The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics

by Richard Hanania

Richard Hanania has emerged as one of the most talked-about writers in the nation, and in this book, he puts forward a stunning new theory about the culture war that could turn our debates upside down.

Richard Hanania has come out of nowhere to become one of the best-known writers in the nation in the last few years. In this book, he directs his attention to the culture war that has driven society apart and presents a stunning new theory about what is going on.

In a nation nearly-evenly split between conservatives and liberals, the left dominates nearly all major institutions, including universities, the government, and corporate America. Hanania argues that this is as much a legal requirement as it is an issue of one side triumphing in the marketplace of ideas. Culture has its own independent force, but the state has, since the 1960s, been putting its thumb on the scale. 

This book answers many of the puzzling questions about modern society, such

• Why does more and more of life seem like a competition to see who is the most oppressed?

• Who is really behind the sudden proliferation of woke ideas?

• How did ideas that seem so intellectually bankrupt achieve hegemony over elite culture?

• Which laws and regulations have helped the left rise to power everywhere?

• How did workplaces come to be the main enforcers of political ideology?

• When and how did Pakistanis, Samoans, and Koreans all become the same "race" (AAPI)? 

• Why did America become so obsessed with inequalities based on race but not religion? 

For those angry about wokeness and what it has done to American institutions, this book offers concrete suggestions regarding policies that can move us back to being a country that emphasizes merit, individual liberty, and color-blind governance.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Sociology, American History, Political Science, Audiobook

280 pages, Kindle Edition

First published September 19, 2023

About the author

Richard Hanania is an American political science researcher and right-wing political commentator. He is the founder and president of the think tank Center for the Study of Partisanship and Ideology (CSPI).

Between 2008 and the early 2010s Hanania wrote for alt-right and white supremacist publications under the pseudonym "Richard Hoste".

He is the author of Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy and The Origins of Woke. Hanania has also written for The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Atlantic, and Quillette.

Reviews

[Sharon · Rating 1 out of 5]

Harper Collins should be ashamed to have published this piece of racist, incel crap fest masquerading as an intellectual exercise.

[Pete · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Origins of Woke : Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity Politics (2023) by Richard Hanania is a very interesting analysis of why the US is so driven and split over concerns about identity politics.

Hanania is an interesting writer who has a law degree from the University of Chicago and a PhD in Political Science from UCLA. He is now a research fellow at the University of Texas and writes a popular substack.

Hanania’s thesis is that the rise of ‘woke’ views in the US is driven by the legal rules that stemmed from the 1964 anti-discrimination and and it’s expansion from the US Federal government. He downplays the role of critical theorists such as Herbert Marcuse, Angela Davis and others.

Hanania is suspicious of ideological explanations, such as those offered in the book Cynical Theories by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay. This echoes the theme Hanania’s book ‘Public Choice Theory and the Illusion of Grand Strategy’ which shows that US foreign policy lacks a coherent theoretical underpinning and is instead improvised by politicians and then has academics concoct theoretical justifications after the fact.

Hanania meticulously lays out how the 1964 anti-discrimination law created a bureaucracy and that legal cases added ‘disparate impact’ to ways in which discrimination could be said to be occurring. Hanania goes through how successive US administrations, including the Nixon administration, added more into how laws that were meant to prevent discrimination created space for racial quotas.

Along the way some very interesting points are made such as the fact that Latino or Hispanic is a category invented by the US bureaucracy to unite Cubans, Chileans, Brazilians and others who move to the US. Three quarters of such people identify themselves with their country of origin rather than with the umbrella term. Hanania, who has roots in the Middle East, writes about how the US government has pondered creating another racial category.

The Origins of Woke ends with a prescription for how identity politics in the US can be reduced. Hanania describes a specific agenda of how executive orders and particular parts of legislation could be altered to make the US more race blind. The book also highlights how France avoids some of the US’s problems by refusing to record race.

Hanania concludes by describing how woke rules are only propped up by legislation. It’s an interesting point. He points out that affirmative action and quotas are unpopular with the US general population and that when issues have gone to a vote the color blind idea has almost always won. This applies even in California where affirmative action for the UC system was rejected.

The Origins of Woke is a really interesting book. For anyone on the centre left or anywhere to the right of that the book will provide an interesting insight into why identity politics is so strong in the US. It also provides a roadmap for what right wing US politicians can and probably will do to change things.

[Rick Wilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Kind of an eye roller. There are some provocative points. But the overall effect is just sort of flat. There’s a lot of assumptions you have to squint at to get to the points that the author is trying to make.

