MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

This UPenn Teacher Justifies Her Refusal to Call on White Male Students: It's 'Progressive Stacking'

"I will always call on my Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. WW come next. And, if I have to, white men."

Raises handIgor Mojzes / DreamstimeNo, this isn't a Clickhole story; if you're a white man in Stephanie McKellop's history class, you might be called out, but you probably won't be called on.

McKellop, a graduate instructor at the University of Pennsylvania who describes herself as a "queer disabled feminist," recently tweeted, "I will always call on my Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. WW [white women] come next. And, if I have to, white men." McKellop eventually deleted the tweet, but not before the internet immortalized it.

Bret Weinstein, the former Evergreen State College professor who was hounded by student-activists for criticizing their protest tactics, described McKellop's teaching method as "racism," and "vile." The usual conservative news sites have piled on.

Inside Higher Ed ran a news story suggesting that McKellop's teaching method isn't exactly discrimination—it's "progressive stacking," a widely accepted teaching tool:

Jessie Daniels, a professor of sociology at Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, said progressive stacking has been around at least since she was in graduate school in the 1990s. She still uses it informally, to right her own tendency to call on men more frequently than women.

"If I have a class of 40 students, since Hunter is predominantly young women, I may have four or five young men in class," Daniels said. "There's still implicit bias, where we value men's voices more than women's voices, or men's voices are deeper and carry more in a class. So I'm always trying to overcome my own bias to pick on men in class more than the women."

As to whether purposely asking a woman to answer a question over a man was a kind of discrimination, Daniels said, "That gets it the wrong way around. This is a way of dealing with discrimination that we as professors can introduce into the classroom. It's a good strategy, if you can do it."

It seems more like a way of practicing discrimination. Even if you think social inequalities make it impossible to be racist against white people, McKellop's contention that "other POC get second tier priority" is absurdly offensive on its own.

If professors have biases against marginalized students, they should strive to overcome them by calling on more students of color, and encouraging students of color to participate. If McKellop had simply said, I go out of my way to call on students who are less likely to participate, in order to make sure a more diverse range of students are receiving equal attention in class, there would be no problem. Instead, McKellop admitted to practicing active discrimination against students on the basis of their skin color.

McKellop has claimed her classes were cancelled for the week, she could be kicked out of her program, and the university is investigating her. Inside Higher Ed's sympathetic report was forced to concede that at least some of this isn't true: a spokesperson for the university said she has not been removed from her program. Administrators are indeed investigating the matter, however.

McKellop shouldn't be punished for expressing an opinion on Twitter. I'm no fan of lynch mobs against professors, and no one should ever be subjected to harassment or threats for saying the wrong thing—whether the "wrong thing" is politically correct or politically incorrect. But Penn has every right to make sure its instructors are not engaged in overt racial discrimination with respect to how they treat their students. Perhaps the dean of McKellop's department should remind her that she can't just ignore the white guys in her classroom.

Photo Credit: Igor Mojzes / Dreamstime

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    It is perfectly acceptable in many places to discriminate against white men. This woman is just being honest about it.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    These commie. Rooms are just begging to be sued.

  • Tony||

    You are so fucking ridiculous it is painful.

  • Trigger Warning||

    To be fair, so are Robby's posts.

  • some guy||

    Are you saying discrimination against white men never happens? Or are you saying that this teacher wasn't being honest about discriminating against white men (actually all non-black-females) in her class?

  • Incredulous||

    No, he is saying, "Hi, I'm Tony, I'm a complete prick. And racism and sexism against white men is perfectly acceptable."

  • SQRLSY One||

    "Stacked", what is this? If I taught college classes, I would be inclined to call upon the women with the biggest, nicest tits first...

    How that for "stacked"? Would I get into trouble for reveling my strategy?

  • Paper Wasp||

    Your strategy isn't the thing that should be revealed.

  • rudehost||

    Most likely he is saying it doesn't happen. Never mind the fact I have now been at 2 consecutive large corporations where I was told to actively try to hire women instead of men. Good luck staffing a team of competent software engineers with all women. Given about 1 in 5 to 10 are decent candidates, and maybe 1 of 10 are women and of the ones you offer a job at least half don't accept you can have that team of women staffed sometime in 2023.

  • Paper Wasp||

    Then you lose half the team in a couple of years anyway when they decide to cash in on "maternity leave".

  • Vernon Depner||

    How does she know that persons who appear to be white men don't identify as Black or female? How dare she presume race and gender based on external appearances!

