I have written columns and blogs through the years about the disturbing trend on U.S. campuses toward free regulation and controls. In the name of diversities and tolerance, college administrators and professors are enforcing greater and greater controls on speech –declaring certain views or terms to be forms of racism or more commonly “microaggressions.” The latter term is gaining support to expand the range of controls over speech and conduct to include things that are indirect or minor forms of perceived intolerance. The crackdown seems most prevalent in California where lists of “micro aggressions” seems to be mounting as a macroaggression on free speech. The new list of verboten terms out of University of California (Berkeley), headed by Janet Napolitano, captures the insatiable appetite for speech regulation. The school has asked faculty to stop using terms like “melting pot” or statements like “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” They are now all microaggressions. Not only are school buying into the concept of microaggressions and speech regulation, but they are shaping a generation of students who seem to look for any possible interpretation of terms to take offensive at.
Ironically, while using the term “melting pot” is now viewed as an unacceptable microaggression, actual aggression in the form of assault by a faculty member on people for using free speech is not considered an offense worthy of termination — indeed it was an act deemed understandable if not heroic by some students and faculty in the case of California Professor Miller-Young.
Napolitano asked UC deans and department chairs to attend seminars “to foster informed conversation about the best way to build and nurture a productive academic climate.” The seminars includes handouts with these terms as part of the program called “Recognizing Microaggressions and the Messages They Send.” The manuals were reportedly adapted from a book by Columbia University Psychology Professor Derald Wing Sue. For civil libertarians, the handouts should be entitled “Recognizing Speech Codes and The Speech They Curtail.”
Some points have been previously discussed on this blog. For example, now discouraged is the statement “There is only one race, the human race.” We saw recently how the President of Smith College was forced into a mea culpa for saying “all lives matter.” Such collective valuations of live and humanity is now considered offensive because it denies “the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history.” A microaggression.
Likewise, “America is the land of opportunity” somehow suggests that “People of color are lazy and/or incompetent and need to work harder” while asking an Asian, Latino, or Native American “why are you so quiet?” is trying to force him to “assimilate to dominant culture.” Finding such microaggressions has become a virtual cottage industry (if I can say that without degrading any cultures that do not use — or use — cottages). Even some of the most important social and political debates are now considered racist if one side is spoken directly. For example, the Supreme Court and the nation has continued to debate affirmative action and whether it is a form of racism. However, saying “Affirmative action is racist,” is now deemed a microaggression by default. Thus, you can have the debate — just do not state your position on the ultimate question. Academics supporting such views seem wholly unconcerned that the barring of the expression depends on your first accepting the opposing premise on the issue of affirmative action. Consider the defense of OiYan Poon, an assistant professor of higher education at Loyola University in Chicago: “The statement that ‘affirmative action is racist’ completely ignores the history and purpose of affirmative action, which is to address inequalities resulting from the many ways our government and society have prevented people of color from accessing economic, educational and political opportunities and rights.” That is of course the opposing position in favor of affirmative action. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has declared affirmative action to be unconstitutional for universities admissions. Recent opinions explore the limited range in which race may be considered for purposes of diversity, not affirmative action. However, the main problem is that the barring of this expression as a microaggression assumes that affirmative action is not racist — the very point under debate. In this sense, one side controls the debate by declaring the opposing view as simply racist to express.
The expanding efforts to curtail speech on college campuses shows how the taste for speech controls can become insatiable for many. Ironically, liberal faculty once rallied whole campuses to fight for free speech. Now, many are leading the fight against the speech of opposing groups as essential to a “tolerant” society. It is a dangerous trend that we are seeing throughout the West. However, the campaign of faculty to deny speech on campuses presents an existential threat to the entire academic mission. We are education a new generation that free speech is a danger to rather than the definition of a free society.
Source: Daily Beast
Damn Squeeky, that just made it worse… I have always had a thing for Bret Michaels… 😀
Squeeky – don’t forget the paranormal romance sub genre. We could find a whole new realm to feel threatened as women by plots that involve the superior strength of werewolves, vampires, immortals, and zombies. That is clearly harassment, misogynistic, and anti-feminist if the female characters are not as strong as the male vampires. I feel offended and need a seminar.
