For years now, a new leftist movement has been rising on college campuses. It speaks a new, radical language of intersectional identity politics. It is obsessed with social justice, with promoting the interests of the historically marginalized— and with policing its own adherents for their violations of its norms.
Oh, enough with this crap, seriously. A very small group of rich kids do this shit and their antics somehow get extrapolated onto all college campuses. 95% of college students in this country have never heard the expression “intersectional identity politics.” They are studying, working, taking care of their families. They are not a bunch of freaks howling about the need to be taken care of. But that’s all we see on TV. And that’s all we see covered online.
It angers me hugely that the experiences and the concerns of the majority of students are overshadowed by the silly dramas of these boring rich freaks.
Clarissa's Blog 
You are right that 95% of Kids These Days do not use that lingo. What surprises me, though, is a few of my colleagues in STEM using that lingo. Of course, though they deny it, these colleagues are from those elite backgrounds.
LikeLike
Frankly I’m glad in a way that some of the “intersectional identiy politics” silliness is not all tha serious. I don’t necessarily have a problem with some of its ideas (broken clock principle) but there are some parts (including the buzzwords) that go too far, methinks.
LikeLike
Yes, it’s absolutely insane. But it only sounds so widespread because a certain number of people who are active online like it. I’ve been in North American academia for 15 years, and haven’t heard anybody use it once.
LikeLike
I get the impression that this stuff is actually more popular on Twitter than it is in the humanities disciplines, so it does not surprise me that astronomy professors use it more often than literature and language professors.
LikeLike
Very true. This is a social media phenomenon that gets all blown out of proportion.
LikeLike
Actually, I should rephrase: It does not surprise me that humanities professors mostly avoid this lingo. I just can’t figure out why it’s so attractive to astronomers.
Nowadays the term “liberal arts” gets used in a number of different ways, and while there are definitions that include the natural sciences there are also definitions that only include humanities and social science. Can we trade the astronomers for the psychologists? Liberal arts can get the overhead on all of those NSF and NASA grants that the astronomers get, and natural science will get the nice blend of human understanding and intellectual skepticism that the psychologists bring. And if you find the astronomers too annoying, you can just put them in the same building as the gender studies faculty.
LikeLike
Nonono, you guys can KEEP the psychologists (my STEM department shared a building with them for few years, there was little human understanding and minimal intellectual skepticism from THEM, believe me…), we’d like the Philosophers please. Much more useful.
LikeLike
It seems like half of everything published in The Atlantic for the last 2 years has been articles complaining about lefty college students. I mean sure, overzealous progressives are annoying, but how many “This Just In: Overzealous Progressives Are Annoying” articles can people read?
LikeLike
Especially since nobody ever mentions how ultra-conservative, religious students have entire campuses terrorized into silence. It’s annoying!
LikeLike