This post combines the previous seven installments, lightly edited, in one document. I do this for the convenience of readers who want to share these thoughts with others.

During the past month (May 2024) I listened to the audiobook version of Christopher F. Rufo’s recent book America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything (Broadside Books, 2023) and read the hardback version more than once. This book documents the growth in influence of the radical left in American higher education, government, and corporations from the 1960s to 2023. Rufo uncovers the origins of such leftist theories and programs as Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, Critical Pedagogy, Black Lives Matter, Antifa, Identity Politics, and many others. He introduces us to the most influential theorists and activists of the radical left: Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis, Paulo Freire, Derrick Bell, and their students and allies.

In America’s Cultural Revolution, Rufo describes, analyzes and criticizes the radical left from a traditional and conservative position. I will evaluate the radical left from a Christian perspective. Like Rufo, I am skeptical of socialism and don’t want to live under the rule of neo-Marxist politicians and I lament the destructive impact of the radical left on American education. I am grateful to Rufo for his efforts to inform the American people about the dangers coming from the Left.  In this series, however, sticking to what I know best, I want to warn individual believers, the church as a corporate body and Christian educators about the radical left’s pervasive influence on the cultural air they breathe.

The book is divided into four parts with four or five chapters within each part. The parts cover roughly the same span of time (1968-2023) but from different angles. Each part centers on a theme and a person: 1. Revolution and Herbert Marcuse; 2. Race and Angela Davis; 3. Education and Paulo Freire; 4. Power and Derrick Bell.

Part I: Revolution

Chapter 1: “Herbert Marcuse: Father of the Revolution”

Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) was born in Germany of Jewish parents. During World War I, Marcuse joined the Social Democrat Party, but soon became disillusioned because of the party’s accommodation to the old establishment. He pursued a doctorate at the University of Freiberg, studying under Martin Heidegger and writing a dissertation on the philosopher Georg W. F. Hegel. With the rise of Adolf Hitler, he fled first to Switzerland, France, and then to the United States. He taught at Brandeis University and then at the University of California, San Diego. Marcuse never wavered from his commitment to socialism as the most democratic form of political society and the most fitted to human nature. His main intellectual project for the rest of his life was creating a form of Marxism responsive to the new conditions of the post WW II situation in the Western world. Classical Marxism theorized that the working class, oppressed as they were by the capitalists, was the natural place for the socialist revolution to begin. By the 1950s, however, labor laws, unions, and increases in productivity, had transformed the Western working class into the comfortable and conservative middle class. Bitterly disappointed, Marcuse had to look elsewhere for potential revolutionaries. His “new left” had to be an alliance between the class of (mostly) white “intellectuals” and the black urban population. Race rather than class would be the new dividing line between oppressor and oppressed.

Marcuse articulated his “New Left” theory in a series of books: One-Dimensional Man (1964), Critique of Pure Tolerance (1965), Negations: Essays in Critical Theory (1968), An Essay on Liberation (1969), and Counter Revolution and Revolt (1972). In these writings he argued that the masses of people can be awakened to their oppressed status only by destabilizing the social order. Revolutionaries have every right to use violence to disrupt and protest the systemically unjust order. Generations of revolutionaries from the Black Liberation Army (1970s) to Black Lives Matter (2020) and from the Weather Underground (1970s) to the contemporary Pro-Palestine student protests look to Marcuse and his theories to justify burning, looting and murder in the name of liberation. Marcuse, then, is the intellectual father of today’s radical left.

Chapter 2: “The New Left: ‘We Will Burn and Loot and Destroy’”

This chapter tells the story of the Weather Underground organization and its founder Bernadine Dohrn. Acknowledging Marcuse as her inspiration, Dohrn led the Weather Underground to join with other militants in a four-year terror campaign designed to provoke the long-anticipated revolution. The Weather Underground’s part in the campaign began on June 9, 1970 with the detonation of 15 sticks of dynamite in a New York Police Department headquarters. Between January 1969 and December 1970, the Weather Underground and like-minded organizations carried out 4,330 bombings. Forty-three people were killed. Dohrn and her friends gleefully celebrated the murder of police officers (a.k.a. “pigs”). But by 1972, the public had had enough and the FBI and President Nixon had decimated the ranks of the Weather Underground. Their reign of terror was a complete failure.

Chapter 3: “The Long March Through the Institutions”

After the failure of the Weather Underground, the Black Liberation Army and other violent groups, Marcuse was forced to rethink his approach to revolution. His German admirer and student activist friend Rudi Dutschke suggested that the New Left movement return to the universities to regroup. Dutschke used the metaphor “the long march” to describe this strategy of retreat and consolidation, borrowing an expression originally used to describe Mao Zedong’s year-long, 5,000-mile retreat to the mountains after his 1934-defeat by the Nationalist Chinese Army. Marcuse agreed with Dutschke and advised his students to join university faculties with the aim of training new recruits and eventually taking over education from within and from there other social institutions. From positions in literature, journalism, and education, these radical professors railed against capitalism, sexism, colonialism, and racism. They invented new theoretical concepts such as “white supremacy,” “white privilege,” “systemic racism,” “neocolonialism,” “patriarchy,” “anti-racism,” and a thousand other terms. Marcuse labeled this process “linguistic therapy.” Leftist theorists generate these ideas out of their Marxist ideology, which explains every less than utopian state of affairs through the lens of the oppressor/oppressed dialectic.* The process of “linguistic therapy” works like this: invent a term useful to the cause of revolution and use it over and over with confidence and people will begin to believe it refers to a real state of affairs. To draw out the social implications of their oppressor/oppressed ideology, the New Left academics lobbied for the creation of a host of new “studies” programs: Black Studies, Feminist Studies, Gender Studies, Whiteness Studies, Critical Race Studies, and the list grows every year. In these “studies” programs, theory held dogmatically and applied with methodological rigor determines the meaning of every fact. As a sign of the pervasive priority of theory over fact, consider how frequently you hear the adverbial phrase, “As a (an)…feminist, gay man, black woman, trans man, etc.” used to condition a person’s expression of an opinion in academic and popular speech.

