I recently wrote an article about microaggressions, after helping to organize a movement on St. Louis’ Webster University campus, to try to address systemic discrimination. As part of that effort to create change, students wrote letters to the administration describing student experiences with prejudice and discrimination.

And now I want to take a moment to share some of the stories of Webster University students with you. A few students have given me permission to share parts of the letters they wrote to the administration in this article.

First, let me expound on the idea of the letters. We wrote a summary letter that explained the purpose of the letter campaign and framed the movement. This is an excerpt:

“Webster University prides itself on diversity, inclusion, and internationalization. We know you as president believe in dedicating the institution to furthering the cause of global citizenship and participation; for that we commend you…Webster is one of the largest global institutions in the world, and we want to help it reach the high standards to which you and the Webster community hold it…

We want to do our part to help you ensure that each and every student at Webster University has the same quality education– the same pleasant and engaging experience– unimpeded by issues of prejudice or hatefulness.

These letters contain countless experiences of Webster students regarding issues of diversity and inclusion; unfortunately not every student or every classroom meets the high standard of global excellence upon which Webster prides itself. The incidents detailed herein are neither novel nor isolated…We hope they help you in the process of change, and we look forward to your response to resolve these pandemic issues.”

Many students wrote to the administration anonymously, fearing retaliation, but refusing to be silent on such an important topic. I will respect that request for anonymity here.

The letters describe a range of experiences with prejudice, microaggressions, and oppression at Webster; students detailed discrimination in many forms, in many places, and based in many sources. They depict the pain of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, heterosexism, ableism, Islamophobia, cis-sexism, transphobia, and the numerous other -isms and forms of hatefulness that impair, paralyze, and deeply pain.

There are a few common themes we identified of major issues we found on campus. The first is the obvious exclusion of minority students.

Concerned Student writes:

“I have experienced difficulties finding opportunities to participate in the Webster athletics teams… While these teams have been doing great job looking in from the outside, on the inside there have been a lot of problems. When in high school, I desired to be recruited by Webster University and try out for the team when that time came. Unfortunately, after several unresponsive emails and leading messages from the coaching staff I felt completely ignored and that my past experiences were of little value. Yet, my peers around me who would be classified as “white-caucasian” have had no troubles communicating with coaches,… receive special treatment, and have had several opportunities to leave and come back to the team while I, a person of color, haven’t even had a chance to try out…

I plead with you please start making an effort to support and listen to your students to make this a better place for all students to attend where we can fully embrace our differences and feel welcome in the environment.”

This is compounded by slews of insensitive comments by students, faculty, and staff alike.

Anonymous wrote:

“I wish people would understand that yes I am African-American but my experience wearing this skin should not be generalized by stereotypes. I do not always know the newest dance craze, certain “slang”, or have a valid opinion on issues that have involved other African-Americans. I just want to be seen as an individual that has her own experiences and whose actions are not justified just because I am African-American. Students also constantly find that professors don’t understand these issues– that rather than being educated, students are having to educate their teachers.”

I wrote:

“A professor has continually referred to me as “her Muslim student.” When she mentioned in class how I sat next to her at an event and her “Black friend sat on her opposite side,” she said she felt like she was “in Diversity Central.” Aren’t I worth more than my skin color? Isn’t my value as a human being worth more than dark skin and a headscarf?”

Lara Hamdan, a Webster student studying International Relations and Journalism, said:

“Sometimes I feel unsafe mentally. I am of Middle Eastern decent, so I have a different point of view on certain issues. They are not conflicting with American values, just different. But I have found that I feel limited to what I can share or express in some classrooms due to some I do not want to silence the professor, or have them feel as if they cannot fully teach what they intended. But rather, I would like to see them bring in outside perspectives, to give students the chance to have a wider point of view, not just the view of their upbringing or their professor. I have had professors openly teach incorrect “facts” about the Middle East or the religion of Islam. It would be much more reasonable to bring in an expert in the field to address those issues, rather than to make false claims.”

Students are constantly called out to speak for their entire identity group.

