The academic workplace, while often hailed as a fertile context for equality-promoting initiatives (Van de Werfhorst, 2020), is increasingly facing backlash for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) policies. In this short proposal,  we focus specifically on the way EDI policies have been framed as being ‘too woke’ and the rise of debates about curtailing academic freedom (Bracke, 2022; Dhoest & Paulussen, 2024). These polarizing discussions, while not new (Nkomo & Hoobler, 2014), reflect a broader societal resistance characterized by pronounced hostility towards immigrants and marginalized communities (cf. anti-Semitism and Islamophobia) and a backlash against changes in power, wealth, and identities, particularly those related to globalization and neoliberalism (cf. white supremacy) (Berman, 2021; Stavrakakis et al., 2017). Based on existing literature and empirical evidence, we propose that the discursive construction of ‘wokeism’ serves two purposes.

First, on macro sociopolitical level the use of ‘woke ideology’ should be seen as a rhetoric to reproduce dominant ideology. Specifically, the recent discursive construction of 'woke’ and 'academic freedom' represents a systematic – rather than random – form of othering aimed at maintaining privilege and influencing diversity policies centered on equity within academia (e.g., Pascale, 2019; Zavattaro & Bearfield, 2022). This discursive shift serves to relegate EDI programs (and those whose identity is put into question for that matter) further towards a position in which counter-hegemonic democracy is only marginally tolerated (Ahmed, 2007; Jacobs, 2023). Second, at the organizational level, the current discursive construction of ‘woke’ functions in a way that mirrors Judith Butler’s (1997) concept of linguistic injury. Butler (1997) highlights how language can shape individuals into recognizable social subjects and render them vulnerable by unsettling their sense of self. This vulnerability is central to Butler’s (1997) notion of linguistic injury, where derogatory words are used to injure, or silence someone and disconnects the individual from their self-identity. For language to be injurious, both the speaker and the subject must acknowledge the social conventions that make a term, such as ‘woke’, injurious. When individuals or entire institutions are labeled as ‘woke’, they are thus being interpellated  into a particular identity that is often constructed in opposition to perceived traditional values. This hailing serves to define them not just as advocates for social justice, but as caricatures of extremism or political correctness.

In writing this paper, our aim is to unravel how EDI efforts are influenced by discursive constructions of ‘woke’ through a macro socio-political critique as well as the way it has accepted a normalization of linguistic injury. We more specifically ask ourselves; How does the discursive construction of ‘wokeism’ influence the perception and implementation of EDI initiatives in academic institutions? How does the co-optation of academic freedom within the discourse of 'wokeism' impact the potential of EDI policies?

This normalization of linguistic injury, reinforced by EDI's silence and non-performativity, also influences how academic freedom is understood and applied in real-world contexts. Typically framed as an individual right, academic freedom is increasingly co-opted by both ‘anti-woke’ proponents and neoliberal EDI policies to emphasize personal autonomy over collective responsibility. This becomes notably clear when we see how academic staff publicly insist on respecting academic freedom and then continue to conflate it with freedom of speech. As Herbert (2023) and Hertoghs et al. (2024) have pointed out, this individualistic interpretation of academic freedom obscures the actual necessity for a collective pursuit of knowledge and justice, diluting its transformative potential. The discursive construction of ‘woke’ both outside and inside the academic institution shows that EDI policies, in failing to defend their transformative goals, become entangled not only in a neoliberal but also a in a reactionary framework. The consequence of this dynamic is that EDI policies, like ‘anti-woke’ rhetoric, is further entrenched in a performative approach that sidesteps the real issue—addressing systemic inequalities inherent to universities. EDI offices, like ‘anti-woke’ proponents, undermine the possibility of a collective pursuit of knowledge that transcends individual identities and aims toward genuine social transformation. The discursive weaponization of ‘woke’ ensures that any attempts to achieve this collective goal are seen as threats to established norms of knowledge production and academic freedom. As a follow-up, we aim to answer the research questions formulated in two manners: - by carrying out a substantial media analysis, reviewing popular (newspaper) media over a longer period of time, followed by thematic analysis - by carrying out interviews with a range of respondents, on relevant positions within universities, using discourse and narrative analysis both data sets will be combined to answer the research questions.

