Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“Progressive Stack” racial/gender speaker hierarchy an Occupy Wall Street legacy

“Progressive Stack” racial/gender speaker hierarchy an Occupy Wall Street legacy

That U. Penn Teaching Assistant is not the problem, she’s the symptom of a greater rot in the progressive movement and academia

The “progressive stack” is a method to order speakers and participants by race and gender along a “social justice” hierarchy. Women “of color” come first, men “of color” next, then white women, and at the back of the line, white men.

The progressive stack is all over the news the last few days because a graduate student Teaching Assistant at the University of Pennsylvania, Stephanie McKellop, bragged on Twitter about using the progressive stack in class, as we reported in U. Penn Teaching Assistant Calls on White Male Students Last, Because “Social Justice”:

The reaction is shock and amazement that such a racist, misandrist method would be used so openly, but those of us who have followed the progressive movement and campuses are quite familiar with the progressive stack.

Occupy Wall Street – Started the Progressive Stack?

I first learned of and wrote about the progressive stack in connection with the Occupy Wall Street movement in October 2011, Saturday Night Card Game (Dominant progressive white males in the #OccupyWallStreet mist):

#OccupyWallStreet has been the subject of numerous posts here, including the NY Times’ poster child who wasn’t, the influence of big labor, and the now-obligatory video of the anti-Jew guy.

But this story (h/t Publius) caught me by surprise, although in hindsight, it’s no surprise.

In the mist of Zuccotti Park, progressive white males are dominant (hence, the mocking of the protesters as “overwhelmingly white“)…

Since having white males dominate was unacceptable, the participants came up with a solution, a race and sex-based pecking order, with white males speaking only after others have spoken:

The concept of the progressive stack at Occupy Wall Street was described at the time at Feministing Blog:

Occupy Wall Street’s General Assembly operates under a revolutionary “progressive stack.”  A normal “stack” means those who wish to speak get in line.  A progressive stack encourages women and traditionally marginalized groups speak before men, especially white men.  This is something that has been in place since the beginning, it is necessary, and it is important.

“Step up, step back” was a common phrase of the first week, encouraging white men to acknowledge the privilege they have lived in their entire lives and to step back from continually speaking. This progressive stack has been inspiring and mind-boggling in its effectiveness.

This chart is one example of the hierarchy of identities:

https://www.minds.com/archive/view/682748241615265796

This video shows how the progressive stack was implemented at Occupy Richmond:

Truth-Out, after describing the many indignities perpetrated on the women of Occupy Wall Street by the men of Occupy Wall Street, further explained the logic behind the progressive stack:

Another check on structurelessness comes in the form of the “progressive stack,” in which the “stack-keeper,” who is in charge of taking questions and concerns from the audiences at general assemblies, is given the ability to privilege voices from “traditionally marginalized groups.”

In other words: women and minorities get to go to the front of the line. Yesenia Barragan, 25, a Columbia student and longtime activist, notes that in reality, progressive stack often means, “my partner, who’s a white man, has to wait twenty minutes or more to say his piece. That’s how it works,” and how it should work, she says. “We need to address those power relations.”

The progressive stack, added to a “step up/step back” policy that encourages those who have spoken to let others speak, and those who have been quiet are asked to share their thoughts, ensures that a diversity of voices are foregrounded.

The progressive stack method was proposed for Wikimedia by one author in November 2011, though there’s not indication it was used, Three Occupy Wall Street tactics the Wikimedia movement should copy:

As I watched the General Assembly [at the Occupy Wall Street protest], held at seven every evening, three things struck me as useful for the Wikimedia movement:

The “progressive stack” notion could help Wikimedia combat systemic bias in our projects. I want to immediately note here that the progressive stack is not uncontroversial in the Occupy movement: the New York General Assembly has agreed to use it, and is using it, but a couple of facilitators openly expressed ambivalence towards it. I am well aware that anything hinting at a progressive stack would be generally disliked in the Wikimedia movement, for lots of reasons.

The progressive stack is based in the premise that people who come from culturally dominant groups have throughout their lives been encouraged to speak, and rewarded for speaking, whereas people from other groups are more likely to have been ignored or silenced. Therefore, when GA participants line up in a “stack” to speak, the movement has agreed to privilege the marginalized by moving them forward, ahead of others. In practice this means that women, people of colour and gays and lesbians may get to speak before straight white men. You can read more about the progressive stack in this article from The Nationthis Feministing articlethis discussion on the Occupy San Jose site and this discussion on Occupy Nashville.

