Academia, Columns, Free Speech

Snitches Give Stitches: Oregon Moves to Make Reporting Microaggressions Mandatory for Doctors

There is a controversy in Oregon over a proposed change in the ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board. At issue is the use of “microaggressions” to discipline doctors and to make reporting such transgressions mandatory for all doctors. It seems before you can give stitches, you have to join snitches under one of the most ambiguous categories of prescribed speech.

I have been a critic of microaggression rules on college campuses and discuss this trend in my book out this week, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. In past debates over this category of offensive speech, I have objected that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.

That ambiguity creates a threat to free speech through a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered microaggressive. Terms ranging from “melting pot” to phrases like “pulling oneself up by your own bootstraps” have been declared racist.  Some of those have been identified by Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, cited by Oregon’s state government as a “microaggressions expert.”

Professor Sue considers statements like “Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough!” as an example of a microaggression. Sue’s work on “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations” are being effectively adopted by the Board.

Notably, when I have objected to this category, advocates have insisted that they are merely voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used in a mandatory fashion by triggering investigations of professors and would inevitably be made mandatory.

That appears to be happening in Oregon. A couple of conservative sites have covered the controversy.

Under the new ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board, “unprofessional conduct” (over which a doctor can lose his or her license) will include microaggressions:

“In the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment characterized by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.”

The new section “J” ranks microaggressions with fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgeries.

Oregon Medical Board states that

“The proposed rule amendments update the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination a ground for discipline. The proposed rule may favorably impact racial equity by making discrimination a ground for discipline for OMB licensees. It is not known how the other proposed rule amendments will impact racial equity in the state.”

The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethic rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.

We have seen the same trajectory in other areas like land acknowledgments where the line between the optimal and the mandatory is hard to discern. As discussed in my book:

“What began as voluntary statements have become either expressly or implicitly mandatory…George Brown College in Toronto requires faculty and students alike to agree to a land acknowledgment statement to even gain access to virtual classrooms. While such statements are portrayed as optional, they are often enforced as compulsory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add a prewritten ‘Indigenous land acknowledgment’ statement to their syllabi. The recommended statement states that ‘The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.’

Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He declared…’I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.’ … He was told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement was unacceptable because it questioned the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Reges’s dissenting statement was removed, and the university emailed his students offering an apology for their professor’s ‘offensive’ opinion and advising them on ‘three ways students could file complaints against’ him.”

Federal courts have ruled in favor of academics in disputes over microaggression rules, but the movement is expanding beyond campuses, as shown in Oregon.

I have no objection to the sharing of views of others on how certain phrases are received. I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting. When others have a reasoned basis for objecting to language, I err on the side of caution to avoid making others uncomfortable. Yet, this category of speech was created to encompass a broad, ill-defined range of speech that falls below outright discriminatory or harassing language. That makes for a dangerously vague standard for a mandatory reporting rule.

The free speech concern is how such microaggressive terms can be used to curtail or punish speech, including supporting complaints for formal investigations.  Disciplinary actions often seem based on how language is received rather than intended. Schools need to be clear as to whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.

Consider again the language from the Oregon Medical Board. It would encompass any “indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.” The standard is heavily laden with subjectivity. (Notably, it does not include making such comments about any majority group, presumably whites or males).

The board then amplifies the standard by making it mandatory for other doctors to report colleagues. Under the proposed ruled,

“a licensee must report within 10 business days to the Board any information that appears to show that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent or is or may be guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or is or may be a licensee with a physical incapacity.”

So doctors will have to police any “indirect or subtle behaviors” that “reflect negative attitudes or beliefs” . . . or face discipline themselves.

The hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than merely publish opinions on phrases or practices that can be seen as microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is about to impose an ambiguous speech regulation that is likely viewed by some doctors as turning them into social-warrior snitches.

The Oregon Medical Board should remove the microaggressive provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.

This column appeared on Fox.com

223 thoughts on “Snitches Give Stitches: Oregon Moves to Make Reporting Microaggressions Mandatory for Doctors”

  1. The left has been great at one think and that is managing to grift in conjunction with their ideology. Watch as they make millions grifting off of the Green New Deal, see how they make millions off of DEI positions in schools and businesses, check out how NGOs are making millions “assisting” illegals.

    It is all a giant money making grift that just happens to coincide with their ideology, an ideology that about 70% of Americans are opposed to.

