In my personal life, I most often use the “check in” method from the four categories of microintervention strategies. When I believe something may have hurt someone, I try to be present and create space for them to talk through the situation, express their feelings, and articulate any specific pain they are experiencing. I especially appreciate the question “What do you need?” because it centers the person who was impacted and prioritizes their needs rather than assumptions. This is a strategy I plan to intentionally use in future situations.

A connection I made was with the chart’s definition of microinvalidation. A few weeks ago, my roommate was on FaceTime with a male friend I had never met, and we began casually talking. During the conversation, he asked about my ethnicity, and when I shared that I am Hispanic and of Mexican descent, he immediately began asking about my family’s political views, specifically regarding ICE. Although I do not believe his question was intentionally meant to be harmful, it reduced my identity and cultural background to a political stereotype. In that moment, it felt as though my heritage was being framed solely through politics rather than as a lived experience. The comment was especially isolating because it placed me in an uncomfortable position where any response could have led to conflict. Notably, he did not ask my other roommate, who is a white woman with blonde hair and blue eyes, similar questions about her political views. Understanding the concept of microinvalidation helped me put this experience into perspective, as it highlighted how certain identities are often singled out.

This description of “slipper, slimy words and behaviors” has left me wondering where the line is drawn between harm and intent, and how we can better recognize microaggressions in everyday interactions so that we can respond with accountability rather than defensiveness.