‘White fragility’ lawsuit exposes emptiness of ‘anti-Woke’ movement

(Reuters) – A federal court decision on Feb. 1 is one of several recent rulings that have exposed the “anti-critical race theory” and anti-woke movement for what it is: a straightforward assault on policies to address systemic racism, including even the teaching of Black history.

A district judge in Colorado dismissed a lawsuit by a white former corrections officer who alleged he was forced to resign because he was intimidated by a requirement to undergo individual, computer-based anti-bias training, including definitions of the term “white fragility.”

The ruling is one of several recent cases in which plaintiffs alleged that diversity and equity initiatives, writ large, are unlawful. Among those cases are one challenging a law that mandated including women and minorities on the Texas State Bar board of directors and another challenging what plaintiffs described as “woke healthcare” — a minority fellowship program at Pfizer Inc.

Recently enacted laws in Florida and elsewhere that go as far as forbidding discussion of historic discrimination and other supposedly “divisive” subjects in public classrooms are also the focus of litigation. (On Feb. 4, Texas governor Greg Abbott sent a letter to state agencies warning that their long-standing diversity and inclusion initiatives are racially biased, and are likely unlawful.)

At first glance, a challenge to a state agency’s training, a challenge to a private company’s fellowship program, and a ban on teaching high schoolers about systemic racism might seem disparate. But they all have relied on the same core legal theory in court: reverse discrimination against white Americans.

In most cases, judges have thus far rejected those claims, although some are in various stages of appeal. Taken together, the courts’ rulings strip down the legal arguments behind so-called “anti-woke” efforts to their hollow core.

In recent opinions, Republican- and Democratic-appointed judges have described legal arguments that white plaintiffs were harmed by pro-diversity initiatives or education about racism as nonsensical, flatly wrong, disorienting doublespeak, and insulting to Black, LGBTQ and other historically disadvantaged groups.

In the Colorado case, Young alleged that the state Department of Corrections essentially labeled him a racist because its diversity training was “based upon a glossary of terms” and optional reading pertaining to systemic discrimination, according to the opinion. The glossary included definitions of race and “white exceptionalism.” He sued under post-Reconstruction era statutes enacted to protect the rights of former slaves and marginalized Americans.

Young was represented by the Mountain State Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit litigation group. William Trachman, general counsel at the Foundation, told me the group is evaluating next steps.

“But the case is far from over,” said Trachman, adding that the group rejects racial intolerance.

Plaintiffs who plead bias and “constructive discharge” generally allege the kind of on-the-job abuse that would cause almost anyone to quit, including physical and sexual assaults.

The complainant in a case cited by Young was the only Black person in an office where racial harassment was rampant, including one co-worker who approached her to discuss lynching people in a historically Black neighborhood, for example.

Young, though, did not allege that he, nor any white colleagues, withstood a steady barrage of demeaning comments, nor that the corrections department hired more Black workers, for example. In fact, he did “not actually allege that he reviewed” all of the allegedly racist materials, let alone that colleagues discussed them at work, the court wrote.

Young’s claim was simply that the training itself discriminated against him, U.S. District Judge Nina Wang wrote.

“But this conclusory allegation” was “unaccompanied by supporting factual allegations,” Wang said. She added that terms like “white fragility” and “white exceptionalism” are objectively not the kind of abusive language that could support a discrimination claim, even if they may have offended Young.

The ruling is in line with other courts that have recently rejected arguments that cast pro-diversity polices or education on non-white history as unlawful anti-white discrimination.

Courts have found that those plaintiffs lacked the basic elements – there was no evidence whatsoever of discriminatory motives nor was anyone actually harmed. What’s more, they’ve held that laws barring education about systemic bias violate First Amendment rights and are unconstitutionally vague.

The legal battle against diversity initiatives and education about race can be traced back to former President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump in September 2020 issued an executive order banning the military and federal grantees from teaching about systemic racism.

It faced multiple suits and was enjoined before President Joe Biden subsequently revoked it. A federal judge in California said the Trump administration made an insulting “false comparison” between banning education about discrimination and (actual) anti-discrimination work, writing that the issue was apparently that “this Government dislikes” education about systemic injustice.

Florida’s Stop WOKE Act — which models Trump’s executive order in state schools, colleges and workplaces — has also faced a slew of lawsuits, and was blocked by a federal court last year.

The state tried “to dress up” its prohibitions as an effort to prevent discrimination, the federal judge hearing those cases wrote in Nov. 2022, calling the move “positively dystopian.” The court added that Justice Sonia Sotomayor would likely violate Florida law if she were to deliver a lecture at a state law school on the role affirmative action played in her life.

Last year, another federal court in Virginia blocked a suit claiming Loudoun County Public Schools’ equity programs violated students’ constitutional rights; and a federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a suit challenging “woke healthcare,” saying the white plaintiffs hadn’t suffered any actual harm.

At bottom, the reverse discrimination arguments cannot legitimately support outlawing diversity initiatives and education about non-white history.

Whether or not their policies and lawsuits will ultimately be successful is a question for the higher courts.

Still, whatever happens, it’s clear enough that the movement reflects a backlash to advancing awareness of systemic racism, rather than opposition to any supposed anti-white discrimination.

Reporting by Hassan Kanu

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

Opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which, under the Trust Principles, is committed to integrity, independence, and freedom from bias.