"It’s not a 'culture of victimhood,' on the contrary, it is more often an act of social aggression, since these performances of injury are typically carried out, not to attract sympathy, but rather punish and control others."
An interesting observation (usually discussion of woke tactics focuses on Internet mobs). I'm curious how to push back against this tactic without being insensitive.
I usually refer back to the old FidoNet guidelines: "1. Don't be offensive. 2. Don't be easily offended." They're intended to discourage flamewars in computer-mediated communication, but I think they're also good advice for a pluralistic society.
If someone saying "you're harming my mental health" really means "I'm offended by what you're saying," maybe the appropriate response is to ask why they disagree with what you're saying.
I'm also wondering what this refers to: "[American liberals] are pushing back, creating several organizations committed to combating the influence of 'woke' politics and ideology." I know David Shor and Matthew Yglesias have been saying for some time that Democrats need to talk about popular issues and not talk about unpopular issues in order to win elections, but I'm not familiar with organizational efforts.
You're welcome! I've learned a tremendous amount from reading Joseph Heath, both his popular books and his more academic books and papers. He's very good at analysis and explanation, as in this post.
"The past 12 months have seen a centrist countermobilization designed to strengthen a mainstream image of the Democratic Party and to block the power of the more radical left to set policy. New groups and digital publications include Persuasion, Counterweight, American Purpose, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism and the Academic Freedom Alliance."
I have read and heard many pieces on the definition of wokeness and the new left. I have come to the conclusion, as have many others much more prolific than I, that it is a form of relating to a world that exists in another world. The online world. If one considers that on line you can be who ever you want to be, regardless of specific realities that are not interchangeable, it makes sense that the new illiberal grew up and live in an on-line world. Through the course of their life they have interacted online, in forums with like minded people. The perceptions are the same and when they speak continually to those with the same mind set, they confirm reality to each other. In forums online there are rules that must be followed and anyone who misbehaves is removed from the forum. The internet has had many effects on society and the way we view the world and ourselves in it. It can cause misconceptions of the real world and those who live with in that reality, making those people the " bad guy" for hurting their feelings. In a sense they must be removed from the forum for being mean.
It would be helpful, to me at least, if you'd share your definition of 'wokeness.' What is this "form of relating to a world that exists in another world," exactly? And, if it's your view, what is wrong-headed about wokeness? I ask because you're not addressing the issue; you're attacking personally anyone who is 'woke' as labeled by another person.
Woke is to be awakened to the world of injustice invoked against the oppressed and the presumed maleficence of other people who are considered the oppressors. They seek reparation and justice in both action and speech. The politically correct words are pronounced in the "woke" and everyone who does not speak the language is the enemy. Words are considered dangerous and evil and must be revoked if they harm or pertain to the attributes of an oppressed group or cause hurt feelings. You can be woke and not be oppressed but speak on behalf of the oppressed. Those who stand by their convictions self-identified as the oppressed, live with in the group reality or the reality to which their group can agree upon. The majority have been interacting on line and have formed their reality on line with like minded people. They form personalities and identities on line as there you can be what you say you are. You can be anyone on line as there are no borders to contain a person either physically or mentally in an on-line presence. They do not participate in the real world as individual members of society but only do so in a group setting. Only they speak the truth, their truth, to which is the only truth. Any other perspective is void and must be called out as blaspheme. Only they are virtuous.
Could you go a little further and offer your views as to why some people think this is a bad thing? What if, let me ask, if the 'group reality' is, in fact, the reality based on evidence, facts, and history?
I ask because if the word 'woke,' a pejorative, is replaced by, say, the word "Abolitionist" as it relates to slavery, would this be a bad thing, too?
