Solomon misunderstands discussion around microaggressions

On behalf of the participants and panelists at the Sexism Teach-In and members of the Feminist Alliance, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Josh Solomon's opinion piece "Microagression critique quells discourse" published in the 11.24.11 issue of The Miscellany News because many statements in his article were extremely troubling and deserve some clarification. Foremost, the Sexism Teach-In was not hosted by Feminist Alliance, but by an independent collaboration of students. The Feminist Alliance would also like to clarify that it does not only "represent one strand of feminist thought" as Solomon suggested, but is made up people with widely varied opinions of what feminism means, what issues feminist movements should be focused on, and how movements should address those issues. Additionally, in response to Solomon's implication that the use of the word "cissexism" in Feminist Alliance posters "limits their inclusivity," the Alliance stands by the belief that all forms of oppression should be acknowledged, especially if people are not aware of them.

Microaggressions were only one of the many problems identified in the discussion at the teach-in, which included the alarming rates of sexual assault, male-dominated classroom dynamics and student/professor relationships, and lack of transparency in the administration and admissions policies. In his article, Solomon took an example of a microaggression (the use of the word "crazy" and its potential microaggressive effects on a person who lives with a mental illness) out of the context of these issues that the teach-in addressed, making it seem like a trivial grievance.

Part of Solomon's confusion comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "microaggression." Microaggressions are "the subtle ways in which body and verbal language convey oppressive ideology about power or privilege against marginalized identities." This simply means that our actions and words (often unintentionally) reflect the power structures and privilege present in our society. Microaggressions are often normalized (for example, the word "retard" is very commonly used as an insult), but normalization doesn't make them any less hurtful or dehumanizing. Pointing out microaggressions is just one means of encouraging people to re-examine their own privilege and how their words and actions affect others.

Additionally, there was no expectation at the teach-in that people won't say things that happen to be offensive. In fact, the panelists were prompted to share a time that they said something that another person found offensive and how they handled that situation. The discussion around microaggressions is productive because it allows people to learn how their personal privilege manifests itself in subtle and often unintentional ways. Solomon's expectation that people who experience microaggressions should respond "in a more understanding way, especially in regards to intent" assumes that oppressed people have the responsibility to educate privileged people about the forces that oppress them, when in a just world it should be the responsibility of privileged people to examine themselves and the language they use. This issue was addressed multiple times during the discussion at the teach-in.

Solomon is effectively asking the participants and panelists of the teach-in about sexism at Vassar to stop examining so closely the way that people talk on campus so that people can feel freer to express themselves. He claims that discussion about microaggressions creates a campus climate in which people feel uncomfortable fully expressing themselves because they are afraid of being "politically incorrect." His suggestion that we as a marginalized group stop talking about microaggressions in order to encourage discourse basically means that our discourse is less important than the male discourse, which shouldn't have to examine itself because "excessive self-regulation…potentially limits campus-wide discussion about controversial topics."

Solomon expresses concern about the "lack of understanding of free speech on campus" but seems to misunderstand the difference between free speech and speech free from critique. He feels that the discussion of microaggressions is censoring the language that can be used on campus. Censorship is the suppression of ideas backed by institutional power; asking people to be mindful about the language they use in order to work toward eradicating oppression does not fall into that category. He spoke up in the conversation and had the attention of the entire room as he expressed his views about the possible negative effects of "excessive political correctness" on campus discourse. The panelists and participants responded and attempted to explain why they disagreed with his view. When Solomon received a response that he was not expecting and subsequently felt attacked, "punished" and "dismissed," he again made good use of his freedom of speech to write an article in the Miscellany, in which he again expressed discomfort with the emphasis on political correctness on the basis that it quells campus discourse around controversial topics.

As someone who has personally felt attacked, punished and dismissed for voicing my opinion about controversial topics in myriad male-dominated situations, I can sympathize with this feeling. In spite of constant forces that try to tell me to shut up, I, too, will wield my freedom of speech in response to this attack, punishment and dismissal of an event that I found extremely important and empowering.

An emphasis on political correctness does require people to examine the things that they say and how those words affect other people; it requires us to check our own privilege and encourage people to speak up about their experiences of discrimination so that we can try to build a better community in which no one feels silenced. I want people to call me out on words or thoughts of mine that work against that goal, because those are thoughts that I'm okay with silencing in myself in order to let everybody exercise their freedom of speech.

—Alexandra Deane '15 is a student at Vassar College.

The Miscellany News made changes to Solomon's article, referenced by this op-ed, specifically substituiting the work ‘sexism' for ‘cis-sexism.' The mistake is corrected online.