College counselor: Being pro-life an 'assault'
A counselor at Longwood University provided some guidance to the snowflakes on campus about microaggressions.
If there's one constant from school to school that defines microaggressions, it's that there is no constant, there is no established definition of the term. A mocroaggression is pretty much whatever some kooky administrator dreams up on the spur of the moment.
Case in point: Did you know it was a microaggression to be pro-life?
According to an “educational presentation” on the Longwood University website, being pro-life is a form of “assault.”
The presentation, first reported by Campus Reform, lists “an anti-abortion person attack[ing] my pro-choice beliefs” as one of several “examples of assault,” along with “A student slashed my tire (on my car)” and “Almost being raped.”
“Assault” is defined in another slide as “verbal or nonverbal derogations of an individual’s unique qualities such as family name or disability.”
The lecture also went over examples of “insults,” defined as “communications that convey rudeness, insensitivity, and demean a person’s unique qualities such as gender or language.”
Examples of “insults” included “Residents assumed I smoked pot because of the way I dress” and “Someone saying negative opinions (stated as facts) about my religion.”
“Invalidations,” a third category of microaggressions, were defined as “comments or behaviors that exclude, negate, or nullify a person’s thoughts, feelings, or experiences related to their unique qualities, such as social class or sexual orientation.”
Apparently, there's no such thing as "invalidating" a conservative worldview. By their lights, it invalidates itself just because it exists.
But all may not be lost. As it turns out, a solid majority of students at Longwood are not affected by microaggressions:
In a slide titled “Lingering Problematic Feelings?” the presentation said 36 percent of Longwood students reported “negative feelings” when thinking about their most recent microaggression, compared to 47 percent who didn’t and 17 percent who hadn’t thought about it.
It's getting so you can't look crosseyed at a minority, an LGBT person, short people, tall people, fat people, thin people, and those who practice certain religions that shall remain nameless (OK I'll name it - Islam) without being sent to the Gulag and indoctrinated by "sensitivity training.
But just once, I want to read about students and administrators being forced to take sensitivity training because the behavior that so upsets them is directed by them against anyone who disagrees with their politics. That would be a step forward back to sanity