College Professor to White Males: Shut Up

by Kerry Dougherty

Oh look. A woke New York sociology professor made headlines and got in hot water over her racist and sexist syllabus.

It appears that SUNY Binghamton University has deleted Ana Maria Candela from its faculty directory. With good reason. She was caught bragging that she would use “progressive stacking” in her class “Social Change – Introduction To Sociology.”

Candela warned prospective pupils that white students — especially that loathsome species known as “males” — would not be called on in classroom discussions. She would be giving the floor to “non-white folks” and shy people who normally don’t participate.

It 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.

Smart.

Who wants to hear what people who have had advantages have to say? They have nothing to contribute. And as we all know, you can tell just by looking who’s dripping in privilege and who isn’t.

Every white male, even those who grew up in poverty or foster care or who have learning disabilities, are the crowned princes of America in Candela’s world. Those with darker skin, even the sons and daughters of CEOs who live in million dollar homes, are victims, unlikely to amount to anything.

Once this woman’s syllabus went viral, the university deleted the “progressive stacking” paragraph from her classroom plans.

Later it looks like they scrubbed her altogether. Her bio is missing from the faculty directory.

Candela may be looking for a job, just like they/them at ODU who got caught trying to normalize pedophilia last year.

Good.

Because this is a state university. Candela’s blatant behavior amounted to illegal state-sanctioned discrimination and a denial of equal protection. If those privileged white boys in Candela’s class decided to file a federal civil rights lawsuit, the school would lose.

Then again, what white male would consider taking one of her classes?

It would be nice to think this woke professor is unique in her prejudice. But she isn’t. Most aren’t stupid enough to put their resentment toward those they believe to be privileged in writing.

If you want to know why Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s message of parental involvement in education resonated with many Virginia parents it’s because we know that this brainwashing doesn’t begin in colleges and universities. Teachers from elementary through high school are being told to teach about privilege and victimhood.

Talk to teachers.

They’ll tell you that school districts have mandatory teacher training in what is euphemistically referred to as “social emotional learning,” “diversity” and “equity.” While the moderators never use the words “critical race theory,” that’s what it is.

In higher education they call it “progressive stacking.” And that plunged one college professor into hot water.

This column has been republished with permission from Kerry: Unemployed & Unedited.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

40 responses to “College Professor to White Males: Shut Up”

  1. Once again Kerry has no idea what she is talking about not that she really cares. Teachers from elementary to high school are not taught to teach about privilege and victimhood. Just because a few teachers interpret their confirmation bias this way does not make it so. I have 20 years experience in public education to back this up. BTW the article says that white students would be “asked” to hold their comments until others have spoken. This is a commonly accepted approach to minimize the shutting down of discussion by strong voices.

    1. Matt Adams Avatar

      “VaNavVet • a minute ago
      Once again Kerry has no idea what she is talking about not that she really cares. Teachers from elementary to high school are not taught to teach about privilege and victimhood. Just because a few teachers interpret their confirmation bias this way does not make it so. I have 20 years experience in public education to back this up. BTW the article says that white students would be “asked” to hold their comments until others have spoken. This is a commonly accepted approach to minimize the shutting down of discussion by strong voices.”

      No, that’s called discrimination based upon color of skin. Which is a Civil Rights violation, incase you were wondering.

      1. You are correct that it is called being “civil” and respectful of others.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar

          Discrimination based upon color is a Civil Rights violation regardless of your opinion on the matter. You’re also far from civil when it comes to Kerry or other who disagree with you. Oh and I’m still waiting on the DD-214.

          1. Not being called on in class is a Civil Rights violation? Give me a break and try that in court where you have to demonstrate actual damages.

          2. Matt Adams Avatar

            “VaNavVet 3 hours ago
            Not being called on in class is a Civil Rights violation? Give me a break and try that in court where you have to demonstrate actual damages.”

            Clearly you’re being deliberately obtuse. Discrimination based on sex, color, religion, age and so forth is a Civil Rights violation. The notion that someone who is “white” cannot be discriminated against based on their skin color and as obtuse and believing “racism” only exist against BIPOC.