We are shedding light on how the discursive construction of ‘woke’ functions as a critique of deflection by further redirecting attention from systemic injustices and frames EDI efforts as ideological excesses. This reactionary rhetoric, pushed forward by media pundits and scholars, has co-opted the notion of academic freedom, positioning it as a defense against perceived threats of ‘woke’ ideology, while simultaneously undermining EDI initiatives. This co-optation portrays academic freedom as an unregulated right to express any viewpoint, diluting its role as a safeguard for pursuing inclusive and transformative knowledge production (Herbert, 2023; Hertoghs et al., 2024). We propose three strategies, as small forms of resistance or small collective actions (Vinthagen & Johansson, 2013) to reclaim and redefine both wokeness and academic freedom. (1) a redefining of ‘woke’ and academic freedom as tools for reclaiming identity and fostering solidarity within EDI practices. This reclamation signifies defiance and opens avenues for marginalized voices to assert agency. Scholars of color in academia have already actively labeled themselves as woke, referring to critical consciousness to intersecting systems of oppression (Ashlee et al., 2017; Diaz et al., 2019). (2) more attention to situatedness, individual agency, identity work and the inclusion of ‘minority’ voices in EDI practices and EDI theorizing (Basu, 2019). Challenging these views will yield a more inclusive framework, fostering transformative change and aligning with Butler’s concept of language as a vehicle for new realities. (3) academic freedom must encompass a collective responsibility that fosters diverse perspectives, free from censorship while advancing justice and equality. Focusing specifically on how to resist attacks and co-optation of academic freedom by reactionary politics (Åkerlind and Kayrooz, 2003). Academic freedom carries both rights and obligations, requiring active governance participation and attention to the social implications of speech, while resisting harmful discriminatory language within academic contexts (Butler, 2015, 2017).

References Ahmed, S. (2007). The language of diversity. Ethnic and racial studies, 30(2), 235-256. Åkerlind, G. S., & Kayrooz, C. (2003). Understanding academic freedom: The views of social scientists. Higher Education Research & Development, 22(3), 327-344. Butler, J. (1997). Sovereign performatives in the contemporary scene of utterance. Critical Inquiry, 23(2), 350-377. Butler, J. (2017). Academic freedom and the critical task of the university. Globalizations, 14(6), 857-861. Dhoest, A., & Paulussen, S. (2024). The mediated construction of “woke”: Emerging discourses and primary definers in the Flemish press. Journalism, 14648849241260942. Herbert, J. M. (2023). Academic free speech or right-wing grievance? Digital Discovery, 2(2), 260-297. Hertoghs, M., Isenia, W. J., Krebbekx, W., & Roodsaz, R. (2024). Recalcitrance and feminist pedagogy: Autoethnographic reflections on anti-gender mobilisations at the university. Tijdschrift voor Genderstudies, 27(2/3), 132-150. Nkomo, S., & Hoobler, J. M. (2014). A historical perspective on diversity ideologies in the United States: Reflections on human resource management research and practice. Human Resource Management Review, 24(3), 245-257. Pascale, C.-M. (2019). The weaponization of language: Discourses of rising right-wing authoritarianism. Current Sociology, 67(6), 898-917. Van de Werfhorst, H. G. (2020). Are universities left‐wing bastions? The political orientation of professors, professionals, and managers in Europe. The British Journal of Sociology, 71(1), 47-73. Zavattaro, S. M., & Bearfield, D. (2022). Weaponization of wokeness: The theater of management and implications for public administration. Public Administration Review, 82(3), 585-593.