This is not a peaceful movement and consists of force and obedience to conform to the ideology that is behind the people of the "Woke". All people outside the group are considered guilty of crimes they never enacted for the very reason of being. Judgement is all inclusive of the "others" for the reason they are "outsiders". Those who dare to speak against the cause or who have individual thought must be eradicated and there is no road to redemption. You are guilty, tried and convicted swiftly, if only for a spoken word. Cancel culture is corrosive to any population and is enacted for conformation of a totalitarian decent to which is behind the movement. That is why "woke" is pejorative, as it seeks to destroy and tear down a population instead of building cohesion and adaptation that melds people into a peaceful society.
Thank you for your views. I'm not able to respond to them in a substantive, informed, fact-based way because you're relying on generalities and Right Wing propaganda constructs.
I might be able to respond to your claims if you could provide specific examples of your claims.
All I can do is recognize you believe these things.
I have seen this movement myself and have been deemed a racist for standing up for our natural resources in Canada. In a online post by a Liberal MP who was adamant to acknowledged that anyone who wore a Canada Strong or clothing depicting our natural resource sector was a white supremist was using the words as a weapon. So I am curious how one can find the idea of standing up for Canadian natural resources as a racial issue and a white supremist ideal. The generalization and name calling are being used to shut down any discussion and to ensure the other side can not speak due to their lack of moral fortitude. It is used to take away their voice. The Prime Minister of Canada himself uses this tactic to stop any questioning of or for information regarding something the public has every right to know. The NDP, both Provincial and National use this in the same manner. Its done to stop any dissenting voices on their policies. I have also witness the Marxist ideology behind the movement and in fact behind governmental motivation. I saw in front of me a CBC interview with a woman of official status standing with a book of Marxism in her arms. When I later saw the same interview on the news there was no sight of the book as they only showed her from the shoulders up. They were purposely hiding the very motivation behind the words of the person and the pretense to the entire interview.
Having read the article and the considered commentary, the defining "woke" is unimportant compared to the illiberal tactics used to advance the agenda of "the woke". I can substitute "the woke" with "the marxists", "the fascists", "the Conservative Party", "feminists", "neo-Nazis" and still grasp the central thesis of the article. Any intellectual movement that shuts down rather than encourages dissenting views is illiberal. The woke, even if poorly defined, cannot seem to engage in a milieu of dissention. It is comply, or be bullied and ostracized.
One distinction here is that Marxists, fascists, and neo-Nazis have no commitment to liberal principles such as freedom of speech (since their goal isn't to maintain a pluralistic society). So they have no need to employ the tactic of claiming harm in order to justify suppressing free speech they disagree with.
> they have no need to employ the tactic of claiming harm
Why would they deny themselves such a powerful rhetorical weapon? The marxist claims harm from the bourgeoisie to overthrow them. The fascist imagines harm from outsiders who want to topple his regime. The neo-Nazi claims harm from those who are not Aryan. An examination of history reveals prodigious claims of harm to suppress free speech from these groups.
If someone like Joseph Heath, a professor, is going to attack "'woke politics and ideology" it would be a good idea, in my view, to define it. Failure to do so, as Heath has done, reduces an attack like Heath's to a straw man argument.
That's not what Heath is attacking, it seems to me. So what, exactly, is Heath attacking, because it is not "woke politics and ideology." That notion is a right wing slur.
While I agree that his failure to define the term made the article weaker, omitting the definition does not mean he replaced his target with a false one. If we adopt the Guardian definition then your strawman accusation becomes stronger. But I'd submit that the Guardian definition is not a useful one. For one thing it is too vague (e.g. I am attentive to important issues of social justice including race, and am anything but woke), for another, it fails to identify the very kinds of issues Joseph raises, which are baked in to Wokism at a fundamental level.
I kind of understand your position. For clarity it is the Merriam Webster definition and not the Guardians. It is clear that Heaths own academic credentials are threatened by the woke so in defence he attempts to throw wide open the overton window.
It would be useful to define "woke politics and ideology." I'm disinterested in what becomes accepted as the definition or is stipulated, but absent a definition, Heath's attack becomes, effectively, meaningless, in my view. As professor of philosophy, Heath is not setting a good example about argumentation.