Also, this weird obsession with meritocracy has always struck me as an inherently untruthful argument. We’re supposed to organize institutions by who has the highest IQ/standardized test? Not saying that merit doesn’t matter, but that it’s a false ideal. it just seems like a really convenient value to make a political point, that no one actually cares about when you look at how they behave. Do you want the most meritocratic person to be the manager at this restaurant, or are we happy with the person who gives a shit and is willing to learn and put in effort?

I also find myself unconvinced by the causal chain here. Saying that law led to wokeness only works in a narrative way, but I don’t think you can claim that if you’re trying to tease out true causation. social movements led to the formation of these laws. It’s not like they appeared in the air one day and we all decided to follow them. Those social movements didn’t disappear as soon as they were created, they changed and developed into something we see today.

Still respect the book for trying to engage with these ideas and giving some interesting takeaways around the legalization of culture and litigation of social movements.

[Brittany · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars rounded down. Whatever occasional good point was made was overwhelmed by the number of bad points and sometimes really bad points.

I'm somewhat amused because I had only heard of Hanania this summer (via https://www.huffpost.com/entry/richar... and https://www.richardhanania.com/p/why-..., the latter of which I found to be rather uncompelling, and even more recently https://www.richardhanania.com/p/the-...) and so I read this book without thinking about who wrote it and only just realized as I came to write this review. Everything now gels together lol.

In general, this book tends towards the unpersuasive and hyperbolic. No, you're not necessarily violating civil rights law if you say something that a woman finds offensive. That's not the standard and Hanania should know that. Of course, sexual harassment is offensive in addition to many other things. Consider that in this realm, offending a woman is necessary, but not sufficient, to be in violation of the law, but Hanania repeats the point several times that it is both necessary and sufficient (it's not).

Hanania wants to do away with all anti-discrimination laws to encourage freedom of association and thinks that a company that e.g. hires only white men will lose in the marketplace. This seems trivially untrue given how many companies are happy to discriminate even with existing consequences. Sometimes some people really are super dedicated to discrimination and Hanania ignores this.

Hanania focuses a lot on legal equality and mostly ignores social equality in making his points, a tactic used by way too many people. It's also frustrating when, if person A complains about topic X, person B says, "Well, that's illegal." Something being illegal doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it doesn't mean justice is necessarily served when it does happen, and it doesn't mean that there aren't repercussions that can be solved in a court room.

All in all, there is simply too much poor reasoning that errs on the side of being deceitful for this book to be compelling.

[Emil O. W. Kirkegaard · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book on the legal origins of woke, and a plan for getting rid of it.

[Tomislav · Rating 4 out of 5]

A detailed, practically-oriented analysis of the different ways in which civil rights laws shaped the American culture and society. Hanania argues that the triumph of the Left did not happen due to superior arguments in a free marketplace of ideas; instead, it had decisive state support. Starting in the 1960s, civil rights laws established a framework through which the state could promote specific viewpoints, incentivize interest groups, and establish the foundational structure for ongoing cultural changes. Vaguely defined rules incentivized private companies to competitively push radical policies in order to avoid legal and reputational issues. Subsequent chapters offer more detailed examinations of changes within the workplace, education, society, and the economy. In most instances Hanania advocates rational libertarian arguments and a more pluralistic approach.

While the book touches various topics, its core arguments concerning legislatively-induced cultural changes stand out as the most intriguing and original. Hanania notably downplays the significance of ideas and spontaneous cultural shifts, drawing from numerous examples in American society. Considering his core assertion, this argument would be stronger if he made a comparative analysis of different legal systems and their impact on cultural evolution. He mentioned that Europeans are more focused on restricting freedom of speech compared to American obsession with racial and sexual equality, but sadly does not expand much on this topic. However, the purpose of the book is not to present a generalized theory of cultural change but to offer a specific perspective on American politics, accompanied by practical advice. In this regard, it is quite compelling and provides an interesting perspective. There is already more than enough books arguing that contemporary sociopolitical disorder can be traced back to some obscure philosopher or medieval heresy and whatnot. Considering Hanania’s revulsion toward populist trends in American politics, it appears that he sees the dismantling of civil rights laws as the only viable cultural victory Republicans might achieve, as they probably won’t take over education, media, artworld and entertainment industry anytime soon.

