Some of the first actions Donald Trump took after returning to the White House targeted the federal government’s so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. His second administration’s approach to reversing DEI policies has marked a clear shift from his first administration, which tended merely to loudly signal opposition to these policies.

Perhaps part of the reason for this is the recent tide of intellectual works attacking the ideological core of the “woke” philosophy underpinning such initiatives. One of the latest contributions to this anti-woke pushback is Progressive Myths, a new book by University of Colorado philosopher Michael Huemer.

DEI policies are rooted in “Progressivism,” an ideology that seeks to tackle what its proponents regard as deep-seated societal injustices using state power. DEI is most closely associated with so-called woke Progressivism, a branch of Progressive ideology that focuses on “group identity” and obtaining “equal outcomes” for supposedly marginalized groups.1 This branch of Progressivism has heavily influenced the American left since the early 2010s, including activists, media, and policy makers.

At the outset of Progressive Myths, Huemer writes, _“_Progressivism as I understand it . . . sees contemporary America as a deeply unjust society, filled with prejudice and systematically designed to harm and oppress”(1).

Like all political worldviews, Progressivism rests primarily on moral claims; Progressive Myths focuses exclusively on the empirical basis (or lack thereof) of those claims rather than challenging the moral premises underlying them. Huemer tackles a wide range of myths, from those about widespread, systemic discrimination against women and racial minorities in the United States; to economic myths about fiscal and regulatory policies; and to myths about scientific issues such as climate change and COVID-19. This focus on empirical claims does not mean that Huemer disregards the importance of moral and political philosophy. On the contrary, Huemer is a philosopher whose work mostly addresses key philosophical debates around such issues as the objectivity of morality, the nature of knowledge, and the legitimacy of the state’s political authority. But in Progressive Myths, his aim is more limited: to test whether the factual claims often made in support of Progressive policies hold up. By demonstrating that these claims are flawed or false, Huemer aims to stimulate readers’ thinking about Progressive ideology in general.

For example, Huemer highlights a series of cases about allegedly racially motivated killings of black people by white shooters. He examines the shooting of Trayvon Martin—an unarmed black seventeen-year-old—by George Zimmerman, a man of mixed white and Hispanic descent who was justly acquitted of second-degree murder (7–19).2

The influence of this shooting on the Progressive movement cannot be overstated; it was the catalyst for the founding of Black Lives Matter.3 Florida prosecutors charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder, a decision heavily influenced by a public campaign to frame the shooting as racially motivated. Some 2.2 million people signed a petition demanding that Zimmerman be charged, after which Florida Governor Rick Scott appointed Angela Corey as a special prosecutor for the case. Zimmerman claimed to have been acting in self-defense, and no evidence came to light that contradicted that claim. Even so, Corey reversed the initial decision not to charge Zimmerman and charged him with second-degree murder.

Huemer observes that the public backlash to the decision not to prosecute Zimmerman was based on several misunderstandings—and lies. Audio footage from Zimmerman’s interactions with the police, for example, was intentionally edited by an NBC producer to suggest that Martin’s race was a decisive factor in the shooting. These recordings spread across social media and were even aired on MSNBC.4 ABC reported that Zimmerman had not been injured during the confrontation, despite police photographs from the crime scene showing that he had sustained injuries to his face and head.

Huemer also examines the more recent case of Kyle Rittenhouse, a seventeen-year-old acquitted of second-degree murder after shooting two men dead at a 2020 Black Lives Matter “protest” in Kenosha, Wisconsin, that rapidly deteriorated into rioting (37–46). Rittenhouse’s acquittal was characterized as “white privilege” by such influential figures as Reverend Al Sharpton, Illinois Governor J. B. Pritzker, and Lizzo.