  • Eidde||

    +1

  • Dead inside||

    Or what if one of her students is a "White Hispanic"?*


    *This term is courtesy of George Zimmerman and a torch-carrying press.

  • Mitsima||

    This term is courtesy of Latin America since some babies decided they'd rather be like Conquistador daddy than Maya mama.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    And what if the 'white men' are homos and/or trannys?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Perhaps the dean of McKellop's department should remind her that she can't just ignore the white guys in her classroom.

    Curious, if black and white as well as male and female were switched in this story, would you still just be suggesting that the dean just give her a "reminder" about not discriminating? If not, then you yourself are discriminating.

    I'm no fan of lynch mobs against professors, and no one should ever be subjected to harassment or threats for saying the wrong thing—whether the "wrong thing" is politically correct or politically incorrect.

    No, but they can certainly be criticized. And given how big Twitter is, you're going to get a lot of criticism for something this bad. That doesn't rise to the level of harassment. SJWs of course conflate criticism with harassment and threats to try to get people banned.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Oh yeah, and she's not a professor. She's a grad student.

  • John||

    She could be fired from her assistancship.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    History grad students are paid at Bangladesh sweatshop levels for their teaching, so that might not be much of a loss for her. Hopefully she has a trust fund to fall back on.

  • John||

    It would mean she would have to pay for her degree. That would be a big loss.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    I would be surprised if the assistantship was paying her full tuition. That's the norm in STEM fields with all the research funding and heavy enrollment from other departments, but not history.

    That said, there is basically no way she can be an instructor or student-facing TA after something like this. She could grade papers but that's it.

  • John||

    That is the norm in history. No one would go into debt to get a liberal arts PhD.

  • Eric Bana||

    I would be surprised if the assistantship was paying her full tuition. That's the norm in STEM fields with all the research funding and heavy enrollment from other departments, but not history.

    I wouldn't be surprised if the assistantship was paying her full tuition. Grad students in foreign languages often easily get a tuition waiver and a stipend while teaching a lower-level language class. This lady is teaching a class.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    She's in history, not language. Students from other majors are taking maybe 1-2 history classes and they're done.

  • DarrenM||

    No one who has an ounce of common sense would go into debt to get a liberal arts PhD.

    I had to qualify that for you for the sake of accuracy.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    She could grade papers but that's it.

    Starting with the Black female students, of course. Then the 2nd class POC, etc., etc.

  • Bra Ket||

    A "teaching assistantship" implies tuition waver+stipend. Combined worth of that is probably comparable to what she could get ni a real job with her liberal arts UG degree. And better than an adjunct probably would get, which is a real "professor" role, if temporary. Point being, the crappy money doesn't imply a lack of responsibility. Those poor schmucks sitting in her class aren't thinking, "hey no biggie that I'm paying 1k/credit for this garbage, since she doesn't get much of that".

    Some schools might also allow half time and less fractions and pay less correspondingly, but I wouldn't expect that is the case by default.

    And the best outcome for her would be to be kicked out now before wasting any more of her life down this useless path of history research.

  • Trollificus||

    I dunno, man. There's a lot of history out there still undeplored.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

  • John||

    Robby would demand the person be fired and join the mob if the races were reversed. Robby's move is false equivalency and chin scratching

  • Bra Ket||

    Not sure about robby in particular but yes if the races were reversed we'd be seeing the most strident complaints from multiple reason writers. They basically buy into the collectivist view that because white people somewhere else are doing better than black people elsewhere, it's not as bad to discriminate against some white individual than some black individual.

  • Trigger Warning||

    Robby is this rag's pajama boy.

  • gah87||

    Consider how this would sound if McKellop were a manager at any company in America, her actions would be highly illegal, violating a litany of Department of Labor and EEOC rules and regulations: "I will always call on promote my Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. WW [white women] come next. And, if I have to, white men."

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    To be fair, calling on someone in class is not on the same level as promoting them. However, if she's discriminating in who she calls on, it seems likely she's discriminating in grading papers too.

  • fafalone||

    It may violate the rules, but would it be enforced? AFAIK there's no discrimination, period, allowed in hiring, but it'll be a cold day in hell before diversity quotas are deemed illegal, and the cold hard reality is the only way to achieve those quotas is to pass up better qualified applicants. One day, I hope, that will no longer be true; but today it is. I suspect promoting based on favoritism to minorities will be similarly tolerated.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "SJWs of course conflate criticism with harassment..."

    SJWs conflate criticism with rape and murder.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Your speech is violence, our violence is speech!