Contemporary diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) training can be traced back to the work of Marcuse’s third wife, Erica Sherover-Marcuse. Theory needed to be operationalized in practice. How do you get white people to recognize and confess their racism and privilege and black people to become conscious of their internalized oppression? In the 1980s, Sherover-Marcuse developed workshops designed to facilitate this new consciousness. The most well-known exercise in these workshops is the “privilege walk.” Participants divide into groups based on where they stand in the hierarchy of privilege and oppression. The privileged, then, must acknowledge and apologize for their racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression. This exercise has been incorporated into many institutional programs designed to promote DEI. These programs are administered by armies of bureaucrats, adding millions of dollars to institutional payrolls. They act as modern-day inquisitors to sniff out hidden biases, intimidate dissenters, and punish offenders.

Chapter 4: “The New ideological Regime”

This chapter documents the culmination of the “long march” through the institutions. The legacy media, government agencies, and most large corporations have adopted the critical theory and DEI programs, hiring thousands of DEI administrators and paying millions to outside anti-racist and DEI consultants.

*“Dialectic” refers here not to logical contradiction or friendly debate but an intractable social conflict that can be resolved only by establishing socialism as the political order.

Part II: Race

Chapter 5: “Angela Davis: The Spirit of Radical Revolt”

Davis’s story is fascinating and well worth reading, but I want to focus on one thread, that is, how in her life Marcuse’s theory of revolutionary violence was put into practice. Angela Yvonne Davis was born on January 26, 1944 in Birmingham, Alabama. A very bright child, with school-teacher parents, she read vociferously. At age 15, she won a scholarship to Elisabeth Irwin High School, a private school in New York City. Many of her teachers were members of the Communist Party; they introduced her to the writings of Marx and Engels. At Elisabeth Irwin, Davis became fascinated with the Communist Manifesto’s vision of the abolition of capitalism and institution of a classless society. She studied next at Brandeis University where she met Herbert Marcuse, who became her mentor and life-long inspiration. After a brief stay in Frankfurt, Germany where she studied “Critical Theory” at the Institute for Social Research, she followed Marcuse to the University of California, San Diego.

The brainy and highly educated Davis soon became impatient with theory and pursued ways to get involved in the practical struggle. She joined the Black Panther Party but found it too unorganized. She then joined the Communist Party USA. Applying the Communist oppressor/oppressed theory to race, Davis interpreted the American judicial, law enforcement and penal systems as instruments of white oppression of black people. Within this ideological framework, criminal acts such as theft, property destruction and murder, when committed by poor black people, become legitimate acts of resistance to the structural and legal violence built into the white capitalist system. Putting this theory into practice on August 7, 1970, Davis participated, albeit at a distance, in a dramatic, failed prison escape that began in the Marin County Hall of Justice. A shootout followed at the end of which four people were dead including Judge Harold Haley. Davis had purchased the guns used in the attack and her finger prints were found on the gun manuals discovered at the crime scene. After a period of hiding, Davis was arrested and charged with murder. Instantly, she became world famous. At her trial, she and her lawyers turned the tables on the State of California, claiming that she was a political prisoner and that the prison break was a “slave insurrection.” Amazingly, despite the evidence, Davis was acquitted on all charges.

Chapter 6: “‘Kill the Pigs”: The Black Revolution Explodes”

This chapter tells the story of the Black Panther Party and its founder Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver minister of information. The Party’s “Ten-Point Program” (1966) includes demands for black people to be granted full employment or a guaranteed income, free housing, exemption from military service, self-determination, and reparations for past injustices. The Panthers assassinated police officers and engaged in shootouts with the authorities. In the early 1970s Newton and Cleaver parted company, with Newton remaining on the West Coast and Cleaver on the East Coast. The East Coast faction, the Black Liberation Army, eventually became little more than another gang. Newton descended into drug addiction and in 1989 was murdered outside an Oakland drug den. Cleaver, too, became a drug addict and in 1998 died of a heart attack in Oakland. The militant revolution was dead.

Chapter 7: “From Black Liberation to Black Studies”

The failure of black radical street violence to bring positive change provoked Angela Davis and others to retreat to the universities to begin the “long march” through the institutions. Davis worked to establish various forms of black studies programs in the university. She argued that marginalize members of society understand the true nature of freedom whereas the dominant classes do not; and the black woman is doubly marginalized, at the bottom of the heap of the oppressed. People of marginalized identities are sources of knowledge unavailable elsewhere. These special sources of knowledge, therefore, should be institutionalized in departments and studies programs. According to Rufo, “Davis’s theoretical work on identity had an enormous impact on the development of left-wing politics throughout the era” (p. 103). Of great significance for the future of identity politics is the Combahee River Collective Statement (1977) made by a group of black lesbian activists. Drawing on Davis’s theory of the privileged access of marginalized identities to certain types of knowledge, the Statement coined the term “identity politics” and laid out the logic of what came later to be called “intersectional identity.” “This focusing upon our own oppression,” explains the Statement, “is embodied in the concept of identity politics. We believe that the most profound and potentially radical politics come directly out of our own identity.” Rufo describes the significance of the Statement:

The activists eschewed the masculine inclinations toward violence…and created a uniquely feminine program that marshalled identity, emotion, trauma, and psychological manipulation in service of their political objectives. The Combahee Statement recast left-wing politics as an identity-based therapeutic pursuit (p. 104).