          3. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar
            YellowstoneBound1948

            Oh, in addition to holding the Navy Cross, or whatever you are claiming, you are a lawyer, too. Why, I wonder, did you go into a dead-end career like public education? Oh, I know. You were “called” to it.

          4. YellowstoneBound1948 Avatar
            YellowstoneBound1948

            Matt, VaNavVet is not a veteran. He’s an impostor.

          5. Matt Adams Avatar

            I will refrain from making that statement until he either supplies a DD-214 or admits that he doesn’t have one. A DD-214 request is the SOP when someone claims military status.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar

      “VaNavVet • a minute ago
      Once again Kerry has no idea what she is talking about not that she really cares. Teachers from elementary to high school are not taught to teach about privilege and victimhood. Just because a few teachers interpret their confirmation bias this way does not make it so. I have 20 years experience in public education to back this up. BTW the article says that white students would be “asked” to hold their comments until others have spoken. This is a commonly accepted approach to minimize the shutting down of discussion by strong voices.”

      No, that’s called discrimination based upon color of skin. Which is a Civil Rights violation, incase you were wondering.

    3. Cathis398 Avatar

      i really wish that were true, but there is a lot of evidence that it is in fact happening in K12 education. See eg this recent WSJ piece:

      https://www.wsj.com/articles/inside-the-woke-indoctrination-machine-diversity-equity-inclusion-bipoc-schools-conference-11644613908

      there have been quite a few pieces documenting (albeit anecdotally, but all teaching is anecdotal since there is no universal US curriculum) methods like this in The Atlantic and elsewhere. I would like to believe it’s some kind of propaganda job, but if you follow the links in those pieces you find stuff that is really troubling.

      one more example, here an interview with a parent of a student: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/black-lives-matter-curriculum-has-unintended-lesson/618501/

    4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      I have 27 years of school teaching experience to back up that CRT is alive and well, though taught in a de facto sense.

      1. Chrissy Taylor Avatar
        Chrissy Taylor

        Very alive and well! And if CRT is such righteous teaching…and benefitted society as a whole…then why do they try so hard to hide it?? Lol!! You’d think they would want the whole world to know! But they know it’s divisive and destructive to a childs psyche… And that’s exactly why they push it!….”Break ’em while their young”!! I guess it’s the only way they can create a new crop of Democrat voters for the future…cuz their whole agenda is crap… So no one would actually become a Democrat willingly! Lol! It’s their only hope! Lol
        But yes it’s definitely being taught, albeit subliminally. When I graduated back in 2003, I could see that whole narrative starting to pick up speed in the classroom. I can only imagine it’s way worse now. And these younger teachers fresh out of college are eager and more than willing to teach it! So not only does this need to be fought against in the public schools… It needs to be fought against in the college level as well. Because that’s where it originates from, unfortunately.

      2. CRT is a law school theory and that is where it is taught. Not sure what de facto means to you. It could be that the personal opinion of an individual teacher does on occasion seep into a discussion in a particular class or school. That is not evidence of wide spread teaching.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Man’s capacity for denial is amazing. It was wide spread when I retired 2 years ago. De facto: meaning hidden. The south had de jure segregation and the north had de facto segregation. CRT is in the classroom and behind the cloak.

          1. It may be something which resembles CRT to some folks but it is not strictly CRT as it is defined. I never saw a hint of it in my 20 years but I was not teaching in NOVA either.

  2. Colleges must move away from any form of meritocracy and have admissions based on a lottery – that way all have an equitable chance of getting in. The same should be done for the instructors every semester too…..

    1. You’re kidding right? Perhaps if you had added a it would have been clearer.

      Equity that strangles ability or accomplishment by design or by chance is a disaster. Equality ensures equal access, equity equal outcomes without regard to ability or accomplishment.

      An example of equity, of which some in C’ville are proud, is the classification of 86% of public school students as “gifted” to achieve racial “equity” among the gifted. C’ville has indeed moved away from meritocracy for those promoted to make decisions like that.

      For a view of a future based on equity check out the movie “Idiocracy”.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        pure meritocracy is a bit of a dumb concept. Imagine how it would work with doctors, or police officers, or airline pilots, judges, etc.