  • Trollificus||

    Sweet. I know it's lame and kinda juvenile, but I sometimes wish we could give 'points', 'thumbs up', 'likes' or whatever for comments. That's so accurate and concise.

  • DarrenM||

    It could be they don't brush their teeth, in which case I could see how their speech would be violent.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Finally, a microcosm of justice !

    Minorities have been stepped on and beat down, but at least with Mrs. McKellops, they get called on first, to share their wisdom with everyone in class!

    Suck that, Internet!

  • Trollificus||

    They bring "different ways of knowing"* to the discussion, and this is more valuable than the predictable white male responses.

    *-formerly known as "wrong" or "bullshit" ways of knowing.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    And as someone on the twitter feed mentioned, this is an explicit, caught red-handed Title IX violation. A slap on the wrist doesn't seem appropriate.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    As she would no doubt advocate the destruction of a white male's entire future over the slightest transgression, the same should happen here. She should be expelled, and unable to get even the shittiest jobs.

  • Jerryskids||

    As to whether purposely asking a woman to answer a question over a man was a kind of discrimination, Daniels said, "That gets it the wrong way around. This is a way of dealing with discrimination that we as professors can introduce into the classroom. It's a good strategy, if you can do it."

    And you know that this discrimination in favor of men exists, how? The only discrimination you're demonstrably practicing is in favor of women, where's this discrimination in favor of men that you jut somehow "know" exists? Or is it the sort of "discrimination" that "privileges" facts and logic over feelings and intuition that your kind is trying to stamp out in an attempt to return humanity to some sort of pre-industrial, pre-agricultural, pre-literate Eden?

  • John||

    He does not know that such discrimination exists. He just has to believe it to remain part of his social group

  • MoreFreedom||

    So McKellop is saying that she, and other professors, CAN discriminate and favor white men, so they purposefully discriminate against them to deal with it. Thus, she apparently doesn't know if she does discriminate and favor white men, or not. Yet she's so smart, since she's teaching in college, she's decided to intentionally discriminate against white men to make sure she isn't discriminating in their favor.

    Notice how her self awareness about discrimination changes from "I don't know if I'm discriminating and favoring white men" to "I'm so smart I'm going to discriminate against white men to make sure I'm not discriminating in their favor". She's learned, due to her white privilege, she's inherently inferior and unaware of her racism in favor of whites, and should reverse discriminate as a result.

    Heck, I can rob a bank, but I'm not going to give the bank extra money to make sure I don't. Seems just like a negro in the early part of the 20th century, that was allowed to teach, but only if they called on the white students in class, and the black students had to sit in the back row. She's really confused about what discrimination is. If you're not aware of it and not doing it in your heart, you're not discriminating IMHO. She, like a lot of students, has been brain washed and isn't thinking for herself. That's what our government supported colleges have become: indoctrination camps that suppress independent thinking.

  • Eidde||

    "McKellop shouldn't be punished for expressing an opinion on Twitter."

    She tweeted an admission that she was engaging in sex and race discrimination.

    That's evidence of misconduct.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Exactly. Indeed she wasn't expressing an opinion, she was stating a fact about how she runs her classes.

  • Eidde||

    I should say, at the very least, send her to a diversity-training seminar...no scratch that, I have an idea for her diversity training - have her go to several NASCAR races at her own expense, then have her go to a biker bar and dance to the tune of "honky tonk woman."

  • Eidde||

    Hey, Hollywood, I have a plot idea for you...

  • Eidde||

    "After being caught discriminating against white men, Professor [insert name] was require to experience cultural diversity by working as a waitress at a honky-tonk. While there, she meets Buford, a car mechanic and lenyrd skynyrd fan. Then..."

  • Eidde||

    "Buford is heartbroken after his girlfriend Lurleen ran off with a [stereotyped profession], just before his dog died and he had to strip the engine of his truck in order to fix the engine of the bus at the orphanage...."

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Sounds more like a Silicone Valley plot idea.

  • Eidde||

    I had to check Wikipedia to see what that was...surprise, it's an area where porn is produced.

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Needs moar tractor pulls.

  • fafalone||

    And if it were reversed, and she stated she prefers to only call on white men, she'd be fired in minutes. This is prime evidence of why there's a backlash against SJWs. Because they took people that supported equality and attacked them as racists and sexists for not giving preferential treatment as a form of reparations. Any time you can't reverse the races or sexes in a policy, that means it's no longer based on the idea that all people are equal.