It worked. Today most universities contain “studies” programs for almost every recognized ethnic or gender identity.

Chapter 8: “BLM: The Revolution Reborn”

The Black Lives Matter organization was founded in 2013 by Alicia Garza (b. 1981) and Patrisse Cullors (b. 1983). It burst onto the national scene in the aftermath of the 2014 death of Michael Brown at the hands of a police officer in Ferguson, MO. BLM’s guiding principles tracks almost perfectly with the Black Panthers’ Ten Point Plan. According to Rufo, BLM “can be best understood as a synthesis of the major lines of the black liberation movement—the racialist dialectic of Angela Davis, the identity first orientation of the Combahee River Collective, the Marxist-Leninist vision of the Black Panther Party—resurrected for the digital age” (p. 115). BLM’s innovations rest in the way it packages its message. It appeals to (white) emotions of guilt and shame rather than fear. Using social media to highlight individual incidents of “police brutality” (such as that used against George Floyd in May 2020) as proof of systemic racism and the pervasive influence of white supremacy. According to the narrative created by BLM, police were conducting a slow genocide of unarmed black men. Is the number, 10,000 or 1,000 per year, as many people think? According to Rufo’s reading of the Washington Post database for police shootings, the actual number was 14. [According to my reading of the appropriated filtered database for the year 2021, the number was 12. I don’t know how to reconcile these two numbers.].

Chapter 9: “Mob Rule in Seattle”

In this chapter, Rufo details the disasters that befell Portland, OR and Seattle, WA in the aftermath of the George Floyd killing in the long summer of 2020. BLM leader Nikkita Oliver (b. 1986) became the most visible figure of the “abolitionist” movement, which pressed for the abolition of police departments, courts, and jails. Weeks of protest and street violence roiled the city. Then, on June 8, 2020 the police department stationed in the East Precinct abandoned their headquarters. That evening armed men from Antifa and other militant leftist groups set up the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ) bereft of police, courts, and jails. The new order followed the rule of “identity politics.” The bottom became the top and the top the bottom. Black, indigenous and trans women became the privileged, and white male heterosexuals were shamed and urged to pay reparations to Black people. Division, chaos, and killings ensued. CHAZ lasted from June 8 to July 3, 2020. Rufo concludes:

The truth is politically impolite but factually unassailable: the real problem in America, from the Black Panther Party to Black Lives Matter, is not police brutality, but the brutality of the American streets…Like their historical predecessors, the new abolitionists are not seeking to achieve reforms within a given social order; they are seeking to overturn that social order altogether…The revolution is, after all, the relentless application of the negative dialectic: to subvert, to shift, to unmask, to destroy” (pp. 140-141).

 

Part III: Education

 

Introduction

I come from a family of educators and have been involved with education as a student or a college professor for most of my life. I’ve thought a great deal about education and have written extensively about it. To an extent far beyond animals, human beings are capable of learning from their individual and collective experience and of passing this knowledge and skill to the generations that follow. Culture is that body of knowledge, skills, practices and creations accumulated and passed down through time. Human beings begin learning the minute they are born and continue the rest of their lives. Education is the process of “passing down” human culture to succeeding generations and is an intentional activity involving teaching and learning. Because acquiring the knowledge and skills available in one’s social world is necessary for survival and enjoying the goods of life available in a particular culture, education is valued by parents for their children and by individuals for themselves. For most people, individual and family interests are the driving forces for expending huge amounts of time, energy and money on education, kindergarten through college. But educational institutions often subordinate family and individual goals to other interests. This is especially true of institutions that are in some way (e.g., government funding) insulated from market forces and answerability to parents.

The state has always had an interest in education, and its interests are determined by its understanding of its scope and goals. There is no guarantee that the interests of the state will coincide with those of parents and individual students. As the United States of America transitioned from an agricultural to an industrial, and finally to a technological society, the government’s economic interest in education changed accordingly. But producing skilled workers for industry and technology is not the only reason for state involvement in education. Producing “good” citizens has always been a major goal, and a “good” citizen is defined as one that accepts and supports the basic values that the state holds necessary to its stability and to the general welfare. State funded and administered schools have never been value neutral.

If government schools champion values that are widely held, traditional, and limited in scope, most people hardly notice, because they, too, hold them. A list of such values might include individual civil liberties, economic freedom, hard work, respect for law, social peace, reward for merit, majority rule accompanied by minority rights, respect for marriage and family, religious liberty, etc. There have always been minority groups that dissent from many values held by the majority of people, and in response they’ve founded Christian and other private schools or educated their children at home.  But what if the government with its vast system of bureaucracies gets captured by a small group that champions a value system very different from that held by the vast majority of people? What if the American educational system came to be controlled by a philosophy that taught that the value system that privileged individual civil liberties, economic freedom, hard work, respect for law, social peace, reward for merit, majority rule accompanied by minority rights, respect for marriage and family, and religious liberty was systemically racist, heterosexist, homophobic, colonialist, and sexist? And what if the new education regime taught that the only way to reform this corrupt society was to transform all the values that legitimate it by subordinating them to the New Left’s Neo-Marxist values of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Moreover, what if these transformed values were taught to every child in America from kindergarten through graduate school by means of a method called “Critical Pedagogy”?

