Words and phrases have both explicit and implicit positive and negative connotations. Even without knowing the definition, one might reasonably assume that words and phrases with certain signature prefixes or suffixes are “good,” whereas others are “bad.” In fact, due to this, certain words have proclivities towards changing their meaning. For example, the word “nice” initially meant “foolish,” as it derived from the Latin word nescius, which in turn meant “ignorant.” This linguistic tendency is actually far more common than the vast majority of people realize, and it extends to every level of culture, insofar as culture and language are interrelated.

When one hears a term like social justice for the first time, one probably has a positive initial impression of the movement, regardless of one’s actual knowledge of its nuances, due to the fact that the terms social and justice are words that have inherently positive meanings. Nevertheless, I contend that social justice may actually be a negative concept disguised by positive etymology.

Implicit within societal and academic expressions of social justice activism is a hidden premise: namely, that the redistribution of social goods ought to be controlled by the state, and it ought to be based on equality of outcome. This emphasis on equality of outcome, combined with the principle of state control of basic human interaction, are precisely the elements of social justice that put it at odds with true justice. It is partly a result of the influence of postmodernism in the humanities, as well as the influence of neo-Marxism (though the two are admittedly intertwined in many respects.) Jonathan Haidt, an American social psychologist at New York University, notes that although the telos of the university is the pursuit of truth, “increasingly, many of America’s top universities are embracing social justice as their telos, or as a second and equal telos .” This means that there is a movement at work which is intent on replacing the pursuit of truth with the pursuit of social justice, or at least placing social justice as a primary competitor against truth. One might reasonably ask how such a replacement can be possibly hold any weight in modern academia. The answer is that for many social justice advocates, truth and social justice are viewed as synonymous.

But Haidt remains skeptical of this conflation between truth and social justice– and rightly so, in my estimation. Truth is itself, synonymous only with itself, and nothing else. Social justice is a conception of what truth might be like. Tragically, many modern (or should I say postmodern?) students conflate the two. This ideological mixing creates profoundly disturbing consequences, as does any human ideology that claims to represent the whole truth, and nothing besides. When theories of social justice err, the social justice advocate dismisses all pretense of intellectual humility, and tenaciously retains the precious dogma that all true warriors for social justice must unquestioningly hold.

This is not merely coincidental; rather, it’s a psychological tactic to elicit blind adherence from the masses– or, more succinctly, propaganda. Bear with me here. The vast majority of new college students– especially those who intend to train in the liberal arts– enter the universities with minds that are both curiously open and ideologically empty, to a significant degree. We exist as impressionable individuals with valuable mental plasticity, which ought to enable us to explore a variety of opposing ideas and weigh their plausibility. Tragically, a significant number of radical ideologues have entered universities. They aren’t intent on the genuine dialogue between opposing thought processes. They are political activists, intent on implementing their social policies in the universities for the purpose of persuading the masses to follow their version of political correctness.

This is not to say that all professors and staff are radical ideologues, of course. Many– if not most– of them are reasonable, well-intended people. At any rate, they aren’t stupid. To get where they are in society– perhaps the most protected professional position in existence– one has to go through years of tedious study and devoted work. Nevertheless, there is a select group of (rather loud) individuals who are given precedence and primacy in various universities, especially those with an emphasis on the liberal arts. (STEM schools have largely stayed away from this trend, at least in part because social justice is based on postmodernism, which would make STEM realistically untenable if implemented.) These individuals are pseudo-scholars, whose works lack citations and peer criticism. In fact, less than 20 percent of all humanities papers are cited properly even once.

These are precisely the professors (and staff members) who are pushing the term social justice forward. It is a useful phrase, because it evokes a feeling of righteousness regarding human societal interaction– and that is what it would mean, if it could be taken at face value. Nevertheless, just as with anything else, the book ought not be judged by its cover. Social justice is not merely about the fair treatment between individuals and society. Rather, it is inherently focused on the redistribution of wealth, privileges, and opportunities based on a theory of oppression– particularly a theoretical Western, patriarchal oppression.

On campus, this is a monumental problem. I say “monumental” for two reasons: first, because it indicates the enormous lack of rationality in the social justice mindset, and second, because it attests to a movement which holds historical significance. Just as we now look back upon the riotous events of the Sexual Revolution and laugh at the hippies of the seventies, one day historians (and laypeople) will look to social justice warriors on college campuses and laugh. In fact, most people are already laughing. The phenomenon of Pepe the Frog is a sufficient demonstration of that fact.

As a college student, I can say with confidence that I know very little. In fact, with each course I work through, and with each discussion I have with professors, I realize that more and more. As the age-worn, yet still somehow timeless adage of Socrates goes, “I know only that I know nothing.” The larger one’s knowledge of the world becomes, the larger one’s perception of lack of knowledge becomes. It’s a curious thing, and not altogether comfortable (in fact, it’s downright uncomfortable for someone of my disposition), but it’s something I am willing to accept. It’s something I must accept, if I am to be honest about the way the world actually is. I do not have all the answers. Only on such grounds can a habitat for finding answers be safely constructed.

Nevertheless, there are many college-aged students who do not recognize their own lack of knowledge. Armed with social justice dogma and postmodern theorizing, they glide through highly social justice ideologically-oriented courses, while simultaneously seeking to deconstruct Western culture and civilization. They think that they have won the intellectual battle, not realizing that there is much more work to be done to come to a full understanding of the issues that they are passionate about. It would be humorous, if it were not so horrifying. For someone who values honest evaluation and careful criticism, such neglect of the intellect’s capacity for growth is nightmarish. How is our society to flourish, when it is constantly being undermined by dogmatic principles that are regarded by collegiate populaces across the United States as divinely inspired, when the reality is that, like other ideologies, social justice dogma is prone to get things wrong?

I propose that we reevaluate social justice dogma in an open, honest, and intellectually rigorous manner, and that we bring back conservative and libertarian voices to the table, so that diversity of opinion can shed light on what is currently an extremely controversial issue in today’s cultural climate. The truth will set us free, and we cannot come to a full knowledge of the truth while remaining closed to alternative opinions in hopes of preserving our particular ideologies.