“Did I Hear That Right?”: A CRT Analysis of Racial Microaggressions in K-12 Schools

Abstract

Microaggressions are well-documented in education literature, yet they are typically explored on the interpersonal level and less often contextualized within a broader educational context. In this study, we used a critical qualitative approach, pairing a Critical Race Theory framework with a feminist critique, to explore K-12 faculty and staff perceptions of racial microaggressions in U.S. public schools. Twenty-five faculty and staff with anti-oppressive orientations shared their perceptions of pathologizing cultural values or communication styles, a specific type of microaggression. A flexible coding approach, including three coding cycles, was used to analyze the data. Participant narratives indicated how Black, Indigenous, and Latinx students, families, faculty, and staff are regularly pathologized in the K-12 education setting. Findings highlight how microaggressions are a form of institutionalized racism that negatively impacts the educational environment, thus norming and reenforcing the dehumanization of People of Color. Implications for future research and social work practice are discussed.

Keywords

microaggressions K-12 education critical race theory institutional racism

The term microaggressions was first introduced by Dr. Chester Pierce in 1970 (Pérez Huber & Solórzano, 2015) and was initially defined as common, daily occurrences that are “subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges which are ‘put downs’ of blacks by offenders” (Pierce et al., 1978, p. 66). These more subtle acts of racism are common occurrences committed by both strangers and seemingly well-intentioned friends, neighbors, and coworkers (Sue, Bucceri et al., 2007). Although harmful, microaggressions are so common that their use often goes unnoticed by the offenders and bystanders.

While much of the early work on microaggressions emerged from psychology and education, identifying and intervening in microaggressions has become fundamental to social work's conceptualization of social justice. K-12 schools are a common context in which the three disciplines of psychology, education, and social work intersect. This study uses a critical qualitative approach, pairing a Critical Race Theory (CRT) framework with a feminist critique, to explore school faculty and staff perceptions of microaggressions in K-12 schools (Levitt et al., 2021). The results indicate that the specific type of microaggression, pathologizing cultural values and communication styles, is supported by educational processes and practices. Consequently, microaggressions are commonplace within the education system, thus maintaining institutional racism.

Impact of Microaggressions

Since its initial introduction in the 1970s, the concept of microaggressions has been used to understand and examine the experiences of people who have been historically marginalized in many contexts, including daily life (Sue, Capodilupo et al., 2007), the workplace (Basford et al., 2014; DeCuir-Gunby & Gunby, 2016; Sue et al., 2009), therapeutic settings (Owen et al., 2014; Sue, Capodilupo et al., 2007), the social welfare system (Liegghio & Caragata, 2016), and education settings (Blume et al., 2012; Sanchez et al., 2018; Yosso et al., 2009). The findings from these studies demonstrate the real and lasting consequences of microaggressions on the mental, psychological, and physical health of those who experience them and the service-providing institutions where they are experienced (Blume et al., 2012; Nadal, 2014; Nadal et al., 2014; Sanchez et al., 2018; Solórzano et al., 2000; Sue, Bucceri et al., 2007).

Literature suggests that experiencing microaggressions is common among historically marginalized groups, including but not limited to People of Color, the LGBTQ+ community, women, people with disabilities, individuals with lower SES, and certain religious groups (Keller & Galgay, 2010; Nadal et al., 2010; Smith & Redington, 2010; Sue, 2010; Sue, Bucceri et al., 2007; Sue, Capodilupo et al., 2007; Sue, Holder et al., 2008). Moreover, the effects of microaggressions—both experiences and consequences—are often compounded for those with multiple marginalized identities (Crenshaw, 1990; Garnett et al., 2014; Pérez Huber & Solórzano, 2015), and those who experience interlocking identities and, consequently, webs of oppression (Biana, 2020; Hooks, 2014).

Much of the literature delving into microaggressions in K-12 education investigates student experiences. Such literature includes incidents with microaggressions based on race and/or ethnicity, immigrant status, and disability (Allen et al., 2013; Dávila, 2015; Kohli & Solórzano, 2012; Nienhusser et al., 2016; Pérez Huber, 2011). A much smaller breadth of research investigates microaggressions witnessed or experienced by K-12 professionals (i.e., teachers, administrators, and support staff) (Endo, 2015; Kohli, 2018; Wintner et al., 2017). This narrower body of research emphasizes how K-12 professionals and students are racialized, highlighting micro and macro forms of racism that negatively impact the targets of microaggressions. For example, literature indicates that microaggressions negatively impact the professional retention and development of Teachers of Color (Kohli, 2018) and the social, emotional, and behavioral well-being of students (Ayón & Philbin, 2017; Huynh, 2012; Wintner et al., 2017).

Current Study

A critical qualitative approach, pairing CRT and a feminist critique, was utilized to shed light on the oppressive dynamics of the K-12 education system (Levitt et al., 2021). “Qualitative and critical approaches to inquiry…value the formation of findings that are based in contextualized and holistic descriptions of lived experiences, view the process of interpretation within research as demanding attention and explication, and require that researchers reflexively and transparently consider their own assumptive frameworks” (Levitt et al., 2021, p. 359). Within this study, the researchers aimed to identify the root causes of microaggressions (i.e., racist structures, policies, practices, and ideologies) while examining microaggressions within the larger context of racism, both of which might otherwise be ignored by simply analyzing microaggressions at the personally mediated level. As microaggressions are forms of oppression, our specific research interest explores how educators who profess to engage in antioppressive practice experience these oppressive acts (including racial microaggressions where they are the primary target, secondary target, or a bystander) (Pérez Huber & Solórzano, 2015). The study is guided by one research question: How are racial microaggressions perceived and experienced by antioppressive K-12 educators?

Critical Race Theory Overview

Emerging in the mid-1970s (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001), CRT is a comprehensive movement that “compels us to confront…the historical centrality and complicity of law in upholding white supremacy (and concomitant hierarchies of gender, class, and sexual orientation)” (West, 1995, p. xi). At its core, CRT recognizes that racial power, in the form of white supremacy, is “produced by and experienced within numerous vectors of social life” in the U.S. (Crenshaw et al., 1995, p. xxxii). Subsequently, CRT scholarship examines the connection between racial power and law and provides a path to challenge racial domination.

