–( ELEVEN )–

Mind Your Words

We vividly remember the words that hurt, that cut at our very sense of self-worth long after they have been spoken. When I worked in the corporate world in the 1970s, I wore my hair in a short Afro style. One day, a colleague came into my office unannounced and uninvited and very directly asked: “Will your hair grow?” I answered in the affirmative and his response was “You ought to let it.” I was flabbergasted that he had the audacity to say something so insulting to me. I was so self-conscious after that encounter that I thought about buying a wig or straightening my hair. It impacted my ability to concentrate on my work, and I certainly did not feel included. Even though this happened in the late 1970s, women of color still receive messages today, whether direct or indirect, that natural hair is not appropriate for the workplace. It erodes our self-concept and well-being. These messages take all that we have to muster up resilience and grace and forgiveness.

Microaggressions

My experience is an example of a microaggression—brief, sometimes subtle, everyday comments that either consciously or unconsciously disparage others based on their personal characteristics or perceived group membership.¹ Microaggressions exclude, demean, and create inequitable work, school, and broader societal environments. The term “microaggression” was first coined in 1978 by scholar Chester M. Pierce to describe a phenomenon of subtle negative exchanges directed toward African Americans.² There is also a related term, “microinequities,” which is often used interchangeably with microaggressions. I prefer the term “microaggressions” for its specificity in categorizing difference and sometimes the intentional slights.

The concept of microaffirmations, advanced by Mary Rowe when she was MIT ombudsman, is the antidote to microinequities and microaggressions. These are small but meaningful positive comments that create a sense of belonging and value. Even the seemingly innocuous comments like “nice job” or “I really value your input” or “I appreciated your role in making the project a success” can make a tremendous difference for employees. Likewise, microaffirmations for children can positively impact their academic performance as pointed out in Chapter 9. Things like pronouncing a student’s name correctly, giving praise for improvements and correct answers make a real difference.

Scholars have proposed three categories of microaggressions that can occur in everyday interactions: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. The category for a particular microaggression usually depends on the intent as well as the impact the language has on those who hear it. Microaggressions might be related to race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, religion, or other aspects of one’s social identity. Most often microaggressions are verbal slights in words that are spoken, although they may also be nonverbal.³ The list below provides examples of the three different types of microaggressions and how they might play out in everyday encounters.

Microassaults

These are conscious, deliberate, and either subtle or explicit biased attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors that are communicated to marginalized groups through verbalizations or behaviors. Examples include:

   “You women are too emotional to negotiate with our top suppliers.”

   “Black parents don’t care about their children’s education.”

   “You are going to need to lose that accent if you want to move up here. People can’t understand you.”

   “Those poor people just aren’t smart enough to pull themselves out of poverty.”

   Said to a person in a wheelchair: “I know it will be hard for you to keep up at our retreat because we will be doing a lot of physical activity.”

   Banning certain hairstyles like locks.

   Said to a Black person (recall stereotypes about Black people and fried chicken): “I ordered fried chicken for lunch because I thought you would enjoy it.”

   “White people have made more contributions to society than any other group.”

   Jokes aimed at a particular identity group in the name of innocent “fun.”

Microinsults

These are interpersonal communications that convey stereotypes, rudeness, and insensitivity that demean a person’s identity. Unlike microassaults, microinsults are often committed unconsciously and may seem more subtle. Examples include:

   Said to someone who does not look white or who speaks with another accent: “Where are you from?” Answer: “The United States.” “No, really, where are you from?”

   Cultural misappropriation. This is behaving or acting in ways that represent a culture you are not a part of and interpreted as demeaning by that culture such as white, non-Sikh models wearing turbans. For Sikhs, turbans are not fashion objects; rather, they are highly significant to their religion.

   Said to a woman of color with natural hair: “Can I touch your hair?”

   “You gays are so creative—such an asset to the team.”

   Said to a Black person, as if it is unusual: “You are so articulate.”

   Constant mispronunciation of names.

   “You Asians are so good at math.”

   “I don’t see your color.”

   “You people” (referring to a historically marginalized group, which has a derogatory, polarizing tone).

   Said to a Muslim woman with a hijab or a Sikh with a turban: “We don’t allow any employee to wear a ‘hat.’”

Microinvalidations

These are communication cues that exclude, negate, or nullify the thoughts, feelings, or experiential realities of certain groups. Examples include:

   Gaslighting. This refers to psychological manipulation toward a historically marginalized group to make the receiver feel that the situation is their fault. “Women put themselves in a position for sexual harassment. They are just as responsible.”

   “Why do you people always call the race card?”

   “It is no big deal. Why are you so sensitive?” (It is obviously a big deal for the person. Listen and practice empathy.)

   “Don’t say, Black lives matter. All lives matter.”

