Was There a Woke War on White Millennial Men?
In Compact, Jacob Savage exhaustively documents discrimination in the name of equity.
Jacob Savage is a screenwriter from Los Angeles. And he may have written the definitive testament that explains why one specific demographic had it so rough this past decade. We're talking, of course, about white male millennials.
As a white male millennial myself, I approached his article—which was published earlier this week in Compact, and subsequently made a huge splash on social media—with some trepidation. After all, it can be pretty lame to whine about one's own victimhood. Moreover, blaming your bad economic prospects on sinister, larger-than-life forces is part of the conspiratorial mindset. And the tendency to pinpoint wokeness as the motivating ideology behind every destructive trend is starting to feel like punching down, to borrow a term from the woke lexicon itself. Donald Trump is president again, many social media platforms have largely abandoned content moderation, people who hurl obscenities at others are often rewarded (or at least see their punishment mitigated), and entertainment companies are more afraid of crossing the right than interested in catering to the left. Piers Morgan declares in the title of his new book that "Woke Is Dead," which might be something of an overstatement: I'm fairly confident that there are still zealots asking for trigger warnings and safe spaces on college campuses. But let's agree that we have at least defeated wokeness for the time being. To use a metaphor beloved by my fellow millennials, it now exists as a formless evil with a greatly diminished capacity to pester us. You know, like Voldemort.
But I digress. Savage's article is really terrific, and uses data—not just vibes, or griping—to back up his argument. What he effectively demonstrates is that over the course of the 2010s, several sectors of the economy were taken over by wokeness: entertainment, academia, and the media, to name just three. Wokeness can be defined in many ways, but in terms of employment, it's effectively synonymous with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which is the progressive push to equalize workplaces by giving preferential treatment to minorities in hiring and admissions. What this meant in practice was that white males entering the job market in the 2010s faced unprecedented disadvantages, since employers actively wanted to dilute the white male percentage of the workforce.
Savage marshals tons of data to demonstrate his point:
In 2011, the year I moved to Los Angeles, white men were 48 percent of lower-level TV writers; by 2024, they accounted for just 11.9 percent. The Atlantic's editorial staff went from 53 percent male and 89 percent white in 2013 to 36 percent male and 66 percent white in 2024. White men fell from 39 percent of tenure-track positions in the humanities at Harvard in 2014 to 18 percent in 2023.
In retrospect, 2014 was the hinge, the year DEI became institutionalized across American life.
In industry after industry, gatekeepers promised extra consideration to anyone who wasn't a white man—and then provided just that.
Is it a little self-pitying to point all this out? Perhaps. But what really makes the article so terrific is that Savage doesn't lay the blame on the minority employees who benefited from this scheme. After all, women and people of color once faced not just de facto discrimination but active, legally compelled discrimination, which is much worse. What Savage shows is that the drive to discriminate against whites applied only to entry-level positions. In other words, the Gen X and Baby Boomer whites, comfortably ensconced in management positions, engaged in very little self-sacrifice: They did not step aside and hand their jobs over to black women. They just made it much, much more difficult for much younger white men to be hired in the first place.
In practice, this meant the tenured white male professor was safe, but a white male millennial who had just finished his thesis and was hoping for an appointment was utterly screwed. It meant that the senior editors at various prestige publications remained disproportionately white and male—and that they would routinely toss writers' applications in the dumpster unless the applicant fit the right identity profile. It meant that it was easier for a white male to sell a script to Hollywood and have his idea turned into a television show than it was to actually get hired in the writers' room for that show.
In 2011, when he (and I) moved to California, white men were around 60 percent of TV writers; by 2025, according to the WGA's own diversity statistics, they accounted for just 11.9 percent of lower-level writers; women of color made up 34.6 percent. White men directed 69 percent of TV episodes in 2014, and just 34 percent by 2021. But that remaining third went overwhelmingly to established names, leaving little space for younger white men. Since 2021, 11 directors under 40 have been nominated for Emmys. None have been white men.
Judging by the reaction to this article, a lot of my fellow white male millennials are understandably really upset about this! And if I thought my own employment prospects had been impacted in any way by this, I'd be mad too. (Thankfully, Reason does not practice identitarianism.)
I am moderately worried about the backlash, though. Already, we are seeing plenty of infighting on the right between the conservative old guard and a new generation of younger commentators who are, in some cases, explicitly racist. This partly explains the groyper movement, which has absorbed a growing number of poorly adjusted young men who seek to blame their problems on women, black people, Israel, and various institutions that they say never gave them a chance. The fact that there existed for 10 years an active campaign of discrimination against young white males is no doubt politically radicalizing for some of them.
This is all very bad. The last thing our country needs is a young, white, male conservative movement that argues for identity-based revanchism. As the hangover from the decade of DEI finally wears off, we should get back to the libertarian/classically liberal approach to hiring, admissions, and the like: colorblindness and the rejection of affinity group-based characterization in favor of individual merit and achievement. As Ayn Rand wrote, "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." That's still true, no matter which race it disadvantages.
This Week on Freed Up
Have you watched my new podcast with Christian Britschgi? Well, you should. We're chartering bold new territory in the category of two dudes talking about politics and Lord of the Rings and the Habsburg Empire. Check out the latest episode and see what became of my co-host after he attempted to flee to Somalia:
This Week on Free Media
Or if the traditional news format is more to your liking, I was joined this week by Niall Stanage and Amber Duke to discuss all the latest.
Worth Watching
And if somehow you're not utterly exhausted from listening to me speak (I know I am!), then check out our Reason Versus debate: Does Big Tech Do More Good Than Harm? It's a one-hour debate—me and Elizabeth Nolan Brown vs. Ryan Grim and Emily Jashinsky. We had a great time!
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
This started way, way before 2014.
Look, if Reason can get around to reporting something ten years late, are you going to complain or be happy that they're finally catching up, now that it's safe for (looks at podcast) millennial white men to suddenly stick their heads above the parapet?
The media has finally entered the breach!
Why is everyone acting like this is a big surprise? I mean, it seems obvious from every aspect of American life.
Was There a Woke War on White Millennial Men?
No, there was a 'woke war' on all white people, with men of all generations being the target of emphasis.
"Women have always been the primary victims of war." - FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
FIRST LADIES' CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SAN SALVADOR, EL SALVADOR -- NOVEMBER 17, 1998
(AS DELIVERED)
https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/WH/EOP/First_Lady/html/generalspeeches/1998/19981117.html
You have to be pretty damn stupid or ideologically blinded to see those drops in that timeframe and think "this is fine". Yes, there is a war on whites and men and it's worse as you get younger. That you cannot bring yourself to recognize reality shows just how much you're still on team prog.
Fact is DEI hiring is just as racist as anything from the Jim Crow South it's just pointed at different targets.
https://x.com/i/status/2001804121557385221
Justice Thurgood Marshall: “You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn.”
Thanks for the link. Never saw that quote before. For obvious reasons.
ANALYSIS: WHY THIS DISCUSSION IS "PERMITTED"
The author can only discuss documented discrimination against white men because the perpetrators are also white. This makes them "safe targets."
THE DEFENSIVE POSTURE
Notice how much hedging is required:
"I approached his article...with some trepidation"
"it can be pretty lame to whine about one's own victimhood"
"blaming your bad economic prospects on sinister, larger-than-life forces is part of the conspiratorial mindset"
"Is it a little self-pitying to point all this out? Perhaps."
The author apologizes repeatedly for discussing documented discrimination with data.
Ask yourself: Would any author hedge this much discussing discrimination against any other group?
THE ESCAPE VALVE: WHITE PERPETRATORS
The key move that makes discussion permissible:
"What Savage shows is that the drive to discriminate against whites applied only to entry-level positions. In other words, the Gen X and Baby Boomer whites, comfortably ensconced in management positions, engaged in very little self-sacrifice"
Translation: The bad actors are older white people, not minorities.
This framing is essential because:
White perpetrators = safe target
Can criticize without accusations of racism
Minorities are explicitly absolved: "Savage doesn't lay the blame on the minority employees who benefited"
The author needs white villains to tell this story.
THE AUTHOR'S ANXIETY
Even with white-on-white discrimination, the author must:
Warn against the natural response:
"I am moderately worried about the backlash"
"a new generation of younger commentators who are, in some cases, explicitly racist"
"The last thing our country needs is a young, white, male conservative movement that argues for identity-based revanchism"
Notice the asymmetry:
When minorities face discrimination → Identity-based organizing is legitimate
When whites face discrimination → Identity-based response is "the last thing we need"
Same treatment, opposite permitted responses.