I don’t flat-out love the progressive stack either: it’s obviously problematic. But it does strike me that it’s got application for the Wikimedia projects and our problems with systemic bias. I wouldn’t advocate that we give people from underrepresented groups a louder voice than others, or that they be given particular extra privileges of any kind. But I would recommend that if for example we’re arguing about a topic related to India, and there’s an Indian person in the conversation, given that we know Indian people are underrepresented on the projects, it would make sense for us to listen to that person extra carefully, since he or she would be bringing information we’d otherwise be likelier to miss. Same goes for women, and other underrepresented groups in our community.

Progressive Stack Becomes Part of Left-wing Activist Organizing

Although the Occupy Wall Street movement went away, only recently to be reincarnated as Antifa, the racist stack kept on going as part of progressive identity politics. Whether the progressive stack started in academia or moved from Occupy Wall Street to academia is something of a chicken-and-egg problem. But the progressive stack concept clearly took hold in parts of academia, as this 2013 book Without Borders or Limits: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Anarchist Studies reflects:

https://books.google.com/books?id=WtEwBwAAQBAJ&pg=PR13&lpg=PR13&dq=progressive+stack+hierarchy&source=bl&ots=mmZNOGdNyw&sig=l6EPX3JW7F7545sKVVrwNaQhc5g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiIyq-ysoTXAhXEMSYKHQ97DS84ChDoAQgxMAI#v=onepage&q=progressive%20stack%20hierarchy&f=false

The progressive stack became part of the fabric of activist organizing, without much controversy. This 2016 article by a CUNY graduate student describes the progressive stack as a key component of organizing, Creating Spaces for Conversation: Three Strategies:

A few weeks ago, I was asked to facilitate the question and answer period for an academic event about supporting female teachers, particularly those who are teaching undergraduate humanities classes. While we often think that question and answer sessions just magically happen, these conversations often reproduce dominant hierarchies of privilege and power, especially in terms of who gets to speak and have their voice heard. Below is an except from my opening remarks on the importance of challenging these dynamics and two strategies, “progressive stack” and “step up, step back,” both of which I learned from the Occupy Wall Street movement and have since helped me in my efforts to create more inclusive environments, including in classrooms.

Taking “stack” just means keeping a list of people who wish to participate—offer a question or comment—during the Q & A. Rather than anxiously waving your hand around and wondering if you’ll be called on, if you would like to participate, signal to me in some way (a gesture, a dance move, a traditional hand-in-the-air, meaningful eye contact, etc.) and I will add you to the list.

However, we’re not just going to take stack, we are going to take progressive stack in an effort to foreground voices that are typically silenced in dominant culture. According to Justine and Zoë, two self-identified transwomen who were active in the movement, progressive stack means that “if you self-identify as trans, queer, a person of color, female, or as a member of any marginalized group you’re given priority on the list of people who want to speak – the stack. The most oppressed get to speak first.” As I take stack, I will also do my best to bump marginalized voices and those who haven’t yet had a chance to participate to the top. As you might already be thinking, taking stack is an imperfect method, especially because it relies on the perception of the person taking stack. For that reason, while I’ll start us off by taking stack, if at any point someone else wants to take over, please feel free to do so.

The progressive stack now is considered part and parcel of creating “safe spaces” for progressive organizing and meetings:

Here are some ways you can take steps towards safer meeting spaces, as a facilitator:

* * *

Use a Progressive Stack: A stack is a term that refers to keeping track of who wants to speak next, so folks don’t have to keep their hands up forever and so everyone doesn’t speak at once. It’s literally a list, sometimes even written down, that keeps track of who is next to speak. A progressive stack is a stack that prioritizes voices that are less likely to be amplified. So, for example, if two people have their hands up and one person has already participated a lot and the other hasn’t, the facilitator will call on the person who hasn’t spoken as much. Or, if there are a bunch of people with their hands up, the facilitator will call on those who are of underrepresented or those of marginalized identity/ies first.

What Happens In Ithaca, Doesn’t Stay In Ithaca

The progressive stack is not just theoretical or academic. The progressive stack was used in Ithaca, NY, at a Black Lives Matter rally in January 2016, as I reported in At anti-racism rally, Whites allowed to speak only after People of Color:

A rally is planned in Ithaca, NY, for January 9, 2016, against allegedly racist violence by police, specifically the non-indictments in the deaths of Sandra Bland and Tamir Rice, and the deaths of Betty Jones and Quintonio LeGrier.

The event is taking place at the Ithaca Commons, a public space in the center of town.