On the other hand, whether it's tied to an ideology or not, he has helpfully and clearly described certain patterns of behaviour that are creating major shifts in our cultural norms. I think that has value regardless of whether you attribute them to a defined group.
The article has meaning, I agree, in that it stokes disinformation, misinformation, confusion, and discord. It does this by not specifying exactly what the criticism is or even what is being criticized beyond right wing generalities and dog-whistle vagueness.
Of course, I'm insisting on a definition of wokeness. Without one, how can anyone know with any clarity what Heath's arguing about. If an explanation of wokeness isn't forthcoming or necessary what, exactly, is Heath's complaint? Without a definition, Heath's entire complaint is reduced to a quibble about the tone some people, whom he doesn't approve of, are using.
"Illiberalness wrapped in liberal terms and liberal language" is not a definition of woke, it's a right wing slur and, possibly, intended to be so. When--or if--you accuse someone of being woke, what exactly are you accusing them of and why is it wrong-headed? Moreover (if it's true) why are you, personally, not woke?
Thank you for this. I note that Melanie Phillips, the author, equates some children's "[confusion] about their sexual identity [as] part of some wider psychological disorder." Is it a psychological disorder if you're born gay?
I think, perhaps, being 'woke' to the reality that people's, it seems, sexual identity is something they are born with is a good thing. Should we not be 'woke' to that reality and not treat it as a disorder? I ask because I think we can understand the notion of 'woke' better if we deal with specifics rather than politically convenient, untestable generalities.
I have been thinking along the same lines as you trying to understand woke. I am old enough to remember a time when the word hippy meant hip and rap was a conversation among the hip about important subjects of the day. Heath does identify the opposite of woke as "normal" I think this is where the piece fails as whatever woke is it is on a spectrum just like most politically charged ideas. In that sense Heath is woke/counter woke.
Note that in some circles the Guardian is now regarded as transphobic, and therefore beyond the pale. An interesting discussion from a progressive website, prompted by someone who wasn't familiar with the criticism: https://metatalk.metafilter.com/25853/Whats-Wrong-With-The-Guardian
Yes UK is a bit of an outlier and that they are broadly beginning to push back against wokeness. A lot of conservatives won’t agree with me but I believe it has to do with the impartiality law that governs to BBC. They are required to present all sides of an issue. They’re not perfect on it but it’s a seachange from the cultural divide we see in America
This article is the lamest I've seen on The Line. I would hope a professional philosopher would be able to see a bigger picture than this one. A huge percentage of the irritating left are YOUNG - so grow up and let them have their youthful rage, and stop being afraid of them. The tendency to cancel right now can go really wrong, but that doesn't mean one should start fantasizing about straw man enemies who somehow form a monolith we should be terrified of. We're in a moment, and later there'll be another, with different code words, and it'll be a similar fight. Someone who spends his life thinking should be able to crane his neck a bit and see the forest *and* the trees, and all the monkeys freaking out about what's on twitter, and form a thought better than "Oh no! Monkeys!"
Part of me agrees with you, sometimes it seems like liberals, or the broadly left leaning, who do not identify with what most refer to as 'woke' worry too much about the tactics these people use, the arguments they make, the claims they endorse, etc. They're young, they're poor, they think they're right, etc. Let them rage a bit, let them try to 'cancel' their professor, it will all eventually fade. On the other hand, I think Heath is a pretty moderate thinker, one of the few Canadian intellectuals, and usually presents pretty thoughtful takes on current trends. What he describes in this article generally seems like a common tactic. His argument about how their tactics are illiberal appears sound, so why not grant him the conclusion? Maybe you do, in which case maybe what you're taking issue with is the need some feel to even argue about why these tactics are bad? That might be reasonable, but I imagine Heath would say that stifling debate, as a tactic in argument, is generally a bad route to take and should usually be condemned (through argument) and discouraged because on net, we want reasoned debate to inform our opinions, politics, etc.