  • John||

    It is Robby. He never thinks the left is guilty of anything but being too well meaning

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    The pool of conservative gay lovers is not very deep, so I understand.

  • John||

    And most of them want Twinks instead of power bottoms like Robby.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    I did not understand exactly what a twink is until I read this. Thank you, John...I think.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Let me help you out........

    https://goo.gl/HX8nUi

  • Trollificus||

    What I once claimed was limitless, my curiosity...I ain't clickin' on that, choosing ignorance.

  • Eidde||

    "Stephanie McKellop is a Queer disabled feminist and a current Ph.D. student in History at the University of Pennsylvania. They research folk customs and rituals of marriage, divorce, sex, bodies, and bodywork in cultural contact zones of "Vast Early America" as well as the meaning of family in racial and cultural comparison. Specifically, their dissertation will focus on practices of self-marriage and self-divorce in "backcountry" spaces, with an emphasis on wife-selling. Their personal-activist research centers around issues of class, poverty, first generation/low income, mental illness, disability, race, gender, and sexuality, especially in pedagogical contexts and regarding students' rights."

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Plagiarized from the Feminazi edition of Mad Libs.

  • John||

    Unless she is a Native American her entire career is an act of cultural appropriation.

  • damikesc||

    "Stephanie McKellop is a Queer disabled feminist

    Who knew "Being a God damned moron" is now an officially designated disability?

    Their personal-activist research

    She seems unclear on what research is.

  • RightWingA**hole||

    Not to mention that she also seems confused as to who is doing the research...

  • Rich||

    *** scratches head ***

    Shouldn't it begin "Stephanie McKellop *are* a Queer disabled feminist and a current Ph.D. student"?

  • Ronnie Schreiber||

    "Queer disabled feminist.... mental illness, disability."

    I'm willing to bet that her claimed disability is some kind of mental illness.

  • Jimothy||

    It's the best way to get called on first.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Oh, so "its" a "they".

    And if "they" got taken out by a meteorite and this mastabatory work never got done, the world would be worse off how?

  • Paper Wasp||

    McKellop, a graduate instructor at the University of Pennsylvania who describes herself as a "queer disabled feminist"

    All the barf.

    We've reached peak victim cult. Presumably, she holds some kind of educational credentials that allow her to be a "graduate instructor." But the words she uses to describe herself are all about her batshit SJW identity politics and victimhood wallowing.

  • DarrenM||

    We've reached peak victim cult.

    You ain't seen nothin' yet.

  • damikesc||

    People like to claim Trump is why "white nationalism" is increasing (I've seen no evidence of this, but whatever).

    Nonsense like THIS is what would actually do it.

    Why should any white person want to play along with this nonsense any longer? Is it not enough that we are blamed for every problem in human history and given no credit for the good we've done (slavery didn't end itself and it wasn't anybody outside the West pursuing it)?

  • Liberty =><= Equality||

    Or, radical idea, people could be treated as individuals rather than according to their race or gender.

  • John||

    That is just white supremacy. Straight up.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    I believe it was George Lincoln Rockwell who said we should judge people not on the color of their skin, but on the content of their character

  • Trollificus||

    Pretty sure it's in Mein Kampf.

  • Trollificus||

    Pretty sure it's in Mein Kampf.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    'White nationalism'.........

    Condemning people for being proud of their country and not ashamed of being white.

  • ChipToBeSquare||

    A fun game to play with the social justice crowd is to creep around their Twitter bios to see how many oppression points they try to claim. One I saw circulating around recently:

    "Neuroatypical | non-binary/gender fluid | libfem | queer | owlkin (formerly human, finally found my kintype) | physical age 19 | mental age 108 | My pronouns are phe/per"

  • Eidde||

    How about "nuttier than a pecan pie"?

  • I'm Not Sure||

    Or... nuttier than squirrel turds.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Do NOT fuck with squirrels!

    https://goo.gl/5njwG3

  • John C. Randolph||

    mental age 108

    So, it's claiming to be trans-senile?

    -jcr

  • Rich||

    My pronouns are phe/per

    , pronounced "glack/hoobie".

  • Trollificus||

    Pronounced "throatwarblermangrove"

  • CE||

    Don't your pronouns have to be real words?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Certainly not U. Penn's biggest scandal, but they should still can her unprofessional ass over this shit.

    -jcr

  • gah87||

    If I have a class of 40 students, since Hunter is predominantly young women, I may have four or five young men in class," Daniels said. "There's still implicit bias, where we value men's voices more than women's voices, or men's voices are deeper and carry more in a class. So I'm always trying to overcome my own bias to pick on men in class more than the women.

