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 itself speaks.
There is controversy in Oregon over a proposed change to the ethical rule of the Oregon Medical Board. The problem is the use of “microaggressions” to discipline doctors and make reporting of these transgressions mandatory for all doctors. It seems that before you can give stitches, you have to join the snitches in one of the more ambiguous categories of prescribed speech.
I have criticized microaggression rules on college campuses and address this trend in my book released this week: “The Indispensable Right: Freedom of Expression in the Age of Rage.“In previous debates about this category of offensive speech, I have objected that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.
This ambiguity creates a threat to free speech by having a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered microaggressive. Terms ranging from “crucible“to expressions like”get up on your own” were declared racist. Some of them were identified by Derald Wing Sue, Columbia Professor, quoted by the Oregon State Government as a “Microaggressions Expert.”
The Hippocratic Oath is based on the pledge that doctors “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, this commitment does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon.
Professor Sue considers statements such as “Anyone can succeed if they work hard enough!” » as an example of microaggression. Sue’s work on “microaggressions,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations” is effectively adopted by the Council.
Notably, when I objected to this category, its proponents insisted that it was merely voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used compulsorily in triggering investigations of professors and that they would inevitably become mandatory.
This appears to be happening in Oregon. A few conservative sites covered the controversy.
Incorporating microaggressions into new ethics rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language testing is purely educational and optional before codifying these rules into mandatory terms.
Under the new ethics rule According to the Oregon Medical Board, “unprofessional conduct” (for which a doctor can lose their license) will include microaggressions:
“In the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment through implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about the “with regard to a non-majority group.”
The new Section “J” classifies microaggressions along with fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgical procedures.
The Oregon Medical Board states that:
“The proposed rule changes update the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination grounds for discipline. The proposed rule could have a positive impact on racial equity by making discrimination a basis for discipline. discipline for OMB licensees. It is unclear what impact the other proposed rule changes will have on racial equity in the state.
Incorporating microaggressions into new ethics rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language testing is purely educational and optional before codifying these rules into mandatory terms.
We have observed the same trajectory in other areas, such as land reconnaissance, where the line between optimal and obligatory is difficult to discern. As discussed in my book:
“What began as voluntary declarations have become expressly or implicitly mandatory…George Brown College in Toronto requires faculty and students to agree to a land acknowledgment declaration to even gain access to virtual classrooms. Although such statements are described as optional, they are often The University of Washington has encouraged professors to add a pre-written “Indigenous Land Acknowledgment” statement to their curricula. The recommended statement states that “The University of Washington recognizes the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land that touches the shared waters.” of all tribes and bands of the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot Nations.
Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He stated… “I recognize that, under the theory of labor ownership, 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, although the university’s statement was optional, its statement was unacceptable because it called into question the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Reges’ dissenting statement was removed and the university emailed its students apologizing for their professor’s “offensive” opinion and advising them on “three ways students could file complaints against it.” him.
Federal courts have spoke out in favor of academics in conflicts over microaggression rules, but the movement extends beyond campuses, as Oregon shows.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS REVIEWS
I have no objection to sharing others’ opinions on how certain phrases are received. I removed certain terms or expressions even if I did not see why a term or expression is insulting. It was enough for others to find certain comments insulting and I don’t want to make them uncomfortable. Yet this category of speech was created to encompass a broad and ill-defined range of speech that is not purely discriminatory or harassing language. This results in a dangerously vague standard for a mandatory reporting rule.
The free speech issue is how these micro-aggressive terms can be used to restrict or punish free speech, including supporting complaints in formal investigations. Disciplinary actions often seem based on how language is received rather than how it is intended. Schools should clearly clarify whether microaggressive language may be the cause of bias-related complaints and actions.
Consider again the language of the Oregon Medical Board. This would encompass any “indirect or subtle behavior that reflects negative attitudes or beliefs toward a non-majority group.” The standard is heavily loaded with subjectivity. (Notably, this does not include making such comments about a majority group, presumably whites or men).
The board then amplifies the standard by requiring other doctors to report their colleagues. According to the proposed rule,
“A licensee shall report within 10 business days to the Commission any information which appears to demonstrate that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent or is or may be guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or is or may be a license holder with a physical disability.”
Thus, doctors will have to control any “indirect or subtle behavior” that “reflects negative attitudes or beliefs”… or face disciplinary measures themselves.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The Hippocratic Oath is based on the pledge that doctors “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, this commitment does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than simply publishing opinions on phrases or practices that may be considered microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is poised to impose ambiguous regulation of speech that is likely seen by some doctors as transforming them into social warrior snitches.
The Oregon Medical Board should remove the microaggressive provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.
