On April 21, 2018, my black teenage daughter declared: “race is all about culture. Blackness is all about oppression. Nothing else matters.” She was fifteen years old. How could this young woman of great potential and promise believe nothing else matters but oppression? It would be one thing if she had grown up poor in a public housing project with no dad and a mom strung out on drugs and older brothers in prison. Maybe then her perception of the world could be understood. But oppression is far, far from the teenager’s reality. She is privileged to live in sunny San Diego, to be the descendant of four generations of free black slave owners and the first black congressman, to be the daughter of two Ivy League-educated parents, to have an auntie with a Harvard degree, to have been educated in private schools all of her life, save one crazy year in sixth grade, and herself, to eventually attend Yale University.

In what alternate universe can my daughter fervently believe blackness equals oppression and nothing else?

Part of the problem lies in how we educate children about the antebellum past. She once said to me and her mom that “school only teaches me about slaves.” How wrong.

Imagine how different the mindset of the young would be if we gave free blacks before the Civil War their due, if we practiced a little diversity, inclusion and equity in how we teach about black achievement. Not all blacks were slaves.

We need more stories about high-achieving free blacks in the public square. We need more stories about men like John Mercer Langston (1829 – 1897).

In From the Virginia Plantation to the National Capitol John Mercer Langston opened his life story with the words “Self-reliance [is] the secret of success”. He did not begin by bemoaning white privilege. He did not blame The Man. He chose his words with care. Langston was sixty-four years old at the time of publishing his autobiography. He had lived through the death of his beloved parents, pioneering student success at Oberlin College, rejection from law school because of his race, trailblazing triumph as the first black lawyer in antebellum Ohio, General Inspector of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands, founder and organizer of the law department at Howard University, Acting President of Howard University, Minister to Haiti, first President of Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute (now Virginia State University), and service as the first black congressman from Virginia.

In the 534 pages of his life story, one will find no mention of “institutional racism” or “structural racism” or “white privilege.”

Did Langston not understand oppression?

To ask the question is to answer the question. Born on December 14, 1829 in Louisa County, Virginia, Langston entered the world with slaves all around him. Langston’s mother was a free mixed-race woman, and his father was a white slave-holding planter. His parents lived in a common-law marriage arrangement. If slavery is oppression, Langston knew oppression up close and personal more so than any living person can possibly know it. Langston’s own brother, Charles Langston, was incarcerated for his opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act and Charles thundered against the law with an eloquence worthy of the ages.

If Langston understood real oppression during real slavery, why does he begin his life story with self-reliance as paramount, as the secret of success? Langston tells us why. Self-reliance fitted Langston mentally and morally for those trying and taxing duties that awaited him in life. “Whoso would be a man must be a nonconformist.” Self-reliance suggests the importance of avoiding conformity and following one’s own ideas and instincts. Truth is inside a person and this is where authority is to be found, not in institutions. Do what you think is right no matter what others think. Reliance on one‘s own efforts and abilities will see one through. This is how Langston understood the world.

I’ve read From the Virginia Plantation to the National Capitol several times. It is always a pleasure to peer into the mind of an achiever free of stereotypes and unthinking service to political agendas. As a nine-year-old orphan bereft of his guardian family, Langston faced the crisis of his young life. Gloom settled upon his spirit. His new guardian, Richard Long, asked: “what can you do?”. Langston honestly answered, “I can’t do anything.” Long asked the nine-year-old “how did [he] expect to live?” Long immediately put Langston to work driving the horse and cart and hauling brick. Years later at the age of sixty-four, Langston expressed gratitude for the “instruction and training given him, in the ways of industry and self-reliance.”

Upon graduating from college in August 1849, Langston decided upon his life’s profession: he would practice law. Consider the inner certitude of the man. There were only two other black individuals practicing law in the United States at the time – Macon Bolling Allen (1816 – 1894) and Robert Morris (1823 – 1882). There is no evidence Langston was aware of Allen and Morris as Langston clearly wrote that there were no black lawyers anywhere and that there had never been black lawyers. Langston faced “no prospect of success,” “no example of a daring and courageous forerunner” to offer guidance and encouragement. The judges and juries were all white men. Most Americans would have opposed the idea of a black lawyer. Even those favorable to Langston’s ambition offered no encouragement. A wise old black man advised Langston not to think of studying law; even white men had a hard row to hoe in making a living as a lawyer. A white abolitionist lawyer and friend of black people counseled Langston to leave the United States and live in the British West Indies. There, he might be able to eke out a fair living.

