Let’s safeguard free speech, while learning how to engage in more constructive conversations about difficult topics

Video screenshot: Program speaker Prof. Nadine Strossen is seated immediately to the right of the podium, with DY on the left. Suffolk U. Law Review editor-in-chief Sara Levien is at the podium, opening the program. We are joined by a panel of Suffolk law students.

Earlier this month, I had the distinct pleasure of moderating a program on freedom of speech and expression, featuring Professor Nadine Strossen (Emerita, New York Law School), former President of the American Civil Liberties Union. The program was part of the Donahue Lecture Series sponsored by the Suffolk University Law Review. As a faculty co-advisor to the Law Review, I was delighted to be a part of this event.

In planning the program, Professor Strossen, an internationally recognized authority on free speech, suggested that we cast aside the typical lecture format and create a more interactive conversation. So we started with an interview that I conducted, followed by questions from a panel of Suffolk law students, and concluding with questions and comments from our audience.

The event was a tremendous success. Before an overflow room of attendees, and sparked by Prof. Strossen’s thoughtful, insightful, and engaged remarks and responses, as well as great questions from our student panelists, the program made for a lively 75-minute exchange. You can watch the full event by clicking here.

Prof. Strossen offered passionate defenses of free speech, while carefully dissecting the legal implications of speech and expression in various public sector and private sector settings. You can read a brief summary of some of her major points here. And if you’d like a very informative and accessible primer on speech protections in the U.S., then I happily recommend her 2023 book, Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to Know (Oxford U. Press).

But wait, there’s another big thing to consider!

I have long been in general agreement with Nadine Strossen’s embrace of freedom of speech. And especially during times like this, safeguarding free speech — subject to reasonable restrictions such as prohibiting defamation, fraud, or targeted harassment and abuse — is of paramount importance toward maintaining an open, democratic society.

In addition to protecting the sanctity of free speech, we all should learn and practice how to converse and listen more constructively. Whether one regards speech as a right or privilege, we have an obligation to exercise it responsibly.

By this, I’m not suggesting the adoption of intrusive speech codes. Nor should we jump all over something that isn’t said in just the right way, in just the right tone. Furthermore, there are instances where righteous anger may be a proper, or at least very understandable, response to deeply offensive or hurtful speech.

Rather, I mean coaching ourselves, and encouraging others, to engage in conversations on sensitive and difficult topics with as much respect and empathy as we can muster.

In addition, exercising self-restraint (which I do not necessarily equate with self-censorship) may be appropriate at times. After all, just because we’re allowed to say something a certain way doesn’t mean we should always do so.

Equally important, we should actively listen to what others have to say, and at least try to understand points of view that may seem opposite of our own. With that kind of listening, we see possibilities for genuine exchange, discovery of unexpected common ground, and perhaps even changing one’s understanding of, or position on, an important issue.

By the way, I fully confess that I have not always followed the precepts I am preaching. Everything I’m suggesting here is easier said than done.

Back to our Donahue Lecture

I was so pleased that the Donahue Lecture was an exemplar of engaging and respectful conversation about difficult and important topics. The event also meant a lot to me personally, as many moons ago, Prof. Strossen was my supervising professor in the Civil Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law, her first academic appointment before moving on to become a constitutional law professor at the New York Law School. Her warmth, intelligence, and student-centered focus were evident then and now, and I was proud to be able to show off our wonderful students at Suffolk Law.

Prior to the event, several student editors of the Law Review shared with me their understandable concern that someone might try to use this occasion to stage a protest in support of their views on some controversial public issue. After all, we’ve seen news accounts of such disruptions at other universities, at times requiring an event to be discontinued in midstream. But I assured them I was confident that, between the professionalism of our guest speaker, our students, and other attendees, I was not concerned about such a possibility.

This was no statement of false bravado. As I planned how to moderate the event, I did consider potential responses should a situation threaten to get out of hand. But I wasn’t girding myself for anything uncomfortable to arise. I had faith that our event would be an example of healthy and informed dialogue. I was so happy that it more than met my expectations.

