The Many Problems with the Concept of “Microagressions”

If you would like to explore the many ways that the modern usage of the term "microagressions" has fallen off the tracks at the hands of modern "anti-racists," consider reading a soon-to-be published law review article by an attorney and a psychologist, Edward Cantu & Lee Jussim, Ph.D. Their article is titled: MICROAGGRESSIONS, QUESTIONABLE SCIENCE, AND FREE SPEECH.

I'll begin with their conclusions:

When scientists speak, people listen, even if the science is unscientific. If scientists are going to declare a broad and indeterminate number of acts inherently subtly racist, and a critical mass of those in positions of power and influence are ideologically inclined to believe them, it is imperative that the claims not be grossly exaggerated and that they be grounded in solid scientific methodology. The [current micro aggression construct- "CMC"] fails in this regard. After critical analysis, the CMC appears to be a project in attempting to retroactively validate initial ideological hunches; or, at best, to give voice to POC by substituting the scientific method for the perceptions of some of them. Whichever it may be, it is clear that, at this point, nobody—neither diversity administers, academics, or journalists—should take currently propagated lists of microaggressions as representative of anything meaningful. We assert this not to be gratuitously insulting to CMC researchers, but to forestall the harms that the CMC we fear may cause.

The authors acknowledge that the concept of "microagressions" is a worthy subject of study (beginning with the research by psychologist Chester Pierce in the 1970s), but they find  that the list of words and phrases that might have some legitimacy as racial slights have now been coupled, through concept creep, with numerous expressions that are innocent or even complimentary (see their Appendix for many examples). In step with this concept creep, the Overton Window has been slammed down to forbid numerous verbal expressions that are A) not problematic to the great majority of those who are purported to be victims of these slights and/or B) depend for their meaning almost entirely upon the intent of the speaker and the context in which the words are spoken.

The authors warn that current "anti-racist" ideology refuses to take into account the intent of the speaker. This tactical use of microaggressions, combined with sloppy "science" is harming society socially, by shutting down needed conversation:

Yet, we fear that microaggression researchers via their alleged insights are increasingly teaching POC that they are under constant assault; that they are being conditioned to be constructively offended—that is, offended because they’re taught that they’re supposed to be—in situations that do not implicate racism.

The research regarding microagressions has increasingly been motivated to find something invisible to attempt to explain (often simplistically) observable racial disparities:

Although the civil rights legislation of the 1960s ended legal racial discrimination, inequality still persists almost 60 years later. Why? Many have concluded it must be because of something secret, subtle, hidden, and underground. But what? By the 1970s, the social sciences were on a quest to find these supposedly hidden, camouflaged, or unconscious forms of racism. Those efforts generated a slew of concepts, such as “modern”  or “symbolic racism,” “implicit bias,” and “stereotype threat.” Interestingly, just as is the case with microaggressions, each of these areas have been characterized by a wave of initial enthusiasm including many publications, followed by critical reviews highlighting weaknesses, flaws, confounds and alternative explanations that consistently indicated that the initial enthusiasm was largely unwarranted.

The term "microaggressions" has been given an ideologically-laced strategic labeling to dramatically increase the perceived threat-level, creating an inverse-Trojan-horse: The term "microaggressions" puts us all on edge, even in the absence of a rigorous scientific foundation for the commonly-made claims regarding microaggressions. In recent years, the number of words and phrases allegedly encompassed by "microaggressions" has exploded (again, see the Appendix of the article) to the extent that ordinary conversation is increasingly feared as a social minefield:

Interestingly, just as is the case with microaggressions, each of these areas have been characterized by a wave of initial enthusiasm including many publications, followed by critical reviews highlighting weaknesses, flaws, confounds and alternative explanations that consistently indicated that the initial enthusiasm was largely unwarranted. intentionality, and less directly but atmospherically, oppression and domination. Rarely if ever would the lay person label an act committed with benign conscious intent a form of “aggression.” But consistent with tactical concept creep, this is the term chosen, even with the knowledge that use of the term means imputing to well-meaning actors a state of mind normally associated with culpability.

Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has written about the phenomenon of concept creep specifically in the context of microaggressions. In lamenting that psychology is “becoming a tribal moral community bound together by moral commitments to social justice and progressive ideals,” 95 Haidt noted that psychologists are incentivized “to find new ways in which members of allegedly victimized groups are harmed by current practices”; 96 hence the creeping expansion of the concept of harm. Particularly on point, Haidt also described as a “central innovation[] of microaggression theory” the disposal of a mens rea predicate for concepts such as “abuse” and “discrimination” “in ways that make it ever harder for anyone to defend themselves against ugly moral charges.”

Cantu and Lee Jussim have written a long, carefully researched, balanced and important article that will provide many of us the the confidence to raise our hands when we are next compelled to attend "anti-racist" training where the concept of "microaggressions" is blithely bandied about (as it often is). The authors were at least somewhat motivated to do this research because they were witnessing good-hearted people being chewed up in the current ideological juggernaut of "anti-racism."  Their article will help all of us to speak up whenever we are told to assume that "microaggressions" A) are ubiquitous and B) that labeling dozens of taboo expressions as taboo obviates the need to do real work to determine the mindset of those who speak.

The modern use of the concept of "microaggressions" is the equivalent of doing surgery with a chainsaw. All good and decent people know that we can't off-load human complexity to a simplistic list of taboo phrases assembled ad hoc by (often well-intentioned) ideologues.  Human beings are much more complex than that. Good-hearted people earnestly and make charitable case-by-case holistic determinations about whether people who are engaged in speech are being ignorant and rude or whether they are well-intentioned and kind-hearted (or something in between). I applaud the work done by Cantu and Lee because it will allow us to have more meaningful conversations going forward.

Continue ReadingThe Many Problems with the Concept of “Microagressions”

New Parent’s Group Opposes the Preaching of Critical Race Theory in Schools

A new parents' group called Parents Defending Education. I heard about this when Erica Sanzi (who is part of PDE) described the organization on Tucker Carlson's show on FOX.

From the About Page of the PDE website,

We believe our children’s education should be based on scholarship and facts, and should nurture their development into the happy, resilient, free-thinking, educated citizens every democracy needs. Our classrooms should include rigorous instruction in history, civics, literature, math, the sciences, and the ideas and values that enrich our country.

Yet in recent years activists have targeted public, private, and charter schools across the country with a campaign to impose toxic new curriculums and to force our kids into divisive identity groups based on race, ethnicity, religion, and gender. Many schools have already embraced this campaign, and many more are preparing to embrace it.

This new educational mission is not only at war with basic American values, but with our kids’ happiness and ability to succeed in life. Couched in vague slogans such as “social justice,” the new curriculum divides our children into “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups. To one, it teaches guilt and shame. To the other, grievance and anger. To all students, it spreads unhappiness, radicalism, and failure.

Schools are adopting this illiberal mission at the behest of a narrow group of activists — without the consent of the students, parents, and communities whose interests the schools are supposed to serve. Those who dissent risk being attacked as bigots and shamed into silence.

This must stop. If you are disturbed by these destructive developments, you are not alone. If you want our schools to return to teaching our children what they need to grow and succeed, please join us. We come from diverse races, religions, economic backgrounds, and political orientations — but we all agree that it is time to join together and stop the madness in our schools.

The organization's website includes an "Indoctrination Map," upon which one can click to find reported school misconduct in the various states. This map contains information regarding numerous incidents.

I clicked on Missouri and found a disturbing report from the Rockwood School District. I have no independent knowledge of whether this information is correct. I'm merely reporting on an email found on the PDE website. If this email is authentic, it is outrageous. The email purports to be from Natalie Fallert, the Literacy and Speech Coordinator for grades 6-12. You can read the document here (if the email was dated, that date has been cut off).  In the email to teachers and principals, Fallert discusses strategies for defusing numerous concerns parents are expressing about critical race theory.  She indicates that parents are complaining. For instance, some parents have complained about lessons on intersectionality.