Although not exhaustive, common tenets described throughout CRT literature—both legal and in the applied sciences, including social work—are centrality and permanence of racism, differential racialization, critique of ahistoricism or need for historical context, race as a social construction, property value of whiteness, interest convergence, critique of liberalism and color-evasiveness, intersectionality, unique voice(s) of color, and counternarrative (Abrams & Moio, 2009; Annamma et al., 2017; Daftary, 2020; Kolivoski et al., 2014). Equally important to CRT and the field of social work is a commitment to social justice and eradicating all forms of oppression (Daftary, 2020; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Kolivoski, 2020). The CRT tenets most relevant to this study are defined in this paper's findings section.

CRT is commonly used in the field of education to raise awareness about racism and inequities in education (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Parsons et al., 2011). Education scholars apply CRT to highlight white supremacist ideology, policies, and practices and their influence on students and educators with intersecting identities. For example, in K-12 education, CRT studies have revealed a connection between individual racism and larger systemic forms of racism (Pérez Huber, 2011), the mispronouncing and changing of students’ names (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012), and macro-level aggressions such as academic tracking, disciplinary policies, and curricula (Allen et al., 2013). These studies provide examples of behaviors and policies that are the mechanisms which communicate teachers’ deficit perspectives and negative perceptions of students, thus perpetuating feelings of inferiority in Students of Color.

A notable critique within the current body of literature is that even though various researchers identify CRT as at least one of the applied frameworks when investigating microaggressions in K-12 education, CRT is not always thoroughly articulated and executed. For example, Wintner et al. (2017), who explored school social workers’ perceptions of microaggressions experienced by students in K-8 education, initially stated that their study “bridges the pragmatic and constructivist elements of grounded theory to Critical Race Theory.” (p. 595). Yet, they never clearly described CRT and its tenets or mention CRT in the methods, findings, or discussion sections of their paper. This is problematic because when applying CRT as a framework for research in applied fields, it is recommended that researchers “remain true to the spirit of CRT from the study's inception through the reporting of research findings” (Daftary, 2020, p. 440).

Feminist Standpoint Theory

In addition to CRT, this study draws on Feminist Standpoint Theory (Harding, 2004). This approach foregrounds how multiple social identities influence individual experiences and create possibilities for research to connect individual, interpersonal experiences to larger systems of oppression (Harding, 1991; Swigonski, 1994), which is particularly useful for studying microaggressions. Interestingly, it is our individual standpoints (outlined in our positionality statements) that led each of us researchers to adopt CRT as the overall theoretical and epistemological structure for this paper.

Positionality of the Authors

The first author, who designed and collected the data for this research study, is a White, heterosexual, cisgender woman. These privileged identities were centered in almost all her educational experiences, which is not the case for many of the students she served as a school social worker. Her background as a school social worker provided a foundational understanding of educational language and school dynamics (e.g., racism and racialized dynamics that play out in the K-12 education system). She views CRT as a necessary framework for her centering the impact of racism (personally mediated and systemic racism) which could be overlooked given her white racial identity.

The second author identifies as a queer Xicana, first-generation college graduate, genderqueer woman. She attended Catholic schools from preschool through college. All the teachers who instructed her in her preschool through kindergarten education were from a Mexican religious order of Catholic sisters. This resulted in her learning from teachers who matched the cultural values and linguistic gifts of her family. As a student, her first experience of racial microaggressions happened in her Catholic high school whose faculty and student body were mostly White. It was, however, during her MSW program located in a predominately white-populated state and university that she experienced the full force of microaggressions from faculty, students, and professionals in mental health settings. This resulted in her ascribing to theories that address dehumanization, including CRT.

The third author is informed by their identities as a trans, nonbinary, first-generation Faculty of Color. They also have lived experience as a school pushout and homeless youth, which shapes their thinking about oppression and power, especially regarding youth and young People of Color. The fourth author is informed by her identities as a cisgendered, heterosexual, (white-presenting) Woman of Color. She has lived experience as a school pushout, persister, and ultimately, a dropout as well. She also has practice experience as a school social worker in urban schools. Collectively, these lived experiences influence her approach to educational justice.

Intentionally creating a diverse research team supported the inclusion of varied perspectives and problem-framing to reduce the bias that creeps into research results (Daftary et al., forthcoming). Our disparate life experiences and perspectives have created multiple lenses through which this paper's findings and subsequent implications were understood and described. As a research team, we also paid attention to the inherent power imbalances stemming from our personal and professional identities. The order of authorship was fluid throughout the writing process. We thoroughly discussed authorship through the various stages of the writing process, and ultimately made the final decision about authorship based on our contributions throughout the entirety of this project (from the generation of topic to addressing reviewers’ comments). The order of authorship was decided at the time of the final submission with the agreement of all authors. Aligning with CRT and a feminist critique, these team reflections and discussions were a necessary step to address power differences and dynamics among team members.

Methods

In this study, we used a subset of data taken from a larger qualitative study completed by the first author. The original study investigated antioppressive practices in K-12 education. Institutional Review Board approval was received prior to the start of data collection, which occurred between November 2016 and January 2018.

Sampling Strategy and Participant Demographics

Purposeful and snowball sampling were used to identify participants. Initially, the first author, who had recently worked as a school social worker, contacted professional colleagues who were actively engaged in antioppressive practice. Those key informants then referred additional colleagues. All participants met the following inclusion criteria in that they: (1) were adults, (2) had experience working in the K-12 education setting, and (3) self-reported engagement in antioppressive practice. We anticipated that participants’ engagement in antioppressive practice would allow them to readily identify and explain instances of microaggressions. This is important because, as Sue, Capodilupo et al. (2007) explain, microaggressions are so common that they often go unnoticed by the offenders and bystanders.

A total of 25 individuals participated in the study, of ages ranging from 23 to 54 years. Participants’ professional experience in K-12 education ranged from one to 22 years (M = 5 years). Participants worked in K-12 schools across the United States, including the Northeast, South, Midwest, West, Rocky Mountain Region, and Northwest. Fourteen participants were teachers, five participants were school social workers (including a school social work intern with prior experience as a teacher), three participants were school administrators (all with experience as classroom teachers), one participant was a school counselor, one participant was a school music therapist, and one participant was a school psychologist. Thirteen participants (52%) identified as White, six participants (24%) identified as Black or African American (including one participant who identified as Black and Native), five participants (20%) identified as Latinx, and one participant (4%) identified as Native American. Most participants (n = 20, 80%) identified as women, and five participants (20%) identified as men. Eighteen participants (72%) identified as heterosexual and seven participants (28%) identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. All participants identified as having at least one historically marginalized social identity, with most having two or more (e.g., LGBTQ+, Person of Color, and woman).

Measures and Data Collection

A demographic form and semistructured individual interview protocol were used to collect data. The interview protocol contained open-ended questions about participants’ experiences in K-12 education, including incidents or encounters with oppression and microaggressions and the impact of oppression on academic achievement of students. All participants selected the location/method of their interview—in person, via Skype, or via telephone. The interviews were between 45 min and 2.5 h in duration. All participants were offered a $25 cash incentive.

Data Analysis

Interviews were transcribed and uploaded to Atlas.ti. A flexible coding approach was used for analysis (Deterding & Waters, 2018). In the first coding cycle, two researchers, including the first author, applied index codes (broad codes) to the text that reflected the interview questions and concepts (Deterding & Waters, 2018). Example index codes include antioppressive practice example, microaggression example, and allyship. Upon completing broad coding, the researchers reviewed the codes and their application to the transcripts to enhance trustworthiness. In addition, the researchers discussed emerging conceptual themes and understandings of the data to guide direction of the next coding cycle. The first author completed the subsequent coding cycles.

In the second cycle of coding, focused codes (Deterding & Waters, 2018) reflecting Sue, Capodilupo et al. (2007) typology were applied to the text that referenced microaggressions (n = 91). These nine types of microaggressions include: denial of individual racism, pathologizing cultural values and communication styles, the ascription of intelligence, the myth of meritocracy, second-class citizen status, the assumption of criminality, alien in own land, color-evasiveness, and environmental microaggressions. Sixteen participants (64%) across demographic characteristics (e.g., social identity and professional roles) provided lived examples (N = 35) of the way that staff and teachers (most of whom were presumed to be white) engaged in the pathologizing the cultural values and communication styles microaggression.

In the final cycle of coding, 11 CRT tenets were applied to the text coded as pathologizing cultural values and communication styles. These tenets included: centrality and permanence of racism, differential racialization, critique of ahistoricism or need for historical context, race as a social construction, property value of whiteness, interest convergence, critique of liberalism and color-evasiveness, intersectionality, unique voice of color, counternarrative, and social justice.

Pairing a CRT framework with a feminist critique requires that findings are situated within the context of the oppressive system in which personally mediated racism (i.e., microaggressions) plays out. Subsequently, an integral part of interpretating the findings was the additional step of analysis in which each of the authors reviewed the initial findings and shared their perspectives. Our overlapping and disparate perspectives on the findings (based on our personal, intersecting, social identities, professional experience, and the theoretical frameworks that guide our work) strengthened interpretation of the findings and their implications.

Methodological Integrity

In line with a critical qualitative approach, throughout the data analysis process, the first author engaged in perspective management within data management (Levitt et al., 2021). To achieve this, she consistently reflected on her perspectives, including how they were influenced by her personal and professional social identities, and how her viewpoints might influence data analysis (Levitt et al., 2021). In writing up the initial findings, the first author demonstrated groundedness by including multiple quotations from the participants’ interviews, integrating the participants accounts of microaggressions with her interpretations (Levitt et al., 2021). In lieu of extensive member checks, the various authors, all with different personal and professional experiences working in K-12 education, engaged in creditability checks. The second, third, and fourth authors functioned as auditors with expertise that enabled them to evaluate the meaningfulness of the data (Levitt et al., 2021). The process of continued data analysis by the authors supported refinement of the first author's initial understanding of the data (Levitt et al., 2021).

Findings

Although participants noted experiencing or witnessing several types of microaggressions in their schools, the findings section is limited to the most commonly used microaggression within typology described by Sue and colleagues’ (2007), pathologizing cultural values or communication styles. This microaggression sends the message that racialized individuals or communities should assimilate to the dominate white culture (Sue, Capodilupo et al., 2007). It includes consistent messaging that the values and communication styles of white dominant culture are ideal, simultaneously devaluing, dismissing, or invisibilizing the cultural values and communication styles of Students, Families, and Teachers of Color. Cultural values and communications that are commonly devalued in the dominant white ideology include the way a Person of Color speaks (e.g., tone or style), dresses (e.g., hairstyles or clothing that align with one's culture), or engages with the world (e.g., bringing up culture and race in conversation). Ultimately, participant narratives demonstrate the ways People of Color dress, act, and speak are policed, stereotyped, or viewed as inferior in the K-12 education setting.

Situating the microaggressive examples provided by participants within a CRT framework draws attention to the formal and informal practices, policies, and structures that demean, subordinate, exclude, and otherwise marginalize non-dominant groups, particularly People of Color (Pérez Huber & Solórzano, 2015). Moreover, a CRT framework highlights the way that microaggressions reinforce and are reinforced by institutionalized racism and white supremacy, negatively impacting the educational environment for Students, Families, and Teachers of Color. The most salient CRT tenets that emerged through data analysis were grouped into three themes to more clearly highlight how the type of pathologizing cultural values or communication styles microaggression is connected to structural racism in the K-12 education system. These themes are: (1) the property value of whiteness, (2) intersectionality and differential racialization, and (3) voice of color and social justice. The CRT tenets found within these themes are defined and applied throughout the findings section. Pseudonyms are used to protect the identities of participants.

