and indignities embedded in a macrocontext of societal oppression, which render them invisible to the perpetrator.
In the not‐too‐distant past, these kinds of daily occurrences were less publicized. Among the earlier well‐publicized examples, one involved a renowned African American scholar and professor at Harvard University. Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested on July 16, 2009, for disorderly conduct by a White Boston police officer, Sergeant James M. Crowley, because Gates “exhibited loud and tumultuous behavior.” What was said between the two is in dispute, but what we do know are the following facts. Gates had just returned from China, where he was filming a PBS documentary, Faces of America, and was driven back to his Cambridge home. For some reason the door to his home was jammed, and he asked the driver, a dark‐skinned Moroccan man, to help force it open. A 911 caller reported two men forcing open the door to a house. Sergeant Crowley was the first to arrive and saw Gates in the foyer of his home. He asked Gates for identification; that is when the encounter seems to have escalated. Both men offer different versions of the event. Gates reports that he asked Crowley several times for his name and badge number, and Crowley reports that it took some time before Gates complied with his request to show identification. Within a short period of time, the street was clogged by six other officers who arrived at the scene. When Gates was asked to step out of the house, he reportedly did not initially comply. When he finally did, Gates was arrested, handcuffed, and taken to jail. The charges, however, subsequently were dropped.
The incident made national headlines as an example of police profiling Black men, and news programs and talk shows debated whether race had anything to do with the outcome. During a news conference held by President Obama, he described the arrest of Gates as “stupid,” and his remark brought on a huge outcry from primarily White citizens who came to the defense of the police. The outcry resulted in the president expressing regret at not “calibrating” his words more carefully. President Obama subsequently invited both Gates and Crowley to the White House to bridge misunderstandings over a beer.
The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident is a prime example of the central thesis of this book, microaggressions (racial, in this case).
1 Reports that Sergeant Crowley was a sensitive White officer, level‐headed, a role model to younger officers, and a man who devoted time to training others on diversity and how not to racially profile are documented by fellow officers. Gates is well known at Harvard and nationally as someone who has worked for improved race relations, is good at putting people at ease, is cool and calm under fire, and is devoted to social justice. In other words, both men could be described as good, moral, and decent human beings who believe in equality between the races. Yet as our later chapters indicate, no one is immune from inheriting the racial biases of their forebears. While we cannot definitively conclude that Crowley engaged in a series of microaggressions outside his level of awareness, the arrest of Gates reveals insensitivity to what it must be like for a Black man (the resident of the home he was suspected of breaking into) to be confronted with police officers. Even when he showed identification that confirmed he was the legal resident of the home, Crowley persisted in asking Gates to step out of the house and onto the porch.
2 The second point is that both men are operating from different racial realities. For Gates, his life has probably been filled with many incidents of racial microaggressions (suspected of being a criminal, less trustworthy, likely to be dangerous, etc.). To be considered a criminal in his own home was the ultimate indignity and insult. It is possible that Gates's reluctance to step out of his home as requested by Crowley may have been due to countless examples of law enforcement officers' mistreatment of African Americans, such as in the shooting of Amadou Diallo. In that event, police officers rushed toward an entryway to question a man whom they believed to be acting suspiciously. When Diallo reached into his pocket and pulled out his wallet, he was shot and killed because the officers thought he was reaching for a weapon. Even if unstated, Gates's belief that he was viewed more suspiciously than a White resident would not be unfounded or without merit. Yet Crowley probably believed that he acted within legal guidelines, that his actions were free of racial bias, and that he was not racially profiling. His White racial reality and inability to understand the reality of people of color represent major barriers to racial harmony.
3 The Henry Louis Gates Jr. incident represents an opportunity to dialogue about race in the United States. As some have said, it represents a teachable moment. How do we begin to understand the racial realities of one another? The fact that many White Americans are unable to bridge their worldviews with those of people of color represents a major challenge to our society. The subtext to this incident involves the observation that a national dialogue on race is much needed, but it brings on so many fears, defenses, and antagonisms that even President Obama retreated from taking it on.
As long as microaggressions remain hidden, invisible, unspoken, and excused as innocent slights with minimal harm, we will continue to insult, demean, alienate, and oppress members of marginalized groups. In the realm of racial microaggressions, for example, studies indicate that racial microaggressions often are triggers to difficult dialogues on race in the classroom (D. W. Sue, Lin, Torino, et al., 2009). White students and professors, for example, experience anxiety and a confusing array of emotions when race issues are brought to their attention. Researchers have identified common reasons that might hinder White individuals' exploration of race and racism:
1 White students and professors are confused and uncertain about what is transpiring (D. W. Sue, Torino, Capodilupo, Rivera, & Lin, 2009).
2 White students and professors are very “hung up” (defensive and anxious) about clarifying these racial interactions for fear of appearing racist (Apfelbaum, Sommers, & Norton, 2008).
When critical consciousness and awareness are lacking, when one is fearful about clarifying the meaning of tension‐filled interactions, and when one actively avoids pursuing an understanding of these dynamics, the offenses remain invisible (Goodman, 1995; Henry et al., 2007). Indeed, avoidance of race topics has been likened to “a conspiracy of silence” (D. W. Sue, 2005).
Making the “invisible” visible is the first step toward combating unconscious and unintentional racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of bigotry. Thus, the primary purposes of this book build upon the efforts in the first edition to:
describe and make visible microaggressions
explain the dynamic psychological interplay between perpetrators and targets
depict the individual and societal consequences of microaggressions and macroaggressions
reveal how microaggressions create maximal harm
recommend individual, institutional, and societal strategies—microinterventions—that will ameliorate the harms aimed toward members of marginalized groups in the United States and beyond.
Note
1 1 Although most people likely prefer their tribal names (e.g., Blackhorse, 2016; Yellow Bird, 1999), “American Indian” and “Native American” remain the most widely used labels in the United States. An analysis of a U.S. Census survey found that 49% of people who self‐identified as such preferred the term “Indian,” 37% preferred “Native American,” and 3.6% preferred “some other name.” About 5% expressed no preference (Tucker, Kojetin, & Harrison, 1996). While “American Indian” and “Native American” may be used interchangeably, separately, or not at all, “Native American” also is used more expansively. According to the Native American Rights Fund (n.d.), Native Americans include “all Native people of the United States and its territories, including Native Hawaiians and American Samoans.” Thus, we use “Native American” throughout