   Ignoring a woman’s input in a meeting and praising a man for the same idea.

   Mansplaining. This occurs when a cisgender man condescendingly explains something to a woman in a manner that suggests she can’t possibly know what he’s talking about or what she is talking about, even though she has expertise on the topic. He is the real authority (exhibiting dominant group power and privileged behavior—i.e., men know best).

   Whitesplaining. When someone from a dominant group explains to audiences of color the true nature of racism. Said by a white person: “In general, racism is a thing of the past. I don’t think it is an issue at our organization.”

   Tone policing. “If you did not say it so expressively (e.g., angrily, loudly, passionately), I might have been able to hear it.”

   Not including certain people in meeting invites.

   Speaking in binaries, using “either/or” or “but” (negative) language rather than “both/and” (additive) language.

   Distancing language. This refers to statements that people may use when trying to assure others that they are on the “right side” of the issues. Examples are: “Some of my friends are Black,” or “I don’t see why this is so hard,” or a white person saying, “I get it and don’t know why others don’t.” They are distancing themselves from those whites who “don’t get it.”

Addressing Microaggressions

Microassaults are usually intentional. How you address them depends on the situation and the relationship with the individual. Who is this individual to me? What is the relationship? If there is no relationship, and will not likely ever be one, you might want to ignore it and chock it up to their ignorance. You use emotional energy every time you have to respond to a microaggression. If after exploring, you decide that even though you have no relationship with the person, it is worth saying something, keep it brief and factual.

The comment on my hairstyle that I encountered in the 1970s is an example of a microassault. I did not handle it well. I literally was speechless and did not provide any response. However, in a brave space environment here is what I might have said:

MICROASSUALT: Will your hair grow? You ought to let it.

ANSWER: What I am hearing is that you like long hair. I prefer short hair. Perhaps you did not intend to insult me, but that was clearly the impact. Your preferred hairstyle has nothing to do with my work or our peer relationship.

Ideally, my colleague would self-reflect, apologize, and learn from his mistake. However, if the microassualt is intentional, that may not necessarily be the outcome. You may decide that you should discontinue any relationship with this person. If it is a co-worker, you have to think about the option of reporting microassaults to management, the risk versus the reward, the culture of the organization, and a host of other matters. I chose not to report the microassault and I suffered the pain that it caused for a long time as forgiveness was not even something I considered. I was not aware of the psychological freedom that it might have afforded me.

Microinsults

These are difficult to address because they are often subtle. In Chapter 3 I addressed how to handle the microinsult of “I don’t see color.”

MICROINSULT: May I touch your hair? (Asked of an African American woman)

ANSWER: I would not be comfortable with that. May I ask why you would want to? Are there questions that I can answer for you about my hair?

INSULTER: It is just different and I have never seen a style like this.

ANSWER: Thank you for your curiosity. However, I don’t think it is appropriate to touch my hair or any other part of my body. Has anyone asked you if they could touch your hair? It makes me feel as if I am an aberration and not normal. Different in a strange way.

INSULTER: Thank you. I did not mean to insult you but obviously I have. As part of my learning about differences, I would like to hear more about African-inspired styles.

ANSWER (THERE IS A CHOICE HERE): If you do not feel comfortable “teaching,” politely decline. You might also suggest the co-worker do their own research.

Microinvalidations

These probably hurt the most because they erode self-esteem and often make you question your capability, which can lead to internalized oppression (discussed in Chapter 3). Gaslighting is particularly damaging if it is a repetitive experience. This is where your self-concept will be tested. You might ask, “Is there something wrong with me?” Gaslighting can also put you in a defensive mode if you find yourself continually responding to it. Recognize it, engage in self-affirmations, and respond in ways that serve to put an end to the behavior. Here’s an example:

YOUR CO-WORKER: It is your fault that this project is off schedule. You took so much time off when your baby was ill.

YOU: You know that I had nothing to do with the schedule. There were a number of issues including materials coming late from the supplier.

YOUR CO-WORKER: I don’t accept that.

YOU: There are many reasons that we are off schedule, and I am not one of them.

Whitesplaining and Mansplaining

Whitesplaining and mansplaining are really demeaning for the receiver. I think sometimes men engage in mansplaining because they are known to be “fixers” (women want them to listen and they want to fix the situation), and with whitesplaining there may be unconscious bias that Blacks are less intelligent or that in white people’s dominant racial position they are entitled to be experts in racial matters as well.

Here’s a good response to “splaining”: “Thank you, and there is a lot more that I could add to that from my expertise/lived experience.” If the “splaining” is actually not accurate—I would be interested in knowing where the information comes from. You might say: “I have information that would not support your assertions here.” Depending on the setting—one-on-one, team, and the audience, peers or superiors—you may need to decide when to correct erroneous information, at the time or later in private.