Here’s part of the description from the public Facebook Event Page….

I learned about the protest a few days ago, but didn’t write about it because I thought one of the conditions placed on who could speak at the protest might be a hoax.

Why would I think so?

Because “people of color” will be given preference in speaking over whites. At an anti-racism rally. Seriously….

Can you imagine the public outcry if the racial roles at the event were reversed?

But this is Ithaca, so there will be no cognitive dissonance….

Welcome to the Ithaca progressive bubble, where fighting racial discrimination justifies their own racial discrimination.

In response to my report and the attention on the racial prioritizing of the event, the lead organizer, former Ithaca College student Dubian Ade, accused me of being a white supremacist:

https://www.facebook.com/events/196922747321950/permalink/198599143820977/?ref=1&action_history=null

The same racial stacking was used again at protest organized by Dubian Ade in July 2016, as I reported in #BlackLivesMatter rally segregates speakers by race, quoting the Ithaca Journal report on the event:

About 400 people marched from the Southside Community Center to the Ithaca Commons Friday night and called for an end to systemic racism and police killing black people.

[Black Lives Matter Ithaca organizer Dubian] Ade addressed the crowd once the march ended at the Bernie Milton Pavilion. He said people of color would get priority on the megaphone.

“If you are not a person of color, please wait,” he said. “We prioritize our voices since we are the ones who are the most affected, and our voices are usually the ones that get pushed out”

In both of the events in Ithaca at which racial stacking was used, Cornell Prof. Russell Rickford was a featured speaker, a reflection of the intersectionality between campus and off-campus activism.

Jews Don’t Stack Up

In the progressive movement, Jews are considered privileged and “white,” putting them low on the progressive stack spectrum. Standard anti-Zionist polemics portray Israel as a white-supremacist state, even though most Israeli Jews are refugees from or descendants of refugees from Arab countries. Israel also has rescued Jewish communities from non-white regions such as Ethiopia.

Jamie Palmer, writing at The Tower in April 2016, astutely points out the ugly side of the progressive stack, and how it is used against Jews:

A lot has been written in recent months about the unwelcome resurgence of political correctness and identity politics and the exasperating doctrines of the social justice Left. I will simply make the curt observation that the progressive stack—an organizing principle designed to foreground the voices of those deemed to be “marginalized”—has not been kind to Jews.

This is partly because those in charge of arranging ethnicities into a hierarchy of oppression are still trying to decide whether or not Jews should to be considered “white” and therefore “privileged,” and, as such, undeserving of the social protections from racism afforded to other minority groups (as though it were within their rights to define the Jews in the first place). This problem is, of course, exacerbated by the Livingstone Formulation.

But there is a further problem with the way racism is conceived and understood as a structural problem by social justice activists. According to the precepts of critical race theory, racism only results from a combination of prejudice and power. Since anti-Semitism is a conspiracy theory about the malign influence of a powerful and mendacious world Jewry, it essentially holds that the Jews are experiencing hatred on account of the power they hold. Anti-Semitism, therefore, is not racism at all, but something more akin to resistance.

We’ve seen those progressive stack politics used by people like Linda Sarsour and anti-Israel LBGT activists who seek to drive Jewish supporters of Israel (who are the vast majority of Jews) out of the progressive movement, as detailed in our prior posts:

U. Penn TA is a Symptom, Not the Problem

So to sum up, progressive stacking is nothing new. It has been a core part of progressive and academic organizing at least since the Occupy Wall Street protests of 2011. You just didn’t notice it until a U. Penn graduate student Teaching Assistant bragged about it on Twitter.

That U. Penn Teaching Assistant is not the problem, she’s the symptom of a greater rot in the progressive movement and academia.

[Featured Image: Occupy Wall Street Mic Check]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

sounds both racist AND sexist to me…

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to redc1c4. | October 23, 2017 at 11:48 am

    It is, it is.

    Progressive has always been about being Racists.

    Look of the founder of planned families and abortions.

I can attest the progressive stack does NOT apply to the Liberal/Leftist/Progressive leadership.

So racism is OK unless it is practiced by a white male in which case it is NOT OK because of his race. So, this is all about the power to be a racist and the power to label somebody else a “racist.”

I am having trouble making the logic of an SJW work.

I’d call it “progressive quacking”, but that’s an insult to ducks

Lol , why in the world, if you are a white male, would you even attend anything that has to do with “stacking “?

