Zoom and other video conferencing platforms have allowed
many businesses to keep functioning and stay in contact with their customers
and employees. They have been instrumental in countless training and
informational sessions and have literally taken the place of school classrooms,
particularly in the case of colleges and universities. They have helped many
students to graduate on time during the era of coronavirus lock-downs and
shelter at home orders. Thank goodness for them, right?
Not so
fast say some. Michigan State University recently published an article
highlighting claims from MSU Professor Amy Bonomi and University of Colorado
Interim Vice Chancellor for Diversity and Inclusion (can’t understand why your
tuition keeps going up, kids) Nelia Viveiros that an “unconscious bias” haunts many
video conferencing meetings. The duo say that virtual meetings are rife with
microaggressions, unconscious biases and other boogeymen boogeypersons
that can “minoritize” students and coworkers.
Bonomi
states: “Unconscious bias includes using language, symbolism and nonverbal cues
that reinforce normative social identities with respect to gender, race, sexual
preference, and socioeconomic status. For example, when the virtual background
of a Zoom meeting attendee has pictures of his or her wedding, it
unintentionally reinforces the idea that marriage is most fitting between
opposite sexes.
Egads!
We would hate to have marriage between the complimentary sexes be seen as
normative, since we know sexual preference is akin to one’s preference in
breakfast cereals or hair color. Men, women, kids, robots, goats, goat kids,
it’s all the same. After all, everyone is welcome in
DiversityandInclusionville. Well, except for conservative Christians,
obviously, but that goes without saying. The truth is, his or her wedding
picture doesn’t reinforce any idea except that he or she loves her partner and
treasures that moment. Also, many gays and lesbians have wedding pictures, too.
Viveiros
noted: “In a recent videoconference, we were asked the ‘most fun thing you’ve
done with your family during quarantine.’ Participant answers ranged from
‘gardening with my husband’ to ‘dance parties with my family.’” She added that
sharing these types of experiences can “crowd out the experience of people with
minoritized social identities” and that “asking about ‘fun family things’
prevented several Latinx attendees from sharing their experiences of losing
family members to novel coronavirus.” No and no. Minorities can garden, even
with their spouses. And they certainly can have dance parties. And many more
non-Latinx people than Latinx people have lost loved ones to the coronavirus.
Michigan
State’s post hectored people to “Be conscious about what your ‘virtual
environment’ might symbolize. While virtual backgrounds may be a way for
participants to express themselves, it is important to understand who is being
excluded and included with these types of actions.” Pictures of your kids might
offend and minoritize abortion zealots. A certificate, trophy or award is
likely to be seen by some as an ode to “ableism.” It might be best if the
federal government mandated that all backgrounds visible on videoconferencing
meetings be basic black. Nothing is better than anything else, right? Or at
least less offensive.
Bonomi
pointed out that “to mitigate the potential of exclusion, some organizations
are guiding participants to consider background choices to reflect the
organization’s values, as opposed to personal choice.” Ah, there it is. Another
attack on personal choice. It’s not your personal choice to leave your home
anymore. It’s not your personal choice as to whether or not to wear a face
mask. Or to decide what family pictures might conceivably be visible to others
on the Zoom meeting you are attending. Far better to subtly espouse the
“values” of Amazon, Twitter or Michigan State University.
MSU
also instructed students to use conference calls and video-conferences to
“challenge microaggressions.” Great advice. “Ms. Johnson, I know, like, you’re
the boss and everything, but that picture of you with your wife and dog renders
lesbian couples with canines as the normative, optimum family model and
minoritizes heterosexual cat owners like myself. And I don’t like it.”
Good
luck with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment