The University of Virginia Medical School Engages in Macroagressions When a Student Questions “Microagressions”

The University of Virginia School of Medicine deserves an "F" for the exercise in Wokeness described below, as reported by Reason.  The article is titled, "A Medical Student Questioned Microaggressions. UVA Branded Him a Threat and Banished Him from Campus."

[Update: I have attached key legal filings from this lawsuit, because the details demonstrate that the thought process of the Administrators is pathological - - thoroughly Woke infested. Do this university really think that the students they admit to their medical school are this fragile? I want to believe that people generally act in good faith, but the University's positions in these pleadings are not credible. The faculty and administrators of UVA have completely fallen off the rails regarding the educational mission.

Doc 33 - Amended Complaint

Doc 112 - Defendants' Motion to Dismiss

Doc 113 - Deft Memo in Supp of MTD

Doc 115 - Plaintiff Memo in Opp re MTD

Doc 129 - Court Ruling on Deft MTD

Doc 132 - Order that Discovery may proceed.]

But first, what is the purpose of a college? I fully embrace the definition offered by Heterodox Academy: "We aspire to create college classrooms and campuses that welcome diverse people with diverse viewpoints and that equip learners with the habits of heart and mind to engage that diversity in open inquiry and constructive disagreement. We see an academy eager to welcome professors, students, and speakers who approach problems and questions from different points of view, explicitly valuing the role such diversity plays in advancing the pursuit of knowledge, discovery, growth, innovation, and the exposure of falsehoods."

Here's what UVA did to one of its medical students:

Kieran Bhattacharya is a student at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine. On October 25, 2018, he attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. Dissatisfied with the definition of a microaggression offered by the presenter—Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean—Bhattacharya raised his hand. Within a few weeks, as a result of the fallout from Bhattacharya's question about microagressions, the administration had branded him a threat to the university and banned him from campus.

Why are schools firing professors and kicking out students who question Woke orthodoxy? It's simple. They don't have good answers for the questions being asked by the professors and students. Many schools are now acting like churches, excommunicating rather than intellectually engaging. For more, see John McWhorter's new book, The Elect, in which he explains how Wokeness is not like a religion. Rather, it is a religion. Instead of engaging with good faith intellectual inquiry, the Woke tell people to "Shut up!" They do this through ostracization, expulsion and infinite varieties of ad hominem attacks.

Notice the irony: The crime was "microaggressions," whereas the remedy is physical expulsion, a classic macro aggression.

--

A few links regarding "microagressions":

The theory behind microaggressions—unintentional insults based on race, sex, or another protected status—is woefully inadequate and lacks scientific rigor. Scott Lilienfeld, a clinical psychologist at Emory University, took a close look at the core assumptions that undergird the academic understanding of microaggressions and concluded that there should be a "moratorium on microaggression training."

From "Oberlin College Is Hiring Students to Be Social Justice Activists, Host Microaggression Training"

"There is insufficient justification for concluding that the potential benefits of microaggression training programs outweigh their potential risks, including a substantial increase in the number of false-positive identifications of statements as microaggressions," he wrote.

From New Discourses:

[According to the Woke] there is no way to mistakenly identify a microaggression, as the victim’s perception is considered absolutely authoritative (see also, lived experience). Because of the reliance upon the perception of the recipient of alleged microaggressions, there is reason to be concerned that critical theories of identity can teach people to become more sensitive to and aware of slights that might even be being read into the situation, with no way to make a determination on the matter (see also, critical consciousness and woke). This problem has been noted by lawyer Greg Lukianoff and psychologist Jonathan Haidt in their book, The Coddling of the American Mind, as a kind of “reverse cognitive behavioral therapy” where people are taught to become more and more sensitive to (and less resilient against) slights and minor insults (see also, victimhood culture).

An excerpt from Wikipedia, demonstrating that the concept of microaggressions is controversial:

A number of scholars and social commentators have criticised the microaggression concept for its lack of scientific basis, over-reliance on subjective evidence, and promotion of psychological fragility. Critics argue that avoiding behaviours that one interprets as microaggressions restricts one's own freedom and causes emotional self-harm, and that employing authority figures to address microaggressions (i.e call-out culture) can lead to an atrophy of those skills needed to mediate one's own disputes.[7] Some argue that, because the term "microaggression" uses language connoting violence to describe verbal conduct, it can be (and is) abused to exaggerate harm, resulting in retribution and the elevation of victimhood.[8]

Continue ReadingThe University of Virginia Medical School Engages in Macroagressions When a Student Questions “Microagressions”

Challenging the Black Lives Matter Grade School Curriculum

It's hard to determine what is more disturbing about this story: the dysfunctional Black Lives Matter curriculum or the reluctance of parents to speak out against what is obviously a dysfunctional and divisive curriculum. The article is titled: "‘The Narrative Is, “You Can’t Get Ahead”’: In Evanston, Illinois, a Black parent and school-board candidate takes on a curriculum meant to combat racism."