But Rittenhouse’s case for self-defense was very strong, albeit legally complex. Huemer includes images that show a mob descending on Rittenhouse and kicking him before he fired in self-defense. Huemer explains that Joseph Rosenbaum, one of the two people whom Rittenhouse killed, had made several direct verbal threats against Rittenhouse’s life and incited his fellow rioters to harm him. Rosenbaum also threw a bag of heavy items at Rittenhouse and chased him down a road, all while shots were fired from within Rosenbaum’s group of rioters. Rosenbaum then reached for the muzzle of Rittenhouse’s gun, which is when the latter opened fire in self-defense.

Anthony Huber, the other person fatally shot, was leading a mob descending on Rittenhouse and hit him over the head with a skateboard. Huber also reached for Rittenhouse’s gun before ultimately getting fatally shot. Gaige Grosskreutz, the third person Rittenhouse shot, was also part of the advancing mob and was holding a pistol when he was shot. Grosskreutz survived the shooting and ultimately admitted that he was not only holding the pistol but also pointing it at Rittenhouse.

Huemer also addresses some of the criticisms aimed at Rittenhouse’s behavior on the evening of the Kenosha riot. Contrary to these claims, carrying a gun across state lines is not illegal in all cases—it depends on the states in question. Rittenhouse had not transported the gun across state lines anyway; it had been stored in Kenosha prior to that evening. Rittenhouse was also charged with carrying a firearm, which, as a minor, he couldn’t legally carry in public. His defense successfully argued that his possession of the AR-15 was legal because, under Wisconsin law, minors are allowed to possess rifles and shotguns so long as those weapons do not have short barrels.5 The illegal possession charge was dismissed by the judge before the jury even deliberated on Rittenhouse’s murder charges.

These individual cases feed into wider narratives that are just as misleading. Huemer approaches broader myths about race, economic inequality, and scientific evidence with similar precision. For example, he concisely evaluates the empirical evidence concerning the reliability of “Implicit Association Tests” (IATs), which contribute to claims that all white people harbor subconscious biases against people of other races (61–68). The implication (and often the outright claim) of advocates of these tests is that, in some form, some group (most often white males) is inherently and incurably racist.

But as Huemer explains, IATs and “implicit bias training” have been embraced by a host of influential institutions in the government, corporate, and academic sectors. He shows that analysis of race-based IATs reveals that the result of one test poorly predicts the result of future replicated tests, demonstrating their inability to consistently measure “implicit bias” and produce accurate results. The premise that people hold unchosen, unalterable prejudices against others for superficial reasons such as race or sex is totally baseless. The moral argument that the supposed existence of such bias justifies discriminating against people from “dominant” identity-based groups is reprehensible.

Huemer also critiques studies purporting to show a persistent “gender pay gap” as proof of systemic discrimination against women (98–106). Studies that “show” women earning 77–82 cents for every dollar men earn for “the same work” almost never control for crucial differences such as family planning, university degrees, and career choices. He points to evidence that never-married, college-educated, childless, full-time working women earn 18 percent more on average than their male counterparts. Once again, Huemer uses simple statistical context to dispel a Progressive myth that has had tremendous influence on labor law in the United States and Europe.6

Huemer, to his credit, also concedes a few cases wherein there was legitimate cause for anger about injustice. One example is the 2020 murder of George Floyd; Huemer concludes that Minneapolis policeman Derrick Chauvin improperly used excessive force (52–59).

Huemer’s book is impressively well-researched and concisely written. For instance, he makes a compelling case against the idea that drug laws in the United States have a racist origin; his argument substantially changed my thinking on the matter (91–97). However, the book is not without flaws. For example, I would have liked to see Huemer engage more with the question of “systemic racism” in its only legitimate sense—government laws that, even if they no longer are enforced with racist intent, were put in place with racist purposes and continue to disproportionately harm the people they target.

