Woke, Anti-Woke, and the Politics of Selective Outrage

Beyond the Business Case — From Correlation to Institutional Architecture

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske moves the DEI conversation beyond its most familiar—and most flawed—argument: that diversity increases profits. For years, proponents relied on studies showing correlations between diverse leadership and financial performance. Critics responded with a valid critique: correlation is not causation. But as Teske explains, that debate misses the point entirely. The real question isn’t whether diversity magically produces profit. It’s whether poorly designed systems are quietly wasting talent. This episode reframes DEI not as a moral slogan or political talking point, but as institutional architecture—the systems organizations use to identify, retain, and elevate talent. When those systems fail, companies don’t just lose diversity. They lose performance. This episode explores: * Why the correlation vs. causation debate is the wrong fight * The critical difference between diversity as an outcome and inclusion as a system * How bias, narrow pipelines, and opaque promotion processes create costly “talent leakage” * Why inclusion is best understood as engineering, not ideology * And how organizations that reduce waste outperform those that ignore it Teske also tackles a common misconception: that DEI is simply a modern version of quotas or affirmative action. Instead, he explains how properly designed inclusion systems operate like any other performance system—measured, refined, and accountable. At its core, this episode delivers a simple but powerful insight: Inclusion doesn’t work because it is politically correct. It works because inefficiency is expensive. And when organizations stop wasting talent, something predictable happens: Performance improves. Because the real issue was never whether diversity causes profit. The real issue is whether your system is designed to waste less human potential. Steve Teske is a retired judge who served in the juvenile and superior courts, presiding over delinquency, child abuse and neglect, termination of parental rights, and adult civil and criminal matters. He has testified before Congress and numerous state legislatures on policy development related to racial disparities. He has published several articles in scholarly and professional journals. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Judge Geronda Carter on Reimagining Access and Accountability

We’re taking a short pause from the DEI series for a conversation that reflects the larger purpose of Justice ReDesigned: exploring how systems can be rebuilt to serve people better. In this episode, I interview Judge Geronda Carter of Georgia’s Clayton Judicial Circuit, a jurist whose work demonstrates what meaningful reform looks like when it moves from theory into practice. Too often, justice reform is discussed only in terms of what is broken. But real progress also requires us to study what is working—and why. Judge Carter shares how she has used judicial leadership and innovation to remove barriers that too often prevent people from fully participating in the legal process. From virtual court appearances that reduce transportation problems, lost wages, and scheduling conflicts, to a Parental Accountability Court that helps families through support, structure, and responsibility, her work offers a blueprint for smarter and more humane justice systems. In this episode, we discuss: * How technology can expand access to justice without sacrificing fairness * Why many failures to appear are rooted in barriers, not irresponsibility * How child support enforcement can focus on solutions instead of automatic punishment * The importance of helping parents become fully engaged in their children’s lives * What judicial leadership looks like when it is grounded in service, common sense, and outcomes This is not innovation for innovation’s sake. It is redesign with purpose. It is justice that meets people where they are.It is justice that asks what works.And it is justice worth building. Thanks for reading Justice ReDesigned! This post is public so feel free to share it. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Woke, Anti-Woke, and the Politics of Selective Outrage

In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske steps back from the legal and economic debates over DEI to examine the word driving much of the conflict: woke. Once a term meaning awareness of injustice, “woke” has evolved into a political weapon—used to dismiss conversations about race, history, and inequality. But Teske argues that the real story is not wokeness itself, but the selective outrage surrounding it. This episode explores: * How the meaning of “woke” has shifted from awareness to accusation * Where progressive activism has sometimes overreached—and why that matters * The growing irony of “anti-woke” efforts that engage in their own forms of cultural intervention * The difference between remembering history and honoring it * And why neutrality is never the absence of values, but a decision about what to preserve and what to ignore At its core, this conversation challenges a simple assumption: that awareness is the problem. Because when cultural intervention is condemned on one side and embraced on the other, the issue is no longer wokeness. It is inconsistency. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

The Meritocracy Myth

Please consider subscribing to Justice ReDesigned. It is free when choosing the no-pay option. All articles and podcasts will be delivered directly to your email. Thank you! Host’s Note This podcast is part of an ongoing Justice ReDesigned series examining the legal, economic, and institutional dimensions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). Each installment addresses a different layer of the debate — from merit and neutrality to profitability and governance — with the aim of separating rhetoric from reality. In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske takes on one of the most powerful—and misunderstood—ideas in American public life: meritocracy. For decades, the phrase “hiring based on merit” has been used as a rhetorical counterweight to diversity, equity, and inclusion. But what if the real question isn’t whether merit matters, but whether our systems actually recognize merit in the first place? Teske explores the hidden assumptions behind the meritocracy debate and explains why the conversation often collapses into a false choice between competence and inclusion. Drawing on historical examples, legal frameworks, and economic research, he argues that true meritocracy requires something many institutions still resist: structured systems designed to identify talent across all backgrounds. This episode examines: • Why “meritocracy” in practice has often operated through informal networks rather than objective standards• How structured hiring and evaluation systems strengthen merit rather than undermine it• The historical lesson of the Tuskegee Airmen and what it reveals about hidden talent• Why the real threat to merit is not inclusion—but unexamined assumptions about who qualifies as “meritorious” The conversation ultimately reframes the debate: the goal is not to abandon merit, but to build systems capable of recognizing it wherever it exists. Because the real myth isn’t merit itself. It’s the belief that our institutions have always measured it fairly. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]

Episode 5: Inclusion Is a System, Not a Preference

Please consider subscribing to Justice ReDesigned. It is free when choosing the no-pay option. All articles and podcasts will be delivered directly to your email. Thank you! In this episode of Justice ReDesigned, Steve Teske moves beyond rhetoric and into architecture. As political debates swirl around “DEI,” this episode reframes the conversation: inclusion is not about preference or quotas — it is about institutional design. When properly implemented, inclusion is a structured system built on transparent criteria, standardized evaluation, and measurable pathways to advancement. Teske examines: * What Title VII actually prohibits — and what it allows * The difference between identity-based favoritism and bias-resistant systems * Why inclusion is what organizations do, while diversity is what they get * How structured hiring and evaluation protect merit rather than distort it * And why corporations focused on long-term performance quietly maintain inclusion strategies despite political pressure If merit truly matters, then the systems used to identify talent must be built to see it broadly, not narrowly. Inclusion is not a political slogan — it is governance architecture. Steven Teske is a retired judge with 22 years’ experience on the juvenile and superior court bench. He served ten years as the chief judge. Before his service as a jurist, he was a trial attorney and partner in the Atlanta law firm of Boswell & Teske LLP. Teske also served as special assistant attorney general representing state employees and prosecuting child abuse and neglect cases. During his tenure on the bench, Teske testified before Congress on four (4) occasions and numerous state legislatures. He has published several articles on juvenile justice and child welfare issues. He was appointed by three governors to several state boards and commissions including the Commission on Criminal Justice Reform, Council on Child Welfare Reform, Family Violence Commission, Governor’s Office of Children and Families, Children & Youth Coordinating Council, Juvenile Justice State Advisory Council, and the Judicial Advisory Council. Teske served two terms on the Federal Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice. He is a past president of the Georgia Council of Juvenile Court Judges, Clayton County Bar Association, and National Chair of the Coalition for Juvenile Justice. He is a Henry Toll Fellow with the Council of State Governments. He has a Masters in political science and a Juris Doctor. Get full access to Justice ReDesigned at steventeske.substack.com/subscribe [https://steventeske.substack.com/subscribe?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_4]