        What does ‘well qualified” mean ? that you are the best as determined by a test?

        Take Doctors. Do they have to pass the Medical tests by a certain score or are they ranked by test score and only the best get hired?

        Or you are the “best” academically with a law degree?

        but this is not really what the meritocracy argument is about.

        It boils down to the idea that if humans come equipped with various IQs regardless of race or ethnicity – then what would explain such stark differences in academic accomplishment and performance?

        Why are only 2% of students in schools like TJ, black? Does that mean that only 2% of blacks are as capable as other races? How about the fact that only 2% of low income students are enrolled in TJ? Does that mean that low income students are less academically capable than higher income students?

        1. Meritocracy may be a “dumb concept”, but it’s miles brighter than “equity” which is the comparison here, and which is severely and profoundly dumb.

          When I have a choice I personally choose the best providers I can find. That includes firing a cardiologist who was just ok and replacing him with one who is very good. Very good has saved my life twice. For me that is a measure of merit.

          Merit is based on achievement and there are lots of reasons that can vary from IQ. It may well mean that black and poor people tend to not achieve to their potential as well as some other people. Put another way, white kids don’t tend to achieve as well as asian kids.

          The solution is to help all kids achieve to their potentials, not to dumb down standards to make under achievers falsely believe they achieve as well as everyone else.

          What explains the “stark differences” is simple. Our schools do not teach all students to read. If you can’t read you ain’t going to be meritorious, unless you’re in C’ville. In which case you are likely to be among the 86% who are labeled “gifted”.

          We start the process to merit by teaching all kids, especially black and poor, to read. It is pretty simple really, but our schools do not achieve that consistently now.

          Teaching all kids how not to read may achieve equity, but it is not meritorious. See “Idiocracy” above.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            But that’s not the choice. The better concept is people who meet the minimum standards to be able to compete for the higher opportunities. That’s how it works with Doctors, Judges, military folks, etc. None of them are ranked according to only their academic performance. Was your cardiologist ranked best or top 5 or similar? Or was here among the better ones regardless of their rote academic rank?

            What kids should be taught is that if they achieve a 3.5 or equivalent on a standardized test that they qualify to compete for opportunities that may be accorded on a limited basis.

            inequity is what happens when a kid gets a 3.5 but still can’t qualify for an opportunity to advance.

            Teach kids if they work hard and achieve a high level of accomplishment that it will qualify them for more opportunities, not that they have to be in the top rank or else they don’t.

          2. You obsess over the value of “minimum standards” that exclude almost all black and poor kids yet you ignore the failure of our school systems to prepare those kids to compete by teaching all kids to read. Curious.

            I would be hard pressed to find that our de facto “minimum standard” of a Harvard or Yale education has resulted in a better Supreme Court.

            Prime criteria for the cardiologist was an unequivocal peer recommendation supplemented by my review of credentials and work history.

            Have you ever considered changing your avatar from a lab to a golden?

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            No. It’s the way the world really works. We don’t “rank” doctors or judges or generals. – they all get there on criteria besides just academics. THAT’s what we SHOULD be teaching kids. That hard work and achievement will get you success. Academics along is not the real world.

          4. Ah, just like a golden, all the lights are on but nobody’s home.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            well, I know EXACTLY what you mean about the Golden but ain’t true about how the real world
            actually works with regard to academic-only chops. Unless, your doctor was number 1 rated, you
            dealt with the real world where your doctor was likely well-qualified if not top-ranked. That’s why you what kids to learn as they grow into adults. That success and life are about way more than just academics, and no you won’t find a bigger believer in science and academics than I. The ability to think critically is an essential skill for todays good jobs and the US sucks at it. We tried to address with Common Core but we were happier being ranked 25th in the world. Here is some reading for you if you say you REALLY support meritocracy! https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/03/us/us-students-international-test-scores.html#:~:text=The%20most%20recent%20PISA%20test,is%20given%20every%20three%20years.

          6. Woof woof, good boy.

            The NYT article is behind a pay wall and I won’t pay them. I’ll be a fool with my money elsewhere, on publications with merit.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            I can do a screen cap for you… if it will help you! 😉

    2. Exactly. The process must be rigorously applied to all colleges and universities including medical schools and colleges of engineering and all other STEM fields. It’s the only fair thing to do.

