Editor’s note: The following column first appeared on the author’s blog, Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.

There is a controversy in Oregon over a proposed change in the ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board. At issue is the use of “microaggressions” to discipline doctors and to make reporting such transgressions mandatory for all doctors. It seems before you can give stitches, you have to join snitches under one of the most ambiguous categories of prescribed speech.

I have been a critic of microaggression rules on college campuses and discuss this trend in my book out this week, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” In past debates over this category of offensive speech, I have objected that it is hopelessly vague and highly controversial.

That ambiguity creates a threat to free speech through a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered microaggressive. Terms ranging from “melting pot” to phrases like “pulling oneself up by your own bootstraps” have been declared racist.  Some of those have been identified by Columbia professor Derald Wing Sue, cited by Oregon’s state government as a “microaggressions expert.”

THINK TWICE? BAR GROUP TELLS MEMBERS IT’S OK TO CRITICIZE, BUT DON’T DARE CALL TRUMP CONVICTION ‘PARTISAN’

The Hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will ‘first do no harm.’ Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. 

Advertisement

Professor Sue considers statements like “Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough!” as an example of a microaggression. Sue’s work on “microassaults,” “microinsults,” and “microinvalidations” are being effectively adopted by the Board.

Notably, when I have objected to this category, advocates have insisted that they are merely voluntary and instructive, not mandatory. I have long argued that they are used in a mandatory fashion by triggering investigations of professors and would inevitably be made mandatory.

That appears to be happening in Oregon. A couple of conservative sites have covered the controversy.

The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethics rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.

Under the new ethics rule from the Oregon Medical Board, “unprofessional conduct” (over which a doctor can lose his or her license) will include microaggressions:

“In the practice of medicine, podiatry, or acupuncture, discrimination through unfair treatment by implicit and explicit bias, including microaggressions, or indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.”

The new section “J” ranks microaggressions with fraud, sexual assault, and ordering unnecessary or harmful surgeries.

The Oregon Medical Board states that:

“The proposed rule amendments update the definition of “unprofessional conduct” to include discrimination in the practice of medicine, podiatry, and acupuncture, which would make discrimination a ground for discipline. The proposed rule may favorably impact racial equity by making discrimination a ground for discipline for OMB licensees. It is not known how the other proposed rule amendments will impact racial equity in the state.”

The incorporation of microaggressions under the new ethics rules is precisely what some of us have been warning about for years. As is often the case, activists begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional before codifying those rules in mandatory terms.

We have seen the same trajectory in other areas like land acknowledgments where the line between the optimal and the mandatory is hard to discern. As discussed in my book:

“What began as voluntary statements have become either expressly or implicitly mandatory…George Brown College in Toronto requires faculty and students alike to agree to a land acknowledgment statement to even gain access to virtual classrooms. While such statements are portrayed as optional, they are often enforced as compulsory. The University of Washington encouraged faculty to add a prewritten ‘Indigenous land acknowledgment’ statement to their syllabi. The recommended statement states that ‘The University of Washington acknowledges the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip and Muckleshoot nations.’

Computer science professor Stuart Reges decided to write his own statement. He declared…’I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.’ … He was told that, while the university statement is optional, his statement was unacceptable because it questioned the indigenous land claim of the Coast Salish people. Reges’s dissenting statement was removed, and the university emailed his students offering an apology for their professor’s ‘offensive’ opinion and advising them on ‘three ways students could file complaints against’ him.”

Federal courts have ruled in favor of academics in disputes over microaggression rules, but the movement is expanding beyond campuses, as shown in Oregon.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

I have no objection to the sharing of views of others on how certain phrases are received. I have dropped certain terms or phrases even though I did not see why a term or phrase is insulting. It was enough that others find certain language to be insulting and I do not want to make them feel uncomfortable. Yet, this category of speech was created to encompass a broad, ill-defined range of speech that falls below outright discriminatory or harassing language. That makes for a dangerously vague standard for a mandatory reporting rule.

The free speech concern is how such microaggressive terms can be used to curtail or punish speech, including supporting complaints for formal investigations.  Disciplinary actions often seem based on how language is received rather than intended. Schools need to be clear as to whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.

Consider again the language from the Oregon Medical Board. It would encompass any “indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group.” The standard is heavily laden with subjectivity. (Notably, it does not include making such comments about any majority group, presumably whites or males).

