Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Microaggressions at UCLA

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 27, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

39:55

Microaggressions at UCLA

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So a few weeks ago in the Washington Post there was an article about the University of California teaching faculty members not to criticize race-based affirmative action, call America a melting pot and more.
	The author who teaches at the University of California says that they're condemning microaggressions, supposed brief subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating messages to the recipient because of his or her group membership, such as race, gender, age or socioeconomic status.
	Such microaggressions, the argument goes, can lead to a hostile learning environment which the University of California and the federal government views as legally actionable.
	This is stuff you could get disciplined or fired for, especially if you aren't a tenured faculty member.
	Clearly I needed to know what a microaggression really was, so I did some digging on their various websites and affiliated websites, and I found a few interesting things.
	I thought a good starting point was microaggressions, what you need to know.
	If you've ever felt slighted or put down by something someone has said or expressed through a glance or other suggestive response, you may have been the target of something known as a microaggression.
	Wow, that is a question so broad that almost every human being on earth could probably respond yes to it.
	Oftentimes unconscious and automatic, microaggressions are brief subtle verbal or non-verbal exchanges that send denigrating messages to the recipient because of his or her group membership.
	The initiator of the message may be unaware that he or she has engaged in a behaviour that is cumulative, one of a lifetime of demeaning messages that erodes its victim's confidence.
	I already have a problem with this definition.
	You can't send a denigrating message if you are unaware that you are apparently sending a denigrating message.
	This is one of those cases where offence is never given, it's always taken.
	Corolla Suarez or Zoko, a professor at UCLA's Graduate School of Education and Information Studies and a psychologist by training, suggests that microaggressions are usually expressed by someone in authority.
	Such offences are typically enacted by a person of a more privileged status, which is generally the majority culture onto those in minority groups.
	The person who does it may not necessarily mean anything by it, but little by little it wears away at a person's well-being and suggests to them that they don't belong.
	Well there are a few presuppositions here that I simply don't agree with.
	The first one being that this is very much a case of worst case scenario.
	Not only is being exotic not always a bad thing, but it also assumes that this person knows what the victim of the microaggression is feeling.
	I mean, she says here it wears away at a person's well-being and suggests to them that they don't belong.
	Well, you don't know.
	That's what it suggests.
	At best, Corolla, Suarez, or Zoko, that's what it suggests to you.
	And frankly, I find that to be a reflection of your mind and your quite evidently negative personality than anything else.
	And I say this as a forces brat who's had a lot of contact with non-British people who are very proud to be different when hanging out with us.
	They take a great deal of pride in being different.
	I can't believe I have to say this, but that is what diversity is.
	Anyway, she goes on to say that it's hard to determine exactly how microaggressions may come to infect our psychological makeup, but you're absolutely going to take action on the assumption that they do.
	Microaggressions are likely an enacted form of implicit bias.
	They grow out of many different perceptions we have internalized over the process of our socialization, says Suarez or Zoko.
	Or Ozco.
	Sorry, whatever.
	This oh, that's a microaggression.
	I'm so sorry.
	This behaviour is learned in the home, through the media picked up from our peers and others, and it's at work on many different levels in society.
	But we can't determine exactly how or what the actual effect is.
	To UCLA professor and associate dean for equality and diversity, there's a thing that sounds like it's a necessary position, Daniel Solor-Zano, whose work in the field of education is framed by a sociological perspective, microaggressions are a particularly damaging form of systemic racism, used to disempower minorities or others who live in the margins of society.
	They are layered assaults based on a person's colour, race, gender, class, sexuality, language, immigration status, phenotype, accent, or surname.
	Except most people don't know they're doing them if they're doing them at all, and we can't determine exactly how microaggressions may come to infect our psychological makeup.
	In fact, we can't really prove that they do anything at all, but you're going to assume that they are all of these things.
	Again, worst case scenario springs to mind.
	Microaggressions are cumulative in nature and can take a psychological, physiological, or even an academic toll on people of colour.
	Except you can't prove this.
