“It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” – William Shakespeare

There is a practice in government and politics – which likely extends into communication and many other fields – called policy labelling.

If you have an idea for a new policy or if you have a new way to explain how something in the world works, slapping a figurative label of a few words on it so people can instantly have a general idea of what you are talking about can help the idea spread.

This is constantly happening in government as people are trying to push for government to adopt new policies and for the public to accept them. If you are of a certain age, you can probably remember catchier labels such as the “contract with America” or “don’t ask, don’t tell” or “no child left behind.”

You will also notice policy opponents try to hang derisive labels on policies such as “don’t say gay” or “voodoo economics” or “woke ideology.” What often happens is whenever a label gains traction in the public consciousness, its meaning begins to blur as people borrow the phrase and add new variations to it.

What does “going woke” mean at this point in time? Are there any particular viewpoints that make you especially woke? Not that I can tell. The phrase is mostly symbolic now, linked with liberal ideology without specificity.

Perhaps the funniest application of going woke was when former President Donald Trump claimed former Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks had fallen prey to wokeness.

If you have ever paid any attention to Brooks, he often goes to tremendous lengths to explain just how square he is. He once released an official statement pointing out he has fnever smoked, drank or taken illegal drugs. His one brush with Johnny Law involved a traffic ticket when he “did once misjudge a traffic light.”

Imagining Brooks wearing a Che Guevara shirt while calling for the people to take control of the means of production from our capitalist overseers is a real knee-slapper.

Gov. Kay Ivey signed into law senate bill 129 a couple of weeks ago. This bill intends to remove the funding of any diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs housed at public college campuses and also possibly end the use of some aspects linked to DEI in teaching and training programs. The new law labels these aspects as “divisive concepts.”

Generally, divisive concepts in this bill include topics that promote the idea of any race being inferior or superior to others; that a “sense of guilt” should be accepted by anyone based on “race, color, religion, sex, ethnicity, or national origin;” or that blame should be assigned to any groups just mentioned based on actions of the past.

The teeth of the law comes with the state forbidding public colleges and state agencies from providing space or funding to any program that promotes divisive concepts. For good measure, the bill’s sponsors throw in that multiple occupancy bathrooms be designated for use by a person’s biological sex.

There are numerous caveats built into the law such as divisive concepts can be discussed in an academic setting, colleges can host speakers who promote divisive concepts as long as an outside sponsor pays for the costs, and free expression of ideas cannot be limited.

How you view DEI likely depends on the immediate association that policy label brings to mind, although, some DEI policies are expansive while others are limited. This legislation artfully connects DEI with the term divisive concepts to the point where they nearly become interchangeable.

If your college or public agency has a DEI office or staff, it would be possible to operate without promoting divisive concepts, but the sheer association of DEI with divisive concepts is going to force a name change, yet that is about all it will do. The state and its colleges will still have offices dealing with minority and diversity issues.

This new law could have been much simpler by just stating people should not have to agree they are inherently oppressive to other people as a condition of employment or to remain in good standing as a student at an institute of higher learning. Instead, it now includes a lot of unenforceable rules and value judgments, too.

This law may feel like it strikes a blow against woke ideology, but it will mainly serve to create a headache for public institutions’ human resources departments. Just don’t ask and don’t tell them for now.