Being an academic is not what it used to be. The list of acceptable things to say, do, or teach became much shorter over the past decade, and things that were relatively innocuous in 2014 may get someone fired in 2024.

A tide of grievance has swept through academia, leaving in its wake the irrelevance of intention, the concept of microaggressions, the use of critical social justice as an ideological foundation, and a narrative that renders White people perpetual oppressors. What’s more, the new grievance believes critical thinking is inherently White, critical inquiry is tantamount to a violent attack, and minorities, especially Black people, as rendered perpetually oppressed.

These sentiments had been lingering for years but became the cudgels of social justice initiatives at colleges and universities all over the country. Entire fields, especially my field of rhetoric and composition, were captured, even if the initiatives contradicted a field’s primary purpose. Wokeness’ usurpation of academia was swift, relentless and egregiously illiberal.

I have little confidence in academia. My confidence was initially shaken by the fact that critical thinking, a key outcome of a college education, became critical feeling. Sadly, that critical feeling skewed negative and reflected intolerance of anything that did not center and emphasize resentment toward Western Civilization. I discovered this when I was told by colleagues, in vitriolic fashion, that the concepts of argumentation, knowledge of standard English, and reason, itself, were considered “White ways of knowing.” 

Because I embraced such ways of knowing, White, Black, and Native American people called me — in so many words — inauthentically Black. This is not an outlier’s opinion; many academics, out of either sincerity or peer pressure, promote this idea. Why would I want to stay in a place where so many people feel a sense of duty to label me “phony,” “traitor,” or academia’s favorite “four-letter word,” conservative?

Academia has devolved into an enclave for people with high IQs, but low EQs (Emotional Quotients) – a place full of brilliant people who can’t “adult.” I have spent time writing and speaking about the “middle school mean girl” antics of academics in my field and the humanities in general, including students, faculty and administration.

My dedication to the preparation of my students for a free, pluralistic and liberal society induced a rancorous and multiracial tantrum from those dedicated to destroying said society — and in academia their numbers have become legion. My desire to empower my students was taken as an apologia for settler colonialism, a manifestation of my internalized anti-Blackness, a preference for White supremacy and a promotion of modern-day fascism.

Rhetoric and composition, the field of academia I entered upon finishing graduate school had its issues, but it was not the rabidly illiberal enclave it is now. That change has proven too much for me to bear. This is because emotion, not critical thinking, is the primary epistemology for the loudest among them. They have demonized reason and rationality as “White ways of knowing,” projected evil onto anyone who disagrees with their outlook, and have created an epidemic hatred of free speech. The “life of the mind” I thought I was entering has instead become the life of the heart I am gladly exiting.

Perhaps my biggest issue is with the role of Black people in academia, especially the humanities. The illiberal dispositions of academics are often justified as the stances of social justice activists trying to make things right for the historically downtrodden, most often represented by Black Americans. The grade inflation (if there is grading at all), the deprecation of standardized English, the dismissal of tried-and-true critical thinking skills and other ways of jettisoning merit from fundamental learning outcomes are all done in the name of Black racial justice.

I see a conversation in the not-so-distant future in which one person asks, “Why did academia become such an illiberal and anti-intellectual institution?” to which the answer would be, “Well, you know, the Black people.” I do not want to frequent the places where I am most likely to hear such a conversation.

For this reason, and with no attempt at hyperbole, I say that academia, like other distinctly leftist institutions, has no use for a Black person who does not identify as a victim, e.g., me. Ultimately, academia simply does not like me. At best, I was invisible.

I was not doing distinctly Black scholarship. That is, I am a rhetorician, but I do not do distinctly Black rhetoric. I teach American philosophy, but I do not focus primarily on Black scholars. It is as if the academic collective is saying, “Why do you want to teach a class on classical rhetoric? We have a White guy for that.” Again, why would I stay in such a situation?

Now, I know what I am describing does not apply to all institutions of higher education. I can say with the utmost sincerity that my time at York College had nothing to do with it; I enjoyed my time at that institution the most. My issue is with my field in particular and academia in general. Even exempting my experience, academia seems to be a sinking ship. Most colleges are seeing a clear dip in enrollment, especially from males. Departments, if not entire schools, are being shuttered for budgetary reasons. Most schools do not have Harvard’s endowment.

Also, academia does not house the fair-minded and well-balanced life of the mind. Academia’s liberal to conservative ratio is 12 to 1. This is not the fair representation of viewpoints that are supposed to be a main characteristic of higher education and the liberal arts in general. Academics evade having to defend their ideas by only hiring people who already share them. I want an environment where the best argument wins, not where arguments are avoided by exclusion of counterarguments.

All this said, there is a noticeable regression of woke initiatives. Some schools have either rolled back or eliminated their DEI positions and offices. Some have reallocated funds originally earmarked for social justice programs. Corporations have forgone projects like implicit bias training. 

What’s more, the public’s knowledge of the rampant incompetence and antisemitism due largely to wokeness has created a backlash not unnoticed in administrative offices and C‑suites. Many see the 2024 presidential election as the woke movement’s Waterloo, and the beginning of a return to normality.

If this is the case, why should I leave? Can’t I just outlast this movement as it languishes on its deathbed?

I could, but that would not solve the bigger issue. Why don’t I stay in academia? Because those who implemented these projects in the first place, those who virtual signal for personal gain, those who insist that words are violence and disagreement is bullying, those who implemented loyalty tests and relegated merit to race, and those whose antiracism is just a different kind of racism are still there, just waiting for the next bad idea to come along. Basically, academia has lost its credibility; I simply can’t trust it anymore.

So here I am, embarking on a new, non-academic chapter in my life. I will still study, write, and lecture about rhetoric. I will still write about academia. I will still dedicate myself to “the life of the mind.” I am confident that I am making the right move, even though giving up tenure and summers off was initially hard to swallow. I will still promote real racial justice.

Most importantly, I will be myself without having to suffer those who would vilify me for it. This, alone, feels like a step in the right direction. Ultimately, when it comes to integrity, individuality, reason, and — perhaps most ironically — equality, the town square looks more appealing than the ivory tower.