The author calls for colorblindness:
"we should get back to the libertarian/classically liberal approach to hiring, admissions, and the like: colorblindness and the rejection of affinity group-based characterization in favor of individual merit and achievement"
But the article itself demonstrates colorblindness doesn't exist in discourse:
Can only discuss this because perpetrators are white
Must extensively hedge anyway
Must warn against white response
Must absolve minorities
If colorblindness existed, the author could simply say:
"Here's documented discrimination. It's wrong. It should stop."
No hedging. No apologies. No safe targets required.
HE AUTHOR'S BLIND SPOT
The author worries about:
"poorly adjusted young men who seek to blame their problems on women, black people, Israel"
But the article just documented:
10 years of systematic discrimination
48% → 11.9% representation
Explicit DEI policies targeting them
These aren't "blaming their problems" on imaginary forces.
The author's framework:
Document real discrimination ✓
But don't organize in response ✗
Accept colorblindness going forward ✓
Don't be "radicalized" by what happened to you ✗
This is asking victims of documented discrimination to have no collective response while other groups maintain theirs.
THE SECOND ESCAPE: "WOKENESS IS DEAD"
THE PROBLEMS
Problem 1: The Data Is Current
The article's own numbers:
White men 11.9% of lower-level TV writers — 2024
Harvard tenure-track 18% white men — 2023
Emmy nominations under 40: 0 white men — since 2021
The discrimination isn't historical. The effects are now.
If wokeness is "dead," why hasn't the 11.9% started climbing back toward baseline?
Problem 2: The Structures Remain
DEI offices still exist
HR diversity requirements still in place
Same people run the institutions
Same hiring practices continue
What exactly "died"?
Some rhetoric softened
Some companies renamed DEI programs
Trump won an election
What didn't die:
The demographic outcomes
The institutional structures
The hiring practices
The asymmetric rules of discourse
Problem 3: The Author's Own Hedging Disproves It
If wokeness were truly dead, why does the author need:
"Trepidation"
Apologies for "self-pity"
Absolution of minorities
Warnings against white identity response
Dead ideologies don't require this much defensive maneuvering.
The extensive hedging proves wokeness retains power—at minimum, power over what can be said and how.
Problem 4: Voldemort Returned
The author's own metaphor undermines him:
"it now exists as a formless evil with a greatly diminished capacity to pester us. You know, like Voldemort."
In the story, Voldemort returned and nearly won.
The "formless evil" phase was temporary. The structures that enabled his return remained intact. His followers kept positions of power. When conditions aligned, he came back stronger.
If this is the metaphor, the author is saying: "The ideology that systematically discriminated against us for a decade is temporarily weakened but the structures remain and it will return."
That's not "defeated." That's "dormant."
THE ASYMMETRY
Critiquing discrimination against minorities:
Can critique ongoing, active discrimination
Can critique powerful institutions currently doing it
No need to declare enemy "defeated" first
No statute of limitations on grievance
Critiquing discrimination against whites:
Must wait until ideology "defeated"
Must find safe (white) perpetrators
Must hedge extensively anyway
Must warn against response
THE REAL TEST
Ask: If DEI were actively expanding right now, could this article be written?
Answer: No. The author would be:
"Punching down" at marginalized groups
Promoting "white grievance"
Enabling the "groyper movement"
Part of the "backlash"
The article is only possible because the author can frame it as autopsy, not combat.
But it's not an autopsy. The patient (11.9% representation) is still on the table.
BOTTOM LINE
"Wokeness is dead" is permission structure, not factual claim.
The evidence:
Current data shows ongoing effects
Institutional structures remain
Author's own hedging proves continued power
His metaphor (Voldemort) implies return, not death
The function:
Makes critique "safe" by framing as historical
Avoids confronting ongoing discrimination
Provides plausible deniability
The tell:
If it were truly dead, none of the hedging would be necessary.
"After all, women and people of color once faced not just de facto discrimination but active, legally compelled discrimination, which is much worse."
OLD: "Whites only"
NEW: "Diversity goals"
EFFECT: Exclude based on race
OLD: "Quota"
NEW: "Representation targets"
EFFECT: Quota
'After all, women and people of color once faced not just de facto discrimination but active, legally compelled discrimination, which is much worse.'