The board then amplifies the standard by making it mandatory for other doctors to report colleagues. Under the proposed rule, 

“A licensee must report within 10 business days to the Board any information that appears to show that a licensee is or may be medically incompetent or is or may be guilty of unprofessional or dishonorable conduct or is or may be a licensee with a physical incapacity.”

So, doctors will have to police any “indirect or subtle behaviors” that “reflect negative attitudes or beliefs”… or face discipline themselves.

The Hippocratic oath is based on the pledge that doctors will “first do no harm.” Unfortunately, that pledge does not appear to apply to free speech in Oregon. Rather than merely publish opinions on phrases or practices that can be seen as microaggressive, the Oregon Medical Board is about to impose an ambiguous speech regulation that is likely viewed by some doctors as turning them into social-warrior snitches.

The Oregon Medical Board should remove the microaggressive provision. Sometimes the best treatment is the least intrusive.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM JONATHAN TURLEY

If you are an active social media user, you must have come across several posts debating the merits and the demerits of Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru. The three metropolitan cities each have a loyal fan base, and tweets discussing their livability often go viral. Recently, an Indian-origin entrepreneur took to X to draw parallels between Bengaluru and San Francisco. In a detailed thread, Hardeep Gambhir, founder of The Residency, shared several aspects of Bengaluru that matched with San Francisco. 

Mr Gambhir noted that he returned to India after seven years of living in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Upon landing at Bengaluru’s Kempegowda International Airport, he noticed the efficient ‘Uber Zone’ system that eliminated waiting time. 

”Instead of booking an Uber and finding it, you simply book an Uber and go to the first car in the queue of cars, tell your PIN to the driver and off you go to your destination. No waiting time,” he wrote.

Since I moved out of India 7 years ago, I thought I’d never live here again.

After spending a lot of time in the Bay, in May, I moved to Bangalore where I had never been to start @_TheResidency.

And it has been an immaculate SF-like experience in this city.

Here’s why🧵:

— Hardeep (@hardeep_gambhir) June 21, 2024

Advertisement

He was also surprised when an auto-rickshaw driver replied in English. ”I was expecting to speak a bit of Hindi here this summer and surprisingly when I first spoke Hindi to an Auto-rickshaw driver, I got replies from him in English. Turns out Bangalore is the city with English as the most spoken language in India. I was so surprised by this,” he added.

The entrepreneur highlighted Bengaluru’s vibrant startup ecosystem by comparing HSR Layout to San Francisco’s Hayes Valley. He also praised Bengaluru’s quick commerce services like Swiggy Instamart, which he likened to “Walmart delivery in 4 to 7 minutes, available 24×7.” 

The entrepreneur then mentioned low carrier charges in India and the availability of mobility services like Yulu electric bikes, which he likened to San Francisco’s Lime, Veo and Baywheels bikes.

Mr Gambhir also talked about the city’s affordability by highlighting the significantly lower cost of living in Bengaluru compared to San Francisco. He further praised the city’s amazing weather, but mentioned the two things he didn’t like– ”mosquitoes and ridiculous security deposits for renting.”

I highly recommend for someone curious about another country’s startup ecosystem like SF to come visit here. Also, the e-visa should take 3-5 days to get fully remote. Oh, not to mention. Uber is shit cheap,” he concluded. 

DENVER (KDVR) — A Colorado cat rescue group is scrambling after its co-founder said two foster kittens were stolen, along with the vehicle they were sitting in, on Monday morning in Denver.

Kris Meding, co-founder of Colorado Feline Foster Rescue, said the foster kittens were sitting inside a “socializing pouch” inside a sport utility vehicle, on Washington Street between 11th and 12th avenues. She said the foster parent had started the vehicle and briefly stepped away.

Within a few moments, the vehicle and kittens were gone.

“Stepped out of the car for a minute to grab something else, came back and the car was gone with her purse, her phone and the kittens in it,” Meding said.

The vehicle is a 2005 Toyota 4Runner, license plate BQAX60. Meding said both felines are chipped and were rescued from Carlsbad, New Mexico.

She said the foster parent has filed a report with the Denver Police Department.

Colorado Feline Foster Rescue has 170 cats in foster homes. Currently, the all-volunteer organization has 90-100 foster families. Last year, the group adopted out 1,200 cats.

For more information, please contact info@coloradofelinefosterrescue.org or call 303-888-7238.