Dystopian? Nightmarish? Orwellian? Agreed! But according to Rufo, this nightmare is now our new reality. Whether you send your child to kindergarten or to college, you can expect that your values—the ones mentioned above—will be attacked, subverted, and if possible, replaced by values of the New Left.

Chapter 10: “Paulo Freire: Master of Subversion”

In 1969 the Brazilian political exile Paulo Freire spend six months at Harvard University, during which time he translated his book Pedagogy of the Oppressed from Portuguese into English. According to Rufo, the book has sold over a million copies and is the third most cited book in social science literature. Pedagogy of the Oppressed presupposes the Marxist analysis of society, which divides the world into the masses of oppressed and the minority of oppressors. A truly just and free society cannot be realized within the capitalist system. The oppressors’ success relies on a series of myths (private property, individual rights, hard work and merit-based rewards) that justifies their superior status and enables them to maintain their dominance. Freire’s innovation, however, lies not in the area of Marxist theory but in developing a way to use the educational system to further the revolution. Freirean educational philosophy has come to be called “critical pedagogy.”

In contrast to what most people think is the purpose of education, that is, to teach young people the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the dominant culture, Critical Pedagogy aims to debunk the myths that justify capitalist society and awaken the oppressed to their oppressed status and oppressors to their oppressor status. Instead of the basic skills of reading, writing, and mathematics, the emphasis falls on social criticism and activism in service of “liberation.” Like many Marxist theorists, Freire justifies using violence in service of the socialist revolution. He explains:

Violence is initiated by those who oppress, who exploit, who fail to recognize others as persons—not by those who are oppressed, exploited, and unrecognized…Consciously or unconsciously, the act of rebellion by the oppressed…can initiate love. Whereas the violence of the oppressors prevents the oppressed from being fully human, the [violent] response of the latter to this violence is grounded in the desire to pursue the right to be human (Pedagogy, Chapter 7; quoted in Rufo, p. 150).

Chapter 11: “‘We Must Punish Them’: Marxism Conquers the American Classroom”

In this chapter, Rufo describes how Freire’s American disciples led by Henry Giroux disseminated Freire’s ideas. First, Giroux initiated a series of publications that introduced Freire’s ideas to American educational theorists. Giroux did not attempt to hide his Marxist leanings: “The neo-Marxist position, it seems to us, provides the most insightful and comprehensive model for a more progressive approach for understanding the nature of schooling and developing an emancipatory program for social education” (Teachers as Intellectuals, 1988; quoted by Rufo, p. 162). The next step, according to Giroux, was to secure tenured positions for 100 likeminded professors in American universities. Over the next 40 years, these educational theorists published thousands of articles and books exploring ways to use critical pedagogy in schools and colleges to further the cause of the socialist revolution. As an example of the influence of critical pedagogy, Rufo details ways in which the State of California has incorporated it into its public educational program. In its Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum, California declares that school children shall learn to “challenge racist, bigoted, discriminatory, imperialist/colonial beliefs…[and critique] white supremacy, racism, and other forms of power and oppression.” Schools need to teach students to join in “social movements that struggle for social justice…build new possibilities for a post-racist, post-systemic racism society” (Quoted in Rufo, p. 164).

Chapter 12: “Engineers of the Human Soul”

In this chapter, Rufo documents the now familiar transition from social analysis focusing on economic class to that focused on race. In America, Freire’s American disciples recognized, the Marxist oppressor/oppressed paradigm could be more effectively applied to the White/Black or People of Color distinction than to the owner/worker distinction. Speaking of the second generation of Freire’s disciples, Rufo says, “Their primary pedagogical strategy was to pathologize white identity, which was deemed inherently oppressive, and radicalize black identity, which was deemed inherently oppressed” (p. 173). According to Barbara Applebaum and other critical pedagogists, whites must become conscious, confess and repent of their white supremacy and white privilege. Whiteness is a disease that masks itself in appeals to rationality, the rule of law, capitalism, liberalism, secularism, merit, hard work and other myths. Whites need therapy and a program of reeducation. They need to commit “race suicide” and abolish the “white race.” Black children, on the other hand, need to be taught how to see through the myths and systems of whiteness.

Chapter 13: “The Child Soldiers of Portland”

In this chapter, Rufo pursues the irony that Portland, Oregon one of the whitest cities in America, is also the “headquarters of race radicalism in the United States” (p. 189). “The city’s loose network of Marxist, anarchist, and anti-fascist groups have turned the street riot into an art form” (p. 196). According to Rufo, the young rioters educated in the Portland school system are simply putting into practice the vision of society they were taught.

Part IV: Power

Chapter 14: “Derrick Bell: Prophet of Racial Pessimism”

After a brilliant career as a civil rights attorney working to make the racial equality promised in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a reality in the lives of black people, Derrick Bell (1930-2011) grew pessimistic about achieving that goal. By the late 1960s, Bell had concluded that whatever the law said, white people would never accept black people as their equals. They would always find a way to keep them down. In 1969, Derrick Bell became the first black Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. And in 1973, he published a huge (1,000 page) casebook, Race, Racism, and American Law. In this book Bell adumbrated what later came to be known as Critical Race Theory. Bell interpreted all the “advances” in civil rights—Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act (1964), and all the rest—as cynical moves designed to preserve white supremacy in different historical circumstances. White racism is built into the system.