Like I said on another post, Blacks won’t be happy till Whites are either all dead, or their slaves…end of story…

    Ragspierre in reply to gonzotx. | October 22, 2017 at 10:02 pm

    THAT is about as racist AND stupid a thing as has ever been posed on LI.

      speedmerchant in reply to Ragspierre. | October 23, 2017 at 10:39 am

      Really? Take a look at South Africa, Haiti , Monrovia, Zimbabwe , the Congo and any other place on earth where whites have been thrown out or overthrown.

        Ragspierre in reply to speedmerchant. | October 23, 2017 at 10:58 pm

        OK. Let’s look at South Africa. Are ‘blacks’ killing and enslaving all whites?

        A simple yes or no, please.

        Let’s look at black Americans. Are they killing and/or enslaving all other races?

        A simple yes or no, please.

        Are there black Americans serving honorably…and with distinction…in our military?

        Yes or no, please.

        Are there black Americans serving as conservative judges on our courts?

        Yes or no, please.

        Do you endorse the bigot gonzotx’s thesis that “blacks” wish to kill or enslave “whites”?

        Yes or no, please.

    “Blacks won’t be happy till Whites are either all dead, or their slaves…end of story…..”

    That’s too generalized. There are many blacks who support Trump, and even more measured enough not to buy into the hate being spewed by the likes of obama/sharpton/soros/clinton/blm, etc.

    Young whites in colleges are buying into the cancer of leftist radicalism as much as black students, which is the canary in the coal mine. (It currently pays to do so. That has to change: the infliction of a lot of economic pain is in order.)

    Our times have been much like pre-war Germany and Austria’s. This is literally the left’s attempt at revolution. But they blew it with one titanic blunder, and they are stuck with two horrific facts (if you’re a leftist): obama and the democrats comically bought into the idea that the incompetent and despised hillary clinton could win an election.

    Their horrific reality now is, that the corrupted GOPe no longer has no a base, and President Donald Trump is about as far from a Paul Von Hindenberg or Emperor Nicholas as one can get, and is more closer in character to Patton, Reagan and Curtis Le May.

    Just like the radicalized white students following their leftist handlers, radicalized blacks following as well are no brighter than the radicalized whites: both groups are simply corrupt, ignorant brats, with oversize senses of self. LeBron James comes to mind. So does Colon Pumpernickel. There are psychos of both colors striving for attention in the election arena: Screaming Fauxcahontas, Krazy Kamilla Harris and crazy nancy pelosi come to mine. So does Maxine Waters, as does madame plastic cowboy hat from Florida. Then there’s the corrupt contrivance, bernie sanders.

    If there’s one thing the left has produced, it is political candidates who are complete contrivances, pathological liars, wholly corrupt, and amazingly, wholly incompetent. Obama comes to mind. And of course, so does Hillary Clinton. And so does Screaming Fauxcahontas, Krazy Kamilla Harris (the second worse attorney general in California history), Maxine Waters, and madame plastic cowboy hat from Florida.

    Quite the situation. But the left’s house of cards has almost fallen. Its only hope is the ballot box (or stuffing the ballot box.) And they do have a chance with their useful idiot base. Given mconnell, ryan and the bizarre mccain as the faces of the GOPe, it’s probable. And now even more probable since george w. bush lost his mind, and is having so much fun showing everyone.

    Once again, it all comes down to destroying the GOPe. They let all this chaos develop unabated on their watch. And they were paid well for their duplicity. Now we have to make them pay.

    tyates in reply to gonzotx. | October 23, 2017 at 2:12 am

    Don’t assume the loudest in a group speak for the entire group.

    tom_swift in reply to gonzotx. | October 23, 2017 at 4:17 am

    would you even attend anything that has to do with “stacking “?

    Anything which attracts women is eventually going to attract men, no matter how ridiculous it is.

    And the stupider the girls, the better.

      tom_swift in reply to tom_swift. | October 23, 2017 at 4:18 am

      In other words, the men aren’t there to talk, so the “stacking” is inconsequential.

      Morning Sunshine in reply to tom_swift. | October 23, 2017 at 9:33 am

      about 10 years ago when my oldest was about 6, my husband was killing flies in the kitchen. He suddenly exclaimed “Oh no, you do NOT! Not in my kitchen!” and delivered a particularly violent whack at two flies. My son then said “Don’t what? What were the flies doing?” My husband kind of turned red and sputtered. Son then says “Were they STACKING? cuz that is what the grasshoppers do too when they make babies.” We just look at him. Then hubby says “Yes, they were stacking that is a good word for it.”
      Son then continued “I think all animals STACK to make babies. Except for humans. I don’t think they stack.” Trying hard not to laugh, we asked how he thinks humans make babies. He considered for a minute then replied “I am not sure. But I don’t think humans STACK.”