Fallert advises the teachers to stop using the word "privilege" and to do it "right now."  Instead of using the word "activist," she tells the teachers to use the phrase "take a position."  PDE indicates that the most disturbing thing to the whistleblower who disclosed this email is this: Fallert repeatedly tells the teachers to "Just pull the resource off Canvas so parents cannot see it." She says: "Keep teaching! Just don't make everything visible on Canvas."  She gives additional advice on preventing parents from knowing what their children are being taught.  I'd advise that you click the link and read it for yourself. It's stunning to see a high-ranking member of a school district telling teachers and principals in writing to mislead the parents who they serve.

It will be interesting to see what comes of this.  I would suspect that the parents will be demanding documents from the school.  PDE has a "Resources" section on its website urging parents to file FOIA requests (In Missouri, which is where Rockwood School District is located and where I practice law, the state "FOIS" procedure is called the Sunshine Law, Chapter 610).  Here is what PDE urges re "FOIA":

If you see bad things happening in your school, one of the first and best things you can do to fight it is file a Freedom Of Information Act request with your school district. Because schools are taxpayer-funded institutions, FOIA disclosure applies to them — enabling you to see how much money the school is spending on “diversity and inclusion” consultants and other pricey, destructive initiatives.

Continue ReadingNew Parent’s Group Opposes the Preaching of Critical Race Theory in Schools

Walt Disney Corporation Is Now Full Woke: Segregates its Employees by Skin Color and Feeds Them “Anti-Racist” Snake Oil

It's 2021, the year that neo-racism and neo-segregation came into full bloom. It doesn't matter that "anti-racism" is "well intended." It is now having the same poisonous effects at Disney that it is having every else that this "training" is being forced upon students and employees. Heightened racial conflict is what a company should expect it whenever it segregates groups of its employees by "race." That's what happens when "white" employees are instructed that "they must “pivot” from “white dominant culture” to “something different.” Disney's training claims that “competition,” “individualism,” “timeliness,” and “comprehensiveness” are “white dominant” values that “perpetuate white supremacy culture.” Participants are also told that prioritizing goals is also a "white" thing. Christopher Rufo has obtained "anti-racism" documents from numerous schools, colleges, government offices and corporations. He has released documents showing the training Disney is inflicting on its employees. This re-education includes racially segregated training groups. The full story can be read at Christopher Rufo's own website (at which you can view the leaked Disney documents). Here is an excerpt from Rufo's article:

In the past year, Disney executives have elevated the ideology of critical race theory into a new corporate dogma—and bombarded employees with trainings on “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” “white fragility,” “white saviors,” and launched racially-segregated “affinity groups” at the company’s headquarters.

I have obtained a trove of whistleblower documents related to Disney’s “diversity and inclusion” program, called “Reimagine Tomorrow,” which paints a disturbing picture of the company’s embrace of racial politics. Although the intention of the program might be noble, multiple Disney employees, who requested anonymity out of fear of reprisals, told me that the Reimagine Tomorrow program has become deeply politicized and engulfed parts of the company in racial conflict.

Rufo has written a companion story at City Journal: "The Wokest Place on Earth: Disney mounts an internal campaign against “white privilege” and organizes racially segregated “affinity groups.”"

Rufo also tweeted some of the lowlights from the Disney newly instituted education camps:

Disney claims that America has a “long history of systemic racism and transphobia” and tells employees they must “take ownership of educating yourself about structural anti-Black racism” and “not rely on your Black colleagues to educate you,” which is “emotionally taxing.”

White employees are told to “work through feelings of guilt, shame, and defensiveness to understand what is beneath them and what needs to be healed.” They must “listen with empathy [to] Black colleagues” and “not question or debate Black colleagues’ lived experience.”

Finally, participants are told they must “pivot” from “white dominant culture” to “something different.” The document claims that “competition,” “individualism,” “timeliness,” and “comprehensiveness” are “white dominant” values that “perpetuate white supremacy culture.”

Disney recommends that employees read a how-to guide called “75 Things White People Can Do for Racial Justice.” The article tells readers to “defund the police,” “participate in reparations,” “decolonize your bookshelf,” and “find and join a local ‘white space.’”

Finally, Disney has launched racially-segregated “affinity groups” for minority employees, with the goal of achieving “culturally-authentic insights.” The Latino group was named “Hola,” the Asian group was named “Compass,” and the black group was named “Wakanda.”