	And in fact, it doesn't seem like you're even trying to prove this, which is interesting given how you'll use critical theory later on to try and justify and defend this, but we'll get to that.
	Given the diverse racial and socio-cultural makeup of student populations in schools and on college campuses nationwide, microaggressions present a serious and growing concern, particularly given their potential to diminish or even invalidate a learning experience.
	Well, prove it.
	In the classroom, microaggressions are especially harmful, because they can create a hostile learning environment, and ultimately, they may undermine a student's ability to succeed academically.
	Well, may, but do they?
	And I get the feeling that they don't.
	And if they are undermining a particular student's ability to succeed academically, I suspect they are the very least of that student's worries.
	Having led a study examining microaggressions in community college classrooms, Suarez Orolzco and her team of researchers sought to observe and record real-time covert microaggressions.
	What they found was daunting.
	Microaggressions happened in a third of the classrooms that were observed.
	Only a third, eh?
	And faculty instructors were more likely to enact a microaggression than students were, which were reflective of power dynamics in the classroom.
	Microaggressions also happened more often in classroom with higher numbers of diverse students.
	Microaggressions are not necessarily intentional, however, and may in fact stem from unconscious bias.
	For example, a teacher may tell a student you speak English very well and intend it as a compliment, but to the recipient it may underscore a sense of exclusion and infers that the person isn't part of the mainstream culture.
	That's nonsense.
	That's absolute nonsense for a start.
	It may do that.
	Well, does it or doesn't it?
	The chances are it doesn't.
	I can imagine that for 99.999% of students, they would never ever think that being complimented on their skills in a second language is an attempt to extract them and isolate them from mainstream culture.
	That's fucking ridiculous.
	Derald Wingsua, professor of psychology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, who has written two books on the topic of microaggressions, says that microaggressions may appear to be a compliment, but contain a meta-communication or a hidden insult towards target groups to which it is delivered, and are outside the level of conscious awareness of the perpetrator.
	This is the most conspiratorial thing I've ever heard.
	Yes, well, the person doesn't know that they're giving an insult, and the person, the victim receiving it, doesn't know that they're receiving an insult, but you don't seem to understand that compliment contains a meta-communication, which is a hidden insult, towards the person of the target group.
	I mean, fucking nonsense.
	This is entirely a case of interpretation.
	And if the person isn't deliberately giving an insult, and like you say, they don't know they're doing it, then it's not there.
	No matter what you think, you may think, for the worst case scenario, God, that I'm going to take that personally as an offence, because I'm an unreasonable idiot, that's fine.
	But that doesn't mean that other people should deal with that.
	One person's unreasonable paranoid idiocy shouldn't have to be other people's problem.
	So to recognise microaggressions when they happen and stop enacting them towards others, Professor Sue outlines five things that we can do.
	One, learn constant vigilance of your own biases and fears.
	I mean, that sounds good, but I really think that what they're actually saying is self-police.
	If you think there might be the remotest possibility of someone somewhere being offended by something that you have said or about to say, don't say it.
	Two, experiential reality is important in interacting with people who are different from you in terms of race, culture, and ethnicity.
	This incidentally is the argument against a female Thor or a black Spider-Man.
	But the problem with all of this is that it's entirely based on experiential reality, not objective, empirical reality that's true for everyone.
	But if someone's experience, say like Professor Sue here, thinks that microaggressions are subtle meta-insults that people simply don't know about, then it's not that she's being a paranoid lunatic, it's that you're not listening to her experiential reality.
	3.
	Don't be defensive.
	Well, I have to say it's really hard not to be defensive when someone gives someone else an honest compliment and you tell everyone that it's actually a secret insult that only you can see.
	4.
	Be open to discussing your own attitudes and biases and how they might have hurt others or in some sense might reveal bias on your part.
	Because there's in no way bias on the part of the professor who's outlining these things for you to do.
	None of this is her bias.
	None of this is her paranoia.
	None of this is her reading into things that simply aren't there.
	No, no, there is no chance that Professor Sue is wrong.
	You are wrong.
	And it comes from your biases and attitudes.