Big Fat Mike, That is just a strange list…
Why don’t they care what the motive is behind what is said?
People who say those things MEAN well, and are NOT being racist.
So, NOW they want to turn the people who are NOT racist, into racists?
and TRUST me when I say, The FAR Left loves to call EVERYBODY a racist.
If you want a good example of this, just look at Sweden… In Sweden, NOBODY is
even willing to talk about race.
If anybody even brings up race, they are called a racist.
I was called a racist for saying I did not think it was good idea that Romanian Gypsies
were coming to Sweden to sleep on the street. We have very cold winters… and yet,
my saying this, earned me the mantle of racist.
by the way, HALF the things on that list, are things I say to people all the time. 😀
@justagurlinseattle: “Why don’t they care what the motive is behind what is said?”
It seems to me the concept of microaggression takes a big step toward holding the speaker responsible for the associations in the mind of the hearer.
Now, some associations are so clear that might be reasonable. Examples of associations that are so compelling include burning a cross or flying a confederate battle flag. The associations from those two examples are considered so clear by so many that we might reasonably discourage their use regardless of the meaning intended by the speaker.
But some of the examples of microaggression and claimed interpretations seem far from what I consider the ordinary and intended meaning of the phrase or remark.
I don’t think I am ready to limit speech according to the internal associations of someone who disagree with that speech.
I also find the claim that there is no intention of censorship a bit disingenuous. It is clear from documents easily available that examples of micoraggression are being presented in the context of what constitutes a hostile work or academic environment.
If these examples were accepted as contributing to a hostile environment then the institutions would necessarily have take measures against members of the community who use them.
@Justagirl,
Well, I can get “out of the mood” pretty quickly (and save water, too!) by just looking at this Brett Michaels Anti-Romance novel picture:
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s–dFmRbPlx–/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/18jikhocdtmmcjpg.jpg
🙂
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
While I dearly love my alma mater, in part because of screwy things like this, it all strikes me as not particularly useful in accomplishing the assumed goal of non-offensive speech. Indeed, a vast number of modifiers and descriptors could be seen as offensive to someone. In any case, Go Bears! Or Have I written something bad in saying that?
Squeeky, I need a cold shower after that…
Tony Sidaway
I’m somewhat surprised that at least one commentator finds the concept of affirmative consent an impossibly high standard; I’m pretty sure [I]I[/I] would expect my own body to be immune from sexual contact unless I explicitly requested otherwise, but perhaps the commenter cannot imagine that to be achievable.
This passage underscores the bait and switch of so called “Affirmative Consent” regulations. As I noted the title is benign. It implies a reasonable expression of consent from each party. However this is not what the regulation requires. A few requirements:
1. It mandates that California Universities use the preponderance of the evidence standard when determining responsibility for sexual assault.
2. It places the responsibility for proof on the accused rather than the accuser. When combined with item 1 the resulting combination would seem to imply that the level of evidence required for a finding of “responsible” would be less that 50%. A 50-50 case would mean the accuser had not proven his innocence.
3. The consent requirement is required to be “ongoing”, which when combined with #2 means the accused party must prove the other party gave consent every moment of the encounter. This is effectively impossible. This was clearly proven by the primary supporter of the legislation, Bonnie Lowenthal when she responded “Your guess is as good as mine” when asked how anyone could meet this requirement.
Ultimately Tony’s comment demonstrates so much of what is wrong in America. Rather than educate himself about what Affirmative Consent includes he simply presumed he knew from the combination of the feel-good title and the fact that he supports those who pushed the legislation.
Were he a more reasonable person perhaps he would consider how American law enforcement has used over-broad legislation to the great detriment of the minority groups he claims to champion. But that consideration was secondary to his desire to call those he disagrees with racist and imply they can’t have consensual sex. Sad, but hardly surprising.
“do you mean that “There is only one race, the human race” is actually on UCB’s list of microaggressions?”