    How many people support DEI? So why did every agency, business and school hire thousands and thousands of these host killing parasites? How many people want gas cars banned? Yet we have CA and a few other lemming states saying they should be banned by 2030, even without the electricity to power them. How many people support an open border (62% want them all deported with 53% of Hispanics agreeing) and yet the border remains open.

    Follow the money and the power.

  2. “ Some of those have been identified by Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, cited by Oregon’s state government as a “microaggressions expert.”

    That statement is a microagression. By putting microagression expert in parentheses to insinuate that it’s not a real thing is exactly what Derald Wing Sue is talking about and how Turley would be completely oblivious to it because he’s unconsciously denigrating her field. She does have a point and the microagressions are subconscious backhanded ways to insult, denigrate, and put down others. It happens here all the time. Even I do it.

    Microagressions as explained by Wing Sue are in like subtle little barbs of insult or denigration towards another. It’s a literary or spoken version of giving someone that “look” meant to be an insult or the “you know what I mean” insinuation. Even a slight expression followed by the tone of the comment can set someone off for being “slighted” without directly being insulted.

    1. Well let me be more clear as one who has pulled himself up by his boot straps. Microaggressions are not a real thing. These are only in the minds of people who want to be victims. Further, if you work hard enough, you can be successful.

      1. I’m sure you’re familiar with the phrase, “Bless your heart”. We both know that the phrase itself is harmless and in its literal meaning it just means bless your heart, right? But, we both know how it’s often used and what people mean when they say it depending on the intonation and somewhat sarcastic manner that it’s expressed. Right?

        That phrase is used to imply someone is somewhat naive or stupid or call someone stupid. That’s the point of using that phrase. Other innocent sounding phrases have a meaning or intent behind it when they are expressed. Even the word “boy” which by itself is not an insult or derogatory word. But it is sometimes used like that and to make it mean something else all it takes is a change in delivery, tone, and a look and the person receiving it will know what you mean when you say it. That’s why there’s a valid reason to justify what professor Wing Sue’s point of view.

    2. “Microaggression” is everywhere and timeless. We all give and take ’em. Helz belz, if I were paranoid about every perceived slight, I would never leave my house. These coddled leftwing nuts are pathetic.

    3. My God. The word Snowflake does not even begin to describe the mental weakness of a trained society. This nonsense is an attack on free speech, another wormhole made to do away with the Bill of Rights. Nothing will be safe to comment on or verbalize. Now, you suggest even one’s facial expression can be used against an individual. Can you not see how Soviet or Nazism influences these inane tactics are? Are you this blind?

    5. Microagressions as explained by Wing Sue are in like subtle little barbs of insult or denigration towards another. It’s a literary or spoken version of giving someone that “look” meant to be an insult or the “you know what I mean” insinuation. Even a slight expression followed by the tone of the comment can set someone off for being “slighted” without directly being insulted.

      Paraphrased—-my kunt hurts

    6. “By putting microagression expert in parentheses to insinuate that it’s not a real thing is exactly what Derald Wing Sue is talking about and how Turley would be completely oblivious to it because he’s unconsciously denigrating her field.”

      George, I will not commit a micro-aggression; instead, I will commit a Macro-Aggression. You are Stupid. A micro-aggression toward you has no effect. You require macro-aggressions continuously.

      Turley is writing clearly and doesn’t have to approve Wing’s talking points as valid. You utilize a lower form of Wing’s arguments by repeatedly saying things proven to be untrue. Then you are insulted that they make you look like a moron.

      2. S. Meyer,
        Well said.
        What we need more are macro-aggressions.
        Woke leftists are truly stupid. And they display it on a regular basis.

      3. S. Meyer,

        All you did was make Wing’s point more obvious. You don’t learn. That’s why you’re forever mired in your own ignorance.

        2. George, your ignorance is rising to the top. Before, you made stupid comments. Now, you are blaming others for your stupidity.

          Permit me to exercise your brain. Turley is writing clearly and doesn’t have to approve Wing’s talking points as valid. Why is that false, or how does that make Wing’s point?

  3. I hope Floyd reads this one. Medical school, engineering, whatever – it matters not. Every field is generationally infected at this point, and all of this mindset (which is most of them) will take us over a cliff eeually, be they medical professionals or liberal arts grads working in social media.

    I already refuse to see doctors under 45, and now I’ll ask about this as well. Madness. Bankrupting our storied institutions might be the only solution at this point, so we’d better be thinking about what we’d like to have instead.