Anonymous wrote:

“At the beginning of my freshman year here at Webster, Michael Brown was shot and killed in the streets of Ferguson. A few days after, looting took place and many businesses in Ferguson were ruined, as a result. In one of my classes my teacher spoke of the many tragedies that had taken place and asked the class how they felt. Especially myself and another African-American student in the class stating that he hated to ask “this question” from us. Honestly, I did not know what to think or say and had not even processed everything that had taken place in Ferguson in a short period of time. Why should I represent the entire African-American population on such a serious question?”

I wrote:

“I have been asked point-blank by a professor in front of the class to act as a mouthpiece for my racial, (perceived) national, ethnic, gender, or religious identities. In methodological terms, the sample (me) is not representative of the population. But I am supposed to speak for all people because people label us the same way? Pardon, but that doesn’t make sense to me at all. And I know with the utmost certainty that I am not the only one placed repeatedly in such a position; other students are asked to represent their racial, national, ethnic, gender, religious, sexual, SES, etc. identities. And it’s demeaning. It hurts.”

We talked about blatant inadequacies in Webster policies where the university fell radically behind on progress.

A Student Looking For Change wrote that Webster is widely considered a forward-thinking, progressive, “LGBTQ-friendly” school but, disappointingly, fails to live up to that standard several times over:

“I am disheartened and disappointed to express that Webster’s commitment to forward-thinking inclusion seems to have slowed in progress and withered in reach… The administration has yet to make policies that would provide trans* students with safe, comfortable restroom options in all buildings. Students have also expressed interest in an African American Studies program, as well as an LGBT Studies program. In response, the administration stated more students must to take these types of classes before creation of such programs can be considered. This, though, is a faulty argument. Students have trouble finding these classes when registering because there is not one encompassing prefix to use when searching for these classes. Therefore, there are systematic obstacles one encounters when attempting to register for these classes.”

But the letters weren’t all pessimistic. There are many, many opportunities for change.

Andrew Wagner, a junior Sociology major “passionate about justice” warned:

“The solution to these problems is listening to people of color who have been oppressed by these institutions and going forward with their guidance. As Webster University seeks out students of color to help pave the way forward, I would like to put forward a word of caution to the administration as they seek to listen. Patricia Hill Collins who is a critical race social theorist says this, ‘Oppressed groups are frequently placed in the situation of being listened to only if we frame our ideas in the language that is familiar to and comfortable for a dominant group. This requirement often changes the meaning of our ideas and works to elevate the ideas of dominant groups.’ My hope is that the administration at Webster will seek to listen to not only the words that are easy to swallow, but also the words that are difficult to stomach.”

Lara suggested diversifying our faculty, staff, and student bodies so that our campus is as diverse in actuality as it is in advertisements and refusing to raise tuition rates because they “marginalize people of lower income households.”

“We see the many flags above our heads as we walk in the University Center, but once we lower our heads, we don’t see the diversity represented. I hope you take the time to listen to your students needs and take the proper steps to address them. The students are willing to uphold their part if the administration is willing to do the same.”

At the meeting, we also discussed including questions assessing professors’ ability to conduct their class without prejudice, having a staff working at the administrative level to address issues of diversity and inclusion in the classroom rather than one individual, creating a student panel to hear cases of discrimination in the classroom so that students feel there is an approachable entity to whom they can address their concerns (at the moment, there isn’t, which is why so many of these issues go unchecked), having a day that operates like Webster Works Worldwide where the whole Webster community can come together to address these issues in a collaborative and constructive manner, and– most importantly– mandating training for faculty and staff on power and privilege and oppressive structures because currently no such training exists for any Webster employee as far as anyone can tell.

As I said, nothing has come of any of these suggestions yet. The administration has not made any visible changes and none of the grand promises we’ve heard and read tens of times have borne any fruit. But we’re not giving up. We’re stubborn, and we’re here to stay.

The post Prejudice on campus: Are you listening, administrators? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In the past few months, I witnessed a reinvigoration of discussions regarding microaggressions– whether that’s a societal phenomenon, or just something I have personally witnessed, I can’t say, but I’ve learned something valuable from it: most people have no idea what microaggressions are.