The book explores regulatory intricacies, corporate policies, and frequently cites legal cases and expert opinions. It often reads like a dissertation but it is actually quite fun, partially because many of the cases are so absurd that it is hard not to see some dark humor in them. Overall, the book is well written and Hanania was even favorably compared with Shakespeare - although that comparison was promoted almost exclusively by himself. He provides a level-headed, moderate approach to dismantling the excesses of wokeness in American society, grounding his arguments in traditional Republican ideas, ignoring the more recent populist, religious and conspiratorial thinking. The book offers an interesting perspective and it is certainly worth reading.

[mark propp · Rating 4 out of 5]

a very worthwhile book.

i've read my share of anti-woke screeds. i've gone through john mcwhorter's book & i've listed to coleman hughes's podcast & i like glenn loury's stuff. all great.

but this brought something really new to the table in its focus on civil rights legislation & how those laws have worked their way through all aspects of american education & work culture. unless i've been oblivious, i don't think many people are making that point. if they are, they aren't making it loudly enough.

so i declare this to be a very useful book.

unfortunately i did find it a little dry & particularly towards the end where he dove into various alphabet agencies & their roles & what boring acts they're enacting, i found it hard to stay focused. maybe that's my problem only. the guy's a lawyer i guess. if you read at that level, maybe you'll find it engaging. i didn't.

but i still strongly recommend this. chock full of interesting stuff, good ideas. gives me hope.

[Brian Fiedler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book certainly changed my judgement toward "culture is downstream from politics", and not the other way around. That changes my idea of where to focus efforts to arrest the decline of higher education. The final chapter conveys a really uplifting vision of the future.

If you got this far reading my review, I can direct you to a much better one: Two Roads to Woke by Eric Kaufman at Law & Liberty.

[Matt Berkowitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

In chapter 1, Hanania begins by defining the centrepieces of wokeness:

1. “The belief that disparities equal discrimination”
2. “Speech restrictions” to overcome such disparities, especially to silence speech that suggests these disparities are caused by anything other than discrimination
3. “Human resources (HR) bureaucracy”, to aid the effort in overcoming disparities and regulating speech

He notes how (1) and (2) are key—that those who subscribe to (1) without (2) are generally called “liberals��, whereas those who advocate for speech restrictions “but only in the form of banning blasphemy and pornography” are called religious fundamentalists. (3) refers more to institutional enforcement of (1) and (2). This generally seems right to me. One could quibble with this definition of course, but thematically, it seems correct.

Chapter 2 gives an extremely rich, detailed history of civil rights law and the often very ambiguously and contradictorily defined language used to regulate “discrimination”. Though the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination (of a particular kind) on the basis of race, other legal rulings and legislation carve out a space for “disparate impact” to be considered illegal (because it discriminates), which sets up a contradiction. If a company hires in a truly race-blind way, the predictable result will be that not all races will be represented at a rate proportional to their representation in the population. If this “disparate impact” is large enough—if any group is represented less than 4/5th of their proportion in the population at large—the company could be in legal trouble. This is deeply problematic for figuring out what is legal, not to mention it hyper-amplifies the salience of race and inflames racial tensions.

This confusing mess leads to some strange institutional practices. For example, “affirmative action jurisprudence has given liberal institutions and supporters of identity politics the best of all worlds. They can use quotas to achieve balance, as long as they do not say that they are using quotas, thereby staying within the letter of the law while also obscuring what they are doing to avoid the uncomfortable truths and political backlash that would present themselves if they made racial discrimination explicit” (p. 56). Harvard has been sued for exactly this in well-known Supreme Court cases. It remains to be seen how this might change after the recent Supreme Court ruling of affirmative action as unconstitutional.

Chapter 3 discusses the major increase in people working in the HR sector—both absolutely and proportionally—and how this has correlated with a major increase with civil rights lawsuits in the American workplace and university. It’s easy to understand the justification for these policies: we need to have some mechanisms in place to deter harassment, discrimination based on race/sex, and other such injustices. But what is less often considered are the incentives this creates to litigate against perceived/imagined/falsified cases of injustice. Even if an employer knows an allegation is false, it may still choose to fire an employee if it calculates this to be the right corporate decision (e.g., Google firing James Damore for breaching the social justice dogma that men and women should be equally represented in every sector).

Chapter 4 discusses how government racial classifications came to be—in what seemed like an abridged version of David Bernstein’s excellent “Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America” from 2022. The terms “Hispanic”, “White”, and “Asian” are largely terms of categorical convenience for government bureaucracy rather than anything resembling a precise way of grouping people. And, of course, by now it’s easy to see how these categories have been used in relationship to affirmative action, disparate impact, quotas, and the like. Hanania questions the value of having government so involved in such anti-discrimination and -harassment lawsuits, especially given the ambiguity and vagueness of the law that makes dangerous what used to be considered benign conduct (e.g., pursuing romance through work). Chapter 5 carries on by discussing the harms and lies surrounding affirmative action/racial preferences, and the obfuscation that is often used to unofficially practice such policies, e.g., when Harvard claims they do not discriminate against Asian applicants, yet in effect do so by up-weighting more subjective assessments like interviews, discounting Asians’ on average higher test scores. Hanania speaks broadly about failed government efforts to practice social engineering, and how bloated government bureaucracies are often unaccountable, ineffective, and far overstay their intended duration.

Chapter 6 criticizes conservatives’ and Republicans’ impotent efforts to push back against these creeping [“reverse”] racist policies starting as far back as the Nixon administration. It wasn’t until Reagan that principled opposition to such policies was concertedly attempted, but bipartisan opposition mostly squashed such opposing efforts. Newt Gingrich—now an extreme political partisan—was successful in ridding California of affirmative action in the mid-90s, and many hoped this would pave the way for other states to do the same. Hanania describes the subsequent years of political efforts regarding racial preferences, documenting how there is still bipartisan public opposition to such policies, despite the public “moving left” (e.g., embracing gay marriage) overall. In general, Hanania makes a convincing case that woke orthodoxies are simply unacceptable to most people, including most liberals, so it is simply a case of motivating a sufficient proportion of voters to oppose such policies—which brings us to the final chapter proper… what to do?

Hanania starts Chapter 7 by pointing to how to unravel the legal instantiations of wokeness: affirmative action, disparate impact, harassment law, and Title XI (which prohibits sex-based discrimination in the public sector). He starts with the low-hanging fruit: “Abolishing disparate impact as a standard for determining whether an action is discriminatory under Title VI can similarly be done through the executive branch, and the same is likely true to a limited extent for Title VII.” Next, Hanania reminds us that “[t]here can be a practice that 100 percent of people think should be banned, but it can remain legal if no one thinks about the issue or brings it to the attention of the public.” The rest of the chapter gives various ideas for how to curtail civil rights laws, from the executive branch to the Supreme Court. Another idea Hanania espouses is to embrace France's refusal to collect race-based statistics for its census, thereby disincentivizing and making it extremely difficult for companies (private or public) to practice affirmative action or other race-focused policies.

One question that kept arising in my mind when I read this book is which way the arrow of causation points. How much of this legal structure is causal of wokeness? Or could the legal structure be better understood as an effect of the culture (i.e., is law downstream from culture, as Andrew Breitbart asserted)? Hanania asserts—and obviously focuses—on the former for this book. But surely, the causation probably works the other way too. At the very least, Hanania is successful in showing that the law has been used and interpreted to aid fashionable social justice ideologies concerning disparities and presumed discrimination. And he does so in a very entertaining, often flamboyantly humorous way. A worthwhile read.

[Sean · Rating 1 out of 5]

Richard Hanania is such a loser he wrote a whole book about how Human Resources and “the woke mob” have made it so he can’t find friends or a date at work.

His solution to people not liking him is to get rid of all Civil Rights Law. Somehow this is taken seriously by those ‘on the right’. I guess losers of a feather flock together or something.

[John Martindale · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hanaia offers an important perspective, and that the current triumph of woke in almost every aspect of culture is unlikely due to argument and persuasion from the Western Marxists. Obviously, critical race theorists were indeed deeply influenced by Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, and some leftists clearly know and buy into the Race Marxism that James Lindsay exposes, but likely just as many, or likely a majority of those who act and speak woke, are clueless to the radical ideological framework and intentions of those in the know. Rather they are simply parroting the language and following the social cues that are firmly established. How on earth did critical theory become so ubiquitous? Hanaia argues it is due to certain laws that were put in place, some of them were put in place by people who were not even part of the left. The consequences, however, of laws that mandated affirmative action, for example, forced every major business, every aspect of government and education to conform.

A helpful analogy would be to think how after Constantine became a Christian, laws began to change, leading to the emperor Theodosius making Christianity mandatory. It is little surprise how dominant Christianity was throughout Europe as a result. We also see how fanatical and zealous theologians bullied and politick their way to getting their particular doctrines enshrined in the creeds; the outcome of these circus councils that included backstabbing, chaos, slander crusades, bribes, and randomness, was their pet doctrines becoming orthodoxy, and almost all proceeding Christians affirming it. It has nothing to do with the soundness of the doctrine or its rootedness in scripture or prior tradition. Once it is in place, functioning as law, practically every Christian for the remainder of time speaks and affirms the creed. Law is the reason for its ubiquity. If doctrines were not made law, there would have been diversity of thought, as scripture and tradition are rarely univocal on any matter. So it is with laws that have resulted in Woke business practices and speech codes. Diversity and inclusion laws mandate uniformity of thought and exclusion of any disagreement. Just as in the height of the Spanish Inquisition, if you thought for yourself, you better self-censor and do and speak the right speak.

Anyhow, Hanaia shares some of the laws that have mandated conformity in behavior and shared speech. To survive, reduce lawsuits, and be legal, every major company must out-woke other companies, no matter how damaging it is to their bottom line. Who knows what they believe and would do if they could, since woke is the law, and the government has the power to enforce it. Hanaia points out how some strategic changes to some executive orders, could actually free businesses and universities.

Think about what happened once Western countries finally allowed for the freedom of religion. While the previously mandated religion continued, there were 1000s of splits, embracing of other religions, or the rejection of religion altogether. This is the outcome of allowing for freedom. Remove the laws, and while woke will still be--its ubiquity will be shattered.

[Gee · Rating 5 out of 5]

Details concrete, executable legal (legislative/executive orders) steps that can be take to help roll back the leftist lunacy permeating society. Makes a compelling case that civil rights legislation is the primary cause for the metastatic spread of 'equity' as opposed to the Lindsay postmodernism claim. Either way, we all know which group is ultimately behind both...

[Ufloat2 · Rating 1 out of 5]

Zero stars. This book is full of hyperbolic garbage. Absolutely flabbergasting this was written by a UCLA PhD graduate.

[Alex Norleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and enlightening book on wokeness-as-law, in contrast to the more common perspective of wokeness-as-culture. Hanania lays out a compelling argument that we're thinking of wokeness in the wrong way, and so the way we're fighting it is ineffective. He proposes a bold new strategy for the anti-woke to strike back against the insanity consuming our societies.

[Juny · Rating 3 out of 5]

Así que la legislación sobre derechos civiles está jodiendo el mundo.

[Alex Merrick · Rating 3 out of 5]

Raises an interesting point of view and some good arguments but also some nonsense.

[Evan · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.5/5

[Chris Tamez · Rating 4 out of 5]

A little dry, but extremely informative and ends on a hopeful note.

Audiobook.

[Alexander J · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent. A precise guide to why things went crazy in the last decade. I’ve read a lot about this subject, and the focus is usually on broad ideas rather than the specific laws and policies which constitute governance. This helps us understand how we got here and what is to be done.

[Steven · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a painfully low iq and poorly argued book for a number of key reasons.

Firstly, it falls into the republican fallacy of coaching. "This conflict involves coaching, therefore, the conflict is because of the coaching". This is a Boetie ignoring variant of the "ethnic conflict is because of post-modern neo-marxists" delusion. According to van den Berghe: "identity politics" is literally just what happens when you put the peoples together. Vanhanen agreed when he demonstrated that you can tie 2/3 of the differences between countries in the severity of ethnic conflict to heterogeneity. Huntington's point, if you want some regime flavor, could basically be summarized as "culture is non negotiable, and forcing cultures together forces a negotiation".

So, on ethnic conflict, the author is a total failure. The laws which people care to uphold don't work through magical words on pieces of paper. If they worked like that, then blasphemy laws would be enforced as they're still on the books. The Constitution, as they say "is a piece of paper".

He says Ronald Reagan, who granted amnesty for mountains of people - permanently turning california blue - was anti woke. K.

He arbitrarily asserts that "equality" is the goal of civil rights law, while also saying the proponents of civil rights law just say things to get their way. Not a contradiction?

He says the corporations don't get what they want from the law... while the corporations literally own the politicians. Makes sense.

"Woke was made by twitter" wow.

He says the neocons were out from the liberals, when the neocons were out from Trotskyites.

The timeline starts in the 1960s, while Lippmann et al were running game on the population in the 1920s. Later, people tied to things like the war information department during WWII would find giant effect sizes in social bias studies, which always failed to replicate, cementing the idea of social biases into the minds of the public. Lee Jussim demonstrates that in his work. This was completely authorized to take place and worked together seamlessly with the 1960s culture creation. Ayn Rand comported with this perfectly, as well. Look into her associates.

Lastly, before I get out of this dumpster fire: the state doesn't believe in disparate impact. That's intellectually worthless to think. The state admits the ASVAB has a disparate impact. The policy literally exists to social engineer in the private sector/ societally. The military is allowed to hire the right way. Is the state ignorant of the military? Come on. This is ridiculous.

[Woody R. · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Woke" is probably one of the most (mis)used words on the political right; even here in Italy, we have politicians who blame the fall in industrial production on “wokeness.” But what exactly is wokeness? And how did it originate, at least in the United States? In this book, conservative commentator Richard Hanania tries to answer these questions.

According to Hanania, wokeness can be defined as an ideology based on three core pillars: the belief that disparities necessarily equal discrimination; the imposition of speech restrictions to overcome these disparities; and the creation of a human-resources bureaucracy tasked with enforcing correct thought and action.

His core thesis runs contrary to what many politicians and commentators believe. In his view, “wokeness” did not arise from postmodern philosophy or from increasing diversity in American society; rather, it emerged from the laws and regulations of the U.S. administrative state, especially those stemming from civil rights legislation.

The "four great innovations" in civil rights law, according to Hanania, were: federally mandated affirmative action, the doctrine of disparate impact, harassment law, and Title IX (the prohibition of sex-based discrimination in any school receiving federal funding).

Examples of federally mandated affirmative action measures include President Kennedy’s Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to ensure nondiscrimination in employment, and Revised Order No. 4 in 1971, which obligated contractors and subcontractors to recruit from pools of women and minorities when these groups were shown to be “underutilized.”

There have also been multiple court rulings that expanded the scope of the Civil Rights Act, creating what Hanania refers to as “reverse discrimination.” One example is the 1979 case United Steelworkers v. Weber, where the Labor Department had imposed a quota system on a contractor, requiring that half of the new positions in a skilled craftsman training program be allocated to Black candidates.

Restrictions on free speech in the workplace also stem from court rulings. For example, in Rogers v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1971), a Hispanic woman in Texas claimed that her employer used different ink colors to record appointments for Black and white clients; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that this practice could contribute to an environment in which a Hispanic employee might feel discriminated against; in 1986, in the case of Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, the Supreme Court established that “speech or conduct could contribute to a hostile work environment that potentially violated the law.”

Even the classifications of race come from the government, as in the case of the “Hispanic” category. According to Hanania, the Republican Party did not do much to counter these rulings, even when it controlled both Houses of Congress and the Presidency. Only Reagan took limited action, with significant budget cuts to the EEOC and the OFCCP, thereby reducing their ability to enforce affirmative action.

In order to reverse this trend, Hanania suggests several policies to Republican policymakers. The “low-hanging fruit” to start with, in his view, would be the amendment of Executive Orders 11246 and 11478, both of which mandate affirmative action for federal contractors. Other proposed policies include overruling Griggs v. Duke Power Company, defunding the OCR, OFCCP, and EEOC — and then using those same agencies to counteract what he defines as “reverse discrimination” — as well as declaring affirmative action illegal under Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause, among others.

There is much more that could be said about this book, as it is dense despite its relatively short length. I omitted entire sections, such as the parts dealing with Title VI, Title IX, and various lawsuits. Although I disagree with Hanania’s political ideology, I nevertheless found the book interesting and well-documented, especially in light of the first executive orders signed by Trump — one of which repealed Executive Order 11246. In fact, Hanania himself suggested this move to Vivek Ramaswamy during a podcast conversation. I believe the book is worth reading for both those on the right and on the left, whether to enact these policies or to oppose them.

However, I do have some reservations:
• First, at the end of the book, Hanania claims that repealing these laws would increase GDP growth and fertility (since businesses would face fewer regulations and lawsuits, and people would be freer to interact in the workplace). Honestly, this feels like something thrown in without much substantiation. While it’s plausible that excessive litigation and regulation could create transaction costs (even though Hanania does not use this term), it’s hard to believe that economic growth would suddenly surge. Bureaucracy, poor educational outcomes, NIMBYism, high housing costs, and runaway federal debt would still remain, and these seem like far bigger obstacles than “wokeness.” The same skepticism applies to fertility rates — how would repealing such regulations encourage people to overcome issues as diverse as social anxiety or the rising costs of childrearing?
• Hanania also suggests that mental illnesses would decline, along with the number of people identifying as LGBT, as the “premium” of belonging to a minority group would diminish. Once again, this assertion is made without providing much empirical evidence (such as references to scientific studies) to support the claim.
• Furthermore, aside from the introduction, the book lacks substantial historical context for the measures taken and does not address the question of why federal bureaucrats appear more “left-leaning” than the general population.
• Finally, I would have liked to read something about why “wokeness” spread to other countries.

In conclusion, in spite of those problems, it’s still a thought-provoking read for anyone interested in the intersection of law, politics, and culture in the United States.

[Toni Tanner · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book to try and understand more about why “Woke” is a derogatory trend. The Authoe is obviously very smart, but it was difficult to take him seriously primarily due to an overall tone of superiority (there’s a line where he says he probably shouldn’t talk about something because the readers aren’t smart enough to comprehend it, but he will do it anyway. I guess because he’s such a benevolent patriarch) which he uses to dismiss anyone not outside his status quo. There are a lot of generalized traditions and philosophies on which his premise is built, that likely aren’t strong enough, or even true, which makes the rest of his path to change seem impossible.

[Patrick Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

It should be a goal of any intellectually honest reader to try to separate the author from their analysis. Nothing drives me crazier, when I've written something, than for people to dismiss my research as being invalid because it comes from a standpoint that stands outside of conventional progressive orthodoxy.

Richard Hanania's views certainly stands outside progressive orthodoxy - and, as a cursory skim of his Twitter feed would show (underscored by last fall's revelations of his past writings), much conservative orthodoxy as well. Richard and I have had a number of exchanges ranging from the friendly to the prickly about what I believe to be his eugenicist and hyper-individualist views and his lack of respect for what is commonly understood to be human dignity - and I don't even think he'd take issue with my description of them as such.

But dealing with his research and analysis requires abstracting away from his misanthropic tendencies. And "The Origins of Woke" is a carefully researched deep dive into how the civil rights regime came to permeate so much of American life. Hanania argues that "if seems that our culture has built an elaborate ranking system of races, genders, and 'traumas,' it is because our legal system did it first," and unpacks a detailed history of court cases, executive orders, and accounting exercises that helped establish theories like "disparate impact" and a "hostile work environment."

In this, he builds on the work of Christopher Caldwell's "The Age of Entitlement," positing the civil rights revolution, premised on erasing explicit racial discrimination in the South has metastasized to effectively efface freedom of association and create a breeding ground for lawyers. Whether or not the logic was baked in the cake of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or whether there could have been a more circumscribed civil rights approach, remains a fertile ground for discussion. But Hanania's treatment of the history of what happened remains useful.

At times, his rhetoric can become overblown - the conclusion vision of a post-woke America, in particular, becomes untethered from reality. But someone needed to do the spade work showing how, for example, Title IX, became the barometer by which any number of efforts to "socially engineer" (his words) the university, collegiate sports, and relations between the sexes are measured. Conservatives who roll their eyes at mandatory (and, as research has shown, often counterproductive) diversity trainings will learn about their origin and legal justification.

A writer can have odious views on human dignity while still applying a welcome level of rigor to a topic that can often be treated as pure red meat. In contrast to other books purporting to explore the history of wokeness, Hanania focuses on legal action and political choices, rather than intellectual fads and popular movements. His interpretation can certainly be challenged, but it's hard to imagine a burgeoning conservative counter-revolution against an over-broad civil rights regime from continuing to taking shape; and it will likely be informed by the ideas in this book.

[Jeremy Murray · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read "The Origins of Woke" with news of the Charlie Kirk assassination reverberating, and I found myself thinking differently about the experience, and the author, Richard Hanania, than I otherwise would have.

Frankly, I assumed this was going to be a lightweight screed. I knew of Hanania's far-right past - he has acknowledged this and tried to distance himself from these writings. Most of that kind of writing doesn't deserve much study, even anthropologically.

But I do believe in absolute free speech, and second acts, and reformation, and so on. So I picked this up on sale and gave it a go. Given Hanania's impact on the culture wars, I thought I'd find myself irked and entertained.

Plenty irksome, in that it details a supremely irksome phenomenon, almost devoid of entertainment, this is nonetheless an impressive, erudite study of American civil rights legislation, historically. Hanania represents the intellectual conservative movement of young (this always means, 'younger than me', when I write here on Goodreads) writers that lefties can't match.

I feel it fair to generalize about this generation, at this point, having read so much of their recent writing. The Alex P. Keatons of political commentary, their rejection of mom and dad's standpoint epistemology, relativism, and overall air of smug moral superiority reads as well-researched, coherently argued and supported common sense.

What I hadn't expected was just how genuinely sincere the whole endeavour felt. No doubt aware of the charges of racism he generates simply by existing, Hanania resorts to a 'just the facts' approach. Packed with insights, chapters like "Government as the Creator of New Races and Genders" won't get much traction today unless they are light on dogmatic editorializing and full of facts.