	Even if your biases are towards objectivity and empiricism, all that means is that you're not accepting the experiential reality of people of colour.
	And 5.
	Be an ally.
	Stand personally against all forms of bias and discrimination.
	Even Professor Sue's bias, which is what I'm doing right now.
	But what she's actually asking is be an activist.
	You need to propagate this peculiar and insidious idea.
	So after finding that very interesting introduction to microaggressions, I decided to have a look at a few of the academic papers on the University of California website to see exactly what I could glean about microaggressions.
	And I found it very, very closely tied in with critical race theory.
	Now for those unaware, critical theory is the art of asking meaningless questions to absolutely stifle any kind of meaningful dialogue on a topic.
	But we'll get to that towards the end of the video.
	For now, I think we should explore the origins of microaggressions.
	So if these papers are correct, and I've got no reason to believe that they're not, the concept of microaggressions was originally developed to discuss race by Dr. Chester Pierce.
	Chester Pierce, a professor of psychiatry and education at Harvard, first introduced microaggressions in 1969 in referring to incessant offensive mechanisms aimed at blacks on a daily basis, and which are designed to reduce, dilute, atomise, and encase the hapless into his place.
	In Pierce's case, I suppose that place being a professor at Harvard.
	The incessant lesson the black must hear is that he is insignificant and irrelevant, says the professor from Harvard.
	I'm sorry, I just find the concept laughable, that you can be a professor at Harvard, and these things can be true.
	So there are quite a few quotes from Pierce in the papers that I looked at, and I'll read you a few out.
	To be black in the United States today means to be socially minimized.
	Well, I suppose maybe in 1970 when he wrote this, that might have been true.
	Most offensive actions are not gross and crippling.
	They're subtle and stunning.
	The enormity of the complications they cause can be appreciated only when one considers that these subtle blows are delivered incessantly.
	Even though any single negotiation of offence can in justice be considered of itself to be relatively innocuous, the cumulative effect to the victim and to the victimizer is of an unimaginable magnitude.
	Hence the therapist is obliged to pose the idea that offensive mechanisms are usually a microaggression.
	Again, that sounds rather subjective and paranoid.
	The subtle, stunning, repetitive event that many whites initiate and control in their dealings with blacks can be termed a racial microaggression.
	Any single microaggression from an offender to a defender, or victimizer to victim, is in itself minor and inconsequential.
	However, the relentless omnipresence of these noxious stimuli is the fabric of black-white relations in America.
	Again, this was from 1980, so maybe that was true.
	You know, maybe 35 years ago, that was the case.
	Maybe there was a deliberate attempt by whites to initiate and control in their dealings with blacks, as he says.
	But the thing is, I actually have trouble believing that that's the case, given this quote from Pierce from 1970.
	He says, I notice in a class I teach that after every session, a white, not a black, will come up to me and tell me how the class should be structured, or how the chairs should be placed, or how there should be extra meetings outside the classroom, etc.
	One could argue that I'm hypersensitive, if not paranoid, about what I know every black will understand.
	Is that it's not what the student says in the dialogue, it's how he approaches me, how he talks to me, how he seems to regard me.
	I was patronised.
	I was told by my own perceptual distortions, perhaps, that although I am a full professor on two faculties at a prestigious university, to him I was no more than a big black nigger.
	I had to be instructed and directed as how to render him more pleasure.
	I think that Chester Pierce knows that he was being paranoid.
	I think he knows that it was his own biases and emotions that were causing the reactions that he was having.
	He doesn't even discuss that these students may have had a point.
	There's no chance that the students may have had legitimate criticisms.
	No.
	And he says, one could argue that I'm hypersensitive, if not paranoid, about what I know every black will understand.
	Well, you don't know that.
	And it was how he talks to me, how he seems to regard me.
	Well, you don't know that.
	You don't know that these people were looking at you and thinking that this is no more than a big black nigger.
	Here, Professor Pierce just puts words in the mouths of people who may well have been approaching him with the best of intentions.
	They could have legitimately seen a problem and have thought, well, he's a reasonable man.
	I will just explain what I think he has overlooked.
