Universities in the UK, including institutions such as Imperial College London, Glasgow University, and Newcastle University, have initiated controversial measures, creating online portals for students to report so-called “microaggressions.”
The system is seen by civil liberties and free speech groups as a threat to free speech. Numerous actions, involving the issue of instructional resources, training programs, and official statements categorizing the voicing of legitimate beliefs as “microaggressions,” are under heavy scrutiny.
Within these institutions, faculty members and students are receiving instruction labeling the assertion that “the most qualified person should get the job” as a form of microaggression, the Telegraph reports.
A minimum of five noted universities issued advice or conducted workshops aimed at the eradication of “microaggressions,” understood to be indirect or passive forms of discrimination.
Statements made by these universities were discerned as worrisome by the Committee for Academic Freedom (CAF), an assembly of academics concerned with the deterioration of freedom of speech within academic institutions.
Dr Edward Skidelsky, a philosophy lecturer at the University of Exeter, and crucially, the CAF director, expressed concerns regarding certain assertions. He stressed that categorizing the articulation of legal beliefs as “microaggressions” amounted to a pronounced encroachment on intellectual liberty.
Guidelines propagated by the University of Glasgow, and the engineering department at Imperial College London, deem the sentiment that “the most qualified person should get the job” to be a classic instance of a microaggression.
Newcastle University typifies microaggressions as, “the everyday slights, indignities, put downs and insults that people of colour, women, people from LGBTQIA+ communities or those who are marginalised, experience in their day-to-day interactions with people.”
What remains to be seen is how top-level administrators will document and apply these intricate “microaggressions” for disciplinary purposes, in real-time within the turbulent day-to-day functioning of the academic environment. What’s more alarming is that these institutions are encouraging students to lodge anonymous complaints about any members of the staff exhibiting these perceived transgressions.
The concept of microaggressions is inherently subjective and varies greatly based on individual perception. What one person views as a microaggression might be seen as a harmless comment by another. This subjectivity can lead to over-reporting or misreporting of incidents, potentially stifling open dialogue.
Additionally, such portals may encourage a culture of hyper-awareness and over-sensitivity, where students are more inclined to report minor offenses. This could lead to an atmosphere where individuals are afraid to speak freely or engage in debates for fear of being reported. In an academic environment, where the exchange of ideas, including controversial ones, is crucial, this could severely limit academic freedom and robust discussion.
Knowing that one’s words could be reported and scrutinized might lead individuals to self-censor to avoid the risk of being accused of microaggressions. This chilling of speech can undermine the principles of free speech, which include the right to express opinions that others might find offensive or disagreeable.
The mechanisms for handling reports of microaggressions may not always provide adequate due process to those accused. This lack of procedural fairness can have serious implications for individuals who might be wrongly accused or penalized without sufficient evidence.