    Jessie Daniels appears to be a confused, illogical thinker, especially for a college professor:

    First, "since Hunter is predominantly young women," doesn't that mean Hunter is implicitly biased toward women?

    Second, there is no logical connection between "men's voices are deeper and carry more in a class" and "so I'm always trying to overcome my own bias to pick on men in class more than the women".

    Third, she claims "we value men's voices more than women's voices"; who are "we", especially in a classroom where 9/10ths of the occupants (including her) are women? If alll those women are biased in that way, isn't that their problem to overcome? Calling on men less often does not remove the bias; rather, it reinforces it.

    (... scratches Hunter and Penn from daughter's list of colleges.)

  • Detroit Linguist||

    Small point, but this person is not a 'college professor', she's a teaching assistant (PhD students aren't 'professors'). Doesn't make her ideas any more respectable, however.

  • damikesc||

    Third, she claims "we value men's voices more than women's voices"; who are "we", especially in a classroom where 9/10ths of the occupants (including her) are women? If alll those women are biased in that way, isn't that their problem to overcome? Calling on men less often does not remove the bias; rather, it reinforces it.

    Well, in her defense, I'd value most men's voices over hers specifically.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Perhaps if she focused less on identity politics and more on having something to say worth listening to.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The implication is that she is subconsciously sexist in favor of men and projects that as a problem for society. Or she just prefers interaction wth her male students for whatever reason.

  • Think It Through||

    "We" means "you." The white men whose specters are looming up in the rafters of every classroom. Just look up.

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    If Tony and his ilk do not stop these fucking shenanigans, they will guarantee Cheetoh Jesus another term.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Good. He's infinitely superior to anything the democrats would actually nominate.

  • StackOfCoins||

    it's sad to think that this is actually true!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Isn't it? It's not like I'm supporting Trump because he's the most awesome president possible. I'm supporting him because:

    A. He's actually got some balls, and is not RE o tell PC
    B. He's libertarian, at least relative to anything the democrats are scraping up. (How fucking sad is that?)
    C. A lot of the right people hate him. This is good.
    D. It's forcing the progressives to show their true nature to the general public.
    E. Some things are actually better with Trump. Regulations, SCOTUS picks.
    F. He is NOT in lock step,with Ryan and McConnell.

  • fafalone||

    Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A-Z of the kind of ignorance that leads to people actually supporting Trump.

    A) Having balls without competence, intelligence, and integrity is a recipe for disaster.
    B) Bullshit he's a libertarian. He had some talking points that could arguably be considered as such, but his actual track record is straight conservative, having reversed anything libertarian.
    C) Might be good but useless when those right people are mixed up with so many others that he's paralyzed.
    D) This was already happening.
    E) You get one point for pointing out one small slight positive (despite the negatives that come from eliminating regulations that ought not be eliminated), but then lose it again for thinking Gorsuch improves the court or that another conservative nominee wouldn't be absolutely terrible for this country by tipping the balance.
    F) That's a good thing to me; but why would a support be happy about this since it's rendered them incapable of passing their policies?

    And then we can go on to list the 10,000 ways he's fucking the country, the biggest being Sessions as AG.

    (And no, I'm not saying that not supporting Trump means supporting Clinton)

  • Dizzle||

    A) You're simply repeating the same talking points/opinions used against every major republican the last 3 elections. Bush, Palin, Trump, all branded as "unintelligent" the same way. As far as the people who voted for him are concerned things like trying to cut federal budgets by 10%, fixing our spiralling health insurance market, reviewing our payment systems to insurance companies, cutting business taxes, installing an originalist judge, reviewing our immigration policies, reviewing our u.n. Agreements, and reviewing our trade deals are pretty intelligent things to do.

    B) he's not libertarian, but his views on cutting govt budgets, installing a conservative judge, cutting back regulations, lowering taxes, leaving marijuana up to the states... Among others, Are all ideas a libertarian can feel comfortable supporting.

    C) Is he paralyzed? Or do you just think he's paralyzed? His ideas have a lot of support and he's leading congress toward his goals. Health insurance reform is still on the table, tax cuts appear to be coming, trade/u.n. Agreements are being scuttled or reviewed. There's a lot more activity than i can remember in the first year of any presidents term in my lifetime. And a lot of that is because trump keeps forcing congress to tackle another issue every few weeks and not get stalled out. Granted, your retort will be "but he hasn't accomplished any of that!" But that's ignoring the fact trump is doing a lot, congress is the one caught playing with itself.