I'm still looking for indications that this has escaped college liberal-arts departments, mostly at grad level. If my biggest societal concern, waking up this morning, was poor people having to stay in service McJobs , with bullying and harassment, and wage-theft, then the fates of college professors' careers is not dragging me away.
Indeed, I haven't heard of these problems spoiling the atmosphere in chem classes; surgery is being taught the same; even Law departments seem to be unscathed. (Possibly because they know case law on what is and isn't "active speech", and aren't bullied by HR.)
What's irritating about the subject is that the right-wing, who desperately want me NOT thinking about poor people in crappy jobs and no choices, thinking about people who never had a hope of attending university at all, to get a nursing or technical degree that could change their life - the right-wingers love to change the subject to the dread spectre of Liberal Fascism.
Liberal-arts departments are where society tries out these ideas, and, clearly, in their coming-out party in 0.01% of society concerned with sociology and gender studies, the new ideas are working out badly. I don't think the rest of us will be much bothered by them.
"It’s not a 'culture of victimhood,' on the contrary, it is more often an act of social aggression, since these performances of injury are typically carried out, not to attract sympathy, but rather punish and control others."
An interesting observation (usually discussion of woke tactics focuses on Internet mobs). I'm curious how to push back against this tactic without being insensitive.
I usually refer back to the old FidoNet guidelines: "1. Don't be offensive. 2. Don't be easily offended." They're intended to discourage flamewars in computer-mediated communication, but I think they're also good advice for a pluralistic society.
If someone saying "you're harming my mental health" really means "I'm offended by what you're saying," maybe the appropriate response is to ask why they disagree with what you're saying.
I'm also wondering what this refers to: "[American liberals] are pushing back, creating several organizations committed to combating the influence of 'woke' politics and ideology." I know David Shor and Matthew Yglesias have been saying for some time that Democrats need to talk about popular issues and not talk about unpopular issues in order to win elections, but I'm not familiar with organizational efforts.
Thanks for this. Helpful.
You're welcome! I've learned a tremendous amount from reading Joseph Heath, both his popular books and his more academic books and papers. He's very good at analysis and explanation, as in this post.
Heath's own views are centre-left. http://induecourse.ca/why-a-conservative-government-would-be-bad-for-ontario/ http://induecourse.ca/lessons-for-the-left-from-olivia-chows-faltering-campaign/
"[American liberals] are pushing back, creating several organizations committed to combating the influence of 'woke' politics and ideology."
Aha: a May column by Thomas Edsall in the NYT mentions this. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/26/opinion/democrats-republicans-wokeness-cancel-culture.html
"The past 12 months have seen a centrist countermobilization designed to strengthen a mainstream image of the Democratic Party and to block the power of the more radical left to set policy. New groups and digital publications include Persuasion, Counterweight, American Purpose, Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism and the Academic Freedom Alliance."
I have read and heard many pieces on the definition of wokeness and the new left. I have come to the conclusion, as have many others much more prolific than I, that it is a form of relating to a world that exists in another world. The online world. If one considers that on line you can be who ever you want to be, regardless of specific realities that are not interchangeable, it makes sense that the new illiberal grew up and live in an on-line world. Through the course of their life they have interacted online, in forums with like minded people. The perceptions are the same and when they speak continually to those with the same mind set, they confirm reality to each other. In forums online there are rules that must be followed and anyone who misbehaves is removed from the forum. The internet has had many effects on society and the way we view the world and ourselves in it. It can cause misconceptions of the real world and those who live with in that reality, making those people the " bad guy" for hurting their feelings. In a sense they must be removed from the forum for being mean.
It would be helpful, to me at least, if you'd share your definition of 'wokeness.' What is this "form of relating to a world that exists in another world," exactly? And, if it's your view, what is wrong-headed about wokeness? I ask because you're not addressing the issue; you're attacking personally anyone who is 'woke' as labeled by another person.
