Environmental Microaggression Research Paper

Environmental microaggressions deliver through various aggressive signals that affects social, economic, political and educational domains, and it can be communicated at individual, institutional or cultural levels against subordinate groups (Pierce, 1970; Sue, 2010). Verbal and nonverbal forms of microaggressions can be recognized, but environmental microaggressions are difficult to recognize and pinpoint. Moreover, environmental microaggressions may be more damaging when intentionally or unintentionally appears in environment (climate of a place). Solorzano et al., (2009) noted that in context of higher education institution, campus climate refers to environmental messages to students and staff members. A racist campus climate conveys environmental microaggressions (without any kind of interpersonal relation) against the the students of color (Watkins et al., as cited in Sue, 2010b. p. 25-57).

In many cases, environmental microaggressions are direct and clear message to subordinate student groups that this campus is not inclusive.

Sue, Capodilupo et al., (2007) stated environmental microaggressions communicate different messages for different groups. The students of color may experience campus climate is hostile and exclusionary; whereas, white students experience campus climate is welcoming and accommodative. However, campus climate is more than perceptions of underrepresented students; it is a multidimensional environmental aspect that impacts academic outcomes (Hurtado et al, 2008). Environmental microaggressions occur at macro and systemic levels, it could be the most effective way to deliver microaggressions because it prevails everywhere in specific context. Environmental microaggressions can be communicated through symbols, images, and mass media presentation of subordinate groups (Sue,

2010).
Environmental microaggressions in context to caste-based discrimination refers to the dominance of the higher castes in higher education and specifically it is prominent in elite institutions across India. Some examples such as last name of faculties (e.g. a name plate outside an office), last name mostly signify a caste identity and the higher caste faculties dominate the elite institutions. In case of IITs, faculties statistics shows that number of the higher caste faculties is disproportionally high (Rao, as cited in Nambissan and Rao, 2012), which convey environmental microaggressions against the lower caste students (particularly Dalit & Tribal). Several incidents of caste-based discrimination in IITs have recorded; therefore, the lower caste students may perceive these institutions as environmentally threatening. In other words, IITs is notorious for harassing Dalit and Tribal students. Sing stated that (as cited in Deshpande & Zacharias, 2013) that communicate powerful message that they have to face environmental microaggressions.
In the elite institutions, the lower caste students experience low status because of their poor material condition (Weisskopf, 2004) compared to the higher caste peers and faculties. All the elite institutions emphasize meritocracy, which indirectly communicates a subtle message to the beneficiaries of affirmative action that “you are not meritocratic.” Some of the elite institutions do not legitimately practice affirmative action policy and in some cases subvert the policy to benefit the higher caste groups. These type of practices create a fear of environmental microaggressions for the lower caste students. In general, non-vegetarian food is common among Dalits and Tribal, but non-vegetarian food is taboo in many the higher caste groups (Jodhka, 2012). Thus, Dalits and Tribal students do not eat, talk or avoid any conversion about non-vegetarian food (e.g. beef) in the institutions.