Advice to “’splainers”: Be self-aware of your tendency to “’splain” and engage in metacognitive behavior (described in Chapter 3) to explore why you feel compelled to explain. Know your power position. If you are white, be careful not to try and be an expert on race, unless you really are.

Ignoring Women’s Input

Women need men as allies to recognize that this is a widespread phenomenon. A woman offers an idea in the workplace, and it is ignored until soon after a man recommends essentially the same thing.

One solution: Stay attentive to whose ideas are validated and whose are not. Make sure that you acknowledge everyone’s input even if you don’t agree. Validation can be as simple as saying, “Thank you for that idea.” If a man’s idea is validated after a woman has offered a similar one already, try this: “Thank you for confirming the idea that Amy offered a few moments ago.” This is an example of effective allyship.

Tone Policing

This is a way of invalidating concerns because of the tone in which the message was delivered. Tone policing dismisses the “issue” (e.g., the inequity, injustice, oppression, and the impact it has) and centers on the way in which the issue was communicated (e.g., “you sounded angry or divisive”). Some have defended tone policing as a way to challenge how advocates for justice “play on emotion” without reason or evidence. For example, in advocacy or social justice spaces as well as in the media, tone policing might sound like:

NATIVE AMERICAN/INDIGENOUS LEADER SHARING: Our government has turned its back on our community! Our government and policies are racist and have impacted, even taken, the lives of thousands in our community. We want action!

ANALYST ON MEDIA OUTLET: The reality is, more would probably get done if they focused on being civil in communicating their issues. You can’t call the government racist and expect a response that is favorable to your efforts.

We should learn to listen to the concerns and issues regardless of how they are delivered. Ask yourself: “Why is this delivery method so difficult for me? It is not my preferred style? I think it is disingenuous. Why do I think that?” Try to focus on the message and why the anger and frustration might be a part of the message.

Distancing Language

Distancing language negates, simplifies, or recommends delaying action. It stalls progress in a conversation by continuing to ask for better, clearer, or different definitions of the problem. Here are a few distancing techniques that inhibit inclusive conversations.⁴

Definitions game. Requests for clear, absolute definitions of terms around race, -isms, culture, and so on usually lead to involved discussion and no consensus on definitions. This can serve to avoid discussions of the real issues. We continue to play the definitions game and also the “add new words to the DEI lexicon.” Part of the reason for adding new words is that old ones become stigmatized. For example, the term “diversity,” once primarily positive, now conjures up negative connotations. Some see it as a code word for affirmative action, or preferential treatment for historically underrepresented groups. As mentioned in Chapter 10, some white men do not see their issues included under the diversity definition. When engaging in inclusive conversations, it is important to come to common ground on definitions.

It is also important not to continue to add new terms that confuse more than clarify DEI work. For example, in Chapter 9 I outlined a condition of creating a sense of belonging in order to have inclusive conversations. “Belonging” has been defined by researchers as a component of inclusion and perhaps does not need its own separate category, which is why I combined the two concepts. Many have a difficult time defining “belonging” as distinct from “inclusion” as my survey in Chapter 9. Some organizations also include accessibility in their acronym, using DEAI (diversity, equity, accessibility, inclusion). I think that “accessibility” is embedded in the definition of equity. The American Alliance of Museums defines accessibility as “giving equitable access to everyone along the continuum of human ability and experience. Accessibility encompasses the broader meanings of compliance and refers to how organizations make space for the characteristics that each person brings.”⁵ Also as mentioned in Chapter 9, some organizations choose the acronym DIB (diversity, inclusion, belonging), while others use ABIDE (advancing, belonging, inclusion, diversity, equity).

In our quest to be inclusive of all of the possible ways that we might exclude, we continually add to the lexicon. We may do this to highlight the complexities of this work in digestible more simplistic ways. Unfortunately, I think the more we add to DEI vocabulary, the more we confuse. This makes discussions about our work even more difficult.

   Instant solutions. This leads to oversimplification by choosing and pushing single solutions to racism or other forms of oppression. It could be a type of avoidance. If sincere, it is unproductive because there are no simple solutions. Clients often ask The Winters Group to offer a simple solution to resolve DEI issues without considering the systemic root causes. Inclusive conversations need to acknowledge that there are no easy answers and seek to get to the root rather than just the symptoms.

   You’ve come a long way. This focuses on what changes have or may have occurred since people of color and other marginalized communities began the struggle for civil rights. Perhaps the message is that people of color should be satisfied with the progress. I believe that we should acknowledge the advances, yet it is important not to discount what still needs to be done.

   “After I . . .” This attitude leads to focusing on all of the things that prevent us from acting right now to challenge “isms.” It sounds like “It will be done when . . . (some magic occurrence).” Be aware of the words that you use that might serve to maintain the status quo and distance you from the issue.