      Who cares if a few people die from botched medical procedures, or a few bridges collapse, or some airplanes fall from the sky, or some people are poisoned – equity is all that matters, right?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        As long as they are equitably poisoned.

    3. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Actually, not a bad idea. Everyone goes through a qualifications review, and if qualified, are then entered into the lottery.
      Everything is then free. No cost for tuition, books, housing or food.

      BUT, the number of entrants is held to only 5% of the population.

      Reduce the overqualified in the workforce.

      1. But, a “qualifications review” is a form of meritocracy, is it not?

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          The idea is a happy workforce. Have to make sure we don’t have journalist-trained bag boys.

          Been thinkin’ about an Hawaii vacation. Think I wanna get lei’d. There are others here at BR who could use it too.

      2. But, a “qualifications review” is a form of meritocracy, is it not?

      3. WOW – so the left is supporting a form of meritocracy. If you’re alive and in the US – you deserve as much right to attend the college of your choice as the next criminal foreigner who crossed into our nation and had a child. Requiring some sort of qualification is such a WHITE method to keep people down, as per the Smithsonian Museum of Blackness. A LOTTERY GIVES EVERYONE THE SAME CHANCE of a limited yet highly desired oppurtunity – PERIOD.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Meritocracy? Mais non. La method Francais.

  3. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Stings, don’t it?
    Wrong, but a “teachable moment”.

  4. Cathis398 Avatar

    she hasn’t been fired, and won’t be. some of her documents have been scrubbed from the web, no doubt because she is receiving torrents of hate from right-wingers and the school is trying to shield her. FIRE and others would leap to her defense were any personnel action like that to be considered, and I’d likely support them.

    firing a tenured prof requires a long process, and typically agreeing to go along with remediation measures as the stories say she did would prevent the process from taking place at all.

    the thing is though, I *guarantee* you she still thinks what she did is right, and now thinks her university is opposed to “antiracism.” so do many other progressive know-it-alls in higher education. these people are grinning authoritarians and yet do not seem even to know what authoritarianism is. they also don’t know what democracy is, have barely studied it, and are likely to say things like “democracy is just an excuse for rule by the privileged” and so on.

    were i slightly less worried about my own livelihood, i could even provide examples of DEI offices in Virginia universities *recommending* teaching methods like this, and responding to questions about Title IX and Title VI with variations on “fuck you.” when asked whether they believe public universities in Virginia should be open to white people or conservatives, or only to the 30-40% of the population who are either non-white or non-conservative, they cannot answer. They think the university is here for them to instruct people they don’t like what to feel, act, and think. Which has nothing at all to do with education as I understand it. And I generally share their politics, except for the authoritarianism part, and believing adamantly that public education has to be open to everyone in the public and it is not up to me to *force* people to think the way I do.

    what these people really seem not to realize is that they are playing right into the hands of those who want higher education to go away, and they are getting what they want.

    one funny thing is that when people object to “Critical Race Theory,” they most often seem in practice to be objecting to methods like this, which are not so much CRT per se as new methods promulgated by a small bunch of vanguardist pseudo-intellectuals who think this is how to fix racism, and that have a loose connection if any at all to some CRT writings. Having people read CRT texts in college is a good thing–like many other ideas students should be encouraged to read, think about, and debate them. Forcing students into pre-assigned and often fictional categories and denying them the opportunity to speak and think is the opposite of that. I wish we had another name for this–like “progressive stacking”–because I suspect that many people who rightly defend the teaching of CRT *as theory* would be appalled by techniques like this, as I am.

  5. James Kiser Avatar
    James Kiser

    Explains why so many college graduates are complete idiots.

  6. I’ve tried progressive stacking but have never been able to go more than three high – they squirm around too much.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Have a similar problem with conservatives (regressives?). Once you stack ’em two or three high, the hot air squeezes out of the bottom one and the stack collapses.

      (First lyre** doesn’t stand a chance around this place).
      ** censor bot avoidance.

Leave a Reply