Delving into the Dark Triad

I’m working on a law review article that will examine how insights about trauma and traumatization can inform law reform efforts. Part of that work involves a consideration of the psychological make-up of those who engage in abusive behaviors. Those whose personalities encompass the “Dark Triad,” i.e., a combination of narcissistic, sociopathic/psychopathic, and Machiavellian traits, come up frequently in these discussions. In fact, more than a few perpetrators of workplace bullying and abuse are said to meet the Dark Triad profile.

The article pictured in the screen shot above, Delroy L. Paulhus & Kevin M. Williams, “The Dark Triad of Personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy,” Journal of Research in Personality (2002) (link here; account necessary), was the first articulation of the Dark Triad, analyzing how the three traits may overlap and interact.

More recently, the Dark Triad is the centerpiece of a new article by Arthur C. Brooks for The Atlantic magazine, “The Sociopaths Among Us–And How to Avoid Them” (link here). Here’s how he dives into the topic:

We all have stories of meeting people who appeared wonderful at first but turned out to be just awful. Perhaps it was a charming suitor, or a charismatic colleague, or a fascinating new friend. They attracted you on initial impression, but before long, you started to notice behaviors that gave you pause. Maybe it was a little shading of the truth here and there, or a bit too much vanity and selfishness. Perhaps they constantly played the victim, or took credit for other people’s work.

Or maybe your disillusionment with the person was not gradual, but through a dramatic—and dramatically unpleasant—episode. All it may take is a minor disagreement, and suddenly, you get screamed at, threatened with retaliation, or reported to HR. This kind of encounter leaves you, understandably, baffled, hurt, and confused.

Very likely, this person was a “Dark Triad” personality. The term was coined by the psychologists Delroy Paulhus and Kevin Williams in 2002 for people with three salient personality characteristics: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and a measurable level of psychopathy. These people confuse and hurt you, because they act in a way that doesn’t seem to make sense. As one scholar aptly described the ones whose behavior shades more obviously into psychopathy, these are “social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets.”

For the curious, there’s a lot of stuff out there about the Dark Triad, as a quick Google search will reveal. To explore the Dark Triad in specific settings, simply search “Dark Triad and —” to limit the scope of what comes up. When I get a chance, I’d like to do a deeper read into the abundant popular and scholarly literature on the Dark Triad at work. 

Fear at work

The Economist news magazine recently reviewed a new book by historian Robert Peckham, Fear: An Alternative History of the World (2023) (link here; registration necessary), and I couldn’t help but relate it to some of the less wonderful aspects of work and employment. Here are some snippets of the review (with selected passages bolded):

Fear is a primal, necessary emotion. Mr Peckham calls it “a neurobiological process to keep us alive”. If our ancestors had not feared cliff-edges or sabre-toothed tigers, we might not be here today. The flipside is that, since humans are a communicative, imaginative species, fear can be conjured out of whispers. His book does not quite live up to its ambitious subtitle, but it illuminates the many ways in which fear has shaped human behaviour over the past 700 years, from which readers can draw lessons for the present.

The main one is: “Power depends on fear.”

.***

Much of this book was written during the covid-19 pandemic, so the author naturally ponders the fear of infection—and its manipulation by the powerful. When the Black Death struck Europe, rumours spread that unpopular minorities, such as “Jews, Muslims, paupers, lepers and foreigners”, might be “malevolent carriers of contagion”. Horrific persecution followed.

***

Fear of the coronavirus seeded all manner of conspiracy theories, and many governments took advantage of pandemic panic to suppress civil liberties. While living in Hong Kong, Mr Peckham observed first-hand how the Chinese Communist Party used the virus as an excuse to ban the pro-democracy protests that had rocked the place in 2019-20.

The book explores how easy it is for bold liars to fan terror. As Hermann Göring, Adolf Hitler’s air chief, summarised: “All you have to do is tell [the people] they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Fear at work

So, to borrow from historian Peckham, does power at work depend on fear?