Excerpts:

"Friedersdorf: Does it rankle you, as a Black person, when people define white culture with positive stereotypes, such as showing up to places on time?

Mboyayi: That’s exactly how I feel. The education system tends to erase or mute Black people from different backgrounds and experiences. They make this assumption that all Black people are a monolith—they all speak the same way, think the same way, and conduct themselves in the same way.

Showing up on time has nothing to do with being white. It’s something that you’re taught or not taught. My father taught me at a very early age to keep my word. If you say that you’re going to be somewhere at some time, be there. What system of white supremacy was he influenced by?

Friedersdorf: You were willing to talk about all this on the record, under your own name. Other parents with concerns about the public-school system in Evanston were terrified to do so. Are they overreacting?

Muboyayi: They should absolutely be afraid because, you know, certain elements of our community are threatening to get people fired. Even if someone just poses a question, or expresses a conflicting view, you’re immediately labeled a part of the problem, a white supremacist, and people will say, “Find out where they work.”"

Continue ReadingChallenging the Black Lives Matter Grade School Curriculum

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter Discuss the Racism of Anti-Racism, as Applied to Education

The overall theme in this video is that we are not going to be able to solve problem if we are not willing to look squarely at the problem. The horrific problem we face in the U.S. is that a large percentage of black children are not fairing well in American schools. In 2019, only 20% of black children were proficient at math (compared to 52% of whites, 28% of Hispanic and 66% of Asian children). We never get to why this is happening or how to fix the problem if we deny that there is a problem. Wokeness/Critical Race Theory "fixes" the problem by pretending that mathematics is racist, in order words, by disparaging math as "white" and attempting to lower the standards. As Glenn Loury passionately points out, this is a racist move, a backhanded way of suggesting that black kids can't cut it, even though most other children all over the world can. This following video is a 15 minute excerpt of a longer discussion that one can view at Glenn Loury's Patreon Website.

Note: I hold that the term "race" is scientifically incoherent and socially divisive. Taking the view that there are "races" is the first step on the slippery slope toward racism. Categorizing complex humans as colors is grotesque, simplistic, dysfunctional and destructive. To see another person as a color is as ridiculous as believing that one can tell character by one's birthday (astrology) or by the shape of one's head (phrenology). In this article, I reluctantly refer to "races" given the current social landscape, with the hope and dream that, someday, "race" will be generally recognized to be the least interesting aspect of any human being, as uninteresting as the shape of their third toe on their left foot.

Continue ReadingGlenn Loury and John McWhorter Discuss the Racism of Anti-Racism, as Applied to Education

The “Meaning” of Social Justice and the Problem with Conformity

in 2007, Greg Lukianoff wrote an article on "social justice" that the NYT decided was too hot to handle. Lukianoff then shopped his article to the Chronicles of Higher Education, which published it. The problem is that attempts to teach vague world views like "social justice" open the floodgates to teaching personal political preferences and unsubstantiated quasi-religious philosophies as though these are uncontroversial factually-anchored topics that can be described by objective standards. Here is an excerpt from "Social Justice and Political Orthodoxy":

Vague, subjective, and politicized evaluation standards are dangerous. They invite administrators and faculty members to substitute their own opinions and political beliefs in place of evaluating students’ skill as teachers. Many of us can think of teachers and professors whose politics we may not have agreed with but who were nonetheless exceptional educators. Having the “correct” political beliefs no more makes someone a good teacher than having “incorrect” beliefs necessarily makes someone a bad teacher.

The fact that such politicized standards may be well intentioned does not make them less troubling. Attempts to institute mandatory political orthodoxies for “good reasons” are nothing new. Depending on where the political pendulum is at any given moment, such tests may come from the left or the right. In the 1950s, attempts to root out Communist sympathizers in higher education were rightly opposed even by scholars and judges who believed the Soviet threat was very real, because they also believed such enforced conformity of thought incompatible with liberal education.