But never fear, your diverse friend Hafsa is here to help explain them.

Microaggressions describe that language and behavior which, although not necessarily intended to be hurtful, has a negative impact on the recipient which– in much the same way as overt acts– serves to reinforce, exacerbate, and ultimately perpetuate the hatefulness which underlines it, however covertly. Because that’s a lot to talk about, here are a few things to know about racial and ethnically-based microaggressions.

And, exhibit #1? Me as someone’s “diverse friend.”

Because suddenly it’s reducing a human being of many facets, interests, passions, and qualities to… her diversity.

Now, honestly, not that many people would outwardly come out and introduce someone as their “diverse friend,” but people have no issues calling someone their “Black friend” or their “Jewish friend.” Maybe their “gay roommate” or their “Latino cabdriver.”

Contextualized in what I’ve already said about microaggressions, it’s rather obvious that I am not a fan of that language, but I need to unpack that. Why? Well because all you’re doing is labeling someone based on this one aspect of their life. And that reduces someone to a token to be pulled out as demonstration of a “diverse environment.”

I mean it’s great that you have diverse friends, really it is. But not if you’re only friends with them for their diversity. And just like the “I have Black friends” card is cliche, racist, and prejudiced, so too is telling me about your Muslim friends or telling your gay colleague that it’s okay, you can’t be prejudiced because you have gay friends, too.
At one point, when having a discussion about microaggressions, someone asked, “Is what you’re saying that we just shouldn’t label people?” And I gave a vehement no, followed by a really muddled explanation, but I think I can do a better job now that I’ve had time to think about it and can backspace the confusing stuff.

There’s nothing inherently wrong, in my opinion, with labels; to some extent, they serve a vital purpose in our day-to-day life to help us identify individuals and navigate interpersonal relationships. “My wife” or “her father” are labels, as are “history teacher” or even “middle-class,” and in and of themselves, they’re not problematic. The problem comes when there is a simultaneous failure to acknowledge the plentiful other facets of someone’s identity and reduce their entire existence down to their relationship to another individual, their occupation, their socioeconomic status, their sex, their gender identity, their race, their religion, etc.

So, yeah, call me Muslim; I have zero objection to that. But also recognize that I am a daughter, a college student, a writer, an RA, a woman, Pakistani-American, etc.

And the other thing about labels is that we have to remember the person wearing them isn’t the end-all-be-all representative of that label; they’re not the mouthpiece for their entire identity.

 Exhibit #1-b:

Don’t assume that your “diverse friend” has the complete, authoritative, perfectly cited answer to every question about diversity because WHY WOULD THEY? Just because someone has experienced a certain type of discrimination, doesn’t mean that they (a) can explain it to you with dictionary-perfect definitions and scholarly references and have every answer to every possible question you ask (I don’t know is a perfectly valid answer, thank you very much) or, more importantly, that they (b) even want to explain it you.

To the first point, the best example I can give is asking an international student about their “professional” opinion on something occurring in their home country. Like asking a Frenchmen to compare the French constitution to that of the American. Would you be able to do that? Then why are we assuming they can? Or asking a Syrian why their country is at war and what they recommend as a solution to the refugee crisis. Can you spout foreign policy recommendations off the top of your head with statistics and historical evidence? Or asking a Kenyan why Africa is so poor. (1) Africa is a continent, not a country; (2) it’s pretty doubtful that individual is a scholar on such a difficult, oft-asked, and well-studied question, and if scholars who spend their entire lives studying a tiny aspect of this global issue don’t have an answer yet, why would the random dark-skinned person you found on the street?

To the second point, it strips you of your dignity a little bit at a time to have to explain it over and over again. Really. Speaking purely for myself, I usually don’t mind answering people’s questions, whatever they are. I typically encourage people to speak frankly and ask questions without fearing they’re being rude because I would rather they be honest if a bit insensitive, than dance around a question unnecessarily or, worse, resort to a random Google search or FOX or CNN to try to answer the question. The integrity of asking an actual person with actual experience can’t be matched through a media response, but faced with the possibility of being ashamed for their ignorance or the anonymity of a screen, people often choose the latter.

That being said, there are days I really just can’t handle it. Maybe I’ve just dealt with too many microaggressions for the day, or maybe I plain and simple just had a bad day. And every person has the right to just not answer the question. Asking the question isn’t necessarily a microaggression, but insisting that a person answer the question when they don’t know the answer or just don’t want to almost inevitably is. Try this cartoon on why microaggressions hurt.

Don’t make assumptions about someone based on their appearance.

It sounds super-obvious, right? I mean that’s literally the definition of prejudice. But it happens all the time.
A few that come to mind immediately?

• Black individuals who, when in a store, are followed. Black individuals not being served, period, or treated dismissively. A store clerk assuming that the individual from a minority group cannot afford the higher-end items in the store and therefore directing them immediately to cheaper goods. Crossing the street when you see a Black/Latino/minority man approaching you on the sidewalk.
• Self-identifying as a feminist, and people constantly being skeptical of that and arguing you “can’t be” because you’re Muslim/hijabi (and then having to “defend your religion” against claims of inherent misogyny).
• Asking a white mother “what her husband does for a living” and asking a black mother “if the father is still in the picture.”
• Automatically turning to the student of Asian descent for math help.
• “Merry Christmas” turning into “Merr– happy holidays” because the person on the other side of the counter looks different. Because you “look different,” people constantly asking if you’re an international student or doubting your citizenship in the United States (BTW look different from what?)

Some of these examples border on the overtly racist/hateful, but most of them are the subtle everyday things that we don’t even necessarily recognize doing. The absolute best thing I’ve seen that explains this is this phenomenal photo series that exposes our own biases and this set of Google searches about cultural stereotypes.

The person being microaggressive/prejudiced, doesn’t get to decide what’s hurtful.

Remember what I said earlier about the difference between intent versus impact? The individual most likely doesn’t intend to say/do something prejudiced, but the impact on the recipient is hurtful and reinforces the oppression of prejudices and stereotypes.

Allow me to illustrate with an example: as an RA, I moved onto campus before most of the student body in order to help prep the residential halls. So for a few weeks, only professional staff, RAs, and a few straggler conference attendees (including some international students) were on campus. One of my first interactions with university staff as an RA was when I said good morning to a member of our maintenance crew, and he, smiling, responded with “Are you a guest here?” I said, “No, sir, I’m an RA on the second floor.” Not at all abashed, he says,” Oh, I just thought you weren’t from here because of your” *gestures to headscarf repeatedly*. I smiled and kept walking, but it bothered me the rest of the day that people kept doubting my citizenship or right to be here. He obviously didn’t intend to be microaggressive. But he doesn’t get to dictate how I was impacted by what he said.

Or, in the words of Britni de la Cretaz on EverydayFeminism:

“We [White People] Don’t Get to Determine What’s Racist
How often do we see something posted about racism, only to then see a bunch of white people jump into the comments to argue about why that thing isn’t actually racist? For example, maybe someone calls out Kylie Jenner for appropriating black culture with her braided hair. Or maybe they’re pointing out why white people wearing bindis as a fashion statement isn’t cool. And then a white person comments, “Um, it’s just hair” or “Bindis have nothing to do with skin color.”

Or perhaps someone is venting about a racial microaggression they experienced when they were out to dinner, where they felt like they were treated differently by their server because they’re black. And the next thing you know, a white person swoops in to say something like, “Wait, how do you know it was because you were black? I think you’re being paranoid. It was probably just because the server was having a bad night.” But here’s the thing, fellow white people – it’s not on us to decide what is or isn’t racist because we don’t actually experience racism.”

The most important thing, though is what you can do about it.

First and foremost, acknowledge the validity of other people’s experiences.

So if you’re coming from a position of privilege– and it’s 99.9999% likely that we are in some position of privilege, because discrimination in one area does not negate privilege in another– all you need to do is acknowledge that other people’s experiences are valid. That’s literally it. That’s the first step.