Chapter 15: “‘I Live to Harass White Folks’: The Politics of Eternal Resentment”

Bell did not write in the academic style typical of a Harvard Law professor. Instead, he wrote fiction. Beginning with his 1983 foreword to the Harvard Law Review’s Supreme Court Issue, Bell wrote a series of allegories dramatizing ways in which white people always thwart black progress: “The Chronicle of the Celestial Curia,” “The Chronicle of the DeVine Gift,” “The Chronicle of the Amber Cloud,” and “The Chronicle of the Slave Scrolls.” These stories and others were published in two books, Faces at the Bottom of the Well and And We Are Not Saved. These stories explore white perversity in all its manifestations. His most famous story is “The Space Traders.” In the year 2000, space aliens come to earth and offer the American people advanced technology and medical science in exchange for all black people, whom they wished to take to their home planet. After some debate, American lawmakers decided to accept the space traders’ offer contingent on the outcome of a popular referendum. The legislators endorsed a “yes” vote on the referendum in the following words:

The Framers intended America to be a white country…After more than a hundred and thirty-seven years of good-faith efforts to build a healthy, stable interracial nation, we have concluded—as the Framers did in the beginning—that our survival today requires that we sacrifice the rights of blacks in order to protect and further the interest of whites. The Framers’ example must be our guide. Patriotism, and not pity, must govern our decision. We should ratify the amendment and accept the Space Traders’ proposition” (Quoted in Rufo, p. 225).

The referendum passed 70% to 30%. Black people, men, women, children, and babes in arms, were then herded at gun point, anguished and weeping, into alien spaceships.

Bell’s Harvard Law School career came to an end after he engaged in a two-year strike designed to pressure Harvard into hiring a black woman, visiting professor Regina Austin, a radical critical race theorist who castigated white people in print and in front of her white students and celebrated the “Black Bitch.” After a two-year campaign of intimidation and name calling, Harvard fired Bell based on its policy that a professor could not take more than two years of unpaid leave.

Chapter 16: “The Rise of Critical Race Theory”

During his career as a law professor Derrick Bell gathered about him many likeminded students. In 1989, one of his students Kimberlé Crenshaw organized a conference to address the question of what to do in view of the pervasive and permanent racism of America. Looking back a decade later, Crenshaw summarized the gist of the conference in these words: “We settled on what seemed to be the most telling marker for this particular subject. We would signify the specific political and intellectual marker for this project through [the term] “critical,” and the substantive focus through [the term] “race,” and the desire to develop a coherent account of race and law through the term “theory” (Quoted in Rufo, p. 232). Thus, Critical Race Theory was born. The definitive documents of CRT were published in two 1995 books: Critical Race Theory: The Cutting Edge and Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings That Formed the Movement.

As documented in these writings, CRT combines Derrick Bell’s pessimism, post-modernism’s reduction of truth claims to power moves, and neo-Marxism’s distinction between oppressor and oppressed viewed through Crenshaw’s prism of intersectionality. Rufo outlines CRT’s strategy under three headings. (1) It adopts the post-modern dismissal of truth as a mask disguising the quest for power. This assertion allows CRT activists to dismiss any “rational” argument against their agenda and to employ any argument, narrative, or label that advances their goal, that is acquiring power for themselves. The black experience is the truth. Truth is whatever advances black people. (2) Kimberlé Crenshaw operationalized the concept of intersectionality for CRT. Rather than a simple dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed, she proposed a multilayered hierarchy of oppression. The white male reigns at the top and the black female lies at the bottom of the scale. Being the most marginalized, the black female possesses the most truth about the system of oppression. According to Crenshaw, all oppressed people—black women, homosexuals, the disabled, etc.—should join forces to push back against the quintessential oppressor, the white male. (3) CRT theorists incorporated the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci’s concepts of “cultural hegemony” and the “war of position.” With the guidance of these concepts, CRT activists set about the task, not of destroying American institutions by means of street violence, but of achieving power within those institutions, the university being the first target.

Chapter 17: “DEI and the End of the Constitutional Order”

Critical Race Theorists needed to translate their ideology into a practical program and an effective rhetoric for acquiring power within American institutions. The triad of diversity, equity, and inclusion served this purpose brilliantly. The call for diversity could be mistaken for a call to make the institutions “look like America.” In fact, however, diversity calls for the inversion of the intersectional hierarchy of oppression. Marginalized identities and their interests are moved from the periphery to the center and dominate the institution. As Derrick Bell said, “The goals of diversity will not be served by persons who look black and think white” (Confronting Authority, 1994, quoted in Rufo, p. 253). Diversity in the CRT universe, then, means almost the opposite of what first comes to mind when you hear the word “diverse.” In truth, it means “reverse.” The word equity could easily be taken as a synonym for equality. In the traditional American understanding, “equality” applies to individuals and concerns individual negative rights. In the CRT world equity applies to groups, asserts positive rights, and aims at equality of outcomes. At first, it might seem that “inclusion” is another way of saying “diversity.” However, inclusion focuses on making those previously felt excluded feel fully accepted and comfortable. The mandate for inclusion lies at the root of all hate speech codes that exclude racist, sexist, homophobic, and transphobic expressions. It is the origin of sensitivities to “microaggressions,” and “unconscious bias;” it is the mother of cancel culture, (p. 254). In other words, almost all limits on free speech on college campuses, government agencies, and corporate cultures find their justification in the mandate for inclusion.

Rufo asks us to consider what it would take to make DEI truly effective in American culture. DEI theorists don’t leave us wondering how these goals are to be achieved. Derrick Bell’s disciples Cheryl Harris, Mari Matsuda, Charles Lawrence III, Richard Delgado and Kimberlé Crenshaw lay out a roadmap. (1) The notion of private property must be abolished so that the government can redistribute wealth from white to black people. (2) The Constitutional system of individual rights must be replaced with group rights and entitlements. (3) The First Amendment must be reinterpreted to outlaw speech that harms black and other marginalized people. As Rufo points out, instituting these changes would constitute nothing short of a regime change. Ibram Kendi, for example, proposed an anti-racist constitutional amendment establishing a Department of Anti-Racism with authority to regulate every aspect of American life. This Department would answer to no one—not congress, not the executive branch, and not the judicial branch. To serve the cause of anti-racism, CRT theorists would “limit, curtail, or abolish, the rights to property, equal protection, due process, federalism, speech, and the separation of powers” (p. 266). DEI spells the DEATH of the American constitutional order.

“Conclusion: The Counter-Revolution to Come”

The “Long March” of the New Left through American institutions is almost complete. The critical theory of Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis’s politics of violence, the critical pedagogy inspired by Paulo Freire, and Derrick Bell’s critical race theory dominate American education from kindergarten to graduate school; it pervades government agencies and corporate America. Has the revolution succeeded? Have the neo-Marxists won? Have we reached the point of no return? In his final chapter, Rufo counsels against despair and charts a course for counter-revolution.

1. Counter-revolutionaries must expose the theoretical weaknesses of neo-Marxist critical theory. Marcuse, Davis, Freire, and Bell devised plans for destroying the traditional institutions of free enterprise, property, family, and religion, but they offer nothing but utopian dreams to put in their place. They divide people into evil oppressors and the virtuous oppressed according to race, sexual orientation, and gender. But they cannot summon a moral force strong enough to reunite what they have torn apart. The New Left can destroy but it cannot build. Their motto is “destroy it, and something better will come.” But it never does.

2. Marxism has failed everywhere it has been tried: Stalin’s Soviet Union, Mao’s China, Cabral’s Guinea-Bissau, and Castro’s Cuba. Human beings resist giving up property, family, religion, merit, and privacy. Only a ruthless, totalitarian dictatorship can enforce such an anti-human regime. In the end, the supposedly idealistic revolutionaries, observes Rufo,

simply want their cut. The looters get a box of sneakers and a flat-screen television. The intellectuals get permanent sinecures in the universities. The activists get a ransom payment, disguised as a philanthropic contribution, from corporations and the local government (p. 275).

3. The New Left’s hold on American institutions, Rufo reminds us, “is a creature of the state, completely subsidized by the public through direct financing, university loan schemes, bureaucratic captures, and the civil rights regulatory apparatus.” Its power does not arise from the hearts of the people. “With sufficient will they [the institutions] can be reformed, redirected, or abolished through the democratic process. What the public giveth, the public can taketh away” (p. 270).

4. The New Left proclaims itself the champion of “the people.” In fact, however, the neo-Marxist elites despise “the people.” According to Rufo, the New Left is not really the champion of the oppressed against the oppressors. It is the champion of an “ideological regime” of gnostic-like arbiters of privilege over against the common “citizen.” It is to the “citizen” we must look for counter-revolutionary energy. The counter-revolution, explains Rufo,

is a revolution against: against utopia, against collectivism, against racial reduction, against the infinite plasticity of human nature. But it is also a revolution for: for the return of natural right, the Constitution, and the dignity of the individual” (p. 280). The counter-revolution must champion the “values of the common man: family, faith, work, community, country (p. 281).

The counter-revolution must assert “excellence over diversity, equality over equity, dignity over inclusion, order over chaos” (p. 281). “The anti-democratic structures—the DEI departments and the captured bureaucracies—must be dismantled and turned to dust” (p. 281).

America’s Cultural Revolution: Its Implications for Higher Education

Christian Faith versus The New Left Philosophy

Before I discuss higher education, I want to assert briefly and bluntly that neo-Marxist philosophy is incompatible with Christianity. You cannot be a disciple of Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse and be a Christian in any sense close to orthodoxy. Marcuse was an atheist as are most other New Left leaders. As we saw in the previous sections, neo-Marxists are willing to destroy a relatively just, admittedly imperfect, social order in a despairing hope that a perfect one will take its place. The New Left divides human beings into oppressors and oppressed; it further divides the oppressed into a hierarchy of ever more marginalized identities. It explains all human relationships by this narrow category. Moreover, it justifies violence as a means of bringing about its vision of justice. CRT, DEI, and Critical Pedagogy make no sense apart from neo-Marxist critical theory. They cannot be adapted to serve a Christian purpose.

In contrast to the New Left philosophy, Christianity proclaims that God exists and is known truly in Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. God is the creator and lord of the world. Human beings are God’s creatures made in his image and subject to sin, corruption and death. There is no hope for salvation except in God. People find their true identity in faith and union with Christ. Jesus calls on his disciples to live in peace and joy, to be peacemakers and extend mercy, to love their neighbors and enemies. There is one church, inclusion into which depends on faith and baptism. Class envy and racial animus are forbidden. Violence in service of supposed just causes is prohibited. In both spirit and letter, Christianity and neo-Marxism could hardly be more antithetical. You cannot serve two masters.

Why American Universities Fell So Readily to the New Left

Why were American universities so easily and so thoroughly conquered by the New Left? Why could they not resist such an anti-Christian, anti-democratic, anti-American, and divisive philosophy?