	So, so far, the concept of microaggressions appears to be a complete farce.
	It appears to be completely predicated on the idea that the people you are dealing with in everyday life are secretly very vile and actually want to subtly hurt you in many ways that they themselves aren't even consciously aware of.
	The concept was created by a man who confesses that he may well sound paranoid and that it is indeed his own prejudices that are informing his opinion, and it seems to be propagated by people who can't really prove their case.
	They can't prove what damage microaggressions do if they do any damage.
	And as said earlier, microaggressions contain apparently meta-communications, which are communications that are not meant to be given and not aware of being received.
	So I really find myself having a hard time believing any of this.
	Especially given the consistent use of weasel words all throughout the documentation that I read.
	Might, may, could, could do.
	Well, does it?
	That's the question, and you can't prove that it does, so why should I assume that it does?
	In fact, everything I have seen thus far appears to be an argument against assuming that they are real.
	They appear to exist only in the minds of the hypersensitive or extremely paranoid.
	Which is why, instead of being defended with facts, logic, reason, or evidence, they have to defend the concept of microaggressions using critical theory.
	I found two very useful documents on the website of the Office of the President of the University of California in Los Angeles.
	Tool, recognizing microaggressions and the message they send, and Tool, interrupting microaggressions.
	So the first step in addressing microaggressions is to recognize when a microaggression has occurred and what message it may be sending.
	Because God forbid that a microaggression didn't occur and didn't send a message.
	So these are broken down into themes, microaggression examples and the message they send, and then the example and theme and the third party intervention example.
	So the first one is alien in one's own land.
	When Asian Americans, Latino Americans and others who look different or are named differently from the dominant culture are assumed to be foreign born.
	Apparent examples of this are just merely asking where are you from or where were you born, complimenting them on their English by saying you speak English very well, what are you?
	You're so interesting looking.
	Okay, maybe that one.
	A person asking an Asian American or Latino American to teach them words in their native language.
	Are you fucking serious?
	Continuing to mispronounce the names of students after students have corrected the person time and time again, not willing to listen closely and learn the pronunciation of non-English based names.
	Well, some people, and I can speak from experience, aren't good at pronouncing foreign names.
	I'm sure there are people who do do it deliberately because there are assholes everywhere.
	But from my own personal experience, fuck you, Poland.
	The apparent message being conveyed here is that you are not a true American.
	Well, maybe, but maybe not.
	You are a perpetual foreigner in your own country.
	Well, again, maybe, but maybe not.
	And your ethnic racial identity makes you exotic.
	Well, if you're quite significantly different from the norm around you, then yes, this will make you exotic.
	Unfortunately, this is simply the nature of determining characteristics.
	If I moved to China, the fact that I'm English would be considered exotic.
	Deal with it.
	And the third-party intervention example after asking someone, where are you from, if for some reason you feel the need to intervene, is, I'm just curious, what makes you ask that?
	Well, the answer being a desire to know where that person is from.
	The next one is a scription of intelligence.
	Assigning intelligence to a person of colour or a woman based on his or her race or gender.
	Microaggression examples.
	You are a credit to your race.
	Who the fuck says that apart from social justice warriors and stormfags?
	Wow, how did you become so good at math?
	Well, is that really something that's racial?
	To an Asian person, you must be good in math.
	Can you help me with this problem?
	To a woman of colour.
	I would never have guessed that you were a scientist.
	Come on, really.
	Who says any of these things?
	The message is of course that people of colour are generally not as intelligent as whites.
	All Asians are intelligent and good at maths and science, and it's unusual for a woman to have strong mathematical skills.
	Essentially, they're complaining about stereotypes.
	And the third-party intervention to an Asian person, when they're asked if they're good at maths, is, I heard you say that all Asians are good in math.
	What makes you believe that?
	See, another pointless question.
	Be not, I could see myself conceding these two past examples.
	They are rather unnecessary.
	However, when the theme is colourblindness, statements that indicate that a white person, specifically white, no other race, does not want to or needs to acknowledge race, then I have to start drawing a line.
