Binghamton U. Stops Prof’s Policy of Prioritizing ‘Non-White Folks’ During Discussions
“if you are white, male, or someone privileged by the racial and gender structures of our society to have your voice easily voiced and heard, we will often ask you to hold off on your questions”
What in the world makes people who work in education think this kind of thing is acceptable? It’s also worth noting that this teacher’s syllabus included a quote from Mao.
From National Review via Yahoo News:
University Ends Professor’s Policy of Prioritizing ‘Non-White Folks’ during Class Discussions
Binghamton University recently forced a professor to remove a section of her syllabus that said priority would be given to “non-white folks” to speak during classroom discussions after finding the policy violated the university‘s faculty staff handbook.
Ana Maria Candela wrote in her “Social Change- Introduction to Sociology” syllabus that she planned to practice “progressive stacking” during class discussions at the New York state school, according to Campus Reform.
“This means that we try to give priority to non-white folks, to women, and to shy and quiet people who rarely raise their hands,” she wrote.
“It also means that if you are white, male, or someone privileged by the racial and gender structures of our society to have your voice easily voiced and heard, we will often ask you to hold off on your questions or comments to give others priority and will come back to you a bit later or at another time,” the syllabus added.
Candela writes that her experience with the policy is that “within little time, those who feel most privileged to speak begin to take the initiative to hold space for others who feel less comfortable speaking first, while those who tend to be more silenced in our society grow more comfortable speaking.”
“As you can imagine, it has tremendous benefits for our society as a whole when we learn to hold space and listen to others whose voices are typically disregarded and silenced,” the syllabus adds.
Meanwhile, Candela also quotes the brutal Chinese dictator Mao Zedong in the syllabus, saying in the class discussion guidelines section of the syllabus that Mao is “famous for having once said, ‘No investigation, no right to speak.’”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
“if you are white, male, or someone privileged by the racial and gender structures of our society to have your voice easily voiced and heard”
NO ONE’s voice is easily heard in the cacophony of 24/7 social media. Especially if they disagree with the dominant narrative.
As is usual with this sort of thing, this is just a facile and deeply dishonest rationalization for bigotry.
Being white, male, and privileged, and given your decision to deliberately curtail my participation in your class below that of other students, I will ask you to hold off on your demands for tuition.
We have received your response, and we are enclosing the tuition bill for ten non-white folks to whom you owe reparations. We’ll expect your struggle session video detailing your many crimes against non-white folks and your effusive apology re: same with the check.
Acknowledged. Please hold your breath until apology and payment arrive.
“This means that we try to give priority to non-white folks, to women…”
In other words, she discriminates against white males…No, wait, those are the words.
No one who has ever been in a movie theater would believe that non-white, non-male people feel less comfortable speaking up.
I suppose nobody objects to the teacher giving priority to “shy and quiet people who rarely raise their hands”.
The idea behind also giving priority to women is that they have been socialized not to put themselves forward, so they find it more difficult to raise their hands in class. And the narrative is that “non-white folks” are used to being ignored so they too become reluctant to raise their hands. But to whatever extent either of those propositions are so, they are covered by the first clause. If priority is given to students whom the teacher has noticed rarely raise their hands, then nothing more is needed. The whole point of prioritizing women and “non-white folks” is supposedly as a proxy for shy people, but why use a proxy when you can measure the thing itself directly? Especially a very imperfect proxy, since there are many women and “non-white folks” who are not at all shy, and there’s no reason to give them priority.
Agreed. Just “people that do not participate” instead of calling out people based on color would suffice. Apply the test: if you substitute some “white supremacist” term given by the left for whatever the preferred minority of the day is, and see if it is racist/homophobic/bigoted etc.
It will be a problem without a doubt.
Additionally, there is a certain level of pressure by minority kids towards other minority kids not to “act white” by participating and doing well.
Maybe the good professor should address that.
This is a violation of Title VII and Title IX. Even if you think you are trying to help, discrimination based upon sex or race is always wrong.