NewYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Editor’s note: The following column first appeared on the author’s blog, Res ipsa loquitur – the thing speaks for itself,
There is controversy over the proposed change in Oregon. Ethics rules From the Oregon Medical Board. The point is to use “microaggressions” to discipline doctors and make it mandatory for all doctors to report such violations. It seems that before you get stitches, you have to join the whistleblowers under one of the most vague categories of prescribed speech.
I have been critical of microaggression rules on college campuses and discuss the trend in my book, published this week, “Inalienable Rights: Free Speech in an Age of Anger.“In past debates on this category of offensive speech I have objected that it is too vague and too controversial.
This ambiguity threatens free expression by creating fear in speakers, as they are unsure of what will be considered a microaggression.melting pot“For phrases like “pull yourself up” have been declared racist. Some of them are identified as Columbia Professor Derald Wing Sue, Cited Appointed by the Oregon state government as a “microaggression specialist.”
The Hippocratic Oath is based on the pledge that doctors will ‘first do no harm.’ Unfortunately, this pledge does not apply to freedom of speech in Oregon.
Professor Sue considers statements such as “Everyone can be successful if they just work hard enough!” to be examples of microaggressions. Sue’s work on “microassault”, “microinsult” and “microinvalidation” is being effectively adopted across the board.
Notably, when I objected to this category, advocates insisted that they are only voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that introducing tests of professors would be used to limit their use and would inevitably make them mandatory.
This appears to be happening in Oregon. Orthodox sites has covered this controversy.
Including microaggressions under new ethics rules is exactly what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is entirely prescriptive and optional, only to then codify those rules as mandatory.
Below New moral rule According to the Oregon Medical Board, “unprofessional conduct” (which could cause a doctor to lose their license) would include microaggressions such as:
“In the practice of medicine, podiatry or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.”
The new section “J” covers microaggressions such as fraud, sexual harassment, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgery.
The Oregon Medical Board states that:
“The proposed rule amendments update the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination a basis for discipline. The proposed rule may favorably affect racial equity for OMB licensees by making discrimination a basis for discipline. It is not known how the other proposed rule amendments would affect racial equity in the State.”
Including microaggressions under new ethics rules is exactly what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is entirely prescriptive and optional, only to then codify those rules as mandatory.
We have seen a similar situation in other areas, such as land acquisition, where the line between what is optimal and what is essential is hard to distinguish. As discussed in the my book,
“What began as voluntary statements have become either explicitly or implicitly mandatory…Faculty and students are required to agree on a land acknowledgement statement even to gain access to virtual classes at George Brown College in Toronto. While such statements are portrayed as optional, they are often enforced as mandatory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add a pre-written ‘Indigenous Land Acknowledgement’ statement to their syllabi. The recommended statement states that ‘The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish people of this land, land that touches the shared waters of all tribes and groups within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot Nations.’”
Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He declared…’I accept that according to the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people cannot claim historical ownership of almost any of the lands currently occupied by the University of Washington.’ … He was told that, while the university’s statement is optional, his statement was unacceptable because it questioned the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Reges’s dissenting statement was removed, and the university emailed its students apologizing for their professor’s ‘offensive’ opinions and advising them of ‘three ways students can file a complaint against him.’
The federal courts Ruling in favour of academics There is ongoing controversy over microaggression rules, but the movement is also spreading beyond campuses, as seen in Oregon.
For more Fox News opinion, click here
I have no objection to others sharing their views on how certain phrases are taken. I have removed certain words or phrases even when I did not know why a word or phrase was offensive. It was enough that others find some language offensive and I did not want to make them feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, this category of speech was created to include a broad, poorly defined range of speech that falls below outright discriminatory or harassing language. This creates a dangerously vague standard for the mandatory reporting rule.
The free speech concern is how such microaggressive words can be used to curtail or punish speech, including supporting complaints for formal investigation. Disciplinary action is often based on how the language is received, not on intent. Schools need to be clear about whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.
Consider the Oregon Medical Board’s language again. This would include any “indirect or subtle behavior that implies a negative attitude or belief about a non-majority group.” This standard is very fraught with subjectivity. (In particular, it does not include making such comments about any majority group, presumably white or men).
The board then raised the bar even further by requiring other doctors to report colleagues. Under the proposed rule,
“The licensee must, within 10 business days, report to the board any information that indicates that the licensee is or may become medically incapacitated or that he is or may be guilty of unprofessional or disgraceful conduct or that he is or may become a physically incapacitated licensee.”
Therefore, doctors must be on the lookout for any “indirect or subtle behavior” that “reflects negative attitudes or beliefs”… or they could face discipline themselves.
Click here to get the Fox News app
The Hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, this pledge does not apply to free speech in Oregon. Instead of simply publishing opinions on phrases or practices that could be seen as microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is about to impose a vague speech regulation that is potentially seen by some doctors as turning them into social-warrior whistleblowers.
The Oregon Medical Board should remove the micro-aggression provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.
