I paraphrase, of course. Though not by much:
The hired facilitators asked each member of the department to respond to various personal questions about race and racial identity. When it was my turn to respond, I said “I don’t feel comfortable talking about that.” I was the only person in the room to abstain. Later, the facilitators told everyone present that a white person’s discomfort at discussing their race is a symptom of “white fragility.” They said that the white person may seem like they are in distress, but that it is actually a “power play.” In other words, because I am white, my genuine discomfort was framed as an act of aggression. I was shamed and humiliated in front of all of my colleagues.
I filed an internal complaint about the hostile environment, but throughout that process, over the course of almost six months, I felt like my complaint was taken less seriously because of my race. I was told that the civil rights law protections were not created to help people like me. And after I filed my complaint, I started to experience retaliatory behaviour, like having important aspects of my job taken away without explanation…
What passes for “progressive” today at Smith [College] and at so many other institutions is regressive… and I fear this is rapidly leading us to a very twisted place. It terrifies me that others don’t seem to see that racial segregation and demonisation are wrong and dangerous no matter what its victims look like. Being told that any disagreement or feelings of discomfort somehow upholds “white supremacy” is not just morally wrong. It is psychologically abusive.
Of the people being degraded and stupefied by “critical race theory” - and there are a lot of them - some, a few, are daring to object, albeit belatedly. Those who do, however - like Ms Jodi Shaw, quoted above – may find themselves being told that they are “in need of further training,” which is to say, more of the aforementioned psychological abuse. Iterations of which can be found here. By politely questioning the assumptions of “critical race theory,” and by drawing attention to its non-reciprocal premise, Ms Shaw is apparently a danger of some kind and requires yet more indoctrination, and more bullying, “before she can safely interact with students and fellow staff.”