Our need to earn a living and pay the bills, as well as — for some — a desire for self-expression and accomplishment, make work and employment central to many lives. Of course, it also means that threats to our job security and our ability to perform those jobs can fuel fear and apprehension. Rumors of layoffs, reorganizations, plant closings, for example, can generate deep anxieties across the workforce. Some employers will engage in such rumor-mongering in order to “motivate” workers or to discourage union organizing.

Furthermore, targeted mistreatment such as sexual harassment or workplace bullying constitute not only interpersonal abuse, but also a fundamental undermining of someone’s ability to do their job. The possibility of facing more of the same can certainly induce fear, especially if trustworthy internal avenues for addressing the abusive behaviors do not exist. Ethical organizations prohibit such mistreatment and take reports of offending behaviors seriously, but as we know, too many employers do not rise to that level of decency. 

Here in the U.S., we have fairly strong laws on the books against sexual harassment, but all too often, judges do not grasp the realities of this abuse and dismiss many valid claims before they go to trial. As for workplace bullying, we continue to advocate for the enactment of the anti-bullying Healthy Workplace Bill, but for now, targets of severe bullying often have no legal recourse. In short, with sexual harassment, the law is often misapplied. With workplace bullying, needed legal protections often do not exist.

For an excellent exploration of fear at work, I reiterate my earlier recommendation of The Psychology of Fear in Organizations (2015) by Dr. Sheila M. Keegan. As I wrote in several years ago:

Dr. Keegan has done her homework for this book. Those who are attentive to high levels of fear and anxiety in many modern workplaces will find plenty of research and analysis that validates their concerns.

For those specifically interested in workplace bullying, there’s a subchapter that covers the basics, including references to work done by the Workplace Bullying Institute. The deeper value of this volume is how it places bullying and other negative behaviors in an organizational context.

Indeed, I consider the book title itself to be a triumph of messaging, expressly linking fear at work to organizations. After all, rare is the lone wolf supervisor or co-worker who makes everyone’s work life a misery, amidst an otherwise happy, functional workplace. Organizational cultures typically enable practices and behaviors that fuel fear, anxiety, and foreboding at work.

You may go here for my review of Dr. Keegan’s book. It remains a very relevant and insightful commentary on fear at work.

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part 3: Applications to therapeutic jurisprudence

In this, my third look at Dr. Judith Herman’s important new examination of psychological trauma, Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023), I would like to connect the theme of trauma and justice to therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ), a multidisciplinary school of theory and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of law, legal processes, and legal institutions.

To summarize: Dr. Herman holds that the final stage of recovering from trauma is justice, reasoning that “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.” She identifies acknowledgment, apology, and accountability as the key elements of justice. Also, she identifies restitution, rehabilitation (of the offender), and prevention as the key elements of healing.

Therapeutic jurisprudence

Basic TJ principles hold that, whenever reasonably possible, outcomes of legal events (e.g., litigation, negotiation, or drafting of documents such as wills and trusts) should affirm the dignity and promote the psychological health of the parties involved.

These general goals are a strong match for Dr. Herman’s elements of justice and healing.

Truth and Repair frequently endorses restorative justice (RJ) — a concept and practice often mentioned in the same breath as TJ — as a promising avenue toward helping trauma survivors obtain justice. Herman invokes Australian criminologist and RJ adherent John Braithwaite in observing that RJ is about focusing on “repairing the harm of a crime rather than punishing offenders for breaking a law.” In fact, Braithwaite’s own work has closely analyzed what he sees as the similarities and differences between RJ and TJ.

I’ve noted on many occasions that therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship and practice need to better incorporate trauma-informed understandings and perspectives. Dr. Herman’s positing that justice is a final recovery step for trauma survivors significantly helps us to link trauma-informed prevention and response to TJ, and vice-versa.

***

Additional Reading

For free access to John Braithwaite’s comparison and contrast of TJ and RJ, “Restorative Justice and Therapeutic Jurisprudence,” Criminal Law Bulletin (2002), go here.

For free access to my extensive survey of therapeutic jurisprudence, “Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Foundations, Expansion, and Assessment,” University of Miami Law Review (2021), go here.

