Britain’s first ever degree in wokery which trains students to work in DEI is slammed as ‘gobbledegook’
A new degree course at the University of Sussex, described as Britain's first in "wokery", has been criticised by critics as "gobbledegook" designed to train students for careers in diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). The MA in Social and Political Critical Thought has drawn scrutiny for its focus on identity politics and progressive ideology, with detractors arguing it prioritises ideological training over rigorous academic study and questioning its value in preparing graduates for the job market.
Critics have condemned the course's module descriptions as impenetrable academic jargon, arguing it exemplifies a broader trend of universities embedding DEI-focused teaching into formal qualifications. Supporters of the university's approach have defended the course as addressing legitimate areas of social and political enquiry, while opponents see it as symptomatic of ideological capture within higher education and question its practical worth to students and employers alike.
- Sussex University degree in DEI-related "wokery" sparks criticism
- Critics call course content "gobbledegook" and overly ideological
- Debate reflects wider row over DEI's place in UK universities
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that gender, sexuality and postcolonial politics are legitimate, well-established academic fields with decades of peer-reviewed scholarship behind them, and that a dedicated degree simply reflects genuine demand from students and employers seeking graduates equipped for careers in equality, diversity and inclusion work. They would point out that universities routinely create specialised courses tracking emerging sectors of the economy and public life, and that studying how identity, power and colonial history shape politics gives students valuable critical and analytical skills, much as any other social science degree does. Far from being ideological indoctrination, they see it as rigorous study of contested ideas, including anarchism and imperialism, which should be examined rather than avoided.
The case against
Critics contend that framing a whole degree around a single political lens, rather than teaching contested concepts like gender and colonialism as one perspective among many within a broader politics syllabus, risks producing graduates trained in advocacy rather than open enquiry. They worry that terms such as a 'decolonised approach' signal a predetermined ideological starting point, which sits uneasily with universities' traditional commitment to viewpoint diversity and free intellectual challenge. Their concern is not that these topics are unworthy of study, but that a narrowly framed vocational pipeline into DEI roles may leave graduates less able to engage constructively with people who hold different political assumptions, and may crowd out rigorous debate in favour of a single settled orthodoxy.