It sounds really simple in writing, but it can be rough in real life. I mean, it’s so bad, that it’s honestly revolutionary for administration or any other people in power to say ‘You know what, your experiences are valid.’ That’s it. That’s all I’m asking for. That you acknowledge my experiences are valid. That they happened. That I have legitimate concerns. That it matters to someone.

And the reason this can be so difficult is that we have to swallow our instinct to defend ourselves or to feel guilty, and, instead, try to put ourselves in someone else’s shoes. This is not a conversation about blame or guilt. No one is saying that you are the reason for this system or that it is your fault that you benefit from it. That’s stupid. No one is saying that you didn’t work hard to get where you are in life or that you should feel bad because you maybe didn’t have to work as hard as the person next to you. You don’t have to feel guilty for the body into which you were born any more or less than someone who was born into a different body. You just have to accept that as a result of your body (in comparison to someone else’s) you have been indoctrinated and socialized in a different manner and that as a result, the set of privileges, challenges, and experiences in your life are drastically different from someone else’s. And when someone else is talking about their life experiences, you have to respect that, rather than trying to compare it to your life story in order to minimize their challenges or aggrandize yours.

And that is a lesson for all of us.

The post Microaggressions appeared first on Occasional Planet.

“Feminism is dead,” he said casually. I almost choked on my latte. As I sat across from him at a coffee house, I could see my reaction reflected on the faces of my two female friends, all of us looking at him aghast, trying to control the heat rising collectively up our necks, desperate to mutate into an angry, acid-tongued response.

Feminism is dead? I try to contemplate the repercussions of the statement but find my head swimming. The feminist movement being dead implies defeat. The feminist movement had been defeated, then after decades we’ve surrendered, he says. Or perhaps he means that we have achieved our goals, and modern feminists are just trying to be superior. I ask him to elaborate, more harshly than I intended. “Feminism is dead,” he says simply, avoiding the look in my eyes, “there is no reason to have it anymore.” An hour later, in the interest of remaining friends, we make our closing statements.

That conversation, from a year ago, is seared into my memory and comes to light whenever I ponder the relevance of feminism and people’s understanding of it. Not only is it the closest I’ve ever come to a spit take, but it awakened me to the harsh reality regarding the misconceptions surrounding feminism–rampant in modern thought.

“What exactly do you think a feminist looks like? What do you think they believe?” I said as calmly as possible, trying to hide the derision in my voice, although it is likely the look on my face showed my position quite clearly. “Feminists are angry women who want to be superior to men,” he said. My other friend intercepted, “But that isn’t a feminist, David, that’s a femi-nazi.” I cringed.  Did one of my most independent female friends really just compare a woman who is passionate about the women’s equality and angry that other people these days don’t seem to care to a Nazi?

The truth is that the feminist movement is still incredibly relevant today, and if men argue that we’ve achieved equality, it only takes a Youtube search to prove that they’re wrong. Characterizing a woman in a bar as a slut is as damaging as calling a woman who is passionate about equality as an angry spinster. Now the feminist movement itself, like many other movements, has gone out of style. In the decades since the 1960s bra burners, the media has been able to demonize the fight for equality by declaring it over then continuing new and inventive forms of oppression, similar to last year, when the GOP stated Rosa Parks ended racism back in 1955. Because media must create caricatures, not true representations of people, it makes sense that they would do the same to social movements. Take the 1994 Olympic scandal for example. A recent ESPN 30 for 30 installment, The Price of Gold rehashed the twenty-year-old scandal throughout which both women were caricatures. Nancy Kerrigan was the spoiled princess, and Tonya Harding was the underdog.  Or Kerrigan was the victim, and Harding was a demon. Whatever version you believe, both are likely oversimplifications of the facts. Both women had to be boxed up because the real story and the real people were probably too complex to be profitable. So is the objectification of feminism. The simpler the media can make it, the less potent it becomes. Those who enter the fray today, like my friends that day at the coffee shop, see feminism as one-dimensional. But of course, women who want to combat the “make me a sandwich,” “legitimate rape,” Blurred Lines society we live in, are angry. It’s almost impossible not to be. Maybe the question is: why aren’t you?

