newYou can listen to the Fox News article!
Editor’s note: The following column first appeared on the author’s blog. Res ipsa loquitur – The thing speaks for itself.
In Oregon, Ethics Rules From the Oregon Medical Association. The problem is using “microaggressions” to discipline physicians and then mandating that all physicians report such transgressions. It seems we have to lump snitches into one of the vaguest categories of prescribed speech before we can get stitched up.
I have been critical of the rules on microaggressions on college campuses, and in my book, published this week,An essential right: Free speech in an age of outrage.“In previous discussions of this type of offensive comment, I have argued that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.
This ambiguity creates a threat to free speech through its chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what constitutes a microaggression.Crucible“Phrases like”Stand up for yourself“They’ve been labelled racist. Some of them are Derald Wing Sue, Professor at Columbia University, Quote He was appointed by the Oregon state government as a “microaggression expert.”
Think about it: Bar association warns members it’s OK to criticize but stop calling Trump’s conviction “partisan”
The Hippocratic Oath is based on a promise that doctors make to “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, this promise does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon.
Professor Su considers statements such as “Anyone can succeed if they just try hard enough!” to be examples of microaggressions. Professor Su’s research on “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations” has been effectively adopted by the committee.
In particular, when I have challenged this category, proponents have argued that it is merely voluntary and educational, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used in a mandatory way by inducing professorial scrutiny, and will inevitably become mandatory.
That appears to be what’s happening in Oregon. Conservative site reported on the controversy.
The inclusion of microaggressions in the new ethics code is exactly what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists argue that language monitoring is purely directive and voluntary, and then codify the code into mandatory regulations.
under New Ethics Rules According to the Oregon Medical Association, “unprofessional conduct” – conduct that can lead to the revocation of a medical license – includes microaggressions.
“Discrimination through unfair treatment due to implicit or explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about non-majority groups, in the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture.”
The new section, “J,” places microaggressions in the same category as fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgery.
The Oregon Medical Board states:
“The proposed rule amendments update the definition of ‘unprofessional conduct’ to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry and acupuncture, making discrimination grounds for discipline. The proposed rule could have a positive impact on racial equity by making it grounds for discipline against OMB licensees. It is unclear how the other proposed rule amendments will affect racial equity in the state.”
The inclusion of microaggressions in the new ethics code is exactly what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists argue that language monitoring is purely directive and voluntary, and then codify the code into mandatory regulations.
Similar trends can be seen in other areas, such as land acknowledgements, where the line between optimal and mandatory is unclear. My Book:
“What were initially voluntary statements have become mandated, either explicitly or implicitly…George Brown College in Toronto requires both faculty and students to sign a land acknowledgment statement even to access the virtual classroom. Although such statements are supposed to be optional, they are often implemented as mandatory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add pre-written “Indigenous Land Acknowledgement” statements to their syllabi. The recommended statement reads, “The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish Peoples of this land which borders the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot Tribes and Bands’ shared waters.”
Computer science professor Stuart Legges decided to write the statement himself. He declared: “I acknowledge that the labor property theory precludes the Coast Salish from claiming historical title to most of the lands currently occupied by the University of Washington.” … The university informed him that statements were voluntary, but that his statement was unacceptable because it called into question the indigenous land title rights of the Coast Salish people. Legges’s dissenting opinion was removed, and the university emailed his students, apologizing for the professor’s “offensive” opinions and advising them of “three ways students can file complaints against him.”
Federal courts Ruling in favor of academics The movement has spread beyond campuses, but it can be seen at Oregon State in the debate over microaggression rules.
Click here to read more FOX News Opinion
I don’t object to other people sharing their opinions about how certain phrases are perceived. I excluded words or phrases even if I didn’t understand why they were offensive. It’s enough that other people find certain words offensive, and I don’t want to cause them any offense. But this category of speech was created to encompass a broad, ill-defined range of speech that doesn’t fall under overtly discriminatory or harassing language. This makes the standard for mandatory reporting rules dangerously vague.
A concern with regard to free speech is how such microaggressions can be used to suppress or punish speech, including to support complaints that call for formal investigations. Disciplinary action often appears to be based on how the words were received, not on their intent. Schools need to clarify whether microaggressions can be the basis for bias-based complaints or actions.
Consider again the Oregon Medical Board’s language: it would encompass any “indirect or subtle behavior that reflects negative attitudes or beliefs about non-majority groups,” a standard that is highly subjective (notably, it does not include making such comments about majority groups, such as whites or men).
The committee later strengthened the standard by requiring other physicians to report their colleagues.
“A licensee must report to the commission within 10 business days any information that appears to indicate that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent, has or may be committing unprofessional or disreputable conduct, or is or may be physically incompetent.”
Doctors must therefore police any “indirect or subtle behaviour” that “reflects negative attitudes or beliefs” or face disciplinary action themselves.
Click here to get the FOX News app
The Hippocratic Oath is based on a promise that physicians “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, this pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than simply airing their opinions on phrases or practices that may be considered microaggressions, the Oregon Medical Association is attempting to impose vague speech restrictions that some physicians may see as turning themselves into social warrior snitches.
Oregon Medical Board Should Remove Microaggression Provisions Sometimes the least invasive treatment is the best treatment.
To read more articles by Jonathan Turley click here