Property Value of Whiteness

The property value of whiteness reflects the way white racial identity was manufactured into a form of property with significant value that has been both acknowledged and protected in the law throughout the history of the United States (Harris, 1993). The property value of whiteness includes racialized entitlements to protect and patrol whiteness (i.e., decide who is considered white in the eyes of the law) as well as the value placed on the white identity (i.e., visual prominence in media, cultural expectations that align with white-Euro culture, as well as property ownership rights and benefits, including the significant and exceptional resources allotted to schools in predominantly white neighborhoods, etc.).

Participants from this study described how the primacy of white supremacy culture and centrality of racism surfaced in the classroom norms and expectations set by teachers and administrators (the majority of whom are white), which epitomize the property value of whiteness. “White supremacy culture is the widespread ideology baked into the beliefs, values, norms, and standards of our groups (many if not most of them), our communities, our towns, our states, our nation, teaching us both overtly and covertly that whiteness holds value, whiteness is value.” (Okun, 2021, p. 4). Corinne (a Native American, heterosexual, female school administrator) indicated that the behavioral expectations and rules in K-12 schools are based on white, middle-class cultural expectations. These expectations set White middle-class students, families, and staff up for success and create additional barriers for anyone from historically marginalized racial backgrounds. According to Corrine, school administrators, teachers, and staff made

statements like, “You don’t say it that way,” just like a lot of… policing [of] kids and parents and even [other] staff members, to be very specific like Black staff members and students…There are a lot of very implicit or insidious ways of there being like, “Here's the right way and here's the wrong way,” and that often felt rooted in [a] White administration or curriculum that is very rooted [in] whiteness.

In this case, the “property rights” (Harris, 1993, p. 1716) are the rights and privileges of White individuals (i.e., administrators and teachers) who determine the school culture (i.e., linguistic and behavioral expectations) and curriculum for students. Ultimately, the white, Euro-American language and culture is the standard for which all else is compared (judged), the curriculum is built, and school rules and behavioral expectations are set.

Participants also discussed how classrooms are socialized to white, middle-class social norms by dehumanizing students. For example, Holly (a White, lesbian, female, middle school special education teacher) witnessed teachers making comments about students’ hair and reported that teachers “disrespect the students’ names [and make] comments about how they’re spelled.” Hair (textures and styles) and names are culturally and genetically connected to racial and cultural values and identities passed through generations. Disrespectful comments toward others regarding these areas reify whiteness and dehumanize Students of Color by upholding a form of beauty and naming that White people are often born or socially associated with, therefore, creating standards that Students of Color are highly unlikely to achieve. Holly explained that although these kinds of comments might be called microaggressions, “the fact is, they destroy people.” Holly's statement highlights the violence and pain caused by these microaggressions that are supported by the racist culture that allows them to be commonplace in K-12 education.

Intersectionality and Differential Racialization

Participants demonstrated how both positive and negative stereotypes are differently applied to students and teachers based on their race and intersecting identities, which negatively impact the school environment. Attending to intersectionality reveals the problem of “single-axis” or single-identity thinking (Cho et al., 2013, p. 787). Participant narratives indicated that power issues regularly manifest in classroom management, student–teacher interactions, colleague–colleague interactions, and in-school policies and structures. Most often, participants described the ways that individuals differently experience the K-12 education system based on their intersecting gender and racial/ethnic identities.

Dan (a White, gay, male, school psychologist with experience in elementary and high school education) illustrated how teachers’ classroom management styles positively impact some students (e.g., female students of color or White students) and negatively impact other students (e.g., male Students of Color) based on their intersecting (gender and racial) social identities. Dan stated,

In the classroom, we see microaggressions in the form of just who gets called on for what or who gets their name called out for misbehavior … The teacher might say they are redirecting the whole class, and in fact, that's where they start out, but then their follow-up redirections is to name a couple of kids that are still doing the behavior, just drawing attention to the negatives; usually, that tends to be male students of color…On the flipside, I see the positive example student when they [teachers] are trying to give attention to the desired behavior; it seems like that they are much more likely to go to either female students or White students, that those students are given more of an opportunity to answer questions or for a teacher to go and talk with them more quickly when they raise their hand.

This scenario demonstrates how White students’ identities, behaviors, and communication styles are often seen and treated as preferable or remarkable to those of People of Color.

Participant narratives indicate that White teachers differentially racialize students based on their racial and gender identities. While it is unknown what prompts this racist behavior, Ivette (a Latina, heterosexual, female, special education, and general education teacher with experience in both elementary and high school) noted, “White teachers abused their power and expressed their frustration at not being able to communicate appropriately with Black boys or Hispanic kids in very inappropriate, very violent, very racist, oppressive ways…”

This dynamic is not unique to boys and young men. Empirical research is beginning to focus on how Black girls are criminalized in schools, and that they are often targeted for failing to conform to white middle-class notions of girlhood (Fenning & Rose, 2007; E. W. Morris, 2007; M. W. Morris, 2016). Sharon, (a Black, heterosexual, female, elementary special education teacher), discussed the way that Black girls in elementary school are often faulted for their responses to the oppressive environment:

It's just because it's become so normalized in conversation with how we refer to our Black students. Our students who are Black girls are often, you know, they have attitudes; they’re moody, they’re whatever. Instead of just addressing, “Oh no, they actually have a reason to be upset.” The language we use to refer to them is the biggest thing that I see. In terms of [references to Black female] staff, I would say the same.

In each microaggressive example, the CRT tenets of intersectionality, differential racialization, and the centrality of racism are demonstrated. Participants indicated that Black elementary age boys are viewed as “lazy,” “immature,” “incapable,” and prone to “misbehavior” and their Black female counterparts are viewed as “moody” or attitudinal. Although participants consistently shared examples of how Black boys and Black girls were the victims of these negative microaggressions, no participants mentioned a microaggression targeted at White boys or White girls.

The same anti-Black racism and gendered stereotypes applied to Black girls in elementary school are also seen in the treatment of Black female teachers. For example, three of the four Black female participants described experiencing the “angry Black woman” stereotype, whether it was directly and personally applied to them, or they witnessed it being applied to a colleague. These experiences highlight how “race and gender interact to shape the multiple dimensions of Black women's employment experience” (Crenshaw, 1990). Eve (a Black, heterosexual, female, elementary general education teacher) explained that no matter how calm and even her demeanor, she is consistently misperceived as angry by colleagues, the majority of whom are White, which subsequently causes them to feel uncomfortable due to their own biases. Eve stated,

They [microaggressions] are so endemic to my daily life that it's hard to separate them, like, it's life. It's literally life. So, okay, one way it plays out I think of, it's any kind of meeting, I speak out a lot. I speak my mind. I’m generally a soft spoken, pretty calm person, but it doesn’t matter if I speak out or if I have any type of emotion. People will perceive it as anger, and they’ll be afraid, and they’ll be uncomfortable.

In this case, Black female teachers are targeted because of their intersecting racial and gender identities and stereotyped as “angry Black woman” by their colleagues. Conversely, this example also demonstrates one of the ways that the gender and race of Eve's colleagues, most of whom are White female teachers, play out. Eve's colleagues can use their ungrounded fear and discomfort to place themselves in the role of victim when they are in fact perpetrators of racism (a racial microaggression) toward their Black female colleagues. The result is habitual isolation and/or punishment for a teacher that advocates for students and colleagues.

Voice of Color and Social Justice

The CRT tenet, voice of color, asserts that because People of Color experience racism, they can discuss race and racism in ways that White people cannot (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Various participants indicated that not only do Staff of Color recognize racial injustices but they (particularly Black female staff) are also more likely to speak out about injustices. This illustrates the CRT tenet—the commitment to social justice—which aims to end racism and oppression (Yosso, 2005). Ana (a Latina, heterosexual, female, high school Spanish language teacher) stated, “If you look at our staff, it's predominantly White serving a Community of Color, and the people who are most active or vocal about injustices are the ones of color.” Sharon (a Black, heterosexual, female, elementary special education teacher) added that not only are Black women most likely to speak out about injustices but also when they speak out, they consistently face resistance from their colleagues. Sharon stated,

Usually, it is the Black women who are speaking out about things that no one else is calling out. So, everything else that people are thinking is good and Black women say, “No way! Like let's take a step back.” [Colleagues respond by saying,] “Why are you being so defensive? Why are you being so angry? Why are you so confrontational?”

Considering the Voice of Color tenet, it is no surprise that Sharon indicates Black women are able to identify injustices (i.e., forms of racism) that are more widely accepted by the larger school community (majority White women teachers) and challenge that dominant ideology (that no injustices exist) (Yosso, 2005).

From both a CRT and critical feminist perspective, it is equally important to interrogate the responses that Women of Color, particularly Black women, receive from their colleagues when bringing up an injustice. The example provided by Sharon demonstrates her (White) colleagues’ defensiveness and projection of their own anger (related to white fragility) onto Black women while simultaneously rejecting the opportunity to discuss the identified injustices (DiAngelo, 2018). During member checking, Sharon explained that when Black women voice a problem or injustice, their White colleagues “shift the focus to the delivery of the message versus the content, shift[ing] the conversation from requiring action or having a deeper conversation of why they [injustices] are happening in the first place.” This type of response pathologizes Black women's communication styles. From a racial lens, it enables the identified problem to continue without ever being discussed or addressed in a meaningful way, maintaining systemic racism and injustices. From a feminist lens, the language used to silence Women of Color, especially using terms such as “crazy” or confrontational harkens back to women's anger at being identified as “hysterical.”

Mariana (a Latina, heterosexual, female, high school teacher) described a similar experience. White colleagues attempted to shift the conversation away from an example of cultural (mis)appropriation and a stereotypical and monolithic way of viewing Mexican culture. Mariana stated that a White female Spanish-language teacher came to a meeting dressed in a “Mexican costume.” When Mariana expressed her unease, White colleagues rallied behind the White female Spanish-language teacher and enacted additional microaggressions, dismissing Mariana's self-expressions as problematic. Her response to these microaggressions was also pathologized. In fact, one White colleague went so far as to say, “You’re crazy; you’re overreacting.”

Both examples demonstrate the importance of Voice of Color. They also exhibit racism's centrality and the reinforcement of institutional racism using microaggressions as a tool for shaming and social norming. The characterization of Mariana as “crazy” and “overreacting” provides us with an example of her intersectional identity being targeted using language that indicates—she was being overemotional. Feminists have long identified this strategy as a form of patriarchal silencing and shaming predominately used against women to neutralize their perspectives.

Participant narratives illustrate how school culture normalizes oppressive behaviors and pathologizes those who address oppressive behaviors (Pérez Huber & Solórzano, 2015). More specifically, Black and Latina women were pathologized (e.g., being called “angry,” “confrontational,” or “crazy”), which shifted the conversation from the identified injustices to attacks on the personhood of Women of Color. This strategy, which may be unconscious, relieves the discomfort of White educators, socially norms other racially aware peers to silence, and feeds the cycle of institutional racism that is so prevalent in K-12 education.

Discussion

Very little scholarship within the school social work specialty utilizes CRT to understand systemic racism in K-12 education, particularly from the perspective of K-12 educators with antioppressive orientations. Our study is unique as we use a critical qualitative approach, pairing a CRT framework with a feminist critique, to explore school faculty and staff perceptions of microaggressions in K-12 schools (Levitt et al., 2021).

This study highlights CRT's usefulness as an analytical structure to deepen our understanding of the process by which microaggressions sustain racism and systemic racism sustains microaggressions. Further, CRT allows for an elevated analysis of the systemic issues in schools that create inequality, perpetuate racism, and give rise to microaggressions. Rather than individual acts, placed within a CRT framework, microaggressions are understood as a manifestation of broader societal inequity and racism. This perspective is especially important as school systems, and the school social workers working within the K-12 education system, begin to take on racial injustice as a focal topic within their practice and curriculum.

Our findings demonstrate the habitual nature of microaggressions in K-12 education, which is consistent with CRT's claim of the centrality of racism and previous studies of microaggressions in schools (Kohli & Solórzano, 2012; Pérez Huber, 2011). More specifically, participant narratives underscore the centering of whiteness through school rules, culture, and disciplinary practices, including a culture that silences Women of Color when they confront racial microaggressions. Ultimately, K-12 faculty and staff described how pathologizing the cultural values or communication styles of People of Color contributed to inequitable educational opportunities and outcomes for students, further perpetuating a white supremacist system in which White students excel, and Students of Color are marginalized, oppressed, and demeaned.

Research on microaggressions and educational inequality is beginning to use an intersectional approach (Morris, 2007; Morris, 2013), and many studies now explore differential racialization. This study's findings also highlight how individuals are differently racialized and impacted based on their intersecting social identities. Participants discussed discipline and behavioral expectations for students, noting that faculty and staff hold multiple complex stereotypes about students’ engagement that sits at the intersection of race and gender. Likewise, the intersectional focus and differential racialization extends to perceptions of faculty and staff, including the “angry Black Woman” stereotype aimed at Black female teachers.

Although often, it was not always the case that the perpetrators of microaggressions were White teachers. Participants described the reproduction of racism, especially anti-Black racism, within and among Communities of Color that contribute to racial microaggressions. Some scholars describe this as lateral violence (Bailey, 2020) but we considered this as a reproduction of white supremacist violence. From our perspectives, born from our identities and related experiences, race and racism are centered in contextualization of the study's results and implications given the participants’ context of K-12 education. It is not enough, however, to just center race and racism. Given the nature of schools, gender should simultaneously be a focal point. For education systems addressing inequity in the education of our children, feminism is an important tool as dehumanization ultimately lies in the intersection between race and gender. As such, a discussion of the conceptual constructs and research presented in this paper would be inadequate without using a feminist critique in conjunction with CRT, in part because so many school personnel engaging students and students themselves identify as (cisgender) women.

Feminist theories hold the perspective that women are central to inquiry and advocacy (Wigginton & Lafrance, 2019). While CRT includes intersectionality in its theoretical tenet, the direct link to feminism can be lost in translation. Specifically, the link between acts of oppression of any historically marginalized people contributes to the ease with which people are dehumanized based on gender. This is particularly important as White feminists, historically, are accused of ignoring issues like racism that uniquely impact Women of Color because of their strict focus on gender not the intersections of gender and race (Jonsson, 2016; Rowe, 2000). Mariana's experience highlights the importance of using both feminist and racial critiques within K-12 education. The attack on her as both woman and a Woman of Color, without supportive or affirming comment from other teachers, contributes to a climate in which women are deemed irrational—resulting in the dehumanization of three groups of people (People of Color, women, and Women of Color).

The respondents in this study provide examples of how Teachers and Staff of Color are unsupported by their colleagues when confronting microaggressions. In fact, White women were identified as being consistently engaged in racial microaggressions. Perhaps, in complex gender and racial contexts such as K-12 education, the stronger draw of solidarity is whiteness rather than feminist consciousness. Ultimately, a feminist critique not only recognizes that the dehumanization of students, families, and staff based on race and ethnicity (and all other identities) sustains discrimination but also that addressing microaggressions is imperative to the equity of all those associated with K-12 education.

Limitations

This study focused on K-12 professionals’ experiences with microaggressions in their work environments (the K-12 educational setting). Future research to further understand the impact of microaggressions should investigate the student experience. More specifically, research should include training current K-12 students (elementary, middle, and high schoolers) about microaggressions and their impact, and students’ personal examining experiences.

The participants in this study were limited to K-12 (i.e., teachers, administrators, and school social workers) who identified as being antioppressive oriented. Therefore, their perspectives cannot be generalized to the larger K-12 community. The perspectives of the participants might also be distinct from the students who experience and witness microaggressions in their educational settings. Noteworthy is that most participants had at least two historically marginalized identities. While not representative of the larger community of K-12 educators, individuals with multiple, intersecting, historically marginalized identities provide a uniquely valuable perspective and general and self-awareness, particularly regarding marginalization, and exhibit increased awareness of microaggressions.

Finally, the findings are somewhat limited because we did not conduct member checks with all the participants after analysis. Still, we used other strategies to enhance trustworthiness, such as perspective management, groundedness, and creditability checks (Levitt et al., 2021). Additionally, a diverse research team supported the inclusion of varied perspectives and experiences when interpreting the results and their implications. In line with CRT and a critical feminist stance, we do not claim that this research is neutral. Instead, our understanding of participants’ narratives and their implications in the field of school social work are influenced by our theoretical frameworks and the personal and professional diversity of authors.

Implications

School faculty and staff, including school social workers, have a responsibility to identify microaggressions, understand microaggressions as a tool to normalize dehumanization and disrupt the connection between systemic racism and K-12 education. The findings from this study provide an opportunity for school social workers to critically interrogate microaggressions and make the necessary changes to enhance learning and teaching experiences for all stakeholders. Such changes may include school-wide initiatives to shift disciplinary policies and procedures at the school and district levels, curricula redevelopment incorporating diverse experiences and perspectives, inclusive family engagement strategies, bystander intervention training, and antiracist and antioppressive restructuring. In addition, more research is needed to expand our understanding of microaggressions and resistance to microaggressions (and white supremacy) in education.

Intervening when microaggressions occur and advocating for students, families, faculty, and staff who experience microaggressions comprises a direct strategy that school social workers can take to address microaggressions. One way that responses to microaggressions can avoid being color evasive and attend to gender is to follow the three-step structure introduced by Mattsson (2014). First, identify and clearly describe the critical incident with as much detail as possible. Second, critically reflect on one's description by identifying all the power relations at play. Third, reconstruct emancipating strategies for practice and theory with attention to race and gender. This structure provides a process for critically reflecting on incidents using intersectional social work practice and may be implemented across interdisciplinary settings, such as schools. Intersectionality perspectives can bring new understanding to an incident, highlight inadvertent ways that dehumanization happens across race and gender, and combat macroaggressions.

Findings from this study demonstrate that, while all participants self-identified as antioppressive, Faculty and Staff of Color were more likely to intervene in microaggressions they witnessed than their White counterparts. Racially nuanced training that incorporates a discussion of white supremacy culture (Okun, 2021) and bystander intervention for White allies (Sue et al., 2019) can be a tool that shifts the burden of intervention from the targets of aggression (People of Color) to White faculty and staff. Centering the voices of those most impacted by microaggressions, including Faculty and Staff of Color, is another way to develop true allyship and antioppressive practice. Providing safe spaces for the targets of microaggressions to be heard and supported while supporting the aggressors in their journeys of understanding are of utmost importance.

Conclusion

Without systemic changes that both de-center whiteness and hold educational systems, schools, and individuals accountable for personally mediated and systemic racism, current disproportionalities and disparities for K-12 teachers and Students of Color will continue. School social workers may play a key role in leading these changes by using a multilevel approach that targets the broader white supremacist foundations of public education. The findings from our study are not shared with intention to shame or blame educators. Instead, the intent is for the findings to be used as a tool for honest self-reflection and action for all those engaged in the K-12 education system. Acknowledging the habitual regularity of microaggressions in K-12 education, identifying microaggressions in one's own school, and making a connection to systemic racism in K-12 education are each an opportunity for educators to take responsibility for and change racist and oppressive behaviors, systems, structures, and culture that are often sanctioned by being unnoticed or ignored. Ultimately, it is hoped that the findings from this research study provide an opportunity for educators, including school social workers, to make the necessary changes so that they can do the work they have set out to do—ensure that every student, including all Students of Color, has equal access to Free Appropriate Public Education.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Ashley-Marie Hanna Daftary

Ceema Samimi

Author biographies

Ashley-Marie Hanna Daftary is an Associate Professor at UNR School of Social Work. Her research is focused on addressing structural inequities and anti-oppressive practices across three systems: immigration, education, and policy making. To do this, she employs qualitative research methods to uncover the impact of white supremacy as well as effective practices to reduce inequities.

Debora Ortega is the founding director of the Latinx Center @ the University of Denver. Her scholarship addresses the way that everyday white supremacy affects Latinx people in health, education and immigration. She is a professor at the University of Denver Graduate School of Social Work and the University of Denver/Iliff Joint PhD Program in the Study of Religion.

Ceema Samimi (they/them) is a restorative and transformative justice practitioner, abolitionist, and academic focused on how societal structures and systems impact the power of young people. Ceema is a mixed-race first generation scholar and parent of three furchildren (two cats and one dog).

Annahita Ball is an Associate Professor in the School of Social Work at University at Buffalo. Her research focuses on advancing educational justice through meaningful family engagement in schools, social-emotional learning, and effective school-based social service delivery.

References

Abrams

L. S.

Moio

J. A.

(2009). Critical race theory and the cultural competence dilemma in social work education. Journal of Social Work Education, 45(2), 245–261. https://doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700109

Allen

Scott

L. M.

Lewis

C. W.

(2013). Racial microaggressions and African American and Hispanic students in urban schools: A call for culturally affirming education. Interdisciplinary Journal of Teaching and Learning, 3(2), 117–129.

Annamma

S. A.

Jackson

D. D.

Morrison

(2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837

Ayón

Philbin

S. P.

(2017). “Tú no eres de aquí”: Latino children's experiences of institutional and interpersonal discrimination and microaggressions. Social Work Research, 41(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/svw028

Bailey

K. A.

(2020). Indigenous students: Resilient and empowered in the midst of racism and lateral violence. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 43(6), 1032–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2019.1626015

Basford

T. E.

Offermann

L. R.

Behrend

T. S.

(2014). Do you see what I see? Perceptions of gender microaggressions in the workplace. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 340–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313511420

Biana

H. T.

(2020). Extending bell hooks’ feminist theory. Journal of International Women's Studies, 21(1), 13–29. https://vc.bridgew.edu/jiws/vol21/iss1/3

Blume

A. W.

Lovato

L. V.

Thyken

B. N.

Denny

(2012). The relationship of microaggressions with alcohol use and anxiety among ethnic minority college students in a historically White institution. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18(1), 45. 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025457

Cho

Crenshaw

K. W.

McCall

(2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 785–810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608

10.

Crenshaw

(1990). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

11.

Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. The New Press.

12.

Daftary

(2020). Critical race theory: An effective framework for social work research. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 29(6), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/15313204.2018.1534223

13.

Daftary

Rodriguez-JenKins

Ortega

Saldaña-Spiegle

Lopez

(forthcoming). Data justice or research injustice: Everyday racism in social science research. In Nakaoka

Ault

Ortiz

,, & Vazquez

(Eds.), The handbook for critical race theory in social work (pp. xx–xx) [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Cambridge University Press.

14.

Dávila

(2015). Critical race theory, disability microaggressions and Latina/o student experiences in special education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(4), 443–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.885422

15.

Decuir-Gunby

J. T.

Gunby

N. W.

(2016). Racial microaggressions in the workplace: A critical race analysis of the experiences of African American educators. Urban Education, 51(4), 390–414.

16.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

17.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (Vol. 20). New York University Press.

18.

Deterding

N. M.

Waters

M. C.

(2018). Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 708–739. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241187993

19.

DiAngelo

(2018). White fragility: Why it's so hard for white people to talk about racism. Beacon Press.

20.

Endo

(2015). How Asian American female teachers experience racial microaggressions from pre-service preparation to their professional careers. The Urban Review, 47(4), 601–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-015-0326-9

21.

Fenning

Rose

(2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline: The role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907305039

22.

Garnett

B. R.

Masyn

K. E.

Austin

S. B.

Miller

Williams

D. R.

Viswanath

(2014). The intersectionality of discrimination attributes and bullying among youth: An applied latent class analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(8), 1225–1239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-0073-8

23.

Harding

(1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge?: Thinking from women’s lives. Cornell University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7591/j.ctt1hhfnmg

24.

Harding

S. G.

(Ed.). (2004). The feminist standpoint theory reader: Intellectual and political controversies. Psychology Press.

25.

Harris

C. I.

(1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341787

26.

Hooks

(2014). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Taylor and Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315743172

27.

Huynh

V. W.

(2012). Ethnic microaggressions and the depressive and somatic symptoms of Latino and Asian American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(7), 831–846. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-012-9756-9

28.

Jonsson

(2016). The narrative reproduction of white feminist racism. Feminist Review, 113(1), 50–67. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.2016.2

29.