Here are some examples of microaggression from the document ‘Tool: recognizing Microaggressions and the messages they send’:
““When I look at you, I don’t see color.” …. “There is only one race, the human race.” …. “America is a melting pot.”…. “I don’t believe in race.” ”
And here are some interpretations of the messages claimed to be contained in the examples:
“Assimilate to the dominant culture. ….Denying the significance of a person of color’s racial/ethnic experience and history. ….. Denying the individual as a
racial/cultural being.”
So yes, the claim “There is only one race, the human race.” and “I don’t believe in race.”, which have been a expressed here on this blog by some commentators, are considered examples of microaggression and presumably are discouraged due to their racist implications.
I will bet some who consider themselves progressive will be surprised to find that some of their cherished positions are considered examples of racism.
Readers might want to check for themselves to see what is discouraged from discussion:
http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel-programs/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf
Every now and again some detached academics formulate some lightbulb of an idea and it gets presented. The reaction is typically common sense based with a lot of Daniel Boone and John Wayne ‘don’t tread on me’ salad. This was seen with ‘ebonics’. Reputed academics tried to introduce into the mainstream the concept of a language unique to Blacks. (I use the term Blacks or African Americans depending on how the conversation is initiated and sometimes I simply use the term Blacks.) The idea that ignorance of a language can then be accepted to be a language unique unto itself is not that hard to argue against; the argument that ebonics should be recognized and absorbed is ludicrous. There are enough people in the US who don’t speak English properly without adding another hybrid. Young Blacks will not be helped by being encouraged to ‘axe’ questions.
The reaction to ‘ebonics’ at the time was not much different than this nonsense of refining the English language as spoken in the US to the politically correct ‘du jour’ form.
The American form of the English language has always leaned towards being succinct. This has made it awkward sometimes and sometimes smoother. This latest attempt at being politically correct will only confuse an already deficient version of one of the world’s main languages. Americans should be broadening their vocabulary with a more precise selection of words, not worrying about this momentary and highly interpretive fine tuning.
That terms that should be of literary interest only should be expressed or not expressed as part of the reasoning for America’s problems is ludicrous. America is both a melting pot and a diverse society. This latest nonsense out of Berkeley is nothing more than drivel from a bunch of academics who have too much time on their hands and have perhaps had too much wine with their meetings.
There are far more pressing and obvious problems with the US. This is no big deal. There is no threat here to the freedom of speech. If anything it will surface the concept of freedom of speech and protect it. However, it is all Obama’s fault. He does speak more correctly than the last occupant of the White House, by a long way, but he is no great shakes. We don’t need to confuse these issues any more than they already are. And, I repeat, it is all Obama’s fault.
See, it’s like this.. I am a Liberal.. HOWEVER, when I see things like in this Blog Post,
It really upsets me, and I know that even if it is NOT as bad as what is said in this
article, it is still bad, and somebody is thinking that this is a good idea.
I HATE the think that the Far Left, is becoming just as bad as the crazy far Right…
I am fully in support of watching MY OWN means of being Politically Correct,
as that is just being polite. I also see that there are MORE and more code words
used to denote race as in they seem to only use the word “Thug”, when talking about
black criminals. That is becoming rather obvious to those of us paying attention.
What I find troubling from this article, is that they are taking POSITIVE phrases
and turning them into something that they are NEVER used as.
I have NEVER seen a person who was insensitive to race use the
phrase “Melting Pot”.
Melting Pot is a POSITIVE way of viewing the USA.
While I will admit, that MOST of the time when somebody says “I believe the most
qualified person should get the job” is usually said by people who
have a negative view of Affirmative Action… That does not negate the fact
that this should be a LOGICAL view point. Who would want to argue
that the person most qualified should NOT get the job?
That said, I still think that this is quite a ridiculous phrase to argue against.
—————
Lastly:
old nurse
1, June 23, 2015 at 1:23 pm
This is absurd.
However, I’ll believe that this is only a “leftist” problem when I am allowed to criticize the policies of the Israeli government and not be called an anti-semite. Not holding my breath.