    1. The military as well. It’s THE reason I turned down a star and walked away from 31 years.

      1. @Waters

        If you don’t mind my asking, why did it take you 31 years to be offered a flag officer position?

        1. I’m going to assume this is not Svelaz-George or EB casting shade on my service again and answer your question. Cudos to you for recognizing that promotion to flag rank requires an open billet. We don’t just have admirals laying around lol.

          I spent the first 9 years of my career as an enlisted man. A couple years after I was selected to CPO, I entered the NECP (Nuclear Enlisted Commissioning Program), and so, although I fast tracked to O6, I did have a good deal more TIS than my peers.

  5. Dang, i just noticed that Biden READ the opening line, “My name is Joe Biden, I’m Jill Biden’s husband”, from the teleprompter. Sad.

    Even his crappy jokes are choreographed. And i honestly believe that every speech he gives, the teleprompter is the first time he has seen it.

    And I wonder if Jill is the one who makes them open with that line about every 3 months or so.

    Of course this was right before he called DHS Security Mayorkis “ungungungyepayep”.

    Was that a cheap fake, Gigi? Or “out of context”?

    Just admit, if you’re a lefty, that you’re not voting for Joe Biden. You’re voting for the same cabal of unelected scum to continue to run our country in total violation of the design.

    1. EVERYTHING is fresh, novel and new to Biden, not just speeches: Friends and family, the White House, his boyhood home, his printed name, the State of Delaware, sunsets…

  6. I’m glad that I am old and lucky enough to have lived and had a career before the insanity landed like a meteor. The country has been taken over by the left and it does not bode well for our future.

  7. Be Not afraid of speaking truth whether it hurts or is blunt. 98-99% of the patients you treat want the unvarnished truth. You do not have to be cruel or vulgar or opaque but be honest and with compassion.

  8. OT

    Fauci is STILL running around claiming that Covid came from a bat.

    He says the “vast majority” of “qualified” virologists say it is “highly likely” it came from a bat.

    Yet he never provides one scintilla of evidence that THIS coronavirus came from a bat. What bat? What evidence?

    So what is a “qualified” virologist? One who is willing to say it came from a bat?

    Dont have the bat it came from, cant find ONE instance of this virus in the other bats at that market or on surfaces in that market, or any of the MILLIONS of bats examined since then, including the caves this bat came from.

    It was super-contagious, yet exists nowhere else in nature. It became super-contagious in humans as soon as it jumped to humans (implausible, borderline impossible).

    Yea, it came from a bat, and then it was modified in a lab.

    1. DDC: why you believe and repeat MAGA media lies? Dr. Fauci never definitively said it came from a bat–he continues to maintain that the origin is unknown and that he has an open mind. Here’s an excerpt of what Dr. Fauci testified–from “ABC News”:

      “The accusation being circulated that I influenced the scientists to change their minds by bribing them with millions of dollars in grant money is absolutely false, and simply preposterous,” he said.

      “The second issue is a false accusation that I tried to cover up the possibility that the virus originated from a lab. In fact, the truth is exactly the opposite,” he added, proceeding to read an email in which he encouraged scientists to report their data to authorities.

      Fauci also rejected that National Institutes of Health funding led to research that ultimately created COVID-19, as some Republicans have floated. Fauci said the viruses studied under grants provided by the agency were “phylogenetically so different, they could not possibly be the precursor of SARS-CoV-2.”

      He acknowledged that didn’t rule out the theory of a lab leak as the pandemic’s origin, but said it did eliminate the possibility that NIH funding was knowingly tied to it.

      “None of us can know everything that’s going on in China, or in Wuhan, or what have you. And that’s the reason why I say today … I keep an open mind as to what the origin is,” Fauci said, though he maintained that he thinks the data leans more toward a “natural occurrence from an animal reservoir.”

      Fauci distances himself from adviser caught using private email

      Committee Republicans repeatedly pressed Fauci about a recent development they say warrants further scrutiny: an email exchange between a former NIAID senior adviser and an executive of a controversial virus research organization where the adviser claims Fauci’s private Gmail account could be utilized to evade public records requests and future public scrutiny. Ahead of the hearing, they requested access to Fauci’s personal email account and cellphone records.

      Fauci rejected suggestions he used his private email in his official capacity, and both denounced and distanced himself from the adviser’s actions.

      “Let me state for the record that to the best of my knowledge I have never conducted official business via my personal email,” Fauci said.