I agree with Rufo that this training is well-intended, but the effect of the training is poisonous. Dividing people by skin color pits them against each other needlessly, raising suspicions and solving no societal problems in the process. The Woke endgame is Evergreen State College. In other words, they have no end game. No long term plan. No vision for tamping down the hate and suspicion that they are causing with this neo-racism and neo-segregation.

Continue ReadingWalt Disney Corporation Is Now Full Woke: Segregates its Employees by Skin Color and Feeds Them “Anti-Racist” Snake Oil

Christopher Rufo: What to Do About the Rapid Spread of Critical Race Theory Throughout the United States

Christopher Rufo summarizes the spread of critical race theory, characterizing these stories as the tip of the iceberg. His article: "The Courage of Our Convictions: How to fight critical race theory."

What does critical race theory look like in practice? Last year, I authored a series of reports focused on critical race theory in the federal government. The FBI was holding workshops on intersectionality theory. The Department of Homeland Security was telling white employees that they were committing “microinequities” and had been “socialized into oppressor roles.” The Treasury Department held a training session telling staff members that “virtually all white people contribute to racism” and that they must convert “everyone in the federal government” to the ideology of “antiracism.” And the Sandia National Laboratories, which designs America’s nuclear arsenal, sent white male executives to a three-day reeducation camp, where they were told that “white male culture” was analogous to the “KKK,” “white supremacists,” and “mass killings.” The executives were then forced to renounce their “white male privilege” and to write letters of apology to fictitious women and people of color.

This year, I produced another series of reports focused on critical race theory in education. In Cupertino, California, an elementary school forced first-graders to deconstruct their racial and sexual identities and rank themselves according to their “power and privilege.” In Springfield, Missouri, a middle school forced teachers to locate themselves on an “oppression matrix,” based on the idea that straight, white, English-speaking, Christian males are members of the oppressor class and must atone for their privilege and “covert white supremacy.” In Philadelphia, an elementary school forced fifth-graders to celebrate “Black communism” and simulate a Black Power rally to free 1960s radical Angela Davis from prison, where she had once been held on charges of murder. And in Seattle, the school district told white teachers that they are guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

I’m just one investigative journalist, but I’ve developed a database of more than 1,000 of these stories. When I say that critical race theory is becoming the operating ideology of our public institutions, I am not exaggerating—from the universities to bureaucracies to K-12 school systems, critical race theory has permeated the collective intelligence and decision-making process of American government, with no sign of slowing down.

The woke-infested media has, for the most part, given CRT advocates a free pass regarding the real-world affects of CRT. Rufo proposes asking that CRT advocates be forced to answer these questions:

Critical race theorists must be confronted with and forced to speak to the facts. Do they support public schools separating first-graders into groups of “oppressors” and “oppressed”? Do they support mandatory curricula teaching that “all white people play a part in perpetuating systemic racism”? Do they support public schools instructing white parents to become “white traitors” and advocate for “white abolition”? Do they want those who work in government to be required to undergo this kind of reeducation? How about managers and workers in corporate America? How about the men and women in our military? How about every one of us?

Rufo suggests advocating "excellence" rather than "diversity":

In terms of principles, we need to employ our own moral language rather than allow ourselves to be confined by the categories of critical race theory. For example, we often find ourselves debating “diversity.” Diversity as most of us understand it is generally good, all things being equal, but it is of secondary value. We should be talking about and aiming at excellence, a common standard that challenges people of all backgrounds to achieve their potential. On the scale of desirable ends, excellence beats diversity every time.

When we tell the story about the United States, we need to tell the whole story, the moral arc:

[W]e must promote the true story of America—a story that is honest about injustices in American history, but that places them in the context of our nation’s high ideals and the progress we have made toward realizing them.

Fighting back will require that good-hearted thoughtful people stand up to waves of abuse:

Above all, we must have courage, the fundamental virtue required in our time: courage to stand and speak the truth, courage to withstand epithets, courage to face the mob, and courage to shrug off the scorn of elites.

Continue ReadingChristopher Rufo: What to Do About the Rapid Spread of Critical Race Theory Throughout the United States