Image 01 Image 03

University of Kansas Study Finds Microaggression Training Doesn’t Work

University of Kansas Study Finds Microaggression Training Doesn’t Work

“Microaggressions seem to have become a catch-all label for anything that causes offense”

It’s amazing to think that time was wasted on something as ridiculous as microaggression training.

Campus Reform reports:

U of Kansas study admits microaggression training doesn’t work

A University of Kansas study found that microaggression training does not significantly affect behavior, but instead introduces a “catch-all label for anything that causes offense.”

University of Kansas professors Zak Foste and Jennifer Ng interviewed resident assistants at two universities to determine the efficacy of microaggression training, according to the school.

The researchers explained that instead of addressing the need for “better understanding the racial, cultural and gender contexts of higher education and society overall,” microaggression training caused RAs to view microaggressions “as simple errors in communication, committed unconsciously because of ignorance, and easily fixed by people not repeating the same sentiments in the future,” according to the university’s summary of the study and the professors’ comments.

Ng explained that RAs understood the concept to only be about “external presentation.” Rather than consider alleged racism or bigotry indicated by microaggressions, RAs simply take precautions to mind their behavior around people who are different from themselves.

“Microaggressions seem to have become a catch-all label for anything that causes offense, and without more thoughtful engagement and ongoing education, the application of this term can cause confusion as well as prevent deeper understanding,” said Ng.

Foste expressed disappointment that microaggression training produced “little in the way of understanding how our language and interpretive frames are steeped in histories of racism and white supremacy.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The Friendly Grizzly | December 25, 2020 at 2:39 pm

Maybe because micro aggressions don’t exist?

This game of stupid needs to end yesterday.

Every time someone tells the truth it’s either a micro aggression or a major transgression. “Micro aggression training,” teaching people to avoid the truth, not only doesn’t work but it has major boomerang effects.

For instance, the great handicap that blacks in America face is that everyone is aware of the astoundingly high rate of black criminality: about five times the white rate for murder, assault and most other types of crime against both persons and property.

This extreme rate of serious criminality makes everyone, blacks as well as whites, understandably wary of getting close enough to unknown blacks to judge them by their character. That character is too likely to be dangerous, pushing Martin Luther King’s dream off to a better time.

The answer to that handicap is very simple: allocate law-enforcement by crime rate. This is what Giuliani did in NYC that drastically reduced the city’s crime rate: they went where the crime was, which not-coincidentally was where the blacks were, with the result that black neighborhoods became much safer.

This greatly benefitted NYC blacks in two ways. Their victimization rate went way down, and with the black criminals increasingly either in jail or deterred by the increased chance of being caught and punished, everyone started to have less reason to fear that unknown blacks would turn out to be criminals, allowing more blacks to be judged by the content if their character.

This improvement in the circumstances of blacks can only come from facing basic truths: that responsibility for the stigma of black criminality that keeps King’s dream from being realized lies with the black criminals who create the high rate of black criminality, not with the law abiding people of all races who can’t help but be aware of the extreme rates of black criminality that present such a serious threat to them.

The micro-aggressions ideology treats awareness of the astounding rates of black criminality as an act of aggression. Never mind telling the truth, if you even KNOW the truth they will call you an aggressor. Truth itself is what they they seek to criminalize and suppress.

Wherever they succeed blacks become much worse off. Truth-witnessing people see the facts about black crime and say: “holy cow look at that murder rate, we’ve got to get that way down both to save lives (mostly black), and also so everybody won’t be afraid to have anything to do with blacks.” People who are taught that knowing the truth about black crime rates is forbidden look at the same situation and say: “it is wrong for police to arrest a higher percentage of blacks than of whites, we need to defund the police.”

They know full well that it’s a fraud, that when blacks commit crimes at many times the rate that whites do it is right that their arrest rate should be similarly higher. (In fact it is much lower than that. If the rate at which criminals got arrested and convicted for their crimes was the same for all races the black arrest and conviction rates would be far higher still.)

The truth haters unerringly go right to where they are suppressing the truth and that is where they focus their lies, and their criminal violence, rioting against law enforcement
in the name of blacks, further cementing the identification of blacks with crime.

Where they succeed in getting police to become less proactive, less willing to go where the crime is, black crime rates explode, literally doubling in St. Louis, Baltimore, Minneapolis, NYC. Black victimization rates double, the stigma of criminality that law abiding blacks unjustly labor under doubles, and King’s dream races away.

So what DO we do about the injustice if law abiding blacks having to suffer under the stigma of black criminality?

Just properly affix blame. The stigma of black criminality comes from BLACK CRIMINALS, and following that truth tells you what the solution is. Allocate law enforcement by crime rate, regardless of race. Put the criminals in jail and the injustice will end.

At the same time, stop blaming the stigma of black criminality on people knowing the truth about black crime rates. Justice comes from following the truth, not suppressing it.

What’s next, “Anti-Racists Found to be Racist”? Not that it matters: science isn’t just “another way of knowing,” it’s a particularly white-male-patriarchal way of knowing.

And therefore invalid. And especially so when it disagrees with Woke political dogma.

I don’t know the quality of this study, but, even if it’s superb, such studies can have no effect on those who reject the very concept of objective truth, who will view them as merely more evidence supporting their claims that science (but especially science that disagrees with Us) is but one manifestation of an omnipresent white supremacy; the very fact that it does not support Woke political dogmas is all the evidence required to comdemn it.

so, do not expect proponents of this so-called “training” to back off in the face of such findings: the expected response can only be more demands for more (andever more abusive forms of) such training.


According to the article the training did work to get people to stop or reduce the perceived “microaggressions”. People were careful and stopped the things that were complained about. The complaints got results. Success, right?

NO! That’s not what was wanted at all. That was just white people escaping their duty to introspect and apologize for their whiteness. The wanted people to renounce their privilege and begin a lifetime of apology to blacks, and all they did was minor adjustments! THAT is why they say it didn’t work!

Check me, read it and see that I am just repeating exactly what the article says.

I’m not sure I understood this article correctly, because the original article on which it’s based, or at least the parts quoted here, seems to be written in that peculiar language used by the academic left — a language that uses the same vocabulary and grammar as English, but is not English.

But if I understood it correctly, which I’m not at all sure of, it seems to me that the training actually succeeded. If I’m getting the gist right, it seems that those undergoing the training learned not to needlessly offend people. They didn’t learn to think differently (thank God), but they learned what kind of things offend people, and how not to say those things without intending to.

That seems to me like a good thing. All other things being equal we should try to avoid offending people, no matter how irrational they are, unless it comes at a cost, e.g. we are trying to make a point and there are no good non-offensive ways to express it. (This is why in ordinary life I make it my practice to address transsexuals as they wish to be addressed; it costs nothing and is the polite thing to do. But if asked point blank whether I accept that they truly are what they say they are, I have to answer that I do not.)

So based on what I gather from this article I would say that this training actually succeeds in equipping the trainees with a useful skill, but evidently not in what the article’s writers were hoping it would do.