Leftist liberal progressive feminist professors teaching in government sanctioned higher- learning indoctrination centers, aka college or university, have too much time on their hands. While these individuals are supposed to be helping young adults to prepare for the real world, they are busy indoctrinating and conducting research to find more ways to turn our children into “special snowflakes triggered by everything” instead of educated adults with problem-solving and critical thinking skills needed to traverse the working adult environment.
The Daily Caller reported:
Two professors claim to have discovered a new form of politically incorrect offense called “invisibility microaggressions,” which are said to be even more subtle than regular microaggressions. Their proposed solution for these offenses is to get rid of meritocracy.
In social justice jargon, a “microaggression” is when someone — say a white person — asks an Asian person where they’re from. While the question isn’t offensive in and of itself, the act of asking a person who may get the same question repeatedly throughout the week can be annoying and therefore offensive.
The two female professors, Jasmine Mena – Bucknell University psychology professor and Annemarie Vaccaro – professor of Higher Education at the University of Rhode Island, conducted a study whereby 13 non-white women were interviewed at predominately-white institutions in which they claim to have found five different forms of “invisibility microaggression.”
These “researchers” claimed “they are the first academics to discover that ‘invisibility’ is a form of microaggressions not previously described in feminist academia.”
Campus Reform, the first publication to inform the public about the study, indicated:
“There is a growing body of literature that suggests invisibility is a common form of exclusion—or microaggression,” Mena and Vaccaro suggest. “However, no studies have focused deeply on the ways women faculty and staff experience invisibility microaggressions on college campuses”
To remedy a lack of research on the topic, Vaccaro and Mena interviewed 13 women of color working at “predominantly white institutions,” the majority of whom were heterosexual and middle-aged. From their research, they discovered that there are five types of “invisibility microaggressions,” three of which are “environmental,” while two are “interpersonal.”
According to their study, which was published in the NASPA Journal About Women In Higher Education, the three environmental microaggressions that women of color face relate to their “invisibility” on campus, in disciplinary/professional settings, and in their local communities, because they are “among the few, or only” people of color in each context.
Interpersonal invisibility microaggressions, on the other hand, involve what they call “professional and leadership invisibility,” both of which hinder women of color in their “everyday work roles.”
These “scholars of stupidity” or “instructors in idiocy” needed to scratch their own feelings of “invisibility” so they had to invent some new politically incorrect feminist academic condition.
Basically, their “study” aimed to fight another “microaggression”– meritocracy.
In an earlier article, Campus Reform stated Rowan University created a guide on “Interrupting Microaggressions” where meritocracy – the idea that anyone can succeed in the US by working hard enough – is classified as a microaggression.
At this point, what is not considered a “microaggression” or “macroaggression” by “scholars of stupidity” or “instructors in idiocy?”
Moreover, how does one go about determining “invisibility microaggression?”
These snowflake professors have an answer for that as Campus Reform reported.
Unlike more traditional forms of microaggressions, such as microassaults and macroaggressions, no second-party is needed for an “invisibility microaggression” to occur. Instead, merely a lack of other racial minorities in a specific environment (such as a faculty meeting or in a cafeteria) can be a microaggression under this theory, according to Mena and Vaccaro.
Meanwhile, the second most common “invisibility microaggression” is “professional invisibility,” which refers to a lack of people of color in a faculty member’s respective academic field, and, as is the case with “campus invisibility,” no actual insult needs to occur for a “professional invisibility” microaggression to occur.
Vaccaro and Mena claimed the microaggressions “‘perpetuate an oppressive cycle’ for faculty of color,” concluding that colleges can make faculty of color feel less “invisible” by “singling them out for positive attention.”
Here are grown adults who are claiming that individuals of color lack sufficient self-esteem to function in any environment unless showered with praise for the slightest thing like cutting their toenails.
First, they ask college administrators to publicize and “celebrate the accomplishments of women of color on campus” through “alumni magazines, campus newsletters, and the university website.”
Additionally, they suggest deliberately choosing women of color for high-profile awards, saying that “Both campuses and disciplinary/professional associations should be purposeful in nominating and selecting diverse winners for awards, thereby making sure women of color are celebrated.”
They also “recommend multicultural competency training for university employees, especially those in leadership positions,” declaring that “campus leaders must be especially vigilant in considering and recommending Women of Color for leadership roles.”
Moreover, they want universities to create “formal mentoring programs” to provide both role models and support to women of color, adding that such organizations “must receive institutional support in the form of dedicated space and budget as well as personnel to assist with technology, publicity, and recordkeeping.”
In other words, faculty of color should be rewarded, not on their merits, but on the assumption that these women are incapable of competing equally with other races and need recognition just for being a woman of color to eradicate a “feeling of invisibility.”
And leftist liberal progressive wing nuts have the audacity to call conservative, constitutionalist, Christian patriots racist, misogynists, and oppressors.
Moreover, any study needs to have more participants than thirteen to provide a solid base on which to validate or invalidate a hypothesis.
What happened to being judged by the content of one’s character, which include one’s merits, and not the color of one’s skin?
“A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan” – Martin Luther King, Jr.
He also said, “Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.”
While these two female professors contend they are heightening awareness of a societal problem experienced by women of color, they are actually taking the role of enabler by fostering perceptions of individuals that may not be true.
They are placing the feelings these individuals possess on their surroundings instead of the individual.
Feelings of being invisible occur at one time or another in all individuals for various reasons; it is not limited to those of color.
To be recognized for accomplishments, one needs to accomplish something exceptional.
One does not get recognition based solely on participation.
Unfortunately, the times we live in today are filled with individuals inventing ways to silence reason, create a society offended by the slightest of slights, and produce soft-minded individuals operating in “sincere ignorance” and acting on “conscientious stupidity.”
It’s more appalling to know these types of people fill the university faculty positions that teach our children.
As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
What matters is the education of our children.
For, if they are not taught to think intensely and critically, gain intelligence instead of indoctrination, and develop a good moral spiritual character, our children will advocate, not for freedom; but, advocate oppression, injustice, and divisiveness because they know no other way.