      Records show that the colleague, Dr. David Morens, used his private Gmail account to shield information from the public’s reach, including to send EcoHealth Alliance President Peter Daszak official government documents and a heads-up about information that would become public through a request pertaining to EcoHealth Alliance grant materials and COVID-19 research.

      Considering Morens was a close adviser to Fauci, Republicans on the subcommittee expressed concern that Fauci had knowledge of his conduct and questioned whether Fauci potentially engaged in any misconduct himself.

      Fauci told lawmakers he “knew nothing” of Morens’ actions with Daszak or EcoHealth, denounced Morens’ behavior as inappropriate and asserted Morens was not “an adviser to me on institute policy or other substantive issues.”

      Fauci reflects on social distancing, mask and vaccine mandates

      On other issues regarding pandemic policy, like the decision to recommend 6 feet of social distancing or for schools to close down, Fauci was reflective but maintained that the virus was a constantly moving target and the science that was available on the novel virus was often limited.

      “I think the things that we did in the beginning were in the context of the horrible situation of 4,000 to 5,000 deaths a day. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t go back and look and say everything we do at that point and the duration for which we did it — was that appropriate? And do we need to be examined?” Fauci said.

      Fauci sought to clarify on Monday that the 6-foot guidance came from the CDC and was based on droplet research, telling lawmakers: “It had little to do with me since I didn’t make the recommendation and my saying ‘there was no science behind it’ meant there was no clinical trial behind that.”

      Though asked if social distancing requirements and other public health measures to reduce transmission saves lives, Fauci said “definitely.”

      Staff counsel for the committee also pressed Fauci if, going forward, there should be a better process for thinking about the possible unintended consequences of public health measures. His response was “absolutely.”

      Fauci chokes up discussing death threats against his family

      Fauci, 83, served for decades as the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, acting as a scientific check to Trump during the pandemic and later as President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor before retiring in 2022.

      WHY is Dr. Fauci being attacked? Because he called out Trump’s made-up lies about COVID.

      1. Gigi, why do you keep repeating anti-maga lies?

        Fauci sought to clarify on Monday that the 6-foot guidance came from the CDC and was based on droplet research, telling lawmakers: “It had little to do with me since I didn’t make the recommendation and my saying ‘there was no science behind it’ meant there was no clinical trial behind that.”

        Though asked if social distancing requirements and other public health measures to reduce transmission saves lives, Fauci said “definitely.”

        LMAO thanks for admitting he contradicted himself.

        That POS spent 15 years and $28B studying coronavirus and he admitted that 6 months into the pandemic, he still didn’t know HOW IT SPREAD. Oh, that was the CDC, riiiight. Was it the CDC that said, masks are unnecessary at the beginning and changed his tune later? No, that was Fauci. He even admitted that he intentionally lied. And don’t give me this garbage that “all coronavirus are different”. Yea, and they are all also the same. 15 years and $28B and we (he) knew NOTHING. Because it was never about protecting the public. It was about creating a vaccine and military uses. Period.

        Was it the CDC that said, get the vax and you wont get the virus? Was it the cdc that said “get the vax and you wont transmit the virus? No, that was FAUCI. Oh, and Biden too.

        I couldn’t care less about what Fauci said about Trump. You get that??? I DON’T CARE WHAT FAUCI SAID ABOUT TRUMP. That’s your lame-o way to try to shut down opposition. Do better. It won’t fly here.

        Also, gaslight queen, I never said he claimed 100% it was from a bat. He “said” he has an open mind. LMAO, he also said masks were not necessary. But I also noticed you didn’t bother to explain how it could be that

        No bat has EVER been found with that virus even though it spread like wildfire

        How is that possible?

        It was super-contagious in humans IMMEDIATELY

        How is that possible?

        And I just love how you always quote from “news” articles, and NEVER the source. NEVER. I don’t need ABC to give me my opinion. I heard what he said. What he said, and I alluded to, is that the “QUALIFIED” virologists all say it’s all but certain it came from a bat.

        He is vested in it NOT being from that lab, because HE is potentially culpable, if not liable.

        THAT’s why people hate him.

        Insulting, screeching and gaslighting is why people hate you.

