When people babble about "microaggressions", their real goal is censorship.

Great Debates
1

At Ithaca College, there will soon be an anonymous, online system whereby students can report any microaggression, defined as “statements by a person from a privileged group that belittles or isolates a member of an unprivileged group, as it relates to race, class, gender, sexual orientation, ability and more.” And what will happen when such a statement is reported? Well, “it’s not to the degree that every instance will require trial or some kind of harsh punishment.” Which kind of implies that some instances will require trial and some kind of harsh punishment. And if merely speaking can lead to a trial and harsh punishment, that sounds kind of like censorship.

Of course, the news that censorship is breaking out in the hallowed halls of academia is hardly news any more. New examples arrive on a daily basis. One of the better-known examples is Christina Hoff Summers, who’s speaking engagements on various campuses have been greeted with lies, threats, disruptions, and intimidation from students and others. In one case, she even needed police protection. And what did Summers do to bring down this barrage of hatred? She debunked the false claims often used by feminists, such as that one quarter of female college students are raped, or that women earn less than men for the same work.

When left-wing students make these sorts of threats, they always claim that the speaker is attempting to “silence” them, or is committing “violence” against them, or so forth. In reality they are attempting to silence the speaker, and sometimes using violence to do so. The real goal is not to protect anyone’s feelings or to be more inclusive. It’s precisely the opposite: to exclude anyone who doesn’t think exactly what the left-wing students think they should think. Censorship, in other words.

Take, for instance, this handout on identifying microaggressions. Unless this is a joke (Poe’s Law is definitely relevant whenever the academic left is under discussion), it’s now a microaggression to say “I believe the most qualified person should get the job”, “America is the land of opportunity”, or “Affirmative Action is racist”. All of these statements are true, as are many others on the handout. The goal of insisting that they’re microaggressions is to try to shut down any discussion of the issues at hand. If affirmative action is analyzed logically, it’s a morally and practically awful idea. By declaring that telling the truth about affirmative action is a microaggression, those in favor of affirmative action try to prevent anyone from discussing it, analyzing it, or telling the truth about it, because that’s the only way they can win the debate on the topic. Likewise for the students attempting to silence Christina Hoff Summers, and all similar instances.

2

So basically you’re arguing “I agree with all of the stuff that’s being called into question, therefore calling it into question is not fair game !” ? Because that’s about how butthurt your post is coming off as.

3

Your cite says that this is being proposed by some student organization, but I don’t see where it has been approved by the school administration. Can you quote the part that says that? Maybe I missed it.

But yeah, this idea is beyond ridiculous. I am, however, offended by the word “babble”. It implies that English is superior to other languages.

4

So, I take it that only underprivileged groups can report in. I can’t report that I feel belittled and discriminated against as a white male when I sit in on some of these women’s studies courses…

5

Well, look at it this way; within the context of the college, only underprivileged groups will have the privilege of having microaggressions against them formally recognized. Ergo, they’re no longer unprivelaged, and their complaints can be promptly ignored.

6

Considering it’s supposed to be anonymous, I can’t really see how they would enforce a nefarioussss “only minorities can use this tool”.

7

If you read the link in the OP, there is an option to remain anonymous. Also, the OP makes this out to be a done deal when it’s clear that all the details have not been worked out and it’s unclear if it will ever actually be implemented.

8

Theme:
Dextrocentric Thinking
Actions, body language, and speech that belittles and marginalizes people of left-handedness.

Microaggression:

  • Holding out right hand for a handshake.
  • On academic projects, failure to provide left-handed tools such as scissors and computer mice.
  • Use of language such as “right”, “right-thinking”, “righteous”, “dexterous”, etc. as a positive.
  • Use of “sinister” as a negative.
  • Forcing use of “right hand rule” in physics and engineering calculations.

Message:

  • People of left-handedness are evil and do not think correctly.
  • They should learn to live with tools designed for the privileged class, even though the results may be poor and unsafe.
  • A reminder of past abuses against left-handers, such as knuckle-rapping.
9

Sometimes words are not enough. Fortunately, pointing and laughing hysterically often do the trick.

“I’m not racist” is a microaggression? Please.

Regards,
Shodan

10

Well, as already pointed out by John this isn’t a done deal just a proposal by a student organization.

That said, in theory at least this is not something that could be used against minorities since it classifies as “microaggressions” only statements by someone from “a privileged group” so again in theory it couldn’t be used against Muslim students saying “it’s too bad Hitler didn’t finish the job” black women complaining “all the black men only date white women or they’re faggots” or Hispanic students bitching about “all those rude Asians always talking on their phones going 'Ching-Chong, ching-chong”.

I’ll be beyond shocked if it becomes policy.

11

Emphasis added, and reported for a micro-aggression against women.

12

I’m not clear on how that works against my counterpoint. Even if (and that’s an if the size of Mount Rushmore that completely misses the point of such an initiative IMO) this reporting tool was somehow restricted to use by minorities, non-minorities would still be able to use it by ticking the anonymous checkbox.

FTR I think that, while it stems from good intentions, i.e. making the majority aware of the various, routine ways in which intrinsic structural and cultural bias affects and impacts even seemingly innocuous social interactions and induces genuine, if micro, hurt on various under-represented minorities ; the proposed tool would in practice be kind of silly and a big honking target for trolls of any and every stripe, from derisive RW misanthropes to attention-seeking “SJW” offenderatis (who, ironically, are typically overprivileged white guys and gals).

But the OP’s spin on it is not only ridiculously overblown, slippery slope, look-at-us-white-college-martyrs tripe, it’s just factually incorrect. There’s no indication this system is even considered by faculty, nevermind that it will be put in place **SOON **(bass drone). There’s no indication that such reporting would be followed by punitive measures (which would in fact be wholly counterproductive wrt to the aims of such programs). The whole point is to foster debate and discussion, not shut it down or censor it. And so on.
To say nothing of the whole “I’m not being bigoted, I’m telling the Truth !” angle.

13

Could simple statements of fact like the bolded part be considered microaggressions?

14

I see you’ve got the hang of this.

In return, I have reported you for your transphobic assumption that a woman has to have a uterus.

Regards,
Shodan

15

Reported for a micro-aggression against blacks, who were often the victims of lynchings.

16

Stalin was known to look into things once in awhile as well if there was a ruckus.

17

You Godwinovitched the thread!

18

Christina Hoff Sommers (cf. the OP) is a resident scholar at AEI. Color me unimpressed.

19

I work in the “hallowed halls of academia,” and I have no idea what you’re on about. Good grief.

20

Seriously? You have “no idea” what the OP is about? None at all?

I find that to be about as exaggerated as the OP, although kudos for doing so in a much more concise form.