Woke is to be awakened to the world of injustice invoked against the oppressed and the presumed maleficence of other people who are considered the oppressors. They seek reparation and justice in both action and speech. The politically correct words are pronounced in the "woke" and everyone who does not speak the language is the enemy. Words are considered dangerous and evil and must be revoked if they harm or pertain to the attributes of an oppressed group or cause hurt feelings. You can be woke and not be oppressed but speak on behalf of the oppressed. Those who stand by their convictions self-identified as the oppressed, live with in the group reality or the reality to which their group can agree upon. The majority have been interacting on line and have formed their reality on line with like minded people. They form personalities and identities on line as there you can be what you say you are. You can be anyone on line as there are no borders to contain a person either physically or mentally in an on-line presence. They do not participate in the real world as individual members of society but only do so in a group setting. Only they speak the truth, their truth, to which is the only truth. Any other perspective is void and must be called out as blaspheme. Only they are virtuous.
Thank you for this. I sincerely appreciate it.
Could you go a little further and offer your views as to why some people think this is a bad thing? What if, let me ask, if the 'group reality' is, in fact, the reality based on evidence, facts, and history?
I ask because if the word 'woke,' a pejorative, is replaced by, say, the word "Abolitionist" as it relates to slavery, would this be a bad thing, too?
This is not a peaceful movement and consists of force and obedience to conform to the ideology that is behind the people of the "Woke". All people outside the group are considered guilty of crimes they never enacted for the very reason of being. Judgement is all inclusive of the "others" for the reason they are "outsiders". Those who dare to speak against the cause or who have individual thought must be eradicated and there is no road to redemption. You are guilty, tried and convicted swiftly, if only for a spoken word. Cancel culture is corrosive to any population and is enacted for conformation of a totalitarian decent to which is behind the movement. That is why "woke" is pejorative, as it seeks to destroy and tear down a population instead of building cohesion and adaptation that melds people into a peaceful society.
Thank you for your views. I'm not able to respond to them in a substantive, informed, fact-based way because you're relying on generalities and Right Wing propaganda constructs.
I might be able to respond to your claims if you could provide specific examples of your claims.
All I can do is recognize you believe these things.
I have seen this movement myself and have been deemed a racist for standing up for our natural resources in Canada. In a online post by a Liberal MP who was adamant to acknowledged that anyone who wore a Canada Strong or clothing depicting our natural resource sector was a white supremist was using the words as a weapon. So I am curious how one can find the idea of standing up for Canadian natural resources as a racial issue and a white supremist ideal. The generalization and name calling are being used to shut down any discussion and to ensure the other side can not speak due to their lack of moral fortitude. It is used to take away their voice. The Prime Minister of Canada himself uses this tactic to stop any questioning of or for information regarding something the public has every right to know. The NDP, both Provincial and National use this in the same manner. Its done to stop any dissenting voices on their policies. I have also witness the Marxist ideology behind the movement and in fact behind governmental motivation. I saw in front of me a CBC interview with a woman of official status standing with a book of Marxism in her arms. When I later saw the same interview on the news there was no sight of the book as they only showed her from the shoulders up. They were purposely hiding the very motivation behind the words of the person and the pretense to the entire interview.
Having read the article and the considered commentary, the defining "woke" is unimportant compared to the illiberal tactics used to advance the agenda of "the woke". I can substitute "the woke" with "the marxists", "the fascists", "the Conservative Party", "feminists", "neo-Nazis" and still grasp the central thesis of the article. Any intellectual movement that shuts down rather than encourages dissenting views is illiberal. The woke, even if poorly defined, cannot seem to engage in a milieu of dissention. It is comply, or be bullied and ostracized.
One distinction here is that Marxists, fascists, and neo-Nazis have no commitment to liberal principles such as freedom of speech (since their goal isn't to maintain a pluralistic society). So they have no need to employ the tactic of claiming harm in order to justify suppressing free speech they disagree with.
