Frontiers of microaggression: 'invisibility'
What would we do without academic "research" to fuel the flames of grievance?
Toni Airaksinen reports at Campus Reform:
Two professors recently discovered that there are five different types of "invisibility microaggressions" women of color face, according to an article published Monday.
Jasmine Mena, a Psychology professor at Bucknell University, and Annemarie Vaccaro, who teaches Higher Education at the University of Rhode Island, claim they are the first academics to argue that "invisibility" is a "common form of microaggression" experienced by professors of color.
It turns out that "invisibility" is a well established form of "microaggression," already a major field in social science. It is an entirely subjective experience, like most purported microaggressions. First, you make up a grievance and publicize it. Get people talking about their feelings of discomfort, and find terminology to make it the fault of others, in other words a grievance. Then, after everybody starts talking about it, take some surveys.
It has become a major academic field of research. The two professors (click on their names) are enhancing their list of publications by enlarging the substantial academic literature on the "problem." They pushed the frontiers of knowledge forward by talking to other females in academia about their feelings.
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."
Here is an example of a microaggression that is purely a feeling of unease:
"I feel invisible…not always…but as sort of a day-to-day thing," said Xiomara, one the 18 participants in the study, adding, "I just feel like I can go days without seeing another person of color."
Puzzling that 13 women were "interviewed" and there were 18 "participants."
An enormous academic effort is going into creating pathologies. Higher education, heavily subsidized by taxpayers, is erecting brand-new problems and reifying them with a veneer of social science. Eventually, they become "public health issues," and government action is urged. All of it is supported by academic literature from the "leaders in the field."
If you oppose them, you are "anti-science."
History suggests that when science becomes corrupted by politics, it does not end well.