Education is meant to provoke thought, but in this reckoning, provocation itself became suspect. The term “woke agenda” is often used, sometimes critically—to describe initiatives that aim to address social inequalities, especially around race, gender, sexuality and identity. Here are some commonly cited examples from both supportive and critical perspectives:
Social Justice-Oriented Examples These are often embraced by progressive movements:
Black Lives Matter: Advocating against systemic racism and police brutality.
Gender-Neutral Bathrooms: Providing inclusive facilities for non-binary and transgender individuals.
Pronoun Badges: Encouraging people to share their pronouns to foster inclusivity.
Affirmative Action: Promoting diversity in hiring and education by prioritising underrepresented groups.
Safe Spaces: Creating environments where marginalised groups can feel secure and heard.
Me Too Movement: Addressing sexual harassment and misconduct, especially in workplaces.
Taking a Knee: Peaceful protest against racial injustice, especially in sports.
Someone called it progress, Inclusion, Awareness, A necessary shift. Posters appeared in corridors and Training modules were updated. Pronouns were added to email signatures and assemblies were held, that is; where assemblies were aloud to take place based on ethnicity within the UK schools. Staff were also briefed.
The language changed. “Safe spaces.” “Microaggressions.” “Lived experience.” Some welcomed it and others resisted, but most complied. In classrooms, the curriculum was adjusted and History was reframed, Literature was reselected and Science was questioned. The intention, was said to be based on equity, however; this just did not seem right as the execution was uneven, it lacked forethought. Some students felt seen and there were others that felt silenced. Some staff felt empowered and others felt policed, morals and traditions were considered threatened.
The ‘woke agenda’; if it can be called that, was not a single policy, it was a cultural shift, forced by a minority over the majority, a reckoning with exclusion, bias and harm, but also a new form of orthodoxy. Questions became risky, nuance became suspect and satire became dangerous.
In staffrooms, conversations grew cautious, debates narrowed and the purpose, suggested as being justice, but the effect was often fear. This chapter questions and interrogates its delivery. The motives and asks: - Who defines harm? - Who decides what is safe? - What happens when awareness becomes authority?
