Jonathan Turley, a prominent Fox News contributor, discusses the recent controversy over the proposed changes to the Oregon Medical Board's ethics rules, which include the use of "microaggressions" to discipline doctors. Turley argues that this vague and highly controversial category of speech poses a significant threat to free speech.
In his book, "The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage," Jonathan Turley explores the growing threat to free speech, particularly in the context of microaggressions. Turley argues that the category of microaggressions is hopelessly vague and highly controversial, creating a chilling effect on speakers who are unsure of what will be considered offensive.
The proposed rule change by the Oregon Medical Board would incorporate microaggressions into the definition of "unprofessional conduct," making them a ground for disciplinary action, including the loss of a doctor's license. This rule has sparked controversy among conservative groups, who argue that it will stifle free speech and lead to doctors being punished for expressing opinions that are deemed offensive.
The Unprecedented Assault on Free Speech: Microaggressions and the Oregon Medical Board
Turley warns that the incorporation of microaggressions into the Oregon Medical Board's ethics rules is precisely what free speech advocates have been warning about for years. He points out that activists often begin by insisting that language monitoring is purely instructional and optional, but then gradually codify those rules in mandatory terms.
The new ethics rule defines microaggressions as "indirect or subtle behaviors that reflect negative attitudes or beliefs about a non-majority group." Turley emphasizes the subjectivity of this standard, arguing that it leaves doctors vulnerable to disciplinary action based on how their language is received rather than intended.
The Unprecedented Assault on Free Speech: Microaggressions and the Oregon Medical Board
In addition to making microaggressions a ground for discipline, the proposed rule would also make it mandatory for doctors to report any suspected violations to the Board. This provision raises concerns that doctors will be pressured to turn in their colleagues, creating an atmosphere of fear and distrust.
Turley argues that the Oregon Medical Board's proposed rule violates the Hippocratic oath, which requires doctors to "first do no harm." He believes that the rule will lead to harm by stifling free speech and creating an environment where doctors are afraid to express dissenting opinions.
Turley emphasizes the importance of clarity and transparency in free speech protections. Schools and other institutions need to be clear about whether microaggressive language can be the basis for bias complaints and actions.
The Oregon Medical Board's ethics rule sets a dangerously vague and subjective standard for microaggressions. Turley warns that this standard could be used to target and punish speech that is not truly harmful or offensive.
Free speech is essential for the practice of medicine. Doctors need to be able to freely express their opinions, share information, and engage in critical thinking without fear of reprisal. The Oregon Medical Board's proposed rule would undermine this essential freedom.