      So this whole conversation is a bit weird anyway, but your comment adds so much to my amusement!

Just got word that Harvey Weinstein read the “Progressive Stack” headline, and got very excited. Ultimately, he was disappointed, of course. But it did bring him out of his depression for a few minutes.

The hierarchy of victimhood.

The fine report….

8% Blacks voted for Trump

Your right, not all Blacks, just 92% of Blacks would prefer Whites dead or slaves…

    Come on, thats a silly statement. We didnt vote for ‘their’ candidate, so we want them dead?

    Vasty more facist/leftist whites want us dead than black people do. Just as obama czar john holdren – or any university teacher.

    Most blacks vote democrat, but it doesnt make them evil – just as foolish as any white who votes lockstep democrat.

    8%, huh? Around one million men and women. That’s diverse.

The Stack is revenge porn for progs.

Progressive liberalism is a monotonically divergent ideology.

It hit its climax when female chauvinists placed conception before choice, thereby denying women’s agency, and lives deemed unworthy, inconvenient, or profitable (e.g. clinical cannibalism). It evolved with the diversity racket that denies individual dignity (i.e. judge people by the “content of their character”). Instead, preferring to group people in classes defined by color, sex, and other political congruences (“=”). That is, the diversity racket judges people by the “color of their skin”. We have been on a progressive slope ever since.

So now this makes it official. The hated caste system has come to America and has been found to be fair by its originators. The pity is how so few have the courage to stand up against it.

This version of the ‘progressive stack’ is incomplete. From top to bottom

Muslims
Transgender male to female
Transgender female to male
Gay POC
White Gays
Buddhists (as long as they’re quiet and inoffensive)
Rich white women
Black women
Poor white women
Asian women
Hispanic women
Black men
Hispanic men
White non-Christian men
White catholic men
White protestant men
White southern protestant men
White southern protestant men with non-professional jobs
White southern protestant men with non-professional jobs who own guns

There, that should do it.

How interesting and disgusting.

There is a cohort of overt racists here, and the weekend editor is putting up with that.

Apparently, when gonzotx sees any black American, she sees an enemy. They want to kill her or enslave her.

That’s nuts, of course. So is giving that a platform, since it’s unhinged hatred.

    VaGentleman in reply to Ragspierre. | October 23, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Banning hate speech. Just what one would expect from a faux conservative like you. What next – no anti global warming comments? No criticism of Hillary? Who / what else should prof ban at your discretion?

    Real conservatives have long held that Jefferson’s comment in re the University of Virginia applied to the public arena as well:
    “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
    – Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, December 27, 1820

    Apparently Jefferson is a fool once rags makes up his mind on an issue.

    What a disgusting sham your constant virtue signaling is.

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | October 23, 2017 at 9:26 pm

      You’ll tell ANY lie to smear me, as we’ve proven over and over again.

      NOBODY has any obligation to provide a forum to bigots, and that NEVER deprives them their right to be bigots and express their bigotry.

      But your REALLY should address you bullshit to the Prof., who has, does, and WILL ban people on his blog, and works very hard to deprive haters like you from their access to tainting the minds of people with their poison.

      Poor old nutter.

      Ragspierre in reply to VaGentleman. | October 23, 2017 at 11:43 pm

      “What next – no anti global warming comments? No criticism of Hillary? Who / what else should prof ban at your discretion?”

      See, this is really a hilarious…hysterical (literally)…set of your implicit lies.

      “The druidic religion of Gorebal climate thingy” is my coinage. Liar.

      Nobody has excoriated “Hellary” more and for longer than have I. Liar.

      I never militated for anyone to “ban” anyone. It’s been common here for posts to be taken down. That isn’t “banning”. Liar.

      I wrote what I wrote in the open. I get to express mysef, too. Liar.

      I NEVER asked anyone to “ban” anyone. You can check with the Prof. Liar.

      VaGentleman in reply to VaGentleman. | October 25, 2017 at 12:48 pm

      rags,
      you have benefitted from the prof’s tolerance of expression on LI more than anyone else on the forum. Like all of us here, you are a guest in the prof’s space. As your history shows, you repay his courtesy with foul language, crude descriptions of sex acts, insulting names and an endless litany of disparaging remarks leveled at any of his other guests with whom you disagree. Having violated every norm of polite conduct, you now presume to set the standards by which prof and the weekend editor do their jobs.