 

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part 2: Workplace bullying targets and the search for justice & healing

In my previous post, I set out the basic premises behind Judith Herman’s new examination of psychological trauma, Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023). In her welcomed volume, Dr. Herman’s focus is on a final stage of recovering from trauma, that of justice, reasoning that “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.”

I’d now like to apply Herman’s core precepts to targets of workplace bullying, mobbing, and related mistreatment whose experiences have been deeply traumatizing, including physical and psychological health impairments and costly impacts on careers and livelihoods. In other words, how might those whose lives have been so negatively upended by targeted work abuse regard the concepts of justice and healing?

Applying the elements of justice and healing to workplace bullying

Dr. Herman identifies acknowledgment, apology, and accountability as the key elements of justice. She identifies restitution, rehabilitation (of the offender), and prevention as the key elements of healing.

Let’s look at Herman’s elements of justice first. For targets of workplace bullying, we immediately see the problem. Most instances of severe bullying do not result in acknowledgment, apology, and/or accountability. The most common “resolution” of a targeted campaign of bullying is that the target either resigns or is terminated.

Next, let’s look at Herman’s elements of healing. Again, the problem is obvious. Most targets of severe bullying do not receive restitution. The offenders often continue in their ways; rehabilitation usually doesn’t enter the picture. And all too few employers learn from bullying within their organizations and resolve to engage in preventive measures.

A big missing piece in the U.S.: Legal reform

For her book, Dr. Herman interviewed “twenty-six women and four men who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, sex trafficking, sexual harassment, and/or domestic violence.” This interview cohort may yield some insights into applying her elements of justice and healing to workplace bullying targets. In each form of interpersonal abuse experienced by her interview subjects, civil and/or legal protections already exist. Granted, the effectiveness of these legal protections may be very uneven. But at least there are laws on the books, and sometimes they work.

By sharp contrast, workplace bullying is largely legal in the United States. Simply put, few targets of severe workplace bullying in the U.S. have a clear path toward harnessing the justice system to obtain relief in the form of acknowledgment, apology, accountability, restitution, offender rehabilitation, or employer prevention.

Herman found that most of her interviewees “seemed remarkably uninterested in punishment.” I cannot say the same thing for many targets of workplace bullying whom I’ve interviewed over the years. A good number of targets feel like their tormenters got away with something awful, because, frankly, that’s what happened. The anger can be palpable. While the intensity of these feelings may subside over time, and with it the desire for punishment, oftentimes the triggering factor is the absence of any semblance justice. Furthermore, much of the healing is self-generated. And in toxic workplaces, the bullying tends to go on and on.

As many readers of this blog know, I am the author of workplace anti-bullying legislation called the Healthy Workplace Bill (HWB). I’m part of a group of advocates from across the nation (go here for the national HWB campaign page) who have been urging elected officials to enact it. While enacting the HWB will not be a panacea, at least it will help to push open doors towards justice and healing that are often closed. Without legal incentives to take bullying at work seriously, too many employers dismiss reports of bullying, side with the aggressor, and allow this costly and destructive form of mistreatment to continue unabated.

***

Those here in Massachusetts who wish to become involved in advocacy efforts supporting the HWB may contact me directly at dyamada@suffolk.edu. Although we are not equipped to do legal or psychological advising concerning individual instances of workplace bullying, those in search of guidance or assistance may find helpful the “Need Help?” page of this blog by clicking here.

In my final look at Dr. Herman’s book (for now, at least!), I’ll be applying her precepts to the interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence.

Judith Herman’s “Truth and Repair,” Part I: Trauma survivors’ perspectives on justice and healing

In 1992, psychiatrist Judith L. Herman shared her groundbreaking analysis of psychological trauma, Trauma and Recovery. For years this has been among the “must read” books  on the topic, and Dr. Herman has remained a leading authority in the field. In a 2022 edition, she would add an epilogue that examines new understandings and developments in trauma research and treatment during the ensuing decades.

Throughout this time, I sensed that a lot of folks who are deeply interested in trauma wondered if Dr. Herman might have another major work in her, one that might advance our understanding of this important topic even further. This welcomed volume has arrived in the form of Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice (2023).

