Sinister precedent
The article about Maya Forstater’s legally upheld firing for “offensive speech,” which the U.K. tribunal decreed a violation of mandated language (Feb. 17 Militant ), accurately highlights the corrosive effects of such actions on freedom of speech and thought.
The contemporary obsession with uncovering prejudices, including “invisible white supremacy,” has gone one step further: Harvard and Washington university researchers devised a “test” in the late ’90s that employers now use to determine the “unconscious biases” of their workers. It has even been suggested by the test creators that potential jurors be subject to the test.
No boss or bureaucrat should be given the right to rummage around in our thoughts, conscious or otherwise, under any circumstances. Under the guise of optimizing “fairness” and “diversity” and reducing racist and sexist attitudes, this test sets a sinister precedent indeed, one that workers should resist strenuously.
Jenny Kyng
Hobart, Australia