That's a funny stance given the context in which the material was introduced: as evidence that powerful people are racist "by their own admission". Doesn't sound like the no-big-deal definition of racism they might have thought they were confessing to.

It also suggests it's up to session-organisers to decide what justifiably humiliates a person.

Humiliation is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see them as humiliated. They don't appear to think they are humiliated.

Perhaps it's just not humiliating.

> They don't appear to think they are humiliated

How do you know? It doesn't sound like the kind of session where honest (dissenting) exchange is encouraged.

We don't have a lot of signal on what kind of session it is. It's not the conclusion I'd jump to from one Free Beacon screenshot.

Do you think multiple people would naturally volunteer to say those things in a regular session?

I don't have nearly enough insight into the inner workings of the minds of Northwestern University Law School administrators to guess.

Most people (luckily) perceive racism to be a bad thing. Being forced to publicly confess to being something you should be ashamed of is the definition of humiliation.

If it's true and uncomfortable it's still true.

My point is that public humiliation is much more likely to create resentment than to remove unconscious bias.