   “You are being too sensitive.” I referenced a situation in the introduction where a participant in a session asked if we can be too sensitive and too politically correct. Someone had objected to the phrase “you guys,” as it was perceived as sexist. The person who brought up the objection asked how people would feel if instead the common reference was “you girls” or “you ladies.” The issue of gender-inclusive language comes up a lot. Using “he” or “him” when we don’t know the gender identity of the individual or others on the team can erode a sense of belonging. For example, nonbinary refers to individuals who do not identify as male or female and may use gender-neutral/inclusive pronouns such as “they” to refer to themselves.⁶ Inclusive practices include not asking about gender on application forms, using “they” when one’s gender is unknown, and developing a style guide for communications that incorporates gender-neutral language.

In answer to the question are we being too politically correct, I ask, What is the alternative, political incorrectness? I don’t think minding our words is about political correctness. It is about equity and inclusion. The term “political correctness” has a negative connotation in today’s culture. If someone accuses you of being too politically correct, you can respond with “There is nothing political about this. It is about correctness and it is about inclusion.” Even if you might feel that someone is being too sensitive, it is important to self-reflect about why it bothers you and to listen empathetically to their position. Ask yourself, “How does it harm me to respect the wishes of the other person?”

Words Matter on Social Media

Given today’s ever-present and often contentious social media environment, it’s hard to believe that just ten years ago, social media barely existed. Social media is rampant with hurtful, hateful, demeaning, exclusive language. Words on social media can be just as abusive as words spoken face-to-face. Avoid nasty, mean, polarizing posts on social media. These are not inclusive conversations. Engage the @GoodnessBot, which is a Twitter site that promotes positivity. “Whenever you see a rude or abusive tweet, simply reply to it with @ GoodnessBot and I’ll magically turn it into a positive tweet. Ta-da! Just like that you’ve made Twitter a kinder place.” The Winters Group is using the hashtag #actsofinclusion to post stories on Twitter about people and groups who embody inclusion principles.

As discussed in Chapter 7, we live in a cancel culture. If I don’t like what you said, I will rip you apart on social media and hope my post goes viral, so that millions can weigh in and cosign my opinion and maybe it will lead to your punishment and public demise. President Obama criticized the “callout” cancel culture, concerned about the trend “among young people particularly on college campuses “there is this sense that ‘the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people and that’s enough.’ That’s not activism. That’s not bringing about change. If all you’re doing is casting stones, you’re probably not going to get that far. That’s easy to do.”⁷ This perpetuates the binary that there are either good people or bad people. People who are right or people who are wrong. The problem with that thinking is that DEI is messy, complex, and there are few either/ors. This is a very polarizing approach and does not support inclusive conversations.

Guidance for Inclusive Conversations on Social Media

   Be self-aware of your triggers. If you see something on social media that is vehemently opposed to your core beliefs, you should pause, take a deep breath, and ask yourself why that was such a trigger for you. Do you really want to respond without reflecting some more? Is it worth it for your voice to be heard on this topic?

   Think about the power of your words. Are you an influencer in your field? Do you want these words to be forever etched in cyberspace? If so, think about using your power for good and to provide thoughtful and balanced commentary on social media.

   Accept contrary opinions and be curious to learn more before attacking them. Is there a reason to offer grace before you respond? There are boundaries. If the social media post is out of bounds (e.g., blatantly racist, sexist, etc.), you do not have to accept it, but you also do not have to respond.

   Are you competent to respond? There is a plethora of commentary on social media about race. Before you engage in that conversation, think about your level of competency to do so. If you are a person of color, you may be justifiably angry, but will an angry response serve the greater good? If you are white, do you know enough about the lived experiences of Black people to have a credible perspective? Are you responding from a gut reaction that might be filled with biases and prejudice based on little actual knowledge?

   Know your why. Are you responding just to engage in an endless debate to try to prove that you are right, and the other person is wrong? Are you trying to add a thoughtful perspective that is designed to support others’ understanding, make them reflect on their own worldview? Are you trying to reach some common ground to make it possible to have an inclusive conversation about your differences?

Inclusive conversations happen when we are intentional about our word choices. This requires us to learn about those who are culturally different, their histories and preferences. While we can ask for grace and forgiveness for our faux pas, inclusion requires us to take responsibility for our own learning. If we have to spend inordinate amounts of time explaining and teaching, we slow the process to equitable actions.

SUMMARY

   Words matter.

   Microaggressions are commonplace for historically marginalized groups, and the compounding impact can be devastating.

   There are three major types of microaggressions: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations.

   Microinvalidations range from gaslighting to mansplaining, whitesplaining, and distancing behaviors.

   Social media has become a venue for exclusionary, negative, and demeaning posts. A cancel culture fuels polarization and makes inclusive conversations impossible.