- [Shajira] There has always been a lot of research around microaggression in general. I want to share some further research on the impact of microaggression, because at the end of the day, this is what matters. The effect of microaggression has often been referred to as death by a thousand cuts because of the devastating and cumulative impact of these small slights. Research shows that the effect of this is coercive and creates an ongoing feeling of being regarded as a second class citizen, inferior, or even dangerous. Each microaggression on its own can seem minor or trivial. However, the cumulative effect is devastating, but invisible to those who do not attract them. Known effects of microaggression on those who receive them include loss of self-esteem and feeling exhaustion, or exhausted, damage to one's ability to thrive in an environment, mistrust of peers, staff, and the institution, decrease in participation and ability to study or work effectively. And the impact of microaggressions on individuals affects institutions by contributing to a hostile and invalidating campus or work climate, devaluing social group identities, lowering work productivity, and increasing absenteeism. Based on all that we just shared, you can see that there is a significant emotional impact to microaggressions. We spend a lot of emotional energy trying to determine the intentions of individuals who commit microaggressions against us. There is an emotional risk involved in engaging others in conversations about their behaviors and the impact of those behaviors, especially when such conversations lead to defensiveness. Choosing not to respond to microaggressions can cause us to feel guilty about not speaking up, to get stuck in a loop of thinking about what we could have, should have said, and to feel angry at ourselves for the lack of our actions. We sometimes make excuses for people who commit microaggressions by coming up with reasons to justify their behaviors, and later have a hard time dealing with the way those justifications ignored our own feelings and experiences. The psychological exhaustion of having to cope with these repeated encounters results in feelings of self-doubt, frustration, isolation, anxiety, anger and fatigue, and the pent-up nature of these feelings can take a physical toll on our bodies. Let's take a look at some specific examples of microaggressions, their impact, and the assumptions that drive them. Our first scenario has Chris, an employee with a disability, requesting accommodations from his employer in order to complete his work effectively. Although he has followed the employer's process, the request has been ignored and denied, so he hires a lawyer. A colleague said to him, "You're one of those people who goes around suing, right?" Based on the comment, the colleague is making certain assumptions, like thinking that people with disabilities are overly litigious and their primary goal is monetary gain. The impact of the comment on Chris is that he may begin to second guess his decision and wonder if any other colleagues are feeling the same way about him. The impact can have a negative impact on Chris's performance at work, which won't help him as he works through getting his appropriate needs met. In the second scenario, Leilani is an employee at a nonprofit, and was called an offensive term. She heard, "Hi, Leilani, we all worked so long together. I didn't know you were a crip." Leilani swiftly reported the incident to the Human Resources Department. The Human Resources Department reached out to the coworker and that coworker denied their malicious intent. Again, based on the coworker's comment and the reaction after being approached by HR, we can see that the colleague likely made these assumptions: People with disabilities are overly sensitive; it's okay to use offensive terms in cordial relationships or if joking; and people with disabilities are less important and members of a separate class. And then we have the last bullet: Leilani feels disrespected and embarrassed in front of her coworkers. As we stated in the last slide that there are negative impacts to people's performance once they're dealing with certain matters like this, especially in the working environment. Those scenarios gave us a sense of some of the assumptions that were made when people send microaggressions, and we also examined the impacts. Now, to be sure we have a good understanding of just what microaggressions are, let's take a look at some common microaggressions against people with disabilities. Arguing that providing accommodations doesn't prepare them to be successful on their own in the real world. Viewing accommodations as a burden or an inconvenience. Viewing accommodations as an unfair advantage. Being dismissive of a disability or its impact because it isn't visible. Assuming a person with a disability has limited potential. Here are a few more common microaggressions against people with disabilities. Assuming you can speak loud enough for everyone in the room to hear. Planning team building exercises that depend on physical abilities. Scheduling courses or meeting in inaccessible locations. Sharing documents that are not accessible. Presenting slides and not sharing everything that's on the slides. As we stated at the beginning of our session, many marginalized communities experience microaggressions at higher rates. Common microaggressions against people who identify as LGBTQIA+ include: Assumption of heterosexuality. This happens when people assume someone has a partner of this opposite sex, like a man having a wife and a woman having a husband. Assumption of universal LGBTQIA+ experiences. Assuming that everyone in this community experiences the same thing. Asking intrusive personal questions. Continuously misnaming or misgendering someone. Viewing inclusion as an inconvenience or a burden, for example, like stating that trying to adjust your language is an inconvenience or it's just too hard, or stating that someone does not look or act like they're a part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Let's look at both verbal and nonverbal microaggressions against women. Interrupting or talking over women; restating the same points made by women previously; dismissing women's complaints as overly emotional reactions; using sexist language and/or sexist jokes; environmental invalidation, like wage gaps, glass ceilings, et cetera; or telling a woman that she should smile more. And now we will share common microaggressions against the BIPOC community. BIPOC stands for Black, Indigenous, and People Of Color. Asking a person of color to share their perspective on a race related issue, which at times can be problematic because it puts the person on the spot and assumes they speak for all people of that race; praising people of color for being articulate; making comments about not seeing race or living in a post-racial society; repeatedly mispronouncing their names; calling one person of color by the name of another person of color; or speaking more slowly to persons of color. Here are some additional common microaggressions against the BIPOC community. Correcting the pronunciation of people of color; asking people of color where they are from; assuming Hispanic or Latinx people of color are Mexican; assuming Asian American people of color are Chinese; complaining to others about the accents of people of color; questioning a person of color's experience with racism or racial gaslighting. In that last bullet, we referred to the phenomenon called racial gaslighting, another form of microaggression. The term gaslighting, as you might already know, refers to a particular type of emotional abuse where someone is made to question the validity of their experiences, feelings, and belief. Racial gaslighting adds the nuance of race to gaslighting, that is, questioning the validity of a person of color's experience as a person of color. The spectrum of racial gaslighting can range from direct statements, like, "Not everything has to be about race," to subtler comments like, "Are you sure that's what really happened?" Many organizations around the world are on a journey to create a more diverse, inclusive, and equitable work environment. We want to also point out some common microaggressions that take place in the workplace. This list reflects microaggressions that can happen during the hiring process. Many organizations state that they want to recruit a diverse pool of applicants. Sometimes in job postings, they include statements like, "The candidate must be qualified." This statement assumes that when looking for diverse candidates you have a greater chance of not being qualified, and could turn people away from applying. Commenting that a person of color is articulate. We already talked about this in a microaggressions slide earlier, and it happens often in the hiring process. Another is questioning whether a candidate of color would be a good fit. This is a very nebulous statement. What exactly does a good fit mean? Most people can't define that. The message that is being sent is that a person is not like we are or what we are used to working with. So aiming for a diverse workforce and then questioning the fit of a candidate of color is a definite microaggression. Additional common microaggressions within and during the hiring process can include: Questioning whether a woman might be planning to have children in the near future; questioning the credibility of more affordable state colleges or HBCUs. Questioning the credibility of the college that a candidate of color attends is another form of microaggression. Along with that is questioning the professionalism of someone based on how long they have worked in the professional field. This comes from stereotypes and is manifesting as a microaggression. Each of these common microaggressions can be quite harmful to someone's career or work life.