  • Dizzle||

    D) Was it? I don't think so. The true vile, ignorance, and trashiness of many on the left wasn't apparent until videos of irrational sjw's and hillsleaze supporters losing their shit protesting at trump rallies began surfacing with regularity. Then were closely followed by videos of the antifa clowns at Berkley and different colleges.

    E) If you think Gorsuch is bad, you're an idiot, period. Gorsuch is literally about the best judge a libertarian could hope for, especially given trumps list or garland. His originalist view is exactly what the court needs more of. And what regulations didn't need removed? Where is the great detriment caused by the removal of some reg? Can you cite a not easily debated example?

    F) Were happy because we aren't republicans slick. We agree with trump on a lot of these issues, if his own party wants to resist or diddle themselves then we know who to vote out or pressure. It's not just about getting everything on the 1st try, it's about changing the incestuous mindset and putting citizens first.

    And while i hate sessions too, he's clearly not getting full support from trump. He hasn't been able to enact any of the super conservative policies libertarians pretend to fear, and there's a good chance he doesn't last long. If he's the only thing you list out of 10,000 ways then you're just being a drama queen

  • chemjeff||

    By the way, you don't HAVE to support Trump you know. But it is telling that 4 of your 6 reasons for supporting him are along the lines of "Trump makes certain people unhappy". That is such a puerile and unserious reason to support anyone.

  • Charles Easterly||

    Even if you think social inequalities make it impossible to be racist against white people, McKellop's contention that "other POC get second tier priority" is absurdly offensive on its own.

    ... If McKellop had simply said, "I go out of my way to call on students who are less likely to participate, in order to make sure a more diverse range of students are receiving equal attention in class", there would be no problem. Instead, McKellop admitted to practicing active discrimination against students on the basis of their skin color.

    I think that this was well thought-out and articulated.

  • DajjaI||

    At the risk of being banned again by Reason - I am a non-disabled white man.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    You didn't mention several preference. So I presume it to be heterosexual. So you're a Nazi.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Sexual. Effing phone. I typed what I meant. Even the keyboard is a SJW.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)|10.21.17 @ 6:23PM

    Why do so many Peanuts hate the Reason writers? Maybe Bratfart.com is more to your liking.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Why are you such a dishonest cheating weasel? Oh, I'm sorry. I answered your question with a question.

  • Nwallins||

    You have a job!? Check your privilege shitlord!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Here's the problem with living in a bubble. It leads to an unaware comfort level where you're tweeting something that everyone in your circle knows as Gaia's gospel but the cold light of reality shows as blatant hypocrisy.

  • Illocust||

    Yep, if she had said this over dinner with any college professor, she'd have been fine, but share this opinion outside the education bubble and people are rightfully horrified.

  • Rich||

    "I will always call on my Black women students first. Other POC get second tier priority. WW [white women] come next. And, if I have to, white men."

    You don't have to. Even if any white men take your class.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    What kind of white man WOULD take such a class? Maybe Tony? Other zeta males?

  • Rich||

    McKellop's teaching method isn't exactly discrimination—it's "progressive stacking"

    So, the women in McKellop's classes are "progressively stacked"?

  • Vernon Depner||

    Are wires involved?

  • Trollificus||

    Now I'm confused, because I've seen progressive women and very few of them could be considered "stacked".

  • GILMORE™||

    I'm no fan of lynch mobs against professors, and no one should ever be subjected to harassment or threats for saying the wrong thing

    (flashback)

    supporters of gay equality can do anything they want (short of violence) to combat the views of the O'Connors

    its all relative, really

  • StackOfCoins||

    It's remarkable he calls the O'Conners unwillingness to cater a gay wedding (which, as anyone who has been to a wedding knows, involves at least some socialization with the groom(s) and guests) "wrong" when it's simply freedom of association. They explicitly do NOT deny gays service. They just don't want to service a ceremony they find reprehensible.

  • GILMORE™||

    its not remarkable anymore; its been the M.O. since day 1

    - when someone says something terribly un-PC, mobs of harassers/attempts to destroy their business/careers are just individuals acting collectively to help correct someone's uninformed and anachronistic views in the free-market of opinions

    - when its a leftist saying batshit PC things.... suddenly people should be protected from social-media lynch-mobs, because opinions shouldn't be silenced, because freedom, yo.

    if you note this contradiction at all, you are a bad person.

