I was a social psychology major as an undergraduate[1]and one of the things I learned about was “social dominance theory” which is defined as, "…a general theory of intergroup relations that focuses on the maintenance and stability of group-based social hierarchies. These hierarchies consist of dominant groups, which enjoy a disproportionate share of positive social value, and subordinate groups, which bear a disproportionate share of negative social value.[2]" Further, "[g]roup-based hierarchies are sustained through the coordinated operation of legitimizing myths, institutional discrimination, and individual discrimination, which together perpetuate systems of dominance.[3]"
More recently, I read an article about another workplace dynamic theory called “weaponized incompetence.” This is defined as, “..the deliberate exaggeration or feigned inability to perform a task, often to avoid responsibility or shift the burden onto someone else.[4]” And yes, there are further studies that discuss how this is a gendered phenomenon[5]. Does any of this sound familiar to you as Academic Support and/or Bar Prep professionals?
I’ve been thinking about this lately because I am on a Committee[6] where we are working “together” to revise our academic warning and guided curriculum requirements to be more in sync with the NextGen bar exam in terms of content and skills. The point of these classifications is really to make sure students are taking bar tested courses beyond the first year like criminal procedure, evidence, and business organizations. Since NextGen will change some things and is already changing the current iterations of the UBE (like the family law “now you see it, now you don’t, and later you will see it again” thing), we need to pivot. I also think that gobbling up too many credits with (now) unnecessary requirements puts our students (who are already in academic difficulty) in a place where they cannot climb out of the academic ditch they find themselves in and, more importantly, cannot build the confidence they need in school, on the bar, and as attorneys. I’ve said this easily five million times in our meetings.[7] It is frustrating.
What is more frustrating though is the members of the Committee who are tenured doctrinal faculty who seem to be actively resisting learning about what we do to help students in academic difficulty[8]. After many, many meetings where I (and my ASP and Bar Prep colleagues) have explained the tiers of guided curriculum, academic warning, and academic probation, as well as the specific courses we teach only for these students, they just don’t get it or, since I am pretty certain they are intelligent, they just refuse to learn what we do.
I had one member of this Committee ask to see me with some questions and they came to my office and basically said, “I have no idea what you teach in these courses.” Did they want a syllabus? Yes, but the real task was for me to write up a description of each class. I guess I should have known that this was going to be a meeting where I ended up with an assignment when they came in with questions but no paper or pen to take any notes. How would they feel about a student who didn’t even purport to engage in notetaking in their VERY IMPORTANT doctrinal class?
I find this insulting on many levels. One, you asked for a meeting to understand things better, but what you really want is for me to explain myself while you have no intention of actually even trying to grasp what I am saying. Two, you could have assigned me the task through an email and not wasted my time over a break that I assure you I really needed. But the true insult here is the outright power play of not having to know what we do. I felt that a pat on the head and a “good girl” might have been an appropriate end to this meeting[9].
While this may not have risen to the level of weaponized incompetence (my colleagues are not malevolent people), I think I will call it intentional indifference[10]. And while I am upset that I was treated this way, I am even more angry with myself for not setting and maintaining a boundary in this situation.
As we go into the next semester, let’s be on the lookout for institutional social dominance as a method of burdening us with more work. People who do not know what (and how much!) we do may (often innocently) ask us for more than we can or should give. We need to be very clear that we aren’t the frosting on the cake they made in doctrinal courses, we are the oven that took the batter they sent us and gave it the structure it needed to be a cake at all. And then we are also the frosting, the sprinkles, and the packaging.
(Liz Stillman)
[1] Some of you are probably thinking, “oh, that explains a lot.”
[2] Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press.
[3] Id.
[4] Popescu, A. (2021). Weaponized Incompetence Is Ruining Relationships—Here’s How to Stop It. Well+Good.
[5] McNulty, E. (2022). Weaponized Incompetence: The Tactic That Hurts Relationships. The Atlantic.
[6] Lucky me? I’m actually on two committees that are working on this!?
[7] I would say I’ve exaggerated, but since these meetings go on for at least 10 years at a time I think not.
[8] Ironic, since they have often put students in that category, but I am obviously quite salty about this.
[9] Again, I’m pretty salty about this. And I really love the term salty. But I know it isn’t good for my blood pressure…
[10] Maybe I should trademark the term?