The post Feminism is dead, he said appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A few weeks ago I wrote about the importance of stepping out of a person’s comfort zone. Most people are such slaves to routine that they never venture out and try new things. Consequently they become biased and run the risk of becoming narrow minded. The Onion has a great shirt that says, “Stereotypes are a great time saver.” That’s a horrible (albeit funny) shirt, but how often are we given the chance to go out and bust those kind of thoughts? Because the opportunity presented itself and I like going out for random adventures I agreed to go to a gun show.

In all honesty, the gun show was a lot of fun. There were only a few times where I felt uncomfortable, but I’ll get to those later. Let’s start out with the bits I enjoyed.

• Although there were not a lot of women in attendance, quite a few booths were run by women. And not the kind of scantily clad eye candy you see at a boat show. The women who were there were professional, could answer any question, and were busy making sales. I was rather taken aback by it actually. I was expecting the whole thing to be run by guys in camouflage with southern accents or NASCAR hats. That stuff was present too, but it wasn’t the majority. So, by attending one gun show that stereotype became busted for me.
• I’m a bit of a history nerd. There was a small (but fascinating) collection of things for me to geek out about. One vendor had a large assortment of WWII hats, swords, medals, and other accessories. There were numerous guns from the old west and the Civil War. Beautiful pistols with engraved mother of pearl handles. Large frontier rifles with landscapes etched on them. Everything was worn and looked like the original owners had gotten plenty of use from them. I was mesmerized by some of the antiques. A couple of booths were selling old silver badges from the Wild West. For just $10 I was able to buy an authentic Pinkerton badge. (I was torn between that one and a pony express badge. The irony of a progressive owning a union-busting Pinkerton trinket was too great for me to ignore though.)

For those reasons I enjoyed myself. For a few hours I got exposed to a different world. There were historical things for me to look at and I was pleasantly surprised by the crowd. On the flipside, there were a few awkward moments.

• Progressive, liberal, democrat, however you want to define it I was the minority there. A handful of the booths had distasteful pictures of Obama, Hillary Clinton, and anyone else they deemed the enemy. One booth even had mock hunting licenses for lawyers, socialists, and liberals. For whatever reason, seeing jokes about shooting people of my political leaning while at a gun show made me a bit nervous. Luckily that type of merchandise wasn’t widespread.

• The other awkward moment occurred while looking at a Colt Detective Special. (the kind Humphrey Bogart carried in those pulpy detective movies) The owner came up to us and started showing it off. He seemed nice enough, until he started to explain why all the guns at the gun show had zip ties attached to them. It was a safety measure to ensure the guns weren’t loaded. Then he proceeded to elaborate how it was a stupid rule only in place to stop those “crazy anti-gun nuts” from loading weapons at gun shows in hopes that someone would get shot. Apparently if enough people got shot it would make gun shows illegal. The merchant said all of this with a straight face while looking at me, and the only thing I could think was what would he say to me if he knew I was one of those “crazy anti-gun nuts?”

That was the only eventful incident at the show. It was just walking and looking at guns, knives, and accessories. It did get me thinking about the stigma attached to gun shows though. And I did a bit of research into what the one ranting vendor had told us. There were not crazy people loading guns hoping for accidents, but a few forgetful booth operators and some unlucky shoppers who got shot while at gun shows. (Arizona, Illinois, and Florida all had similar accidents.) Regardless, it wasn’t the lie that bothered me so much as his us vs. them mentality. I feel that if I can go to a gun show for an afternoon and have a good time, that misguided merchant could grab lunch with some people who chose not to carry guns and would benefit from it. That’s really what I walked away with from the experience. Not that I’m going to start packing heat, but I’m less likely to make assumptions about gun owners. Like any other group they have a lunatic fringe, but it’s the fringe. As long as it stays that way I’d gladly go to another gun show. Besides, somewhere there is a Pony Express badge calling my name.

The post Progressive at a gun show appeared first on Occasional Planet.