I reject this as silly.
Aggression in my book has to be intentional.
Racist attitudes are not wholesome, but they are not aggressive.
When I was practice teaching in Spokane one summer, I had a US history class that was divided among (1) Anglo kids who were taking the course because they had failed it in the previous semester, and (2) Japanese kids who were taking it in order to graduate earlier than in four years. There were no Black students, Mexican students or Indians in the class.
The Anglo kids could be divided into again into those that studied and those that did not. I was unable to make a test so easy that everyone could pass it. Not even matching tests, or tests with questions like "The Union General who accepted the Confederate defeat was (a) Ulysses S.Grant (b) Gomer Pyle (c) Benedict Arnold (d) Napoleon XXIII (d) Captain Nemo." I did manage to give a test in which only two out of 32 failed. As I recall, four students in all failed.
The Japanese students all made A's on all the work, but none of them would say more than five words in a class discussion. I even tried giving candy to anyone who would write a paragraph in class and read it aloud. They did not have a problem with speaking English: so far as I know, they were all born in the US. That is what my supervising teacher told me.
Was it microaggression to give tests for boneheads or to offer candy as a bribe? I really do not think so.
I had no preconceptions about what Japanese students might or might not do. I had no preconception that I would get ABC tests that any student would answer by writing X in every blank, where X was not a choice.
These kids were not hostile or unruly.