        1. The CDC suggested 6 ft. of separation, based on CDC RESEARCH showing that droplets from normal breathing and talking spread this distance. There was not a specific clinical trial for COVID, but, like Dr. Fauci said, 4,000 to 5,000 Americans were dying every day, so what were we supposed to do–stand by and watch thousands of Americans die while a specific clinical trial for COVID was conducted, or follow CDC research results that indicate a recommendation for 6 ft. distance for respiratory droplet dissemination? COVID IS a respiratory pathogen. WHERE is the supposed lie?

          When did Dr. Fauci ADMIT he INTENTIONALLY LIED? Citation, please. Dr. Fauci made clear that he NEVER claimed that the vaccine woudl do anything OTHER THAN reduce the seriousness of a COVID infection and reduce the likelihood of needing hospitallization and/or respiratory support from a ventilator. These things have been proven. MAGAsphere spreads the lie that Dr. Fauci allegedly claimed the vaccine would provide 100% immunity–he never did.

          Dr. Fauci said that the evidence leans toward an animal source–based on phylogenetic information. Do you understand what this means? Of course not. I’m not going to bother trying to explain it to you because it’s way over your head. Microorganisms mutate all of the time to evade human immunity, which is how they continue to cause infection. You are a MAGAt, so, of course, no one can tell you anything about Trump and his incompetence and his dangerous lies. And, BTW, ABC was the source for his direct testimony–this was not an opinion piece–it was direct quotations from the SOURCE. Who are the “qualified virologists”?

          There’s no evidence that Dr. Fauci is culpable for anything other than doing good for mankind.

          1. They are onto us. They know we are frauds, fakes, trolls and not buying it anymore. Maybe Media Matters will be bought by Rupert Murdoch and we can make bank again? On the other hand, you could lose some weight so maybe you should keep working for the financially strapped Media Matters

          2. LMAO

            ABC was the direct source.

            LMAO

            The video is the source, you imbecile.

            You dont even know when you’re being gas lit.

            Hilarious!!!

          3. LOL not going to bother explaining because you cant.

            You proved it with your next ignorant statement.

          4. From CNN

            While Fauci, along with several other US health leaders, initially advised people not to wear masks, Fauci later said that he was concerned that there wouldn’t be enough protective equipment for health care workers.

            See. Admitted he lied.

            If he thought health care workers needed them, then he was convinced they were effective. Instead he told people they weren’t.

            It doesnt matter WHY he lied. He is a LIAR

            Just like you.

          5. based on CDC RESEARCH showing that droplets from normal breathing and talking spread this distance.

            LIAR

            It was a SWAG

            lMAO

          7. “Microorganisms mutate all of the time to evade human immunity, which is how they continue to cause infection.”

            Yea, once they are inside humans, you idiot. And evading immunity was not the topic, dum dum. Initial spread has nothing to do with immunity. Lmao what an ignorant statement. You cant have immunity until u get it lmao. But you were going to explain something. Bwahahahaha too funny. Initial spread rate is about INFECTIOUSNESS, among other things. And the way a virus mutates to become more INFECTIOUS happens AFTER it has infected its hosts. And it cant “learn” how to more easily penetrate human hosts by mutating in goddam bats, silly.
            Are you even an adult? I am starting to wonder.

            I guess you’re a magat, since NO ONE has EVER been able to tell you anything. Name one time you have admitted being wrong here. And its happened a lot here. The irony is strong in this one.

      2. Allow me to ask a question, Gigi.

        Dr Fauci was labeled ad nauseam by the media as the “nation’s leading infectious disease doctor”.

        Pray tell, exactly what years was Dr. Fauci EVER an ID doctor???

        He’s been an administrator since 1984, head of a large institute. He had run an immunology lab (imagine that) and he cared for patients with autoimmune diseases.

        He’s not an epidemiologist. He was never a true virologist.

        What he is and has been is a LIAR and a FRAUD.

        That explains why you like him.

  9. ” I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting. It was enough that others find certain language to be insulting and I do not want to make them feel uncomfortable.”

    I disagree professor.
    Use commonly used language that no one in their right mind would find offensive.
    To those who are not in their right mind, let them feel uncomfortable. It is not our responsibility to alter our speech to coddle people with deficient mental maturity.

    1. Not to mention, when you have “experts” like Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue that specialize in taking gray, amorphous statements and identifying them as “microaggressions”, it is only a matter of time before all speech is muted for fear of what pronouncement such “experts” declare.

  10. Sounds like Dr. Sue is making millions over things that are totally insipid. He is encouraging discrimination by writing about topics like this. These types of “scholarly works” are destroying our country not building it up. This type of “study” would be heartily encouraged by Obama in his quest to “fundamentally change America.”

