What immediately came to my own mind is the person that describes discriminatory practices at the individual level.
For instance, in educational context, there is often the debate about how universities routinely hire and enroll people of color who are not qualified, thusly “stealing all the jobs” from more qualified and deserving people. This declaration is rarely completed with a description of the folks from whom the jobs were stolen. However, we can fill in the blanks, stealing all of the jobs from better prepared or qualified White folks. This insight is then followed by a poignant discussion about reverse discrimination. Never mind that the majority of organizations, throughout the entire United States, do not disproportionately hire, admit, enroll, etc., people of color. There is, however, a hyper-perceived loss of power and supremacy.
I began to think about the language that has been historically and is currently used to describe situations, events, dispositions and context about underrepresented groups and the struggle to be treated with human decency and civility in a country that is still polarized around discussions of racial equity and tolerance—yet claims to be post-racial at any given time. In the same vein, I thought about the newly invented metanarrative that describes the neo-oppressed and the language used to describe their human condition. Words like, qualified, “I work hard,” victim, aggression, civility, attacked, feeling safe, feeling comfortable, inhumane, marginalized, oppressed, protected class, are all a part of the new vernacular of the neo-oppressed.
The language of civil rights for underrepresented groups has been revised to describe the hyper-perception that the benefits and privileges received based on race have been violated. And, what better legislation to use to protect a class, privileged in this case, from “isms” than those of the civil rights?
Take for instance, civility. Civility has become one of the buzz words used by organizations to describe how individuals in organizations should “behave” in order to provide a positive and productive work environment. However, all too often conversations about civility and its hyper-interpretation seem to be coincidental with reactions from underrepresented groups who transgress against the many institutionalized “isms” in the organizations.
To the neo-oppressed, speaking out against the organization, whether it exhibits all of the attributes of institutionalized racism or not, would be uncivilized, aggressive, barbaric and downright attacking. Yet, I needn’t remind anyone that the civil rights movement included protest, sit-ins, boycotts, discussions, legal actions, and other transgressive forms of protest against White supremacy. Those were referred to as civil rights demonstrations or civil disobedience before “revising” the narrative and reality created by the newly oppressed. The uncivilized behavior included the beatings, tear gas, water hoses and the dogs—not fighting against incivility and savagery.
