrett (and, as an example, others) from speaking up when a college next employs shrill racism as a “remedy” for racism.  Singal comments: “It wouldn’t be surprising if this were one of the more expensive written reprimands in community-college history.”

The bottom half of Singal’s article reviews some of history of similar incidents (with links), mentioning violations by both the political left and right, but expressing concern that the far left is careening into a tailspin.  Much of this is due to the far left’s expanding concept creep regarding the definition of “harm.” Singal explains:

In this worldview, everything is a harm. There is no such thing as legitimate political disagreement, because we (the progressive in-group) already know the correct answer to every question (even if the answer can sometimes change overnight), and anyone who disagrees clearly—clearly—does so not because of some well-founded political or philosophical difference but because that person wants to harm the innocent people we are righteously hellbent on protecting.

In my writings, I’ve often asked, and I again ask: Where do you draw your line?  At what point will you say a firm “No” to Woke ideology?  At what point will you take a deep breath and say what you are thinking, that’s it’s not OK that everything is turning into Evergreen College.  Longstanding social psychological research highlights how important it is for you to be the one to speak up.  You are not alone.  Far from it. Be brave.