    1. wyatt827 said: “These types of “scholarly works” are destroying our country not building it up.”

      Turley recently wrote a column about the disdain in which “higher education: has come to be held by many. Think that exploitative garbage like this from a “highly educated” academic could be part of the reason?

      1. Number 6,
        Exactly.
        There seems to be this idea that if you are college educated, you are smart.
        Then this fine example of sheer idiocracy proves the college educated are not necessarily smart. Moronic such as this is more like it.
        And then they wonder why all us non-college educated types display macroagressions at them, and we have such low confidence in “higher education.”

        1. UpstateFarmer, Number6- I agree. My experience is that no college usually means one had no opportunity to go or chose not to go. It does not mean stupid. Many are the folks that I have met who are sharp and successful despite being “uneducated”. Young also does not mean stupid. A strong and insightful mind is all you need and I have learned from many younger and lesser educated individuals. So I listen to everyone except George.

          1. GEB said: “My experience is that no college usually means one had no opportunity to go or chose not to go.”

            Some kids are not ready for college at 17. I had no clue what I what I wanted for a career at that age. But my parents (neither of whom had a college degree) had established a college fund for me when I was 6 years old, and they were bound and determined to force me to go, whether I was ready or not. So college for me was a complete waste of time and money, which ran out after two years, to my great relief. About ten years later, not long after I was married, I quite by accident discovered a strong aptitude for computers and programming (ironically, a career originally identified as a possibility by some long-forgetten high school aptitude tests) and I was able to parlay a modicum of vocational and night school training into a solid, satisfying, and rewarding 38 year IT career. Sadly, I was one of the very last to be able to enter that field before it was overtaken by credentialism, and a batchelor’s degree became the minimum ante.

            1. ugh “bachelor’s degree” should have just written “baccalaureate” 😉

    2. RE: “Sounds like Dr. Sue is making millions”……”My name is Sue…with noth’in better to do!!”

  11. I hope the mortality rate goes up in this Stalinist State. Why any newly minted doctor would want to practice in a State in which he or she will fear for the loss of their license because the “misspoke” is beyond me.

  12. Aren’t females the “majority group” in nearly all parts of this country?

    Skirmisher

  13. Atlas Shrugged – now non-fiction. Or is it 1984?

    Easiest way for medical pros in Oregon to respond is to simply leave

    1. “Easiest way for medical pros in Oregon to respond is to simply leave”.
      Are you kidding me? The easiest way for ANY businessperson to respond to a change in the business environment created by the state is to “simply leave”??? Have you EVER owned or been a partner in a business?

      How about contacting your reps and having them block the action? How about having your professional organization lobby against those changes? How about educating the public and having them contact their reps? These are all harder than packing up and leaving?

      2. Ex Dem-Even better would be to get the state medical society to sue the State Board, unless the state association is already made up the aforementioned whipped dogs.

      3. Ex-Dem, when all of your state reps are in lock step what else can you do but leave. I sat in MA for decades as Ted Kennedy won every 6 years and then I had to endure Liz Warren being elected even though it seems as if everyone outside of the 617 area dislikes her.

        When you have pockets of huge numbers of like minded people voting one way it is impossible to defeat them. Ask upstate New Yorkers, ask eastern Oregonians and Washingtonians, ask central and southern Californians. Meanwhile on planet normal there are millions moving to Florida, Texas, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Idaho and even Arizona.

        A conservative living in NY or NJ, or any west coast state cannot win, they have to leave. I left, mostly for other non-political reasons, but the MA politics greased the skids so to speak. I know live in a state with a common sense governor and 2 logical senators and not Liz Warren and the execrable Ed Markey.

  14. Sanctions on one’s medical license in one state places one’s license to practice medicine in another state in jeopardy. Why would any physician even consider practicing medicine now in Oregon, either on a permanent or temporary basis?

    1. VINCENTE- well once it was a nice state with a reasonably good climate and very popular for many physicians to go to and practice. One of my best friend in training went there in 1977 and the smaller town he went to rolled out the carpet for him and 2 other residents that went with him and helped him start and build a practice.
      And yes it could affect your license in other states but I suspect you might win a libel or slander suit or a restraint of trade or a 1st amendment ruling in Federal Court. Of course if you went to Indiana and could show the particulars of your “microaggresion offence”, they would probably have a good laugh and give you a license to practice there anyway.

      1. GEB said: “once it was a nice state with a reasonably good climate”
        Sadly, these days the “Left Coast” is more than living down to that nickname.

      2. GEB: I would not want to have to go to federal court with a first amendment claim over a “microaggression” medical misconduct charge in Oregon in order to be licensed to practice medicine in another state.

  15. ” I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting.”
    This is exactly the kind of mindless, and lazy and/or spineless complicity that only encourages more of this patent hor$e$h1t, and that encouragement potentially impacts all of us. Would it really be too much trouble for Turley to try to determine whether or not there was a reasoned, rational, justifiable objection to a term before dropping it from his writing vocabulary?

    1. Number 6 said “This is exactly the kind of mindless, and lazy and/or spineless complicity…”

      You may conside rthat to be my “microaggression” for today ” 🙂

  16. Our constant discussions of these issues gets us nowhere. Micro aggressions? U-Turn road signs? Improper pronouns? Seriously? Until we rediscover our spines and adopt “I WILL NOT COMPLY” as our mantra, nothing will change. And, Professor Turley, ask yourself who is providing cover for this madness. The Law! Judges! Tyranny of The Bench. Remove this ridiculous intervention and We The People can deal with the problems we face peacefully and effectively. The courts are complicit in the degradation of society. The judges are the enablers of societal insanity.

  17. It is interesting. When democracy becomes mob rule. The mob is defined as the majority. Another reason democracy is just bad.

  18. Even though totalitarian states, such as Stalin’s Russia and Hitler’s Germany, have failed in Europe, one of their main tactics – denunciation of one’s colleagues, associates and even family members – has jumped the ocean and infected the American Left. It makes sense. If the goal of the Left is to dissolve institutions outside a centralized government, leaving the individual atomized and at the mercy of propaganda, then encouraging one professional colleague to denounce another is the way to go. This is probably what Samuel Alito meant when he said that the differences between Right and Left in our country cannot be resolved by compromise. It is truly an existential struggle.

  19. Language is a form of communication. There is a messenger and a receiver. Miscommunication occurs when the receiver does not understand the message in the same manner as the sender intended it to be. It is ridiculous to punish the sender simply because the receiver takes offense. The sender is not responsible for the interpretation of the receiver. We have to stop catering to those who are easily offended. Grow up: sometimes someone may say something that is undiplomatic. Don’t be so oversensitive. A microaggression seems to be anything that the receiver defines as such as long as s/he belongs to a minority. Turley capitulates by changes his language just to avoid that a listener might feel uncomfortable. That is the wrong response. We should all be more assertive when we are accused of venting microaggressions.
    Making a living through your chosen profession is a right; not a privilege. We should break up the medieval guilds of the medical and legal professions that act like a cartel and control access to the profession, and can take somebody’s livelihood away. State boards for some professions are necessary but should only be allowed to revoke a license in cases of malpractice or incompetence; not on the basis of speech or anything else.

    1. @DoubleDutch: Are you implying that I may be over sensitive? That sounds like a microaggression to me.

      1. Vincente,
        Well, in Absurdistan, yes, you would be correct. If DoubleDuthc was a Dr. in Oregon, you filed a report, he would lose his license.
        But here in Realityland, as DoubleDutch says, “Grow up.” You could try to file a report, they would express a macroagression of wide eyed, “Are you kidding me?” Tell you to “Grow up,” and if you are lucky they wont mention it as your reputation would suffer greatly.

    3. @DoubleDutch

      That is very true, but the woke don’t care. We can opine about what’s right until we are blue in the face; the fact remans that many of these folks are beginning to sit on the boards. There is no pre-defined ‘real world’. Only what we create and put in place. That includes markets. Generationally, this is what those folks are creating and putting in place. And they believe to their cores they are morally and intellectually superior.

      I do believe we can turn it around if enough people decide doing the right thing is more important than looking bad to their woke friends or risking ridicule, but the perpetrators of this will never relent, and marginalizing this nonsense is going to have to be a collective effort. If we don’t, things like ‘thought’ crime are right around the corner.

      1. James said: “We can opine about what’s right until we are blue in the face; the fact remans that many of these folks are beginning to sit on the boards.”

        Obviously, there was already some kind of major flaw in the system that resulted in such nitwits being nominated to boards in the first place.

  20. Think of the recent Biden candidate for the federal court who tried to argue his orders to exposit personal pronouns in his courtroom were only “suggestions”. NOT.

Comments are closed.