A prudent black man might have considered the landscape, thought better of ambition and pursued a career as a teacher or minister. There were clear, concrete demands for black teachers and ministers to serve free blacks in antebellum Ohio. But Langston persevered.

Langston applied for admission to law school at Ballston Spa, New York. The head of the law school, J.W. Fowler was frank about Langston’s admissions prospects. The Board of Trustees and Board of Faculty were unanimous. Langston could not be admitted because of his color. Nonetheless, Fowler invited Langston to the school for a look-see. Fowler met Langston, found Langston to be agreeable and said he would re-submit Langston’s application to the Board of Trustees and Board of Faculty. Within the next twenty-four hours, the Board of Trustees and Board of Faculty again denied Langston admission based on his race. Fowler explained that the school had an interest in working with United States Senator John Calhoun to bring more South Carolina students to the school. These students would be uncomfortable with a black student in their midst.

Fowler suggested that Langston might “edge his way” into the school if Langston could pass as a Frenchman or a Spaniard. This lure excited the greatest moral indignation from Langston. “I am a colored American; and I shall not prove false to myself, nor neglect the obligation I owe to the Negro race!” Fowler offered his sympathies which only added to Langston’s fortitude – “I do not need sympathy. I need the privileges and advantages of your law school.” In this, Langston’s heroic character was shown.

We need more black heroes like Langston. John Mercer Langston was standing up for his race when few others saw the long game of race elevation and uplift.

Langston refused to be denied his goal. He found an Ohio lawyer, Judge Philemon Bliss, who agreed to train him as a law clerk. Bliss drew no distinction based on skin color and openly gave his all to Langston’s training in the law. On September 13, 1854, Langston achieved the unimaginable. He was admitted to the Ohio bar. His achievement is all the more remarkable when one notes blacks could not vote, serve on juries or testify as witnesses at the time. Where did the steadfastness, the iron will, within Langston come from? Langston would answer with two words above all others – self-reliance!

It is hard to imagine how strongly the odds were against him. He was marked and set apart from all other lawyers due to his skin color. How would he make a living? Would he starve for lack of business? Was the white abolitionist right about there being better opportunities in the British West Indies? These fears did not speak to Langston. This was the man trained in self-discipline and race pride. “A thousand times he had been warned that the fate of the negro was sealed, and in the decree which fixed the destiny of the blackhued son of the race his own position was determined and settled.” Langston defied the expectations of thousands. Within a month of admission to the Bar, he won a unanimous jury verdict in favor of his client. And within one year, he had a prosperous practice. His clients were all white! The year was 1855 and, across the Ohio River, blacks remained slaves.

A determined purpose can always, always move mountains.

There is more to blackness than oppression.

 

W.F. Twyman, Jr. is a former law professor in search of truth in the public square.

Critical Social Justice (CSJ) operates to maintain a single explanation for disparity in outcomes and suchlike in our societies. It asserts that the only reason fit for public discussion – as to why some groups in society have more power, resources or education than other groups – is a rigged structure favoring certain groups and disfavoring others.

Proponents of CSJ want to prevent any other explanation from gaining ground in the discourse, especially cultural explanations. They maintain this monopoly of acceptable explanation by cancelling people who dare to offer alternatives — calling them racists and so on —  thus deterring others from doing the same. But most of us know intuitively that culture and systemic factors play a role in producing disparities among groups.

Here are four fallacies that CSJ is committing in its prohibition against cultural explanations:

  1. The Fallacy of Cultural Inadequacy: denying that culture is an explanatory factor in differentiation when it is such an obvious force on how groups behave. The prohibition on cultural explanations must be counterintuitive to nearly everyone. I imagine that even the most ardent CSJ ideologue would, if they took a truth serum, admit to the influence of culture. You mean to tell me that people all over the world or in a given Western country who live differently, view the world differently, speak differently, approach life and work differently, experienced history differently, and think differently about gender and sex—that none of this boundless variation—has any bearing on why certain societies are richer and poorer or why certain subgroups are more or less successful in a given society? The argument is absurd on the face of it.
  2. The Fallacy of the Dominant Culture: that it is absurd to argue that culture is a factor in explaining one group’s behavior but not another. Woke ideology treats all culture as irrelevant except that of the dominant culture. Structure cannot explain the behavior of the dominant class because the dominant class is at the top of the food chain. The only other explanation for how the dominant class behaves is culture. The woke do think it’s perfectly legitimate and even imperative to criticize the culture of the oppressor. It’s fine, for example, to talk about “white fragility” or “toxic masculinity”—the machismo culture of cis-men—or “rape culture.” But how can culture not be a factor at all for marginalized groups but be the sole factor for dominant groups? Do they believe that the dominant class fully set the culture of all subordinate groups to their liking? Are they really saying when structure comes to play culture goes away?
  3. The Fallacy of Selective Agency: that it is inconsistent to insist one aspect of a culture is fully determined by structural factors and not another. If structure really is an all-encompassing force, shouldn’t it also explain the vitality of the black community? As Thomas Burgess wrote in Quillette, “if whiteness is responsible for black vices, isn’t it also responsible for black virtues? Wouldn’t all culture be its creation, and not just the undesirable parts? This is the logical conclusion of this kind of thinking, and it is what happens when you cede omnipotence to the oppressor. When you create a puppet master, you create puppets missing some of the most basic attributes of being human.”
  4. The Fallacy of Differential Outcomes: that if differential outcomes among groups were really solely dictated by racism and white supremacy, one would expect whites to be on top of the society on all key metrics. But they are not. If “white supremacy” is truly the all-powerful force woke ideologues make it out to be, why do so many other ethnic populations substantially outperform whites? One would think that in a white supremacist society whites would be allotted such advantages as higher average incomes and higher levels of educational achievement than other groups. Many White Americans are, however, on average, not faring nearly as well as numerous non-white populations. In addition, some African immigrant groups that came to the U.S. under disadvantageous conditions have on average done better than American blacks and segments of the Hispanic population. Wouldn’t a white supremacist system subjugate African immigrants too?

Pointing out and dismantling these four fallacies can help make room for cultural arguments. Indeed it will help make room for argumentation itself to again reign free, rather than unquestioned dogmas. We just need to take the first step.

David Bernstein is a freelance writer and nonprofit executive. Follow him on Twitter at https://www.twitter.com/Blogunwoke.

White Silence is Violence

Ten Ways Woke Ideas Spread and Stick

I’ve long been fascinated by the varied explanations of why woke ideas spread. Here are the ten that I find most compelling. There are three kinds of explanations among the ten: one looks at the contagiousness of the woke ideas themselves; a second looks at the underlying cultural conditions that explain the receptivity to woke ideas; and the third looks at how these ideas become established and canonized. 

While I do not consider each explanation equally illuminating, I also don’t view any one or two of them as definitive. Rather, taken together, I believe they give us a picture as to how wokeness has gained so much cultural currency. Knowing how these ideas wedge themselves into the popular discourse helps us devise strategies to contain and dislodge them. 

  1. Anti-rational memes. The physicist and philosopher David Deutsch wrote about how “memes”—idea viruses—spread in society. Rational memes vary and replicate because they are true and improve people’s lives. Anti-rational memes, however, spread by disarming their host’s critical faculties. The anti-rational woke meme states: if you criticize me you are racist or fragile. It short circuits the critical process that rational memes are subjected to and spreads because people don’t fully analyze the meme and feel compelled to share it. Cancel culture, of course, is one of the anti-rational meme’s most potent weapons: to further deter critical analysis, the anti-rational meme tries to sideline anyone attempting to criticize it.

  2. Trojan horses. Anti-rational woke ideas also spread by latching on to recognizable concepts deeply embedded in our collective consciousness. Bad woke ideas ride the coattails of familiar good ideas into popular acceptance. Opposing discrimination on the basis of race is a good idea; labeling all of Western society as racist is a bad idea. People are lured in by these radical woke ideas because they strike a familiar note and tug at our conscience. We all likely support equality and civil rights, for example. The woke use these very same concepts and the language around them to push for a highly radical agenda that has little to do with and may even be inimical to equality or civil rights. Unfortunately, many well-meaning people take the bait. 

  3. Idea laundering. Philosopher Peter Boghossian explains that “idea laundering is the mechanism for how people in the academy discharge their moral impulses” and canonize woke ideas. It often starts with a professor creating an academic journal with like minded peers. Other scholars publish in the journal or a similar journal, quoting each other in an echo chamber. It goes in one side as an idea and comes out the other as “knowledge.” Woke activists can then point to the series of scholarly articles in the ideologically homogeneous journals as justification for their radical activism. Students take college classes in these areas, further spreading the “laundered” ideas.

  4. Bureaucratic risk. Eric Weinstein argues that over the past 50 years our institutions have become predisposed to rooting out independent thought and creativity. He states that they “select specifically for hierarchical game playing and intrigue and against anyone who thinks from first principles and is willing to stand up for something she/he believes in to the point of self-sacrifice.” Such an institutional environment is fertile ground for a woke-diversity orientation, which serves to mitigate institutional risk by protecting against lawsuits from disaffected employees or smear campaigns from woke activists. “What we have now,” argues Weinstein, “is an institutional culture that is uniformly, to a leader, hostile to letting subject matter choose our experts and leaders for us and reward them with deep academic freedom and protection from targeted harassment by administrators and the bureaucratic class.”

  5. Generational gaming. This is one of the most novel takes I’ve heard on dissemination of wokeness. Jordan Hall argues that Millennials, the generation most associated with the ascendancy of woke ideology, have come of age in an environment with a much higher presence of authority than previous generations. Boomers, their parents and grandparents, have maintained power longer and more ubiquitously than previous generations and coddled their children in ways that would have been unthinkable to previous generations. In this cultural milieu, millennials developed a felt sense of lack of agency. They learned to influence reality not through their own labor and creativity but by manipulating boomer authority. Their center of agency is in their capacity to influence authority figures and they became experts at exploiting boomer power structures. They’ve figured out that one way to get boomers, who are particularly susceptible to charges of discrimination and bigotry, to accede to their demands and to cede power is by ramping up woke claims.

  6. Crisis of meaning. Coleman Hughes speaks of the innate appeal of woke ideology for a younger generation who have eschewed traditional religion and possess no other grand meta-narrative. They are hungry for a system of meaning to help make sense of the world, a vacuum that woke ideology eagerly filled. At his time at Columbia University, Hughes says that “intersectional politics was the primary way people built a sense of self.” Sociologist Musa al-Gharbi explains “Unmoored from religious tradition, many reach for political fundamentalism to provide a sense of identity and purpose for their lives, and pursue political activism as a means of engaging in fellowship with like-minded believers.”

  7. Academic careerism. One way woke ideas get amplified in academic circles, and then spread to students, is through academic competition and careerism. Academia has become a subculture of intersectional positionality. In order to curry favor and advance their careers in an environment dominated by CSJ  discourse, academics one up each other by slamming their fellow academics for being insufficiently woke, and thus create ever more radical iterations of CSJ ideas. In the words of evolutionary psychologist Geoffrey Miller, “CRT [Critical Race Theory]  is a self-flagellation cult for cynical opportunists seeking a virtue-signaling edge in their careers.”

  8. Power structure replication. James Lindsey argues that woke forces within institutions seek to gain control by recruiting more people like themselves. He argues that woke forces specifically target women and people of color to be “agents of change” who “remake the system.” In other words, the woke established themselves in the power structure by recruiting “party activists” into key roles, who serve to perpetuate and grow the increasingly totalitarian system.

  9. Educating educators. One key vector of transmission of woke ideas are colleges of education.  Lyell Asher argues that while these colleges have long inculcated leftist ideas to teachers of K-12 education, in recent decades they have also trained the administrative bureaucracy in higher education. He asserts that “this influx of ed school trained bureaucrats has played a decisive role in pushing an already left-leaning academy so far in the direction of ideological fundamentalism that even liberal progressives are sounding the alarm.” Faculty at most of these schools teach a particular ideology—that traditional knowledge is repressive by its very nature—“without directing their students to any substantial readings that question the educational implications of this view.” The growing ranks of the university administrators coming out of education schools reinforce the academic monoculture where wokeness lives and spreads.

  10. Hunting-in-packs. Toby Young argues that the woke “hunt in packs and we don’t.” Unwieldy rationalists, blessed and cursed with nuance and independent thought, behave very differently than a woke mob hungry to de-platform the latest heretic. Hunting in packs sends shock waves into institutions, generating the exaggerated sense of being inundated by angry customers or stakeholders and raising apprehensions of what might happen if they refuse the pack’s demands. The institutions frequently accede to the demands, emboldening the woke mob to move on to its next target. I hope this helps people better understand how and why woke ideas spread and gain power. Understanding this is a first step towards combating their entrenchment.

 

David Bernstein is a freelance writer and nonprofit executive. Follow him on Twitter @Blogunwoke. 

 

There is a very old and very awful movie called The Blob. As terrible as it is (and it is really terrible) the premise of that movie provides us with a very good analogy for what happens when Critical Social Justice begins to get involved in your business or institution.

The plot of “The Blob” is very simple. A meteorite crashes in the countryside of a small town in the USA carrying a small, red, jelly-like blob. Upon crashing, the Blob begins to absorb everything it touches, growing larger, redder, and more aggressive. Everything the Blob touches is destroyed and added to the Blob’s growing size. Two teenagers attempt to warn people, but they are ignored. No one believes them until the Blob reaches a nearby city and begins to absorb entire buildings. Only then do people begin to act.

When Critical Social Justice activists become involved in a company, they will inevitably begin to redirect resources away from the mission of the company and toward Critical Social Justice. Like the Blob absorbing everything in sight in order to make itself bigger and more powerful, Critical Social Justice activists will get a foothold in an organization and absorb more and more resources as they work to make Critical Social Justice central to the function of the organization. This explains how a razor company ends up making an ad about toxic masculinity, and a shoe company ends up making public statements commenting on race relations.

The Critical Social Justice activists believe that various forms of racism, sexism, homophobia etc prevent particular identity groups from gaining equal access to resources and opportunities, thus leading to unfair outcomes. On the surface such a claim looks reasonable: surely racism, sexism, and homophobia cause tremendous strife for those on the receiving end of them. However, because Critical Social Justice does not view the world the way many of the rest of us do, a number of problems begin to crop up, and the whole thing begins to go off the rails.

Critical Social Justice activists have a vastly different understanding of racism, sexism, and homophobia than the rest of us. Critical Social Justice holds that they are not just beliefs held by individuals; rather, they are systems of oppression that have been built into the very structure of our society. In the same way that all the roads in a city interlock to form a system of roads, Critical Social Justice believes that individual racism, cultural racism, institutional racism, and all other forms of racism interlock and overlap to form a system of racism that is present through all of society.

As a result, if you were to ask a Critical Social Justice activist about racism, they would tell you that everything in society, all our art, social conventions, language, ideas, religions, political ideas, education, knitting clubs, video games, and institutions have racism baked into them and that it is not possible to avoid being socialized into a racist worldview if you are white.1 Further, they would say that because many of the people who contributed to the founding of our society and the creation of our culture held racist beliefs, culture and society is therefore totally corrupted and contaminated by racism. This view of society is paired with the doctrine of complicity which states that we all share moral responsibility for the systemic oppression (racism, sexism, homophobia etc) that Critical Social Justice thinks dominates our society. We all share responsibility for the condition of our society such that even if we ourselves have not done anything racist, we are complicit in systemic racism in virtue of our participation within the society that perpetuates it. According to Critical Social Justice, the only way to avoid being complicit in racism (or any other sort of systemic oppression) is to actively and aggressively confront it at every turn. Further, to deny the existence of systemic racism is another form of complicity.2 There are two implications that emerge from the combination of these CSJ ideas regarding systemic oppression and complicity:

 

  1.     Critical Social Justice activists think every organization they enter, and all the people involved with those organizations, need to be thoroughly vetted for beliefs, attitudes, prejudices and ideas that might perpetuate systemic oppression.

 

  1.     Critical Social Justice activists think they will be complicit in systemic oppression if they do not get their entire organization and all the people involved in it completely on board with Critical Social Justice.

 

Thus, Critical Social Justice activists will be highly motivated to get organizations they join on board with Critical Social Justice. In fact, many activists think spreading Critical Social Justice is their most important goal. It is merely a matter of time, therefore, before they create serious problems within the organization.

Let’s take a look at how that goes.

When Critical Social Justice begins to take root in your business the Critical Social Justice activists will usually begin with something small. They may ask that your company implement Critical Social Justice-style sensitivity training which may look a lot like typical workplace sensitivity training. However, it will teach people to see systemic oppression everywhere and in everything and to call it out whenever they can. This leads people to become hypersensitive whilst encouraging them to accuse others of racism, sexism, and homophobia for even the smallest perceived slight or misstep.

The blob of Critical Social Justice has now gotten its first resources and it has grown a little bigger and a little stronger.

Once the activists within the organization taste their first success, they will begin to pressure the company to dedicate further resources to Critical Social Justice. As they escalate, the activists may ask for further sensitivity training, they may ask for workplace harassment policies, or they may ask for remedial processes for those who are seen to have done something racist. Whatever route they go, the new training and policies will always lead to both a greater awareness of Social Justice and a greater dedication to Critical Social Justice by the employees.

Remember, the Critical Social Justice conceptualisation of progress differs from the way people typically understand progress.

Whilst we might applaud a new path that aims at rectifying genuine wrongs, Critical Social Justice is more interested in creating wrongs where there are none, and then busying itself applying “fixes” for whatever it has deemed problematic. As more people become more sensitive to Critical Social Justice concerns, they will become ever more sensitive to perceived slights and missteps while feeling ever more empowered to call other people out for those perceived slights and missteps. This leads to an increase in workplace conflict and an erosion of trust within the organization.

The blob has now eaten more resources and it is now grown even bigger, even stronger, and it wants even more resources.

The activists will begin to ask that the organization take a stand on issues related to Critical Social Justice and that the organization dedicate resources toward Social Justice activism. Activists will demand changes to employment and hiring practices, changes to the organization’s mission statement and any other changes they deem necessary for advancing the cause of Social Justice. They will use the thirst for Critical Social Justice that was created by the training they asked for as leverage in demanding that the company take a public stand on contentious social issues, and demand the company pick sides in political fights. Failure to implement these demands may cause the employees to stage walkouts or engage in strikes of the sort that happened at Google in 2018 when employees staged a walkout in part over a transparency report about sexual harassment policy during the height of the Me Too movement.3

The blob will keep absorbing resources, it will keep getting bigger and stronger, and it will use its increased strength as leverage to demand further resources.

You can see how this works: because Critical Social Justice sees oppression as being systemic, every area of the company must be vetted and every member must go through Social Justice Training. However, with each new training and each new policy, the organization members become more dedicated to Critical Social Justice and ever more willing to read systemic oppression into anything and everything.

As the organization tries to appease the members who are fast becoming Critical Social Justice activists it will alienate the members, customers, and patrons who do not agree with the Critical Social Justice activists. This leads to a divisive, hostile, and uncomfortable working environment with first-rate employees leaving the organization and long-time customers and working partners seeking out other organizations to engage with.

So, it is imperative for anyone who runs an organization to let people know that, whatever their feelings on Critical Social Justice, activists do not get to hijack the organization for the purposes of propagandizing and perpetuating it. The members of your organization must realize that they do not get to make Critical Social Justice the paradigm through which all decisions are made. This will ruffle some feathers, and there will be short-term conflict. However, for the long-term health of the organization, it is important to make sure that Critical Social Justice is not able to make itself the dominant force within your organization.

While Critical Social Justice activists may try to create bad publicity if you don’t give in to their demands, it is important to remember that bad publicity will not last long, and the damage will not be permanent.4 News cycles move quickly, the spotlight is hard to keep, and the power of activists is grossly exaggerated. As such it is better to take a stand early on and protect the integrity of the organization than to allow Critical Social Justice to get a foothold and to then have to navigate the myriad of issues created by newly empowered activists. If an organization treats people fairly, provides equal opportunity to everyone based on merit, and conducts itself with integrity, then there is no reason to allow the organization to be pushed around by Critical Social Justice activists.

If your organization comes under attack by Critical Social Justice activists, or employees try to bring Critical Social Justice into your organization, the best option is to simply refuse it access and stand your ground.5

In the long run, you will be glad you did.


1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2-4PTo4Krk ((34:00)
2 This is the fruit of the postmodern imperative to dismantle, deconstruct, and problematize.
3 https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/03/google-employee-protests-as-part-of-new-tech-resistance.html Employees sought “end of private arbitration, a transparency report about sexual harassment, more disclosures about compensation and an employee representative on the company’s board”.
4 https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trader-joes-changing-ethnic-sounding-label-names-72109596 You can see here that Trader Joe’s held its ground and the story is no longer circulating. The furore always dies down quickly.
5 Ibid.Trader Joe’s held its ground and they have not seen trouble as a result of that stance.