When 'politically correct' is no longer P.C.

In the debate about "political correctness" and freedom of speech in academia, a little-known term has gained mainstream visibility: microaggressions.

Coined in the 1970s, it refers to small, often unintentional day-to-day slights based on race, ethnicity, gender and other characteristics -- indignities that social justice champions on college campuses, and beyond, are seeking to eradicate. At first glance, it seems like a laudable goal. Take a closer look, and it's a quixotic quest damaging to freedom and human relations.

To be sure, some examples of microaggressions given in articles on the subject and in diversity guidelines involve deplorably rude and demeaning behavior. Thus, in a 2013 BuzzFeed feature in which Fordham University students describe racially based insults they experienced, an Asian-American woman recalls being "jokingly" told a classmate didn't want to sit next to her because she "smells like rice," while a black woman says she was complimented on being "pretty for a dark-skinned girl." A guide for recognizing microaggressions used on college campuses lists such comments as, "You're a girl, you don't need to be good at math."

Other examples seem to be less about prejudice than colossal ignorance; for instance, one Japanese-American Fordham student recalls being asked, "So what do you guys speak in Japan? Asian?"

But far too often, microaggressions involve minor misunderstandings, utterly innocuous references to race, ethnicity or gender, or a failure to meet an ever-shifting standard of racial or cultural sensitivity. Thus, a Hispanic Fordham student complains that when he was speaking at a campus forum on racism, the emcee introducing him gave his last name as "Garcia" instead of "Gonzalez" -- which he interprets as an assumption that all Latinos have the last name Garcia. Several minority students see the phrase "What are you?" in reference to background as dehumanizing.

The academic microaggressions chart includes questions like "Where are you from?" or "Where were you born?," which supposedly send the message that "You're not a true American," as well as statements like "I believe the most qualified person should get the job." Another no-no is encouraging a quiet Asian, Latino, or American Indian student to "speak up more"; apparently, that's tantamount to telling them to "assimilate to dominant culture." Of course, not inviting Asian, Latino or American Indian students to speak on the assumption that their culture encourages shyness could be seen as a microaggression, too.

This obsession often creates no-win situations. Recognizing race, ethnicity or gender is racist or sexist; suggesting that race, ethnicity or gender are irrelevant is insensitive. Heads you're guilty of ignoring minorities' perspectives; tails you're guilty of making people of color feel like representatives for their group.

Treating people with respect is a fundamental value, on or off campus -- though we should also accept that sometimes faux pas will happen. But the crusade to police microaggressions not only chills expression by targeting "incorrect" ideas about affirmative action or cultural assimilation; it also encourages a toxic environment of hypersensitivity to perceived slights.

Last month, a diversity campaign at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee included the injunction that the phrase "politically correct" is a microaggression because it implies that "people are being too 'sensitive' and police language." Perhaps that's a sign the crusade against microaggressions has jumped the shark. Then again, that phrase is probably a microaggression toward disabled people, marine mammals and shark-attack survivors.

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and Real Clear Politics.