Explanation of the connection between liberal principles and pluralism: https://web.archive.org/web/20051031060708/http://www.myschool-monecole.gc.ca/Research/publications/pdfs/manion2003_e.pdf
> they have no need to employ the tactic of claiming harm
Why would they deny themselves such a powerful rhetorical weapon? The marxist claims harm from the bourgeoisie to overthrow them. The fascist imagines harm from outsiders who want to topple his regime. The neo-Nazi claims harm from those who are not Aryan. An examination of history reveals prodigious claims of harm to suppress free speech from these groups.
Because none of those groups care about free speech, they have no need to disguise their opposition, unlike the illiberal left.
"the tactic of claiming harm"
Sorry, I should have been clearer: the tactic of claiming that *certain speech harms my mental health* and must therefore be suppressed.
Good clarification Russil; I agree.
Thank you or posting the research paper, Russil. Its very informative as are your comments.
If someone like Joseph Heath, a professor, is going to attack "'woke politics and ideology" it would be a good idea, in my view, to define it. Failure to do so, as Heath has done, reduces an attack like Heath's to a straw man argument.
So, what is woke politics and ideology? According to an article in the Guardian, [https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2020/jan/21/how-the-word-woke-was-weaponised-by-the-right], woke politics and ideology is being “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."
That's not what Heath is attacking, it seems to me. So what, exactly, is Heath attacking, because it is not "woke politics and ideology." That notion is a right wing slur.
While I agree that his failure to define the term made the article weaker, omitting the definition does not mean he replaced his target with a false one. If we adopt the Guardian definition then your strawman accusation becomes stronger. But I'd submit that the Guardian definition is not a useful one. For one thing it is too vague (e.g. I am attentive to important issues of social justice including race, and am anything but woke), for another, it fails to identify the very kinds of issues Joseph raises, which are baked in to Wokism at a fundamental level.
I kind of understand your position. For clarity it is the Merriam Webster definition and not the Guardians. It is clear that Heaths own academic credentials are threatened by the woke so in defence he attempts to throw wide open the overton window.
Can you expand upon your comment about his credentials being threatened?
It would be useful to define "woke politics and ideology." I'm disinterested in what becomes accepted as the definition or is stipulated, but absent a definition, Heath's attack becomes, effectively, meaningless, in my view. As professor of philosophy, Heath is not setting a good example about argumentation.
On the other hand, whether it's tied to an ideology or not, he has helpfully and clearly described certain patterns of behaviour that are creating major shifts in our cultural norms. I think that has value regardless of whether you attribute them to a defined group.
The quibble, then, is with some people's choices of political advocacy strategies and tactics? Is that correct?
I'm refuting your claim that his article is meaningless absent the definition of wokeness. It is valuable for us to understand how norms are shifting.
The article has meaning, I agree, in that it stokes disinformation, misinformation, confusion, and discord. It does this by not specifying exactly what the criticism is or even what is being criticized beyond right wing generalities and dog-whistle vagueness.
You seem to be evading an engagement with the argument made in the piece by insisting on arguing over a definition of wokeness.
Of course, I'm insisting on a definition of wokeness. Without one, how can anyone know with any clarity what Heath's arguing about. If an explanation of wokeness isn't forthcoming or necessary what, exactly, is Heath's complaint? Without a definition, Heath's entire complaint is reduced to a quibble about the tone some people, whom he doesn't approve of, are using.
He did define Wokeness, it’s illiberalness wrapped in liberal terms and liberal language. it’s really quite simple
"Illiberalness wrapped in liberal terms and liberal language" is not a definition of woke, it's a right wing slur and, possibly, intended to be so. When--or if--you accuse someone of being woke, what exactly are you accusing them of and why is it wrong-headed? Moreover (if it's true) why are you, personally, not woke?
Perhaps a better definition is this one from Melanie Philips (UK substack writer which incidentally came at the same time)
“Reality has become whatever you decide it should be. Reason and evidence have been junked for the rule of emotion. “
I can’t think of a better definition of wokeness than that.
https://melaniephillips.substack.com/p/the-wests-revolutionary-chickens?r=8ahwm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=copy
Thank you for this. I note that Melanie Phillips, the author, equates some children's "[confusion] about their sexual identity [as] part of some wider psychological disorder." Is it a psychological disorder if you're born gay?