But of course, 'hispanic' doesn't make a lot of sense with Cubans, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans.

I almost gave this book four stars. Not limited by my fear of 'liking the wrong things' (too late), this was just too dry for me. I found myself wondering if Hanania himself is not funny, or if his commitment to sincerity is strategic, or genuine - there is a lot of low-hanging fruit in woke jokes.

It is worthy of four stars in terms of historical, legal insight. The concluding pages on strategies for conservatives may resonate with that population.

As a heterodox Canadian, I simply enjoyed seeing the bureaucratic concept creep in historical action.

Anti-woke conservatives, heterodox thinkers, legal scholars are the target audience, and are most likely to enjoy "The Origins of Woke".

But given that people like Hanania - young, ideological, conservative - are being killed for their ideas, I think anyone committed to freedom of thought and speech, left, right or other, will find something interesting to learn here.

[Jazi Zilber · Rating 5 out of 5]

Original, readable and not boring.

Hanania argues that it was laws, much more than culture or activism that created what we call "wokeness".

civil rights laws, supplemented by executive orders and multiple original courts interpretations, created a legal situation where racial and sexual identity is central to employment decisions. Fire an employee of the wrong race or sexuality, and you are at risk for massive legal repercussions.

The consequences, by Hanania analysis, are manifold. Since every hiring or promotion can get you in legal trouble, fearful employers created a massive "human resources" bureaucracy. Hiring by judgement is legally risky, as you could be sued for imaginary discrimination. It forced everyone to go get unneeded degrees [read Caplan's excellent "The Case Against Education" for data and details], and made management a fraught and inefficient process.

At times, the reader will scratch her head: "could those laws have such consequences"? But those laws are real and very threatening. Historically seemingly small structural changes did have massive effects in some inflection points.

[Caroline · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book changed me. The author clearly and persuasively argues that "wokeness" has been enacted through civil rights legislation and regulation, by claiming power over the nebulous concept of "discrimination," which makes everything potentially illegal and has had a downstream effect on culture, rather than being a philosophy which won in the marketplace of ideas. The most shocking effect of this - when he made the claim, I felt both a relief upon finding my instincts shared and confirmed but also an indignance at the injustice of it - is that these regulations have effectively made the government (sometimes working through HR departments, contractors with the government, colleges, and the like), social engineers and the arbitrators of judgments concerning what is appropriate even in friendship, dating, and romance. He ends with a vision of hope, so rare in these conversations! It is specific and realistic: here is what we must change, and how it will likely be overlooked as any act of heroism as the effects will take time and free action to be fully maturated.

[Anlan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seems well-researched and well-structured. Very partisan (the author explains that he opted not to attempt neutrality on this topic in favor of reaching essentially Republican decision- and change-makers more directly), but that shouldn't stop people of all stripes from reading for food for thought at least.

(I wouldn't recommend this as an audio book unless you are well-versed with the subject. I am not sure if it was the ideological assumptions Hanania was making about his target audience or just the density of some of the legal material, but I had trouble following some parts in audio. I generally find print is better for information-heavy books like this anyway).

[WSH · Rating 4 out of 5]

Illuminating and bold in many ways, but I think Hanania’s attempt to deemphasize the role of ideas in the origins of woke is not very successful or very useful. His explanations of how civil rights law stifles freedom, however, are, and I hope they do inspire the legal changes he recommends. But I do also share a worry of several other reviewers of this book, namely that Americans’ passion for equality might make it hard for them to accept certain outcomes that would obtain in a truly meritocratic society.

[Tomasz M · Rating 1 out of 5]

Same old tired raci$t BS repackaged for the era of the blogger. These bigoted arm chair philosophers are trying to convince people that no one actually really sees their fellow human as fully human, just that the courts, corporate America and identity politics have made us that way. Can't believe horses4it like this still gets published. The irony is, people who might buy into this shallow 'intellectualism' think they are somehow intellectually superior. Shame on the publisher for putting out such trash.

[Arni · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the very best books I’ve read on wokeness. Original and persuasive diagnosis of the problem, empowering suggestions as to what can be done about it. Wokeness is not primarily about postmodern philosophers. It’s about laws and legal practice. As such, there’s a lot that can be done to fight and eradicate it. Certainly more than most anti-woke books suggest, fixated on culture, philosophy and technology as they are. I hope this book makes the impact it deserves to make.