The overtly racist origins of some zoning laws in large American cities are a good example of this phenomenon. In cities across the United States, between the Civil War and the end of Jim Crow, zoning laws were implemented with the intention of keeping certain minority groups segregated from whites within cities, such as by limiting “low-income housing” to certain areas. In some, such as Atlanta, Baltimore, and Chicago, these policies targeted African Americans. In others, such as San Francisco, they targeted Chinese immigrants. Although people who perpetuate zoning laws in these cities today may not have racist intent, those laws still harm people. Zoning laws put downward pressure on geographic mobility, work opportunities, and housing supply, all of which disproportionately impact those with low incomes, who are in turn disproportionately from minority backgrounds. Huemer could have acknowledged this example as a non-myth, a case where people are right to level accusations of systemic racism.7

But this is a relatively minor objection. Progressive Myths carefully dismantles foundational leftist falsehoods in ways that generally should convince any fair-minded reader. Its case-study approach enables readers to engage with the evidence directly, regardless of their philosophy or political affiliation.8

Progressive Myths convincingly and succinctly demonstrates that key Progressive claims about the world are based on half-truths at best and outright falsehoods at worst. Whether you are on the fence about Progressive ideology, know someone who is, or are working to defeat the left in the battle of ideas, Huemer’s book is essential reading.

1. Kiara Alfonseca, “What Does ‘Woke’ Mean and Why are Some Conservatives Using It?,” ABC News, March 4, 2025, https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/woke-conservatives/story?id=93051138; Richard Hanania, “Woke Institutions Is Just Civil Rights Law,” Richard Hanania’s Newsletter, June 1, 2021, https://www.richardhanania.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights. ↑

2. Zimmerman pursued Martin because groups of young men dressed similarly to Martin had been terrorizing his local area in previous weeks. Martin, possibly justifiably, confronted Zimmerman. This turned into a physical confrontation in which Zimmerman believed Martin was reaching for a gun and shot the seventeen-year-old in self-defense. Given Zimmerman’s role as a mentor for local young men, including black mentees, and long-standing support for Barack Obama, racist motives appear unlikely. ↑

3. Aaron Morrison, “Black Lives Matter Movement Marks 10 Years of Activism and Renews Its Call to Defund the Police,” AP News, July 12, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/black-lives-matter-10th-anniversary-trayvon-martin-c2d79ae4639934ca1eb77d6b54c16f8b. ↑

4. Michael Brendan Dougherty, “NBC: We’re Sorry We Edited The Trayvon Tape To Make George Zimmerman Sound Racist,” Business Insider, April 4, 2012, https://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-apologizes-to-george-zimmerman-for-editing-a-911-call-to-make-him-sound-really-racist-2012-4. ↑

5. Eugene Volokh, “Why Did Judge Dismiss Weapons Charges against Kyle Rittenhouse?,” Reason Magazine, November 15, 2021, https://reason.com/volokh/2021/11/15/why-did-judge-dismiss-weapons-charges-against-kyle-rittenhouse/?utm_source=chatgpt.com. ↑

6. Andrew Grossman, “The Ledbetter Act: Sacrificing Justice for ‘Fair’ Pay,” Heritage Foundation, January 7, 2009, https://www.heritage.org/report/the-ledbetter-act-sacrificing-justice-fair-pay; Len Shackleton, “Next Equal Pay Judgement is No Win for Workers,” CapX, August 27, 2024, https://capx.co/next-equal-pay-judgement-is-no-win-for-workers. ↑

7. A. Barton Hinckle, “Zoning’s Racist Roots Still Bear Fruit,” Reason Magazine, April 2, 2014, https://reason.com/2014/04/02/zonings-racist-roots-still-bear-fruit. ↑

8. Michael Huemer, “In Defense of Illegal Immigration,” Fake Nous, February 8, 2025, https://fakenous.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-illegal-immigration-2bd; Michael Huemer, “A Defense of Jury Nullification,” Fake Nous, August 1, 2024, https://fakenous.substack.com/p/a-defense-of-jury-nullification; Michael Huemer, “U.S. Supreme Court Chickens Out,” Fake Nous, March 9, 2024, https://fakenous.substack.com/p/us-supreme-court-chickens-out. ↑