Leftist definition of violence?

[Tim Cornelis]

Someone described standardised testing as "violence" on revleft, and on twitter some person called a newspaper's use of the word "nigger" "violence". The left often has different definitions, saying racism is the always structural and institutionalised racism and not individual prejudice (why not use it for both while recognising it's not the same caliber? I dunno, whatever) but this use of "violence"? I can't understand at all. Where does it come from and why is it used this way?

[Hatshepsut]

One may investigate a nexus of educational policy and violence beginning with

Erhabor Ighodaro. 2008. Curriculum Violence: The Impact of Standardized Testing on the Academic Achievement of African American Students. Nova Southeastern Univ., ProQuest.

On p. 16, he notes he was using the term by 2003, but traces its concept back to 1933 and Woodson in The Miseducation of the Negro. On p. 24, he notes that the Educational Testing Service, a supposedly nonprofit agency founded in 1948, has annual revenues near $1B.

[Bala Perdida]

I don't know if this is consistent to the left, but basically describing an action or situation that does harm or perpetuates harm done in ways physical and psychological. I believe that revleft person might've been me, and I was referring to something else but that's outlined in the other thread. Either way, standardized testing can both inflict and perpetuate violence being that it rewards schools that do good, and degrades schools that do bad. Although for some, there really is no way in which this isn't violent. Since when it rewards the school, the reputation of the school district increases. That also increases the property value, since being in a good school district makes houses more desirable. This forces some people out. Evictions. Violence. The standards to learn in that school also become even less obtainable for the students that were already doing bad in school, so they become even less likely to graduate. Violence.

When they degrade the school, the property value has a potential to lower but that's not as common. What does happen is that the school is underfunded. Students don't get enough text books, programs are cut out, teachers are laid off, students have less resources available to help them graduate, class rooms end up with even a lack of decent seating. It's less pleasant to be there. Students drop out. Doomed to servitude. Violence.

[Hatshepsut]

Control of education is a political priority. One might look at the Indian boarding schools for instance. In 1879 these were "progressive," in the sense that Generals Sherman and Sheridan favored extermination of this race. So, the Jesuit Fathers were tasked with exterminating the culture so the bodies could be spared; later the BIA took it over. I think most such schools have closed, but there's still a Lakota school in South Dakota.

Standardized tests themselves aren't violent and there's nothing wrong with them if used for their original purpose—diagnosis of individual learning progress, to allow educators to help if needed. President Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind Act was what had all the schools dancing to the test tune. Then we had privatized curricula such as "Success for All," where silent lunch came in and recess went out the window. In this program, kids gave Nazi-style salutes and snapped to attention whenever the teacher said "tractor beams" (i.e. all look at me). It was never imposed on the wealthier districts, just places like the South Bronx.