——-
By the way, Old Nurse, I could NOT agree more….
@KarenS
I feel I must address your choice to use the phrase, “Romance novels.” This is a microagression which causes me to feel less safe. The word, “Romance” when combined with “novel” portrays an image of a sexually frustrated woman who obtains vicarious sexual thrills through unlikely tales of sexual coupling. That image is also dangerous, in that invites various, lean-lanky ruggedly handsome Cowboys, Italian jet-setting Lotharios, heavily mustached Pirates wielding huge phallic-like cutlasses, and wandering unemployed Poets with their beat up Martin D-28 guitar strapped to their broad manly shoulders and fingers just made for strumming, to just come right into our homes, sweep us away, rip our bodices to shreds, and ravish us!
I hope you will reconsider your choice of words. (Ohhhh, I need a cigarette. . .)
Sincerely,
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Anyone who complains so bitterly about the topics discussed by the blog owner should be reminded of their own freedom to choose what to read.
Why do people post that they dislike the choice of topics? It’s like repeatedly buying a political author’s works and then writing negative reviews because he doesn’t write Romance novels. The Internet has myriad choices for people. Whether you want to bolster yourself with an echo chamber, passionately debate opposing ideas within, or without, the confines of civility, there are places for you.
This is absurd.
However, I’ll believe that this is only a “leftist” problem when I am allowed to criticize the policies of the Israeli government and not be called an anti-semite. Not holding my breath.
RWL:
“the Fast Track, declares that GMO labeling is an unjustified trade restriction.” I HATE this addition. Consumers have the right to know what they are consuming. They have a right to this information, as part of the free market. Prohibiting people from accessing this information is anathema to the free market and consumer choice.
And it is very true that Monsanto has an incestuous relationship with regulatory agencies, as many of the regulators are former employees.
Until they label, buy organic. It’s the only way to vote with your feet.
GMOs drive seed savers and farmers out of business. If you plant a corn field within miles of a GMO field, the wind will contaminate your crop with GMO pollen, and you will be sued for patent infringement. Even if GMOs were health food (which they are not), I would oppose them on this alone. You cannot opt out of growing GMOs if you farm a wind pollinated crop anywhere in the general vicinity of conventional farms. That’s how they got all the farmers. A few started growing it, and then Monsanto started suing the neighbors. It was grow GMO or go out of business.
May their pipettes never hold calibration and their centrifuges jam, may their acrylamide gels tear and their seed stocks mold.
Ceterum Censeo Monsanto Delendo Est!
@Pogo
Amen! Speech control is THOUGHT control. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Ironic, indeed, as Berkeley is the home of the 1964 “Free Speech Movement.”
Can we still say white gunman?
I thought being a melting pot was a good thing and why shouldn’t the most qualified candidate get the job?
Janet Nepolitano, just saying that is a microaggression!
People are making careers out of becoming experts on how to become offended at everything and make everyone around them walk on eggshells.
If “the most qualified person should get the job” is now considered a racist thing to say, that pretty definitely answers that Affirmative Action and its facsimiles do not promote fairness or job skills. It’s just a tool of discrimination and divisiveness. Oh, wait, it’s now racist to say that denying someone a job or college entrance based on the color of their skin is racist.
Academia has become a pathetic joke when they laud Professor Miller Young, a professor of women’s studies, for violently attacking two young women, silencing them for speech she did not agree with. Then they take assault Free Speech and critical thinking from another angle and discourage more speech. These professors will take this attitude towards the classroom, and their students will tailor their essays and speech to get the grade.
OF COURSE this happened in the Liberal bastion of CA. We’re always in the news for the wrong reasons.
Can we please take them to court as a clear violation of Free Speech, and end this self destructive experiment? Or we could make a movie where Revolutionary War soldiers rise as zombies and kick all our butts.
The Left sure seems dead set on throwing away as many rights as it can – Free Speech, the 2nd Amendment, intrusive government, lunch ladies rummaging through our kids’ lunch boxes and throwing away sandwiches . . .
Po, excellent observation. I’ve been wondering the same thing.