An elite City law firm has vowed to crackdown on “microaggressions” in the office by launching an anonymous reporting hotline for staff upset by “non-inclusive” language, behaviour or facial gestures at work (Legal Cheek, Mail, Times).
Hogan Lovell, one of the highest earning firms in the world, says the hotline – which it describes with presumably unintended irony as “a progressive tool” – aims to create a “secure, anonymous channel to log incidents such as microaggressions or interactional bias related to gender, race, sexual orientation, disability and more”.
The new internal system was developed in partnership with InChorus, a technology firm which describes “microaggression” as “subtle, often unintentional, behaviours or comments that convey negative assumptions about a person’s identity or background”.
Culled from Critical Race Theory, this concept implicitly assumes that the people committing the ‘aggression’ will invariably be from an ‘oppressor’ class – white, male, heteronormative, etc – while those at the receiving end are those categories who have been historically marginalised.
In this sense, the “microaggression” is to the workplace what “hate speech” is to the public square – vague, ill-defined and easily weaponised by those with a politicised agenda. Small wonder, then, that on Julia Hartley-Brewer’s TalkTV show this week, FSU Director Tom Harris referred to Hogan Lovell’s new system as “as like a secret police force”.
To establish suitable parameters for its new narking network, Hogan Lovell is relying on a list of microaggressions provided by the tech firm that include saying “you’re pretty strong for a girl”, referring to a mixed-gender group as “guys” and describing younger colleagues as “kids” or “babies”.
Asking a person of colour where they are ‘really’ from, making jokes about someone’s age or assuming an older colleague is technologically challenged, and using “heteronormative language without considering diverse identities” are all likely to have a “real impact” on the “wellbeing” of staff.
Other “small acts of discrimination” include using “ableist language without awareness”, making “assumptions about someone’s financial status and “assuming everyone has access to the same resources” are also listed as examples of smaller incidents which do not foster a culture of respect and inclusivity.
According to the Telegraph, anyone reporting a microaggression will fill out a form relating to the identity of the microaggressor, what they experienced – such as “interruption or stereotyping” – and the setting or context, such as in a meeting or one-on-one.
Penny Angell, UK managing partner at Hogan Lovells said: “We know that there can be a reluctance to call out seemingly ‘minor incidents’, which may nonetheless contribute to someone feeling excluded or marginalised in the workplace.
“By embracing this technology,” she added, “we can help ensure that every voice is heard, allowing us to review and act on trends over time and to foster an even more inclusive environment.”
Speaking to People Management, Aggie Mutuma, CEO of Mahogany Inclusion Partners, agreed, describing the system as a “proactive step towards creating a more open, inclusive and psychologically safe work environment for all.”
Ensuring the reports are anonymous is key, she said, because “many employees may hesitate to report incidents openly because of fear of retaliation, concerns about career impact or simply not wanting to be seen as ‘troublemakers’.
“An anonymous system provides a layer of psychological safety, encouraging more honest and frequent reporting,” Ms Matua added.
It’s fair to say that’s not the FSU’s experience of these systems.
Since we formed in 2020, we have legally represented many members whose speech has been policed or silenced, and we are concerned about a growing trend in workplaces up and down the country to utilise this form of surveillance – technically known as ‘sousveillance’ – in which members within a group monitor others within that same group, just like the Stasi’s system in East Germany during the Cold War.
What makes sousveillance particularly insidious is that it leaves employees to the mercy of the most hyper-sensitive (or vexatious) staff in the workplace, and openly cultivates a culture of fear-induced blandness.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, it’s system of control that’s proved particularly popular in higher education.
Last year, for instance, it emerged that students at the University of Surrey were being encouraged to anonymously report staff seen committing perceived ‘microaggressions’ such as criticising the Chinese Communist Party’s draconian Covid lockdown policy. As more than a dozen academic staff subsequently pointed out in a letter to the university’s senate, the move formed part of a wider institutional attempt at “policing conformity with controversial moral and/or political beliefs”.
Back in 2021, the introduction of a similar reporting system was heavily criticised by Professors at the University of Cambridge, not least because it was built around guidance that contained a highly controversial, Critical Race Theory inflected definition of “racism” that appeared to violate s.91 of the Equality Act 2010 by suggesting that white people could not be the victims of racism, thus excluding several groups from accessing the mechanisms of support offered in the guidance.
Dr Arif Ahmed, then a philosophy lecturer at Cambridge University, said the definition of racism used by Downing College was “divisive and inflammatory”, and that the encouragement to students to report “inappropriate” or “offensive” behaviour amounted to a snitches’ charter.
“Any risk-averse white person will simply not engage with anyone from an ethnic minority, in case an innocent or well-meaning remark is overheard, misunderstood and reported,” he said.
More recently, the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art (Lamda) placed QR codes around the school, allowing trainee actors, directors and technicians to report their tutors for any perceived slights or discrimination.
Once scanned, these QR code give students access to the official Lamda ‘Microaggression Reporting Form’, which asks them to recount incidents of microaggressions “in as much detail as possible” and suggest what they “would like done in response” to these perceived aggressions.
Speaking to the Mail about this initiative, the FSU’s Chief Legal Counsel Dr Bryn Harris said: “It is overwhelmingly obvious to most people that surveillance not only will result in dull and unambitious teaching, but also carries deeply unpleasant reminiscences of totalitarian practice.
“Academic careers have been ruined by universities tolerating, and even inducing, a culture of student denunciation,” he added.