      Prof would be legally and morally justified in banning anyone or their content from the forum for their conduct or content. But that doesn’t mean he HAS to. He is equally justified in taking a position that it’s better to expose them by allowing their speech and rebuttals to it. It’s his choice to make.

      Apparently this upset you:
      ‘Banning hate speech. Just what one would expect from a faux conservative like you. What next – no anti global warming comments? No criticism of Hillary? Who / what else should prof ban at your discretion? ‘

      Let’s look at your response.
      “What next – no anti global warming comments? No criticism of Hillary? Who / what else should prof ban at your discretion?”

      See, this is really a hilarious…hysterical (literally)…set of your implicit lies.

      “The druidic religion of Gorebal climate thingy” is my coinage. Liar.

      Nobody has excoriated “Hellary” more and for longer than have I. Liar.

      You selectively quote me. That’s telling. Your status as a conservative has been in question since you wanted to defeat Trump at all costs, even if it meant electing Hillary. You have been unable to explain how that was better for conservativism and continue to hide behind your flawed selection criteria – ‘I won’t vote for a collectivist’. Since you now joined the collectivists in calling for bans on hate speech, it’s fair to ask if you would join them in banning criticism (hate speech) inre global warming and Hillary, especially since you have made it clear that you wish Trump had lost to her.

      I never militated for anyone to “ban” anyone. It’s been common here for posts to be taken down. That isn’t “banning”. Liar.
      …[1]
      I NEVER asked anyone to “ban” anyone. You can check with the Prof. Liar.

      I never said you wanted to ban anyone. I said you wanted to ban hate speech – ie speech you didn’t agree with. And you did call for a ban:
      ‘There is a cohort of overt racists here, and the weekend editor is putting up with that.

      Apparently, when gonzotx sees any black American, she sees an enemy. They want to kill her or enslave her.

      That’s nuts, of course. So is giving that a platform, since it’s unhinged hatred.

      and then this, probably the most telling sentence:

      ‘But your REALLY should address you bullshit to the Prof., who has, does, and WILL ban people on his blog, and works very hard to deprive haters like you from their access to tainting the minds of people with their poison.’

      Wasn’t that the purpose of the political commissars in the Soviet Union? The Gestapo? To root out impure thoughts?

      It’s an insult for you to even imply, much less to say, that prof is in any way doing that. It’s also an insult for you to say that the rest of us need to be protected from ‘their poison’. How condescending – you will identify evil and protect us from it. How very progressive of you.

      To close – you said:
      ‘[1]I wrote what I wrote in the open. I get to express mysef, too. Liar.’
      Yes, you do get to express yourself. And you did a great job of showing us the real rags. Please continue to do so.

Key phrase:
“I was asked to facilitate the question and answer period for an academic event about supporting female teachers, particularly those who are teaching undergraduate humanities classes.”

‘undergraduate humanities classes’, huh? I wonder how long before they start awarding degrees in “White Shaming”? That would definitely be a BS degree!

If Stephanie McKellop had the courage of her convictions, she’d put up an explicit rank-ordering of privilege in front of the class on the first day, proceed to assign a rank number to each student, and then require that each student wear a large placard around the neck displaying this number for the remainder of the class. Thereby sparing herself the necessary ongoing calculations when deciding which student to call on.

Lacking that courage, she assigns this rank-ordering on the fly, and, by not disclosing this to the class, stealthily applies her progressive pedagogy.

As for why she’d do a pedagogy-reveal on Twitter, well, many seem to retain an illusion that social media are somehow private, or at least that no one what you publicly post who isn’t already in essential agreement with you.

If she truly believes such a policy is defensible, why would she not deploy it openly? Show us the numbers, Stephanie!

If Stephanie McKellop had the courage of her convictions, she’d put up an explicit rank-ordering of privilege in front of the class on the first day, proceed to assign a rank number to each student, and then require that each student wear a large placard around the neck displaying this number for the remainder of the class. Thereby sparing herself the necessary ongoing calculations when deciding which student to call on.

Lacking that courage, she assigns this rank-ordering on the fly, and, by not disclosing this to the class, stealthily applies her progressive pedagogy.

As for why she’d do a pedagogy-reveal on Twitter, well, many seem to retain an illusion that social media are somehow private, or at least that no one what you publicly post who isn’t already in essential agreement with you.

If she truly believes such a policy is defensible, why would she not deploy it openly? Show us the numbers, Stephanie!

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend