Микронеравенства: Скрытые проявления предвзятости и дискриминации.

A Micro inequity is a small, often overlooked act of exclusion or bias that could convey a lack of respect, recognition, or fairness towards marginalized individuals. These acts can manifest in various ways, such as consistently interrupting or dismissing the contributions of a particular group during meetings or discussions. The theory of micro inequity helps elucidate how individuals may experience being overlooked, ignored, or harmed based on characteristics like race, gender, or other perceived attributes of disadvantage, including political views and marital status. Micro inequities, micro affirmations, and micro advantages are often executed using coded language or subtle non verbal cues, formally in written communications or informally in conversations, known as micro messaging. The term originated in 1973.

Maryville University defines micro inequities as subtle messages that devalue, discourage, and impair workplace performance. These messages are conveyed through facial expressions, gestures, tone of voice, word choices, nuance, and syntax that are relayed both consciously and unconsciously. Repeated sending or receiving of micro inequities can erode personal and professional relationships. The Star Ledger article, "Micro messages Matter" by Steve Adubato says that, "only the most astute and aware communicators recognize how [micro messages] are received and perceived." These messages can reveal more about the true nature of a relationship than words alone. The messages function as the core of how unconscious bias is communicated and how workplace exclusion is experienced. In the Profiles in Diversity Journal article "The DNA of Culture Change," Joyce Tucker writes, "Organizations have done a great job at controlling the big, easily seen offensive behaviors but have been somewhat blind to what is rarely observed. Organizations have done great work at controlling the few elephants while being overrun by a phalanx of ants. Listening with your arms folded, losing eye contact with the person you're speaking with, or even the way you move your lips to shape a smile—in any given conversation, we may send hundreds of messages, often without even saying a word. Just as television or radio waves surround us, yet we never see them, these micro messages are just as pervasive and nearly as difficult to discern."

Mary Rowe of MIT, coined the terms micro inequities and micro affirmations in 1973, building upon previous research on micro aggression by Chester Pierce, specifically around racial hostility. Originally, Rowe referred to micro inequities as the "Saturn's Ring Phenomenon" because the planet’s rings protect and insulate it from the harshness of the world outside, much like the workplace culture created by micro affirmations. Some of these papers were published in whole or in part in 1974. After that, a relatively complete version came out in 1990. Rowe published a longer article, "Micro affirmations and Micro inequities," in the Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, which includes more of her hypotheses about the importance of micro affirmations. Earlier works in the same genre include that of Jean Paul Sartre, who wrote about small acts of anti Semitism, and Chester Pierce, who wrote about micro aggressions as acts of racism and "childish" acts against children. Mary Rowe's original research studied the impact micro messages have on the academic community and relationships in general in the United States and worldwide. The first broad introduction of micro inequities in the corporate workplace was initiated in 2002 by Insight Education Systems. It established the link between micro messaging and corporate diversity and inclusion initiatives.

In the original articles on this subject in the 1970s (see references below), Mary Rowe defined micro inequities as "apparently small events which are often ephemeral and hard to prove, events which are covert, often unintentional, frequently unrecognized by the perpetrator, which occur wherever people are perceived to be different." She wrote about homophobia, reactions to perceived disabilities, reactions to physical appearance, reverse discrimination against white and Black males in traditionally female environments, and various religious slights. She collected instances of micro inequities anywhere at work or in communities—anywhere in the world—that people are perceived to be "different." These differences indeed reach beyond unchangeable characteristics such as race or gender. In his book, "Micro messaging: Why Great Leadership is Beyond Words" (2006 McGraw Hill), Stephen Young describes the impact micro inequities have on an individual's workplace performance through additional factors, such as one's political views, marital status, tenure, style, resistance to comply with status quo and other characteristics that are changeable. Young states that these drivers of unconscious bias reflect the positions people hold about others that are influenced by past experiences, forming filters that cause conclusions to be reached about a group or ethnicity through methods other than active thought or reasoning. The critical limitation of unconscious bias is that it is a concept, a state of mind, and therefore not consciously or intentionally displayed. The only way unconscious biases are manifested is through the subtle messages individuals send—typically, micro inequities affect the performance of others.

Micro inequities may concern race, religion, color, disability, sexual identity, social class, and national origin. Some are embodied in language that links certain derogatory stereotypes with a particular race. Examples of such micro inequities would be the terms "an Indian giver" and "to gyp," or the phrase "to Jew down." Other examples include the casual use of the term "she" while referring to individuals in occupations that have been predominantly women, such as teachers, nurses, and secretaries, and the disrespect sometimes exhibited toward fathers as full time homemakers. Elimination of micro inequities is a current focus of some universities, businesses, and government agencies as a key diversity strategy. According to some experts, micro inequities can slowly and methodically erode a person's motivation and sense of worth. This may result in absenteeism, poor employee retention, and loss of productivity. In the article "Sizing Up What's Being Said" in The Sacramento Bee, nine techniques are outlined that help minimize the negative effect of micro inequities. Modern media is also responsible for the perpetuation of micro inequities. People of color have been portrayed negatively; eminent people of color are poorly represented in Western media. Examples would include the fallacious belief that African Americans are the majority of those on welfare in the US. Many Native Americans are sensitive to the idea that "Columbus discovered" their land. Feagin and Benokraitis note that the mass media has portrayed women negatively in many respects; for example, women are portrayed as sexual objects in many music videos. In Julie Rowe's Time Magazine article "Why Your Boss May Be Sweating the Small Stuff," she outlines workplace micro inequity applications and how they influence performance. Rowe states, "It used to be that [micro inequities were] tone deaf moments used to buttress discrimination claims. Now they are becoming the basis for [validating] those claims." Micro messaging has varying impacts in academic and corporate settings. In academia, students predominantly receive knowledge from educators. Conversely, the corporate environment emphasizes collaboration, with leaders drawing on the expertise of their team members. Raising the knowledge of micro messaging in the corporate sector can "make even hardened executives recognize themselves, or at the very least, their superiors" as senders of micro inequities, according to Young. There is a growing body of scholarly research on unconscious bias. Much of the modern approach has used an Implicit Association Test rather than Questionnaires or interviews. However, many scholars have published articles and analyses doubting the efficacy and validity of this research.