In this three-part series of posts, I’m taking a good look at Truth and Repair and applying its precepts to two topics that recur often on this blog, workplace bullying and therapeutic jurisprudence.

The path to Truth and Repair

In her new book, Dr. Herman summarizes that Trauma and Recovery identified three general stages of recovery from trauma, all closely focused on the individual survivor: The first stage is “the complex and demanding task of establishing safety in the present, with the goal of protection from further violence.” The second stage involves “revisit[ing] the past in order to grieve and make meaning of the trauma.” And the third stage involves a “refocus on the present and future, expanding and deepening…relationships with a wider community and…sense of possibility in life.”

It was the contemplation of a “fourth and final stage of recovery,” that of justice, which prompted Herman to work towards a new book. After all, she reasoned, “(i)f trauma is truly a social problem, and indeed it is, then recovery cannot be simply a private, individual matter.” 

With this new focus, Herman interviewed “twenty-six women and four men who are survivors of childhood sexual abuse, sexual assault, sex trafficking, sexual harassment, and/or domestic violence.” The results of these conversations helped her to conceptualize elements of justice and healing from a trauma survivor’s perspective.

Elements of justice and truth

Through her interviews, Dr. Herman identified three precepts of justice and truth, as defined by trauma survivors:

Acknowledgment — “The first precept of survivors’ justice is the desire for community acknowledgment that a wrong has been done,” for public recognition of a “survivor’s claim to justice must be the moral community’s first act of solidarity” with the survivor.

Apology — Perpetrators should provide a genuine apology for their traumatizing offenses, taking responsibility for their actions and offering to make amends. In some instances, an apology may “create the possibility of repairing a relationship.”

Accountability — While trauma survivors interviewed by Herman were ambivalent about punishment for perpetrators and complicit bystanders, many were drawn to the broader precept of accountability for individuals and institutions. Ideas behind restorative justice — a movement that embraces values of “nondomination, empowerment, and respectful listening” — resonated strongly in this context.

Elements of healing and repair

Dr. Herman’s interviews also identified three precepts of healing and repair, again as defined by trauma survivors:

Restitution — Restitution can take the form of money to cover a survivor’s losses and recovery, but it also can be defined in more systemic ways, such as creating more humane justice systems and safer institutional spaces (including workplaces). This broader take on restitution expands on the traditional legal notion of “made whole,” typically defined largely as financial compensation.

Rehabilitation — Because our justice systems, especially those governing criminal behavior, are vested mainly in the objective of punishment, “we know little about what it would actually take to bring perpetrators to relinquish violence and feel genuine remorse for their crimes.” Nevertheless, if we can find ways to “instill empathy or a feeling of common humanity in those who lack it,” we may create moral awakenings that truly safeguard our communities.

Prevention — Prevention, of course, means reducing potential exposure to traumatizing acts and events and help trauma victims in their healing. Educational programs, bystander training, and counseling and support for victims are among the preventive measures that can be implemented.

***

Truth and Repair is much richer and more fulsomely detailed on a deeply human level than I can provide in a relatively digestible summary. Indeed, this important book merits a close reading by anyone who is interested in how we, as a society, respond to psychological trauma. 

Brevity aside, I hope this gives you a good sense of Dr. Herman’s essential theme. In the next two blog posts, I will apply these findings to (1) the experience of targets of severe workplace bullying and potential responses by the legal system; and (2) the interdisciplinary field of therapeutic jurisprudence, which examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of our laws, legal systems, and legal institutions.

More from Dr. Robin Stern on gaslighting

I’ve recommended Dr. Robin Stern’s The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life (2018 ed.) as the best general source of information and guidance on the phenomenon of gaslighting, which occurs often in highly manipulative workplace bullying situations.

Now Dr. Stern has moved into a more direct self-help mode with the publication of The Gaslight Effect Recovery Guide (2023). My copy of the book just arrived the other day. It is a practical, informative, workbook-style guide, and I am happy to recommend it. Among other things, it includes a standalone section for workplace-related gaslighting that many readers of this blog may find very useful.

