Banning microaggressions isn’t cure-all
At USC, no student is safe from the frequent microaggressions tossed around, usually without a second thought.
“When I look at you, I don’t see color.”
“What are you? You’re so exotic.”
“I jewed him.”
These verbal or nonverbal snubs, regardless of their intention, send negative messages toward marginalized groups. The seemingly small digs can create hostile environments.
For many, college is a time to learn how to be sensitive to these slights. Both administrators and students are discussing ways to minimize them.
At the University of California, some have even gone as far as suggesting an outright ban on the use of such microaggressions in the classroom. Earlier this year, the UC system published a list of microaggressions and invited its deans and department heads to take part in a seminar aimed at promoting inclusivity and discouraging the use of common microaggressions such as: “There is only one race, the human race” and “You speak English very well.”
In the UC’s list of microaggressions, 10 themes are addressed and a host of phrases were banned. But the administration can revisit the list later and revise it — further banning what can and can’t be said on campus. Because when it comes to listing all microaggressions, it never stops.
The definition of “microaggressions” changes every day because of the ever-evolving idea of political correctness.
Many media organizations have written about the decision to ban or not ban discourse that uses microaggressions. Yet, the conversation should not be framed this way. Instead, the focus should be on the issues that cause students to feel the microaggressions — real and systemic inequality in the United States.
Universities can’t fully discuss these issues without using microaggressions. Some college professors have received backlash for assigning books that use racial epithets or have references to homosexual activities. And some colleges have had to justify why they are assigning American classics like Mark Twain’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, a book that uses derogatory language toward black people. Offensive language is found in classic literature throughout history — because it wasn’t always offensive, but now it is. It’s important to discuss why that change happened, and we can’t do that without engaging directly with the language.
Banning offensive language doesn’t get rid of the problem — it buries it under political correctness. Rather than regulate what can or can’t be said within an academic environment, universities should instead encourage honest conversations about why some communities are marginalized and what we can do to correct it.
Instead of policing academic discourse, we should redirect the conversation toward creating an environment where people can challenge and question why someone would simplify issues by using microaggressions. In the classroom, discussion could focus on how these microaggressions have been formed over the years and why it might be time to rethink what we’re saying.
College campuses are the incubators that engage people with other backgrounds and from all walks of life to learn what’s appropriate before we’re expected to know it all in the workplace. No other environment could be more ideal. Therefore microaggressions should not be regulated, but must be discussed with the goal of taking away their power.
Daily Trojan Fall 2015 Editorial Board
Most of this article is far-left political-correctness babble, but DT staff got this right: “Banning offensive language doesn’t get rid of the problem — it buries it under political correctness. Rather than regulate what can or can’t be said within an academic environment, universities should instead encourage honest conversations….” Well said, DT staff.
The concept of “Microagressions” may be politically correct, but it is a fatuous way to view offensive language. The problem is rudeness – a person is not “microscopically aggressive,” but is saying something offensive, although probably unwittingly. We all need to learn when we are being offensive, unknowingly or not. So the right response might be “that is a hurtful way to say whatever you are trying to say,” or perhaps, “I understand your meaning, but why say it that way?”
The world contains plenty of people who intend to be mean, insulting and overtly offensive in something they say. Responding to them appropriately is one matter. But in reacting to so-called “microaggressions” that may not be intentional, the best action is to induce the person to examine his or her words. That person may not want to offend, but will learn a helpful, if embarrassing, lesson on how poorly phrased wording can be hurtful to others.