	Microaggression examples are, when I look at you, I don't see colour.
	Oh, how bigoted.
	There is only one race, the human race.
	That's just awful.
	America is a melting pot.
	I don't believe in race.
	I don't think anyone ever actually says that.
	Denying the experiences of students by questioning the credibility slash validity of their stories.
	You know, skepticism.
	And the message is, assimilate to the dominant culture.
	As if that's got anything to do with it.
	Denying the significance of a person of colour's racial ethnic experience and history.
	Which is ironically exactly the problem when people in the South were lynching blacks.
	But hey, let's keep doing this.
	Let's just carry it on.
	That can't be a bad thing.
	And denying the individual as a racial slash cultural being.
	no i just don't want to make it the most relevant thing about them when i have a conversation with them and the critical theorists third-party intervention example is the straw man i don't believe in race So what do you believe in?
	Can you elaborate?
	These are of course trivial questions that are designed to be pointless and aimless and to lead people around in circles.
	Obviously the answer is, well what do you believe in?
	Well I believe in not judging someone based on characteristics they had no choice in acquiring.
	And can I elaborate?
	No, why the fuck should I?
	Why are you interrupting me?
	The next theme is the criminality assumption of criminal status.
	A person of colour is presumed to be dangerous, criminal or deviant based on his or her race.
	You know exactly the sort of problem that's solved by being colourblind and not judging people just based on their race as soon as you meet them.
	The microaggression examples are a white man or woman clutches his, her purse or checks wallet as a black or Latina person approaches.
	The store owner following a customer of colour around the store.
	Someone crosses to the other side of the street to avoid a person of colour.
	While walking through the halls of the chemistry building, professor approaches a postdoctoral student of colour and asks if he or she is lost, making the assumption that the person is trying to break into one of the labs.
	Yes, I imagine that would be somewhat of a microaggression, but again, how often does that really happen?
	And the message is that you are a criminal.
	You are going to steal, you are poor, you do not belong, or you are dangerous.
	None of those are the message that is given when someone does any of the previous quote microaggressions.
	The message that's given is that the person who reacts that way is scared.
	It's actually not an explicit judgment of the person that they are reacting to, it's actually a demonstration of their own personal prejudices.
	But microaggressions are for paranoid lunatics who have decided they are going to read far too much into tiny, insignificant personal interactions.
	Lo and behold, there is no third-party intervention example for this.
	There's really not all that much you can do when someone reveals that they have some sort of racial prejudice.
	So next we have denial of individual racism, sexism, heterosexism.
	A statement made when bias is denied.
	Again, just completely assumes that there is bias.
	It's definitely there.
	The person is guilty, but they're just desperately looking for a way of covering up their prejudice.
	Microaggression examples of this are, I'm not racist, I have several black friends.
	As a woman, I know what you go through as a racial minority, and to a person of colour, are you sure you are being followed in the store?
	I can't believe it.
	The message is, of course, I could never be racist because I have friends of colour.
	Because racists are well known for cultivating lots of friendships with black people in order to hide their racism.
	In fact, America's done exactly this thing.
	It's accused of being a white supremacist society and they elect a black guy to be president.
	The other messages are: your racial oppression is no different than my gender oppression.
	I can't be racist, I'm like you.
	Who has actually said that?
	It sounds rather silly.
	And denying the personal experience of individuals who experience bias.
	Well, Chester Pierce kind of thought he might have been experiencing some bias when he said that his white students who offered him advice thought of him as nothing but a nigger.
	And of course, there is no third-party intervention example with this.
	I guess the only thing you can really do is sit there quietly and believe them to actually be secretly racist.
	I think this theme is the one that I hate the most.
	The myth of meritocracy.
	Statements which assert that race or gender does not play a role in life successes.
	For example, in issues like faculty demographics.
	Okay, a couple of issues that I have with just the description of that theme.
	For a start, it's not that it doesn't play a role in life successes.
	It's that it shouldn't do.
	And the only way to make sure it doesn't is to not judge people by their innate qualities, but judge them by their actions and their performance.
	And you say, for example, in issues like faculty demographics, well, fuck me.
	All these hipster racists are being pumped out by universities.
	I would fully expect race to be an issue in faculty demographics.
	It seems that universities are staffed almost exclusively by fucking racists.
	Microaggression examples.
	I believe the most qualified person should get the job.
	Is a fucking microaggression.
	Fuck you.
	Just fuck you.
	Seriously, that's so much bullshit.
	But not only that, it means that if you think that that's a microaggression, then what you're saying is that women and people of colour are fundamentally inferior to white people.
	If you don't think that's the case.
	Because if you think that, then you are saying that they are never going to be the most qualified person in comparison to a white guy because the white guy is just fucking better.
	Fucking unbelievable.
	The next one is, of course he'll get tenure, even though he hasn't published much.
	He's black.
	Well, I think that's my that.
	I mean, yeah, okay, that's not a very nice thing to say.
	Maybe you could consider it a microaggression.
	But let's be honest with ourselves, you guys are obsessed with success in issues like faculty demographics.
	It's hard to believe that you wouldn't consider it when it comes to deciding who's going to get tenure.
	Men and women have equal opportunities for achievement is a microaggression.
	Just like the most qualified person getting the job, that just says that women are inferior to men.
	If you think that that's a microaggression, gender plays no part in who we hire.
	Yeah, I can see you thinking that's a problem.
	Again, why wouldn't that be a microaggression if you thought women were inferior and therefore you wouldn't take their gender into account?
	America is the land of opportunity.
	Well, not anymore.
	Everyone can succeed in this society if they work hard enough.
	You would think, but hey, the next one is affirmative action is racist.
	Because yeah, no, that's right.
	Judging people on their race and gender is not racist and sexist.
	And the message from all of this, the message is wonderful.
	The message, people of colour are given extra unfair benefits because of their race.
	What do you fucking think affirmative action is, you dipshits?
	That's literally what it is.
	The playing field is even, so if women cannot make it, the problem is with them.
	There's no point saying women cannot make it.
	There are plenty of women who are professors.
	In fact, the majority of students are now women.
	The issue is with individuals.
	People of colour are lazy and or incompetent and need to work harder.
	This is like reading the thoughts of an idiot or a madman.
	No.
	Having quotas means you think that people of colour are lazy and or incompetent.
	That's what you think.
	You think they can't do the required work to achieve the required positions.
	It's ridiculous.
	Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
	You are saying that a meritocratic system is racist and you probably think it's sexist as well.
	Because you think that these people are inferior.
	We have a few third-party intervention examples here.
	So of course he'll get tenure even though he hasn't published much.
	He's black.
	The intervention example is, so you believe that X will get tenure just because of his race.
	Let's open this up to see what others think.
	Well, popular consensus of either bigots or idiots really isn't that important.
	What's important is that you've said, directly by saying, oh, the myth is that in the example of a shoe like faculty demographics, race matters.
	So if you are saying race matters, then why wouldn't other people turn around and say, well, yeah, obviously, you mean you've got fucking affirmative action.
	Of course it's going to be an issue.
	You're making it an issue.
	But this is critical theory.
	It's designed to obfuscate.
	It's designed to derail your point of inquiry.
	The next one is, in a committee meeting, gender plays no part in who we hire.
	The intervention example is, how might we examine our implicit bias to ensure that gender plays no part in this and we have a fair process?
	What do we need to be aware of?
	Well, we need to be aware of our own bias towards one gender or another.
	But again, ultimately, it's just a method to bog down conversation.
	If you are simply not going to take gender into account when considering the objective merits of someone, you could always just have someone take the names off of your CVs before you receive them to make a decision.
	And the last one is, of course, she'll get tenure even though she hasn't published much.
	She's Native American.
	Same again.
	The intervention example is, how does what you just said honour our colleague?
	What a completely facile question.
	If anyone falls for that, I will be deeply disappointed in you.
	The next theme is pathologizing cultural values, communication styles.
	The notion that values and communication styles of the dominant slash white culture are ideal slash normal.
	I suppose we're meant to overlook the idiocy of them complaining that the most dominant widespread culture is the norm.
	For this, the microaggressions are to an Asian, Latino, or Native American.
	Why are you so quiet?
	We want to know what you think.
	Be more verbal.
	Speak up more.
	I love it.
	As if just saying this as a microaggression doesn't automatically inherently assume that they are all quiet.
	Just it's like these people can only think in stereotypes.
	Just like the next one.
	Asking a black person, why do you have to be so loud animated?
	Just calm down.
	What the fuck are you talking about?
	All black people are loud?
	Why are you always angry anytime race is brought up in the classroom discussion?
	Maybe because they're sick of being judged on their fucking race by people who should know better.
	Dismissing an individual who brings up race culture in a work school setting, no.
	You're not allowed to avoid talking about this.
	You must have this conversation no matter how uncomfortable or unproductive it is.
	And the third-party intervention example is, when you ask a black person, do you have to be so loud animated?
	It appears you're uncomfortable when Blank said that.
	I'm thinking there are many styles to express ourselves.
	How can we honour all styles of expression?
	Can we talk about that?
	Well, again, the answer would be no, we can't talk about that.
	And because he was very loud.
	But again, as you can see, this is just another method of bogging down conversation, changing the subject.
	Another one is to a woman of colour.
	I would have never guessed you were a scientist.
	The third-party intervention example is, I'm wondering what message this is sending her.
	Do you think you would have said this to a white male?
	Again, don't bother answering it.
	With any of these, just be like, why are you interrupting me?
	Why are you getting involved?
	This has nothing to do with you.
	Silence yourself.
	But if you do feel the need to answer, say yes.
	Most white males are not scientists.
	Most people are not scientists.
	The next theme is second-class citizen.
	Occurs when a target group member receives differential treatment from the power group.
	And again, it's all about power.
	For example, being given preferential treatment as a consumer over a person of colour.
	This is a bizarre theme because those things aren't mutually exclusive.
	Microaggression examples include faculty of colour mistaken for a service worker.
	Are they wearing janitor's overalls?
	Are they?
	Not wanting to sit by someone because of his or her colour.
	That's just outright racism.
	Female doctor mistaken for a nurse.
	Again, are they dressed like a nurse?
	Being ignored at a store counter as attention is given to the white customer.
	What if they got there first?
	Saying you people.
	An advisor assigns a black postdoctoral student to escorting a visiting scientist of the same race, even though there are other non-black scientists in this person's specific area of research.
	What are you saying that they specifically should have assigned a non-black scientist in that person's area of research, even though there might well be a black scientist in there as well?
	Unbelievable.
	An advisor sends an email to another work colleague describing another individual as a good black scientist.
	Well, yeah, why would you need to say black?
	Raising your voice or speaking slowly when addressing a blind student.
	speaking slowly when addressing a blind student.
	Why would you, why would you do that?
	Why would you raise your voice?
	In class, an instructor tends to call on male students more frequently than female ones.
	Well, do women enjoy being singled out?
	I rather get the feeling that women would say, well, why are you picking on us?
	This is, of course, a classic example of male privilege.
	And the message is amazing.
	The mistaken for a service worker is people of colour are servants to white.
	They couldn't possibly occupy high status positions.
	And women occupy nurturing positions.
	Whites are more valued customers than people of colour.
	Or you don't belong, you are a lesser being.
	A person with a disability is defined as lesser in all aspects of physical and mental functioning.
	The contributions of female students are less worthy than the contributions of male students.
	Are you fucking kidding me?
	What kind of fucking psychos at the University of California in Los Angeles ascribe these motivations to people?
	I can only assume it's what's going on in their own heads.
	And this is just projection.
	We've got a few of the third-party interventions.
	If a female colleague is being frequently interrupted during a meeting, responder addressing the group.
	Blank brings up a good point.
	I didn't get a chance to hear all of it.
	Can blank repeat it?
	Is this really a gendered issue or is it something that polite people do to people who are shy to help them get their voice heard?
	Saying you people.
	The third party intervention example is, I was so upset by that remark that I was shut down and I couldn't hear anything else.
	Well, try not to be so fucking triggered next time.
	And another one is a woman who has talked over.
	She responds, I would like to participate, but I need you to let me finish my thoughts.
	Yes, okay.
	I'm making a racist, sexist, or homophobic joke.
	I didn't think this was funny.
	I would like you to stop.
	Well, I'm not surprised you didn't think it was funny.
	I can't imagine any of you people have ever found anything funny.
	I said, you people.
	Oh, no, triggered.
	I can't believe how many of these there are.
	Sexist, heterosexist language.
	Terms that exclude or degrade women and LGBT persons.
	Microaggression examples include use of the pronoun he to refer to all people.
	Okay, who does that?
	Being constantly reminded by a co-worker that we are only women.
	What, is your co-worker a feminist?
	Being forced to choose male or female when completing basic forms.
	Oh no.
	That is just such an aggression.
	Two options for relationship status, married or single.
	Sorry.
	A heterosexual man who often hangs out with his female friends more than his male friends is labelled as gay.
	Well, maybe he shouldn't be such a puff.
	The message, of course, is that male experience is universal.
	Female's experience is invisible.
	Again, if you're a feminist, that's what you hear.
	LGBT categories are not recognised.
	LGBT partnerships are invisible.
	They just don't represent very many people in society.
	Men who do not fit male stereotypes are inferior.
	Well, they're inferior as men.
	And the third-party intervention example of saying that's so gay is, when I hear that remark, I'm offended too, because I feel that it marginalizes an entire group of people that I work with.
	To which the only sensible answer is, I have absolutely no respect for people who get offended on behalf of others.
	And finally, traditional gender roles, prejudicing and stereotyping occurs when expectations of traditional roles or stereotypes are conveyed.
	Wow, I can hardly believe the balls on the person who wrote this, who's gone through and done nothing but stereotype people of colour, and then is going to complain about gender roles and stereotypes.
	Just unfucking believable.
	Microaggression examples include when a female student asks a male professor for extra help on an engineering assignment, because you know she's bad at maths, he asks her, what do you need to work on this for anyway?
	Is he not the person who gave her the assignment?
	You're a girl, you don't have to be good at maths.
	Really, do your professors in universities say that?
	Do they?
	a person asks a woman her age and upon hearing she's 31 looks quickly at her ring finger seems seems a bit specific An advisor asks a female student if she's planning on having children while in post-doctoral training.
	That might actually be a legitimate question.
	Shows surprise when a feminine woman turns out to be a lesbian.
	Oh yeah.
	Labeling an assertive female committee chair slash dean as a bitch, while describing a male counterpart as a forceful leader.
	Yeah, I'm sure that all of these are totally legit.
	The messages are of course that women are less capable of maths than science.
	Women should be married during childbearing ages because that's their primary purpose.
	Fucking talk about assuming the worst, I swear.
	And women are out of line when they are aggressive.
	Look, this really strikes me as being very similar to the black guy being aggressive and loud and being asked to be quiet and to calm down.
	It's bad when anyone does it.
	It's not about him being black.
	It's not about this person being a woman.
	It's about the fact that they are being aggressive.
	And the last wonderful third-party intervention example to the advisor.
	I wanted to go back to a question you asked Blank yesterday about her plans for a family.
	I'm wondering what made you ask that question and what message it might have sent to her.
	Well, I needed to know if she was likely to take time off.
	But again, this is exactly typical.
	All of this is completely classic critical theory.
	None of these questions are designed to do anything productive.
	None of the examples on these tool sheets were using sound reasoning.
	Neither were the rebuttals based on facts or evidence or logic.
	And every single answer was designed to teach the students to be disingenuous.
	None of those questions were designed to further an honest dialogue with the person you're speaking to.
	They were entirely designed to prevent criticism or commentary on the thing you were initially talking about.
	This is what they're teaching at the University of California in Los Angeles from the office of the university president.
	It's self-evident that when you have authority figures at the university teaching easily influenced students how to be deceptive, you're going to foster a culture like this.

▲