But that’s not all! It turns out that Dr. Stern has been very busy. She has also launched The Gaslight Effect Podcast (link here), and two of the first twelve episodes are expressly about gaslighting at work.

In addition, last year she penned an important Psychology Today piece (link here) that merits a read, “When It’s Gaslighting, and When It Really Isn’t.” Here’s a snippet:

But as the word “gaslighting” gained currency, it began to lose meaning: People often tell me that someone gaslighted them when in fact, what they are describing is mere disagreement.

…It’s worth revisiting what gaslighting is and what it isn’t.

…Gaslighting is a form of emotional abuse where one person’s psychological manipulation causes another person to question their reality. Gaslighting can happen between two people in any relationship. A gaslighter preserves his or her sense of self and power over the gaslightee, who adopts the gaslighter’s version of reality over their own.

It’s important to distinguish gaslighting from disagreeing and to understand when conflict veers into gaslighting.

I hasten to add that Dr. Stern is hardly an opportunist when it comes to building her body of work about gaslighting. Rather, she has been a pioneer, having authored the first edition of The Gaslight Effect in 2007, a time when gaslighting as we understand it was barely in our vocabulary of interpersonal mistreatment. She has been ahead of this (twisted) curve, and now her expertise has made her a leading authority on this topic.

“Gaslighting” is the Merriam-Webster 2022 “word of the year”

 

Back in October, I shared a short viewer’s guide to the 1944 film Gaslight (link here), noting that it inspired the pop psych term gaslighting, which is “now used to characterize psychologically manipulative and controlling behaviors in interpersonal relationships, the political realm, and — of course — our workplaces.”

Well, little did I know that the folks at the venerable Merriam-Webster dictionary would designate gaslighting as their “word of the year” for 2022! Here’s Leanne Italie, reporting for the Associated Press (link here):

“Gaslighting” — behavior that’s mind manipulating, grossly misleading, downright deceitful — is Merriam-Webster’s word of the year.

Lookups for the word on merriam-webster.com increased 1,740% in 2022 over the year before. But something else happened. There wasn’t a single event that drove significant spikes in curiosity, as it usually goes with the chosen word of the year.

…“It’s a word that has risen so quickly in the English language, and especially in the last four years, that it actually came as a surprise to me and to many of us,” said Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor at large, in an exclusive interview with The Associated Press ahead of Monday’s unveiling.

“It was a word looked up frequently every single day of the year,” he said.

This is Merriam-Webster’s definition of gaslighting (link here):

: psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts, perception of reality, or memories and typically leads to confusion, loss of confidence and self-esteem, uncertainty of one’s emotional or mental stability, and a dependency on the perpetrator

To learn more

I’m re-sharing a book recommendation and some earlier pieces here on gaslighting, especially as it pertains to the workplace:

To learn more about the dynamics of gaslighting, I recommend: Robin Stern, The Gaslight Effect: How to Spot and Survive the Hidden Manipulation Others Use to Control Your Life (2018 paperback ed.).

Past blog posts:

2012-2020: When gaslighting went mainstream (2021)

Gaslighting exists, and it’s horrible, so we should invoke the term carefully (2020)

Institutional gaslighting of whistleblowers (2018)

Reissued for 2018: Robin Stern’s “The Gaslight Effect” (2018)

Gaslighting at work (2017, rev. 2018)

Inauguration Week special: “Gaslighting” goes mainstream (2017)

Is gaslighting a gendered form of workplace bullying? (2013)

Gaslighting as a workplace bullying tactic (2012, rev. 2017)

From genocide to bullying, may remembrance inspire our commitment

The social media image that most commanded my attention on Friday morning was a photo of Otto Frank, father of Anne Frank, taken in May 1960, on the day that the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam was first opened to the public. Otto Frank was the only member of his immediate family to survive the Nazi concentration camps. Daughters Anne and Margot, and wife Edith, all perished before they could be liberated.

Staring at that photograph, I tried to imagine what was going through Mr. Frank’s mind. But I understood that I could never truly comprehend his experience and the journey that brought him back to the place where he, his family, and four other Jewish residents spent some two years in hiding before they were discovered and eventually transported to Auschwitz.

Remembrance

And yet, even if we do not share direct memories of the Holocaust, maintaining a collective sense of remembrance, buoyed by historical literacy, is central to our understanding of how humans can engage in seemingly unthinkable atrocities. Indeed, I believe that the Nazi genocide is a key starting place for grasping our capacity for cruelty. As I wrote eight years ago:

We need to understand the Holocaust because there is no more documented, memorialized, and analyzed chapter of widespread, deliberate, orchestrated human atrocity in our history. If we want to grasp how human beings in a “modern” era can inflict horrific cruelties on others  — systematically and interpersonally — then the Holocaust is at the core of our understanding.

Despite the ample historical record, we may be losing our collective memory of the Holocaust, at least in the U.S. In 2018, Julie Zauzmer reported for the Washington Post:

Two-thirds of American millennials surveyed in a recent poll cannot identify what Auschwitz is, according to a study released on Holocaust Remembrance Day that found that knowledge of the genocide that killed 6 million Jews during World War II is not robust among American adults.

Twenty-two percent of millennials in the poll said they haven’t heard of the Holocaust or are not sure whether they’ve heard of it — twice the percentage of U.S. adults as a whole who said the same.

. . . Asked to identify what Auschwitz is, 41 percent of respondents and 66 percent of millennials could not come up with a correct response identifying it as a concentration camp or extermination camp.

From genocide to bullying

Years ago, as I began my deeper dives into the dynamics of bullying and mobbing at work, I looked to the nature of genocidal behavior for understanding the eliminationist instincts that appear to be present in attempts to force someone out of a workplace and even wreck their careers. I took these steps somewhat gingerly, because I wasn’t sure of the appropriateness of comparing genocides to even the worst kinds of workplace mistreatment. You might sense these tentative steps in what I wrote back in 2011:

Do the individual and collective behaviors of the Holocaust help us to understand severe, targeted, personally destructive workplace bullying?

The question has been discussed within the workplace anti-bullying movement and requires respectful contemplation. I am well aware of the casual overuse of references to Hitler and the Nazis in our popular culture, especially in today’s overheated political discourse. Moreover, I acknowledge the dangers of comparing anything to the Holocaust, an outrage so profound that it is nearly impossible to fathom but for the abundant factual record.

Nevertheless, I have steeped myself in the experiences and literature of workplace bullying, and I have read many works about the Holocaust. Although the two forms of mistreatment are hardly equivalent — even the worst forms of workplace bullying are a world away from genocide — there are real connections between them.

I credit two important individuals for helping to validate my hesitantly shared belief that genocide and bullying exist together on a spectrum, connected by common human toxicities and failings.

First, Barbara Coloroso is an internationally recognized authority on school bullying whose work has also extended into the realm of human rights generally. In her book Extraordinary Evil: A Short Walk to Genocide (2007), she recounted how she used a talk at the University of Rwanda to explain “how it was a short walk from schoolyard bullying to criminal bullying (hate crime) to genocide,” invoking the roles of aggressor, bullying target, and bystander.

Second, Dr. Edith Eger is a noted trauma therapist, author, and Auschwitz survivor. At a conference in 2017, I had the bracing task of immediately following her eloquent keynote speech with my presentation about workplace bullying and mobbing. Looking periodically at Dr. Edie (as she is known) as she sat in the front row, I shared with everyone my unease about comparing the Holocaust to work abuse, especially in the presence of someone who had survived the horrors of Nazi concentration camps. Thankfully, when I finished my talk, Dr. Edie applauded enthusiastically and gave me a warm nod of approval. I was both relieved and honored by her response.

Commitment

In the realm of employment relations, we often use the terms workplace bullying and workplace incivility as a matched pair, with some differentiating them only slightly by severity and intention. However, I’ve come to regard workplace bullying, mobbing, and related behaviors as being closer in essential character to the even more virulent behaviors that target people for abuse or extinction en masse. The degree and extent of harm may vary greatly, but the driving psychological and social forces bear many likenesses.