Keller

R. M.

Galgay

C. E.

(2010). Microagressive experiences of people with disabilities. In Sue

(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact (pp. 241–268). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

30.

Kohli

(2018). Behind school doors: The impact of hostile racial climates on urban teachers of color. Urban Education, 53(3), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916636653

31.

Kohli

Solórzano

D. G.

(2012). Teachers, please learn our names!: Racial microagressions and the K-12 classroom. Race Ethnicity and Education, 15(4), 441–462. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.674026

32.

Kolivoski

K. M.

(2020). Applying Critical Race Theory (CRT) and intersectionality to address the needs of African American crossover girls. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 39(2), 133–145. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-020-00726-9

33.

Kolivoski

K. M.

Weaver

Constance-Huggins

(2014). Critical race theory: Opportunities for application in social work practice and policy. Families in Society, 95(4), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.2014.95.36

34.

Ladson-Billings

Tate

W. F.

(1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146819509700104

35.

Levitt

H. M.

Morrill

Collins

K. M.

Rizo

J. L.

(2021). The methodological integrity of critical qualitative research: Principles to support design and research review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 68(3), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000523

36.

Liegghio

Caragata

(2016). Why are you talking to me like I’m stupid?” The micro-aggressions committed within the social welfare system against lone mothers. Affilia, 31(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109915592667

37.

Mattsson

(2014). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical reflection. Affilia, 29(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913510659

38.

Morris

E. W.

(2007). Ladies” or “loudies”? Perceptions and experiences of Black girls in classrooms. Youth & Society, 38(4), 490–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X06296778

39.

Morris

M. W.

(2013). Education and the caged bird: Black girls, school pushout and the juvenile court school. Poverty & Race, 22(6), 5–7.

40.

Morris

M. W.

(2016). Pushout: The criminalization of Black girls in schools. The New Press.

41.

Nadal

K. L.

(2014). A guide to responding to microaggressions. CUNY Forum, 2(1), 71–76.

42.

Nadal

K. L.

Griffin

K. E.

Wong

Hamit

Rasmus

(2014). The impact of racial microaggressions on mental health: Counseling implications for clients of color. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00130.x

43.

Nadal

K. L.

Issa

M.-A.

Griffin

K. E.

Hamit

Lyons

O. B.

(2010). Religious microaggressions in the United States: Mental health implications for religious minority groups. In Sue

(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact (pp. 287–312). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

44.

Nienhusser

H. K.

Vega

B. E.

Carquin

M. C. S.

(2016). Undocumented students’ experiences with microaggressions during their college choice process. Teachers College Record, 118(2), 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611800208

45.

Okun

(2021). (Divorcing) White supremacy culture: Coming home to who we really are . https://www.whitesupremacyculture.info/

46.

Owen

Tao

K. W.

Imel

Z. E.

Wampold

B. E.

Rodolfa

(2014). Addressing racial and ethnic microaggressions in therapy. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037420

47.

Parsons

E. R. C.

Rhodes

Brown

(2011). Unpacking the CRT in negotiating white science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6(4), 951–960. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9349-z

48.

Pérez Huber

(2011). Discourses of racist nativism in California public education: English dominance as racist nativist microaggressions. Educational Studies, 47(4), 379–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2011.589301

49.

Pérez Huber

Solórzano

D. G.

(2015). Racial microaggressions as a tool for critical race research. Race Ethnicity and Education, 18(3), 297–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2014.994173

50.

Pierce

Carew

Pierce-Gonzalez

Wills

(1978). An experiment in racism: TV commercials. In Pierce

(Ed.), Television and education (pp. 62–88). Sage.

51.

Rowe

(2000). Locating feminism’s subject: The paradox of white femininity and the struggle to forge feminist alliances. Communication Theory, 10(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2000.tb00179.x

52.

Sanchez

Adams

W. N.

Arango

S. C.

Flannigan

A. E.

(2018). Racial-ethnic microaggressions, coping strategies, and mental health in Asian American and Latinx American college students: A mediation model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 65(2), 214–225. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000249

53.

Smith

Redington

R. M.

(2010). Class dismissed: Making the case for the study of classist microaggressions. In Sue

(Ed.), Microaggressions and marginality: Manifestations, dynamics, and impact (pp. 269–286). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

54.

Solórzano

Ceja

Yosso

(2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1/2), 60–73. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2696265

55.

Sue

D. W.

(2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation. John Wiley & Sons.

56.

Sue

D. W.

Alsaidi

Awad

M. N.

Glaeser

Calle

C. Z.

Mendez

(2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74(1), 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000296

57.

Sue

D. W.

Bucceri

Lin

A. I.

Nadal

K. L.

Torino

G. C.

(2007). Racial microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.1.72

58.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Holder

(2008). Racial microaggressions in the life experience of Black Americans. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(3), 329–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.3.329

59.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Torino

G. C.

Bucceri

J. M.

Holder

Nadal

K. L.

Esquilin

(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.62.4.271

60.

Sue

D. W.

Lin

A. I.

Rivera

D. P.

(2009). Racial microaggressions in the workplace: Manifestation and impact. In Chin

J. L.

(Ed.), Praeger perspectives: Race and ethnicity in psychology. Diversity in mind and in action, Vol. 2. Disparities and competence (pp. 157–172). Praeger/AC-CLIO.

61.

Swigonski

M. E.

(1994). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work research. Social Work, 39(4), 387–393. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/39.4.387

62.

West

(1995). Forward. In Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(Eds.), Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. xi–xii). The New Press.

63.

Wigginton

Lafrance

M. N.

(2019). Learning critical feminist research: A brief introduction to feminist epistemologies and methodologies. Feminism & Psychology, 095935351986605. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353519866058

64.

Wintner

Almeida

Hamilton-Mason

(2017). Perceptions of microaggression in K-8 school settings: An exploratory study. Children and Youth Services Review, 79, 594–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.020

65.

Yosso

Smith

Ceja

Solórzano

(2009). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate for Latina/o undergraduates. Harvard Educational Review, 79(4), 659–691. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.79.4.m6867014157m707l

66.

Yosso

T. J.

(2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006