At the heart of the modern liberal university is an ideal simultaneously grand and humble: None of us are omniscient, none can know what strange paths can lead to wisdom and understanding, and it is arrogant for any institution to assume the role of final arbiter of truth. Official orthodoxies impede rather than facilitate education and lead to dogma rather than living, organic ideas. One would hope that we are long past the time when education was viewed as an opportunity to inculcate “correct” and unchallengeable answers to philosophical, moral, and societal questions.

The problem of imposing mandatory political orthodoxies is a serious one, whether those beliefs concern “social justice,” “individualism,” or “patriotism.” In 1943 the Supreme Court invalidated a mandatory school flag-pledge requirement challenged by Jehovah’s Witnesses because it went against their religious beliefs. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote then, efforts “to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential” have proven destructive throughout history, raising the bitter question of “whose unity it shall be.” He concluded: “Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.”

This problem of compelled orthodoxy in the context of Critical Race Theory was addressed by Helen Pluckrose in an article titled, "White Fragility Training and Freedom of Belief." Here is an excerpt on Ideological Conformity

It is perfectly reasonable for employers to require employees to commit to not discriminating against anybody on the basis of race, and to not expressing racist beliefs. Because this is an important issue and employers will want to be very clear about it, a talk or meeting could be necessary and employees might be required to confirm that they understand and commit to following the rules. However, it is also important that the focus is on expected attitudes and behaviours at work and does not require anyone to affirm their commitment to any particular belief system that they may not believe in and should not be coerced into.

The ethical problem with requiring ideological conformity is often understood better by people on the political left when it comes to a belief system like Christianity, which is a majority view and often combined with conservative politics. It is usually clear to leftists that, unless the role is a specifically religious one, an employer should not require their atheist, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist or even Christian employees to affirm the Christian faith. It is less clear to a certain subset of them that they should not be required to affirm a belief in concepts of invisible systems of power and privilege such as whiteness. This is because Social Justice beliefs are not currently recognised as ones to which the concept of secularism should be applied. They should be. . . .

the belief system around these concepts of whiteness, privilege and fragility includes the truth claims that:

  • An invisible power system exists that perpetuates racism throughout every aspect of society.
  • Racist systems require power, therefore only white people can be racist and all white people are racist. This invisible racist power system is called whiteness.
  • Whiteness pervades everything and so is always present whenever white people do or say anything. It is impossible for white people not to behave in racist ways.
  • White people are generally unable to see the invisible force of whiteness and need theorists like DiAngelo to explain it to them.
  • Whiteness results in white people being privileged and it is always essential to focus on this privilege to the exclusion of all other factors that could help or hinder a person.
  • White people cannot bear to be confronted by DiAngelo’s beliefs in their racism. This is because they are psychologically fragile and not because they know their own minds.
  • Any attempt to disagree with this definition of racism, whiteness or privilege is simply a manifestation of this fragility. Being quiet or going away is also a sign of it.
  • White people therefore have two choices: they can be racist and admit it or racist and deny it. Both are bad, but the latter is willfully ignorant and therefore really bad.

Critical Social Justice theories of whiteness represent a complex and internally consistent belief system, which is the result of at least fifty years of discourse theory. The similarities between this belief system and belief systems more instantly recognisable as religious, which also believe in original sin, powerful but insidious forces of evil, a priesthood, epiphany and atonement, are clear.

A secular society does not deny belief systems power over others because they are factually wrong. It denies them power over others because it protects the individual’s right to her own private conscience, whether she is right or not. This is a remarkable and counterintuitive thing to humans, but it has served us well.

The principles of secularism hold that, no matter how strongly you believe your belief system to be true or how essential you think it is that all of society holds it to be true and lives according to its moral dictates, you do not have the right to impose it on anyone else. We currently live in societies that do a pretty good job of applying this rule to religion, but which have not yet recognised Critical Social Justice as the same kind of thing. Instead, Critical Social Justice is largely misunderstood as a continuation of the liberal civil rights movements, which worked to reform laws and to open up all opportunities to everyone, regardless of their identities, and whose principles can still, quite reasonably, be expected to be upheld by employers. This is a misunderstanding of Critical Social Justice. As shown above, Critical Social Justice is a very specific belief system, which revolves around several core truth claims, which have not been shown to be true. It requires an admission of inherent racism and regards all disagreement as evidence of the problem.

Continue ReadingThe “Meaning” of Social Justice and the Problem with Conformity