I think, perhaps, being 'woke' to the reality that people's, it seems, sexual identity is something they are born with is a good thing. Should we not be 'woke' to that reality and not treat it as a disorder? I ask because I think we can understand the notion of 'woke' better if we deal with specifics rather than politically convenient, untestable generalities.
I have been thinking along the same lines as you trying to understand woke. I am old enough to remember a time when the word hippy meant hip and rap was a conversation among the hip about important subjects of the day. Heath does identify the opposite of woke as "normal" I think this is where the piece fails as whatever woke is it is on a spectrum just like most politically charged ideas. In that sense Heath is woke/counter woke.
Note that in some circles the Guardian is now regarded as transphobic, and therefore beyond the pale. An interesting discussion from a progressive website, prompted by someone who wasn't familiar with the criticism: https://metatalk.metafilter.com/25853/Whats-Wrong-With-The-Guardian
Yes UK is a bit of an outlier and that they are broadly beginning to push back against wokeness. A lot of conservatives won’t agree with me but I believe it has to do with the impartiality law that governs to BBC. They are required to present all sides of an issue. They’re not perfect on it but it’s a seachange from the cultural divide we see in America
This article is the lamest I've seen on The Line. I would hope a professional philosopher would be able to see a bigger picture than this one. A huge percentage of the irritating left are YOUNG - so grow up and let them have their youthful rage, and stop being afraid of them. The tendency to cancel right now can go really wrong, but that doesn't mean one should start fantasizing about straw man enemies who somehow form a monolith we should be terrified of. We're in a moment, and later there'll be another, with different code words, and it'll be a similar fight. Someone who spends his life thinking should be able to crane his neck a bit and see the forest *and* the trees, and all the monkeys freaking out about what's on twitter, and form a thought better than "Oh no! Monkeys!"
Part of me agrees with you, sometimes it seems like liberals, or the broadly left leaning, who do not identify with what most refer to as 'woke' worry too much about the tactics these people use, the arguments they make, the claims they endorse, etc. They're young, they're poor, they think they're right, etc. Let them rage a bit, let them try to 'cancel' their professor, it will all eventually fade. On the other hand, I think Heath is a pretty moderate thinker, one of the few Canadian intellectuals, and usually presents pretty thoughtful takes on current trends. What he describes in this article generally seems like a common tactic. His argument about how their tactics are illiberal appears sound, so why not grant him the conclusion? Maybe you do, in which case maybe what you're taking issue with is the need some feel to even argue about why these tactics are bad? That might be reasonable, but I imagine Heath would say that stifling debate, as a tactic in argument, is generally a bad route to take and should usually be condemned (through argument) and discouraged because on net, we want reasoned debate to inform our opinions, politics, etc.
I'm still looking for indications that this has escaped college liberal-arts departments, mostly at grad level. If my biggest societal concern, waking up this morning, was poor people having to stay in service McJobs , with bullying and harassment, and wage-theft, then the fates of college professors' careers is not dragging me away.
Indeed, I haven't heard of these problems spoiling the atmosphere in chem classes; surgery is being taught the same; even Law departments seem to be unscathed. (Possibly because they know case law on what is and isn't "active speech", and aren't bullied by HR.)
What's irritating about the subject is that the right-wing, who desperately want me NOT thinking about poor people in crappy jobs and no choices, thinking about people who never had a hope of attending university at all, to get a nursing or technical degree that could change their life - the right-wingers love to change the subject to the dread spectre of Liberal Fascism.
Liberal-arts departments are where society tries out these ideas, and, clearly, in their coming-out party in 0.01% of society concerned with sociology and gender studies, the new ideas are working out badly. I don't think the rest of us will be much bothered by them.