Micro-aggression uproar at PHSG: Critical Race Theory challenged

In response to a racial controversy at Pretoria High School for Girls, the Gauteng Department of Education suspended twelve students for allegedly making racially charged statements. Though exonerated by the school’s disciplinary process, the GDE initiated an independent investigation into a possible culture of racism at the school. This incident highlights concerns over the endorsement of “micro-aggressions” and the influence of Critical Race Theory, which critics argue fosters unnecessary conflict and victimhood. This article was first published by PolticsWeb.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

By Willem Gravett

In the most recent racial uproar at a prestigious school, the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) temporarily suspended twelve students from Pretoria High School for Girls for statements made in a WhatsApp group that allegedly contained “racially driven connotations” and “micro-aggressions.”

The students were exonerated after a disciplinary process conducted by the school’s governing body. Apparently dissatisfied with the outcome, the GDE decided to launch an independent investigation to determine if there was a “culture of racism” at the school.

The GDE’s handling of the incident leaves much to be desired in several respects. However, I want to focus here on the department’s endorsement of the concept of “micro-aggression,” which is indicative of the department’s adherence to the destructive and paranoid ideology of Critical Race Theory (CRT), a toxic form of “wokeness.”

In the United States, where CRT was born, the woke brigade uses concepts like “safe spaces,” “trigger warnings,” and “micro-aggressions” to relentlessly play the race card against their fellow students and lecturers, leading to an atmosphere of self-censorship.

The term “micro-aggression” was coined in 1970 by the psychiatrist Chester Pierce of Harvard University to describe seemingly small but harmful slights and humiliations experienced by black Americans.

However, it was only in 2007 that the concept began to penetrate the academic mainstream. In an influential article, counselling psychologist Derald Wing Sue defined “micro-aggressions” as “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioural, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of colour.”

There can be no doubt that despite impressive social progress, racial and cultural insensitivity remains a reality in society, and prejudice sometimes manifests in subtle and indirect ways. But to elevate subtle insensitivity to the offense of a “micro-aggression,” which can be punished disciplinarily, is deeply problematic.

Firstly, the concept of “micro-aggression” is not supported by any empirical social-scientific research. In 2017, the psychologist Scott Lilienfeld, in a macro review of all available scientific literature, found that “micro-aggression” is not a psychologically meaningful construct and is too conceptually and methodologically underdeveloped to justify its inclusion in school policies. The research further provides no support for the claim that “micro-aggressions” are linked to either prejudice or aggression in the so-called “offender”; nor is there any scientific evidence that “micro-aggressions” have an adverse effect on the mental health of the so-called “victim.”

Many of the “micro-aggressions” banned on American university campuses do not necessarily indicate that the speaker feels hostile or maintains negative stereotypes against any group. These “micro-aggressions” include, for example, a white person asking a person of colour to teach her words in the person of colour’s “mother tongue,” or asking a person of colour, “Where are you from?” The listener can choose to interpret the statement or question in a way that makes her feel insulted or marginalised.

The Marxist and CRT underpinnings of the concept of “micro-aggression” are evident in the fact that any statement promoting the so-called “myth of meritocracy” constitutes a “micro-aggression.” For example, “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” or “anyone can succeed if they work hard.” Despite the preamble to the Constitution, “colourblindness” is apparently also a micro-aggression. By saying, “When I look at you, I don’t see colour” or “there is only one race, the human race,” the speaker, according to critical race theorists, denies the individual as a racial and cultural being.

Secondly, the term “micro-aggression” implies that the disputed statement is aggressive in nature, which can often lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary conflict. In most crimes of aggression, such as murder and assault, the intent of the offender is crucial. “Aggression” can never be unintended or accidental.

If I accidentally bump into someone and never intended to harm them, it is not an act of aggression, although the other person may mistakenly interpret it as such. Most people understand concepts related to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of prejudice in this way – they focus on intent. But according to Sue, “micro-aggressions” are usually committed unconsciously.

Thirdly, by defining “micro-aggressions” entirely in terms of the “victim’s” interpretation, Sue encourages people to reason emotionally – to start with their feelings and then justify those feelings by concluding that someone committed an act of aggression against them: “I feel that something was racist, and my feelings are the proof of that racism. Therefore, the statement was racist.”

The insistence that effect rather than intent is central to the concept of “micro-aggression” is because it emphasises the “lived experience” of “marginalised persons.” The “victim,” not their “aggressor,” determines what qualifies as a “micro-aggression.” Furthermore, the severity of the alleged harm is determined solely by the “victims,” regardless of how exaggerated their reaction may seem to others. The validity of their reaction is not open for discussion since even questioning what is valid is seen as a “product of white supremacy” and “hegemonic oppression.”

Fourthly, Lilienfeld also points out that “micro-aggression,” like most other psychological constructs (e.g., intelligence, extroversion, and schizophrenia), is an “open” concept. The risk inherent in elevating such an open concept to an offense lies in the fact that it is so imprecisely defined and porous that it is not clear where it begins or ends. It cannot be identified by comparison to an objective standard of acceptable speech or behaviour but only by the subjective impact on the “victim.”

Indeed, the boundaries of the “micro-aggression” concept sometimes seem so unclear that it easily becomes susceptible to abuse. “Micro-aggressions” can be almost anything since almost anything can be claimed to communicate insults and offense. “Micro-aggression” therefore cannot be an enforceable legal concept precisely because it does not refer to any clearly defined behaviour. It violates the fundamental legal principle of nullum crimen sine lege, which means there can be no offense without a law defining it.

Lastly, a so-called “micro-aggression” is exactly that: micro. The principle of de minimis non curat lex means that the law does not concern itself with trifles. Even proponents of “micro-aggressions” readily admit that they are mostly so subjective and subtle that it is difficult or even impossible to determine whether they actually occurred. Part of growing up is learning how to distinguish between a real problem and a trivial one.

South Africa is a heterogeneous society, and with all this diversity, there is daily potential for hundreds of misunderstandings on school grounds and campuses. The opportunity to take offense is almost unlimited. How should we prepare our children to communicate with each other in the most productive way?

If children learn that intent does not matter and we also encourage them to take more offense, and we tell them that the people who say or do these things that offend them are “aggressors,” then we are likely to instil feelings of victimhood, anger, and hopelessness in our children. They will begin to see the world – and even their school or university – as a hostile place where things will never get better.

In my opinion, it is unwise to teach children to see more aggression in ambiguous interactions, to take more offense, and to feel more negative emotions. If someone wanted to create an environment of constant anger and intergroup conflict, implementing woke concepts like “micro-aggressions” would be an effective way to achieve that. Teaching children to always make the most malicious inferences from others’ statements or behaviour is likely to stir exactly those feelings of marginalisation and oppression that everyone – except, of course, the woke brigade – wants to counteract.

Read also:

*Willem Gravett is a lecturer in law at Akademia.

This article was first published by PolticsWeb and is republished with permission

Micro-aggression uproar at PHSG: Critical Race Theory ideology challenged

Cyril Ramaphosa: The Audio Biography