OLD: "Racial preference"
NEW: "Equity initiative"
EFFECT: Racial preference
OLD: "Discrimination"
NEW: "Inclusive hiring"
EFFECT: Discrimination
THE MECHANISMS OF COMPULSION
Federal contractors:
Executive orders require affirmative action
Must demonstrate "good faith efforts" toward diversity
Non-compliance risks losing contracts
Disparate impact liability:
If outcomes unequal → presumed discrimination
Must prove necessity of any practice producing disparity
Safest path: engineer equal outcomes (discriminate to balance)
Title VI/VII/IX enforcement:
Agencies interpret to require demographic balancing
Investigations triggered by statistical disparities
Settlements require diversity commitments
Accreditation:
Universities/professional schools require DEI commitments
Accreditors mandate diversity plans
Non-compliance threatens accreditation
Public company pressure:
SEC disclosure requirements on diversity
Shareholder/ESG pressure for metrics
Board diversity mandates (California law)
THE AUTHOR'S ERROR
He accepts the frame:
Old discrimination: Explicit, therefore "real" legal compulsion
New discrimination: Implicit, therefore voluntary choice
The truth:
Old discrimination: "You must not hire X"
New discrimination: "You will be punished if you don't hire enough Y"
Same compulsion. Different sentence structure.
BOTTOM LINE
The doublespeak hides equivalence:
"Legally compelled segregation" = Bad (everyone agrees)
"Voluntary diversity commitments" + disparate impact liability + federal contractor requirements + accreditation mandates + regulatory pressure = Also legally compelled
The author grants moral distinction where none exists. The 48% → 11.9% didn't happen through voluntary choices. It happened through systematic legal and institutional pressure dressed in softer language.
Calling it "less bad" because the compulsion was hidden is rewarding the doublespeak.
Nice work.
Nice, and this lends credence to my assertion that we need to get rid of the democrats.
Sure seems like it, especially in academia:
Like this email, where a University of New Mexico professor just says: "I don't want to hire white men for sure."
Here's a search committee report from Ohio State saying: "We decided as a committee that diversity was just as important as perceived merit as we made our selection."
Here's one of many hiring proposals from the University of Colorado making explicit race-based hiring goal: "to hire a Black, Indigenous, or Latinx faculty member."
Here's the University of Michigan noting that a key diversity hiring program was successful because, despite using ostensibly race-neutral criteria, 93% of its hires were "from traditionally minoritized groups."
Here's a dean at OSU telling a search committee: “Diversity of the candidates has to be as high of a priority as the scholarship.”
Here's another hiring proposal from University of Colorado. "Our commitment... is to hire someone from the BIPOC community."
Here's a former dean at the University of Michigan describing how she would reject finalist slates if they didn't have the proper racial makeup
Here's a UNM hiring team rejecting a job candidate because he wasn't an underrepresented minority and the math department is "really short on women."
Here's Vanderbilt describing a 18-20 person hiring program reserved exclusively for "Black, Latinx, American Indian, and Pacific Islander" faculty.
https://x.com/JohnDSailer/status/2001764486634438796
Remember that Rubio used anti-DEI bullshit to chafe the State Department font to make it harder for those with vision problems to read the text.
DEI is non-discrimination. Fuck those bigots who are against DEI.
The 混蛋 MG believes that selecting by race is not racist!
MG is a slimy plie of lying, TDS-addled, lefty shit.
DEI is discrimination, by its own definition, from the roots up.
See, it's real simple: if you have to discriminate (discriminate) to forcibly include some people, that requires equal and opposite discrimination (discrimination) to forcibly exclude other people to make room.
Discrimination is at the heart of DEI.
But, to lefty shits, it's GOOD racism!
'...which is the progressive push to equalize workplaces *using racism* in hiring and admissions..."
Fixed.
This blank.ai is taking away all of our commenting jobs.
"I am moderately worried about the backlash, though."
This IS the backlash. The woke war against white male millenials. After every swing of the pendulum, American society ends up with less discrimination and more equal rights. It doesn't matter if young white men were discriminated against as long as it stops. Feuds become dangerous when each reaction is greater than the previous provocation and it no longer matters who started the feud - only the most recent transgression matters as things escalate out of control. All that matters to me now is that wokeness has been contained - if, indeed, it has been - and that discrimination against women and people of color has been permanently terminated. But buried in the narrative here is that old white men are still in control of the entrenched institutions.
Old white men are the new enemy!