Indeed, over the years, the worst accounts of workplace mistreatment that I’ve known of have had nothing to do with incompetent management or everyday incivilities. Rather, they’ve typically shared a malicious intention to diminish, undermine, and harm someone, to drive them out of the organization, and perhaps even to destroy their ability to earn a living. In each of these instances, an eliminationist instinct has been very present, usually enabled and protected by institutional cultures.

Ultimately, all behaviors on this spectrum of cruelty and toxic abuse of power demand our responses. Thus, remembrance should inspire our ongoing commitment to understand and address these behaviors, wherever they may appear. 

For my part, I’ll continue my research, writing, and advocacy on workplace bullying and related topics. That work is a lifelong commitment. In addition, the contemplations offered above, some of which draw upon previous writings posted to this blog, represent some early thinking steps towards a more ambitious project that examines the varied manifestations of cruelty and abuse and assesses how law and public policy have responded to them. My objective is to contribute to a broader and deeper understanding of the differences and commonalities among these forms of severe mistreatment and what we can do about them.

A view from July 5

Peeking from behind the trees, fireworks from the Boston Pops annual July 4 celebration

Yesterday, for the first time in my 28 years in Boston, I did the famous Boston Pops July 4 celebration. I’ve never been one for big crowds, but a visit from friends who wanted to experience this Boston tradition overcame my resistance. Because we opted not to do the early a.m. campout, we didn’t get in front of the bandshell, but we found a place on an adjacent Beacon Hill street where we could hear the music, peer onto the stage, and see the fireworks bursting from behind the trees. It was great fun.

Before we reached the July 4 celebration, we passed by the National Park Service monument paying tribute to the storied 54th Massachusetts Regiment, one of the first regiments of African American soldiers during the Civil War. There we talked to a Civil War re-enactor who was in full uniform. He explained to us with pride in his eyes that his family tree includes a member of that regiment, and he demonstrated the nine-step process of loading a rifle of that era. It was a wonderfully educational and heartfelt conversation.

All in all, this was a triumphant and festive day for my home city, the return of a holiday tradition that had been cancelled during the past two July 4ths due to the pandemic.

When the Boston Pops Orchestra played its medley of patriotic songs, however, I found myself getting emotional over our nation’s current state of affairs. I now live in a country as deeply divided as I’ve ever seen. And those divisions are unlikely to heal anytime soon.

The nation’s July 4 festivities were horribly savaged by news from Highland Park, Illinois — a suburb of Chicago — of a mass shooting at the town’s Fourth of July parade that left at least six people dead and over 30 injured. A suspect, a 22-year-old white male, was later peacefully taken into custody.

The city of Akron, Ohio, canceled its July 4 events in the face of weekend protests after its police department released body camera footage of up to eight officers shooting Jayland Walker, a 25-year-old African American male, some 60 times. Walker was not armed at the time he was killed.  

Even here in Boston, our holiday weekend was stained by a march of masked white supremacists through the downtown. (Going back to the 1800s, these folks insist on covering their faces.)

On a national scale, the Congressional committee investigating the January 6, 2021 storming of the U.S. Capitol is accumulating more and more evidence that ties the event and participants’ insurrectionist intentions directly to former president Trump. The most damning testimony is coming from his own former staff and other longtime conservative Republicans, many of whom have stated that the election was not stolen and said that they shared this conclusion with Trump. The hearings have also revealed that several of Trump’s strongest supporters in Congress sought pardons in connection with Jan. 6, in anticipation of possible criminal prosecution.

Perhaps the most divisive recent development was last week’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to end a long-held right to abortion. The court’s holding, in turn, triggered a wave of red state laws prohibiting abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. (In fact, on CNN the other day, South Dakota governor Kristi Noem repeatedly dodged a question about whether a 10-year-old rape victim — an actual situation in Ohio — should be forced to give birth.)

The behaviors and actions I’m witnessing run counter to the kind of peaceful, ethical, and inclusive nation that I wish to see. I never thought that I would say this during my lifetime, but our American Experiment in freedom and democracy is at greater risk than at any time since the Civil War. The Stars and Stripes may fly forever, but what they represent is increasingly up for grabs.