MACROaggression

A Medical Student Questioned Microaggressions. UVA Branded Him a Threat and Banished Him from Campus. 

From the article:

Kieran Bhattacharya is a student at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine. On October 25, 2018, he attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. Dissatisfied with the definition of a microaggression offered by the presenter—Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean—Bhattacharya raised his hand.

Within a few weeks, as a result of the fallout from Bhattacharya's question about microagressions, the administration had branded him a threat to the university and banned him from campus. He is now suing UVA for violating his First Amendment rights, and a judge recently ruled that his suit should proceed.

To be honest, I am not sure that what happened to this medical student constitutes an offense against his right to free speech in the sense that that right is enshrined in our Constitution -- a political right to speak out without government interference or censure.

The real issue is broader and deeper, not restricted to political speech but encompassing the very nature of speech as inquiry, as conversation and even argument among adults, particularly in an institution of higher learning. 

It was a polite disagreement. Adams [the assistant dean presenting on the topic of "microaggresions"] generally maintained that microaggression theory was a broad and important topic and that the slights caused real harm. Bhattacharya expressed a scientific skepticism that a microaggression could be distinguished from an unintentionally rude statement. His doubts were wellfounded given that microaggression theory is not a particularly rigorous concept.

But Sara Rasmussen, an assistant professor who helped to organize the event, thought Bhattacharya's questions were a bit too pointed. Immediately following the panel, she filed a "professionalism concern card"—a kind of record of a student's violations of university policy.

Our society is becoming increasingly authoritarian veering into dictatorial while cleverly covering its tracks with the rhetoric of inclusivity. We need to be able to identify offenses against civilized interaction and discourse. 

It's not so much that Bhattacharya's skepticism was scientific per se. He simply wanted clarity; perhaps he wished to expose the confusion of the administration's policy and the power move behind it. This is the essence of communication. People ought to be free to question and challenge each other, especially in matters that affect their particular community.

We need to understand that the norm in history and in the world is not freedom, and what we have enjoyed in our society has to be fought for and not let slip away from inattentiveness or an inability to describe the situation. 

We have to use our own rhetoric, a rhetoric grounded in truth, and not accept the terms of the argument when they are set by those who seek to undermine communication. The administration of the UVA School of Medicine clearly indicates in this episode that it is not interested in having its policy of silencing members of its community challenged, and that is simply wrong.