The New University

The short answer is that in the late 19^th century the old American colleges began their transformation into modern universities by adopting the research model of the University of Berlin (1810). They cease assuming the truth of Christianity and argued for professorial and student freedom to teach and learn unencumbered by confessional restrictions. They viewed academic freedom and professional competence as essential because the new idea of the university centered on critique of old ideas and the production of new knowledge. Hence any force that resisted those new goals was considered anti-progressive. And progressive academic leaders thought that orthodox Christianity and conservative politics were the most counter-revolutionary forces they had to fear. To guard against these reactionary forces, modern academic leaders institutionalized such strong protections as near inviolable academic freedom and career-long tenure. The enemies of critical scholarship, value neutral research, and the progress of science, they thought, were all on the Right, that is, among those wanting to turn back the clock. Hence all modern academia’s defenses were directed to its right. The values academic leaders asserted were critical, skeptical, purely methodological, liberal, and supposedly metaphysically and religiously neutral; all were designed to defend against traditional religious and political dogmas. Modern academia could not assert positive beliefs, truths, and values without sounding dogmatic and hypocritical. Its only commitment was to make no commitments. It never imagined that it would be attacked and conquered from the dogmatic Left.

The Dilemma

As we learned from Rufo, the New Left turned modern academia’s progressive rhetoric, critical methods, and institutions of academic freedom and tenure against it. Because the New Left was neither conservative nor Christian, it caught the liberal establishment off guard.  The New Left painted the liberal order of the modern university as sold out to the white capitalist establishment. The liberal university establishment, in the leftist critique, was not critical enough, not neutral, and not progressive. Liberal academics and university administrators were face with a dilemma. They could admit that they have positive commitments after all and assert those beliefs, values, and truths in its defense against the leftist critique. Or, they could give in to the New Left as the logical outcome of their critical stance toward traditional Christianity and conservative politics. Not wanting to give ground to their old enemies, they chose the latter. To escape Christian dogma and reactionary politics, the nightmares of the liberal establishment, the university mortgaged itself to tyrannical, dogmatic leftists.

Is Reform Possible?

According to Rufo, the only possibility of overturning the neo-Marxist hold on the American university—if there is a possibility at all—lies in the democratic process. The public must reassert its control and reimpose its values on the education system. It will have to insist that primary, secondary and college education should stop working to create activists for the Left’s utopian vision of social justice and take up again its traditional task of preparing productive and informed citizens for the constitutional republic of the United States of America. The value of tenure for securing the quality of education and as protection from arbitrary dismissal should be obvious, but it must be granted and maintained only under specific and clearly stated contractual obligations consistent with the stated mission of the university. The protection of academic freedom should not be extended to efforts that subvert the academic mission of the university by redirecting the educational process toward non-academic purposes. Moreover, universities should make it clear that freedom of speech applies not to the classroom but to public spaces. In staff, administrative, and bureaucratic positions, where academic tenure and academic freedom do not apply, legislatures, Boards of Regents, and administrators have much more freedom to reorganize and reform the educational bureaucracy. Shutting down all Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices would be a good start.

An Uphill Climb

But I am skeptical that the public, elected officials, and Boards of Regents will carry out these measures. I could list many reasons for my pessimism, and so could you. But from an insider perspective, this one stands out: there is a deeply rooted assumption in higher education that there should be a single academic culture that sets the standards for the whole nation. Each university, it is assumed, should embody those standards. As long as this assumption holds sway, it is impossible for any university on its own to assert positive beliefs, values, and truths against the New Left. In a diverse society like ours, it is unlikely that a set of beliefs, values, and truths strong enough to resist the New Left can emerge as a national consensus. The only way forward is to reject the assumption of the necessity of one uniform definition of sound education. Individual universities must assert their right to define their own standards.

The Collapse of the Modern Liberal University

In the previous section we learned why the era of the modern liberal university, which began around 1870, came to an undignified end around 1970. The modern university adopted a critical, skeptical, never-ending research model of academia and exempted no moral tradition or religious dogma from critical scrutiny. Though it praised the quest for truth, progress and scientific discovery as its founding principle, its operational values were completely negative. Modern academic leaders were especially on guard against Christian fundamentalism and cultural conservativism; hence they focused exclusively on the dangers from the Right. This one-sided focus, however, made them vulnerable to criticism from the Left. When the Left accused the liberal establishment of not being radical enough in its criticism of the forces of conservativism, the establishment could make no reply. For though it examines everything, it believes nothing. Because it could not appeal to positive political, moral, historical, religious or metaphysical beliefs, the modern liberal university collapsed like a house of cards.

The Christian College: A Place to Stand

In contrast to the modern liberal university, the Christian college, if it takes Christianity seriously, can draw on a worldview authoritative for the Christian tradition and integrated into the charter and mission of the school. It can resist the critical, skeptical, know-nothing philosophy of the modern liberal university as well as the New Left’s subversive combination of criticism and dogmatism. The modern liberal university founded itself on the illusion that perpetual criticism of tradition will eventually generate scientific truth. The post-modern leftist university justifies its existence by repeating the groundless dogma that destruction of every actual thing will bring about utopia. The Christian college is founded on faith in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, the authority of the canonical Scriptures accepted by the ecumenical church, and respect for the two-thousand-year Christian tradition.

The Christian college can assert with confidence that world history cannot be explained with the simple formulas of the neo-Marxists. The true human situation cannot be illuminated by dividing people into the villainous oppressors and the innocent oppressed, and it cannot be improved by instigating an endless war of liberation from ever smaller microaggressions. For the Christian, violence, hatred, envy, greed, division, and all other sins against human community derive from abandonment of obedience and worship of God the Creator (Romans 1:18-32). There will be no reconciliation among human beings until there is reconciliation with God. Liberal platitudes and leftist threats cannot overcome division between races, classes, nations, sexes, or any other binary. Hatred cannot overcome hatred, racism cannot expel racism, violence cannot end violence. Satan cannot cast out Satan. Only the Holy Spirit can do that!

The Christian College: Friend of Truth

The liberal university argues that truth is illusive, and the post-modern university asserts that there is no such thing as truth and reason is a slave to self-interest; power alone is real and acquiring it is all that matters. The Christian college rests in the truth of faith and finds this truth reliable in producing light, love, joy, unity, and peace. Its knowledge grounded in faith gives the Christian college the right, the confidence and the determination to assert truth claims against liberal quibbling and leftist intimidation. Its faith knowledge bestows on the Christian college a mandate to establish and enforce community standards. The open secret is that liberal faculties perpetuate themselves by hiring and retaining other liberals and leftist faculties hire and promote their fellow-travelers. With much more integrity, Christian colleges have the right to hire and retain administrators, faculty, and staff who affirm Christian faith. Moreover, they have the right to define in statements of faith and codes of conduct what they mean by the “Christian faith.”

The Christian College: Courage to Push Back

Academic freedom and tenure are not absolute even in the most liberal and leftist universities. Those institutions have the right to define the boundaries of academic freedom and, under certain conditions, the right to revoke tenure and terminate employment. Like other colleges, Christian colleges do not acknowledge unlimited academic freedom or irrevocable tenure, but they define their limits differently. Christian colleges encourage faculty to speak about their faith in and outside the classroom and commend the Christian faith to their students. Professors are free to critique anti-Christian philosophies and lifestyles. In contrast, these activities are restricted by law in publicly funded universities and by custom in elite private universities. At the same time, liberal and post-modern universities give faculty unrestricted freedom to affirm atheism, Marxism, and libertinism. As long as they do not engage in sexual harassment, they are free to live immoral lives. Christian colleges deny faculty members these freedoms. Faculty members who feel restricted by this denial do not belong in Christian colleges. If they are serious about maintaining their Christian identity, Christian colleges should make clear to faculty members that academic freedom and tenure will not protect them if they violate their contractual obligation to abide by the college’s faith statements and codes of conduct.

The Christian College: Its Critical Principles

Every academic endeavor must employ critical principles; otherwise, it has no criteria by which to distinguish possible from impossible, true from false, valid from invalid, probable from improbable, good from bad, wise from unwise, right from wrong, and just from unjust. For an academic community to exist and work together, its basic critical principles must be embraced by all members of that community. Christian colleges no doubt share many critical principles with other colleges, especially in the areas of logic, mathematics, and other hard sciences. In areas of morality, history, theology, and metaphysics, however, they differ dramatically. The liberal university denies that it gives any positive belief—moral, historical, theological, or metaphysical—the status of a critical principle by which to judge other beliefs of the same type. The post-modern university, in contrast, asserts the morality of diversity, equity and inclusion and the narrative of oppressor versus oppressed as critical principles by which to judge other moral beliefs and narratives. The Christian college asserts the morality of faith, hope, and love and the biblical narrative of God, creation, sin, incarnation, reconciliation and redemption as critical principles by which to judge other moral beliefs and narratives. And it may in good faith exercise this power with boldness.

The Christian College: Learning to Say “No”

Most Christian college professors and administrators received their terminal degrees at universities dominated by the New Left. Having been immersed in Critical Theory, CRT, DEI, and Critical Pedagogy throughout their graduate studies—especially those studying education, social sciences, religious studies, literature, and all identity-based programs—new professors bring these theories and activist teaching methods with them to the Christian college and begin employing them in their teaching and institutionalizing them in training programs. These programs, sponsored by various administrative offices, often appear on the academic agenda without any justification at all. When questioned, their sponsors appeal to “best practices” or the latest educational literature. Or, they attempt to justify these neo-Marxist programs on Christian grounds, arguing that standing up for the poor and oppressed, working for social justice and against racism, and seeking diversity, equity, and inclusion embody the highest ethics found in the Bible and the Christian tradition. Who could object to that?

I reject these arguments. They are usually made by people who have only a superficial understanding of Critical Theory—of Marcuse, Davis, Freire, and Bell—and even less understanding of Christian doctrine and history. They mistake a small linguistic overlap between Christian vocabulary and neo-Marxist vocabulary for substantive agreement. The words diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-racism, oppression and justice as used by the New Left possess no more than verbal resemblances to Christian concepts, and sometimes they mean the direct opposite.

Suggestions for Christian Colleges

1. Don’t allow programs based on Critical Theory, CRT, DEI, intersectional identities, and Critical Pedagogy to be instituted. Discontinue them if they are already in place. Beware: these neo-Marxist programs appear under a variety of innocent sounding names. Read the fine print.

2. Replace teacher workshops rooted in Critical Pedagogy with workshops firmly centered in Christian Pedagogy, and discontinue programs that train faculty and staff in diversity, equity, and inclusion and institute programs that teach faith, hope, and love.

3. Institute continuing education programs that help your faculty and staff understand the Christian worldview at a deeper level.

4. Scrutinize every program and office in view of the critical principles listed above, and make sure that every other narrative and identity is thoroughly subordinate to the Christian narrative and identity.

*This section focuses on higher education, but it applies equally to primary and secondary education.