Image 01 Image 03

Microaggressions Now Considered Harassment at the State Department?

Microaggressions Now Considered Harassment at the State Department?

PC culture invades the government.

We’ve covered the speech squelching progressive concept of microaggressions at College Insurrection countless times as an impediment to free expression on campus.

Now it seems this idea is entering parts of the government.

Peter Hasson reports at the Daily Caller:

State Dept. Warns Employees: ‘Microaggressions’ May Count As Harassment

Following the example set by elite liberal universities, the U.S. State Department has begun cracking down on “microaggressions” in the workplace. According to a newsletter from State Department chief diversity officer John Robinson, employees who commit “microaggressions” may risk violating harassment laws in doing so.

Robinson published the letter in the November edition of State Magazine with the title “The New Face of Exclusion: Microaggressions.” The magazine is meant to “facilitate communication between management and employees” and “acquaint employees with developments that may affect operations or personnel,” according to the State Department website. In the letter, Robinson explained to employees that microaggressions “are much harder to spot than overt discrimination” and “are often brushed off as lack of tact or an act of nonmalicious ignorance.”

“Microaggressions can be detrimental to employee morale and engagement,” Robinson insisted. “Left unaddressed, microaggressions can over time lead to workplace conflict and eventually affect operations.”

“Severe or pervasive microaggressions based on protected Equal Employment Opportunity categories may rise to the level of harassment under certain circumstances,” Robinson warned.

Wouldn’t you think the State Department has more important concerns than turning their employees into the special snowflakes currently occupying America’s college campuses?

It’s probably safe to assume that people like Putin and the leaders of Iran and China aren’t worried about policing their language when dealing with our officials.

On a related note, the Daily Signal interviewed Ashe Schow of the Washington Examiner and Kevin Gkass of the Franklin Institute about microaggressions at CPAC this weekend. Watch the discussion below:

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Why not? You’re inculcated in college that this nonsense is an issue, in that college your training is toward being a government drone, it’s to be expected that training would migrate with you in your career path.

We MAY have to revisit weighing the merits and demerits of “the spoils system”…

State needs to get its priorities straight and consider MACROagressions, starting with Hillary’s email and bogus staff.

    rinardman in reply to clafoutis. | March 8, 2016 at 9:37 am

    What about Benghazi?

    Would that be considered a macroaggression?

    guyjones in reply to clafoutis. | March 8, 2016 at 11:03 am

    Nice one. The rise of ISIS and sundry jihadist groups in the Middle East and in Africa certainly qualifies as a “macroagression.” Amazing that State has time to promote this infantile nonsense, while foreign policy disasters abound and millions are suffering.

State Department chief diversity officer John Robinson has just provided evidence that he is over-employed.

“…employees who commit “microaggressions” may risk violating harassment laws.”

That sure is clear. I guess it means that if you are a white male, you are toast.

Who decides what, exactly, constituted a microaggression? Is there a list? A video? Anything…?

legacyrepublican | March 8, 2016 at 9:14 am

Would keeping an email server in someone’s bathroom be an example of microagression?

Robots are the answer. We are already dealing with defective AI every time we deal with government.

Replace all government employees with robots.

No more economy crushing benefits, no more collective voting for Democrats by Federal employees, cost control, less than a minute phone hold time…

And those people could find work doing something constructive.

And, the robots wouldn’t need sensitivity training.

Program the robots and not our children.

PrincetonAl | March 8, 2016 at 9:32 am

The real microaggressions are being committed all along the old Soviet bloc countries as agent provocateurs claim that local treatment of ethnic Russian speaking citizens by supposedly more than microaggressive non-Russians.

Meanwhile here in the US the IRS and other agencies are committing regulatory aggression against conservatives while passive-aggressive Republican wimps in the Senate rollover in the face of just generally aggressive regulatory incursion against the constitution.

It’s enough to provoke a more-than-micro aggressive level of frustration from voters.

Now that microaggressions are a thing, can nanoaggressions be far behind?

This is part of the reason that America needs Trump. Elect him, and this nonsense stops for a generation.

    This is part of the reason that America needs Trump. Elect him, and this nonsense stops for a generation.

    …and the rise of the oceans will begin to slow and our planet begin to heal.

    Otherwise known as “magical thinking.” Where have we seen this before?

    Ragspierre in reply to rotten. | March 8, 2016 at 10:54 am


    That’s not just a leap of faith…

    It’s an Evel Knievel Grand Canyon jump!

      forksdad in reply to Ragspierre. | March 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm

      Snake River Canyon. He never tried the Grand Canyon. Robbie his son jumped a section of the Grand Canyon. But your point is valid. I just want to keep my American Daredevils straight.

“Robinson explained to employees that microaggressions “are much harder to spot than overt discrimination”

SIOW, they have to look especially hard and turn over even smaller rocks to manufacture an absurd claim of harrassment.

stevewhitemd | March 8, 2016 at 11:17 am

Severe or pervasive microaggressions …

Wouldn’t a ‘severe microagression’ be at least a miniaggression?

Professor, I could use some legal advice. I view the whole Democratic Party presidential campaign as a “microagression.” Can I sue?

ugottabekiddinme | March 8, 2016 at 11:26 am

Well, this IS John Kerry’s State Department, where they really know how to address these things.

For example, soothing victims of the Paris attacks by bringing in James Taylor to warble.

What could be a more micro- response to aggression than that?

Microaggressions deserve a microapology. That means no apology whatsoever.

Apparently their cutesy hashtags aren’t good enough for perceived or feigned offenses.

“Microaggressions can be detrimental to employee morale and engagement,”

And the beatings will continue until morale improves