  • StackOfCoins||

    I thought Robby was one of the good guys.

    Another one bites the dust.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "if you note this contradiction at all, you are a bad person."

    To the leftists, it's not a contradiction because they do not recognize any general right to freedom of expression. They unabashedly say the rules should be different for those who express Correct Thoughts than for those who express Wrongthink. At one time leftists were hypocrites about this, but not any more. The mask is off and they now openly arrogate the privilege of deciding who gets to speak and who doesn't.

  • fafalone||

    The question still should come down to this; could they also refuse to cater an interracial wedding? If they can't, than they shouldn't be able to refuse gays either. I'll admit to struggling with that issue, since we all know the market actually can't be counted on everywhere to correct that kind of wrong; but there's no good reason why you can discriminate based on sexual orientation but not race (if you think there's no basis in even the major religions for objection to interracial marriage, you'd be incorrect, not to mention making that argument goes down the road of allowing the government to define what is and is not a valid religious belief).

  • GILMORE™||

    Twitter sometimes delivers:

    M James Conway‏ @conwaymjames Oct 20

    Honestly, she looks like a cat lady that teaches the art of fisting.
  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    McKellop, a graduate instructor at the University of Pennsylvania who describes herself as a "queer disabled feminist,"

    Queer, disabled and feminist? That's like winning the lottery.

  • Longtobefree||

    How does the rest of the world describe that person?
    As racist?
    As sexist?
    As hetrophobic?
    As irrational?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    I think 'bigot' covers it pretty well.

  • Kaatje||

    1. Clearly, as I long suspected, disabled people can be assholes too.
    2. McKesson oughtn't describe herself as queer, disabled feminist. It should be: queer feminist 'with a disability', according to Disability 101.
    3. I identify as a woman with a disability who calls her comedy The Crippled Comedy Tour. I specialize in politically incorrect comedy.

  • Bill||

    I read that as queer disabled, as in maybe the queerness isn't working properly?

  • Trollificus||

    Lots of room for outrageousness in that field, eh? Do you actually have a disability, or do you just "identify as"??
    Because the latter always seems to have an element of choice, whereas the former is a condition you're stuck with.

  • MarkLastname||

    Aren't all three of those synonyms anyway?

  • sage||

    It's her class, she can call on who she wants. I'd be a little curious, though, if the grades follow a similar pattern.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Anyone named "LaShiqua Jones" gets an automatic A.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Only if she shaves half her head and has a rainbow tattoo.

  • Illocust||

    Class participation is a big part of how much leniency your professor gives you in grades. I've convinced a professor to let me retake a final exam I just straight up didn't show up for because he liked me. Sometimes, class participation is even an explicit part of the grading rubic.

    By denying student the ability to participate in class due to color and gender, she is effecting their grades. Either consciously or unconsciously.

  • Longtobefree||

    "McKellop shouldn't be punished for expressing an opinion on Twitter."

    She should (maybe will) be punished for classroom actions that clearly violate federal law, and federal regulations.
    If you pick based on race, you are a racist. Check
    If you pick based on sex, you are a sexist. Check
    If you pick based on sex/gender/feelings/self identity you are in violation of Title IX. Check
    I do not know what the legal standing of a twit (oops, I meant tweet) is in court, but now UPenn cannot pretend they did not know about this. A first year law student could win any kind of discrimination case someone would bring against the school. And oh by the way, a Trump DOE could strip all federal funding under Title IX based on this tweet alone. After all, accusation is equal to guilt.

  • Edward Henry Carson||

    Time to get rid of all public education, so not a single dollar flows to racist assholes like this dumb bitch.

    University was the biggest waste of my time ever, I wish I had just worked at an entry level job. And I got a real degree.

  • LTRone||

    McKellop shouldn't be punished for expressing an opinion on Twitter.

    She was not expressing an opinion. She was stating how she runs her classroom.

  • LTRone||

    And of course I posted this before reading all of the other comments. Sorry to be repetitive.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    "Administrators are indeed investigating the matter, however."

    Procedures were followed. Nothing to see here, move along.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I agree with her - but for a different reason than you dramatic Peanut snowflakes might think.

    Us straight white males have demonstrated superior academic ability - call on the slower students first to help them learn something.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    You are so racist.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Quit bitching, bitch.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Go ahead and mansplain it to me, white dude.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I respect you homo's. Just let the rest of your kind vote accordingly.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Why don't you just call me fag and get it over with, you white male douchbag?

    God I am so pissed off right now!

  • Ken Hagler||

    "Inside Higher Ed ran a news story suggesting that McKellop's teaching method isn't exactly discrimination—it's "progressive stacking," a widely accepted teaching tool"

    In other words, racism and sexism is widely accepted in academia. Of course, this doesn't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying the slightest attention--liberals are notorious for being intolerant and close-minded.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    liberals are notorious for being intolerant and close-minded

    Conservatives still have that market cornered. Think about the billions of Creationist, Bible/Koran-beating anti-gay, anti-science assholes.

  • Libertarian||

    There are billions of conservatives???
    Citation needed.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Of course. A conservative is also a traditionalist. There are 1.2 billion Muslim traditionalists alone. Then throw in the conservatives/traditionalists in India, the US, South America and Europe and you have well over two billion.

    There are over 100 million "hard line conservatives" in Iran/Iraq alone.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Meanwhile, there's nothing more progressive than the 60's, warmed over!

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    PRAGUE (Reuters) - A far-right party whose leader wants to quit the EU and urged Czechs to walk pigs near mosques and stop eating kebabs, performed surprisingly well in an election, potentially giving it a chance to influence how the next government is formed.

    https://goo.gl/T24Z3B

    10.7% is all?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Czech deplorable:

    "I voted for SPD because their opinions are close to mine, I am also against migrants arriving here," said Pavel, an unemployed worker, leaving a polling station in Prague.

    Okamura has also played on euroscepticism among many voters and attacked the Roma minority.

    "The European Union can't be reformed. It only dictates to us. We refuse the multicultural European superstate. Let's leave the EU," Okamura said at a party leaders' debate just before polls opened on Friday.

  • Eidde||

    Czech your privilege.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    It's not racism if you're in Europe.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    You are not in Europe. You are in Jakmeoff, Mississippi.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I am filled with rage at the white man who doesn't wait his turn!

  • Procyon Rotor||

    "There's still implicit bias, where we value men's voices more than women's voices, or men's voices are deeper and carry more in a class. So I'm always trying to overcome my own bias to pick on men in class more than the women."

    So you're consciously choosing to explicitly put anti-male bias into practice in order to counter the unconscious, implicit, pro-male bias that you demonstrably don't have!

  • Rich||

    "There's still implicit bias, where ... men's voices ... carry more in a class."

    Hmm. How about a science project to investigate this claim?

  • DarrenM||

    All men need to inhale helium before asking a question in class.

  • MiloMinderbinder||

    McKellop has claimed her classes were cancelled for the week, she could be kicked out of her program, and the university is investigating her.

    Oh, Robby, are you in for it now. Her preferred pronoun is "they."

    http://www.chronicle.com/blogs.....cks/120693

  • Eidde||

    "McKellop, who is in the department of history, accused the university of caving in to the pressure of outside agitators."

    I suppose that's the student journalist's wording, not the professyr's. Whoever said it, isn't that what Southern sheriffs used to say about civil-rights groups?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And "they" is pronounced "bitch".

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Pppppoppdt! Such silly stacking.

    I always stack the really disabled kids first: the ones in comas.

    If they don't answer, then I move on to the retards, and then the racial minorities.

    Of course, at the beginning of the semester, I have the mandatory "tail lift" check, just to make sure I can give credit to the people brave enough to choose their own gender (they lose points for choosing man, though).

    God, it's like amateur hour over there.

  • Earthfarmer||

    What a fucking racist! You go through your whole life trying to do the right thing and some two-bit POS history teacher just screws you without the risk of punishment. I can't wait for the person to be sued right up the ass. It won't be long.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Your butthurt is now chronicled in the Grievance Snowflake Database.

  • Sevo||

    Your stupidity has long since been acknowledged here.
    Go fuck your daddy.

  • Sugarsail||

    If the university cared one iota about the integrity of their curriculum they would fire her immediately and escort her to the door, but they wont because it's too politically incorrect.

  • PB defends rapist Weinstein||

    Progressive stacking?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    HW got framed by the man!

  • colorblindkid||

    If professors have biases against marginalized students, they should strive to overcome them by calling on more students of color, and encouraging students of color to participate. If McKellop had simply said, I go out of my way to call on students who are less likely to participate, in order to make sure a more diverse range of students are receiving equal attention in class, there would be no problem.

    That's how we know this is really Robby. That, and how beautiful hair.

  • twood||

    Why aren't these people immediately sued? I don't understand what's going on here. Leftists are getting away with everything right now.

  • Tony||

    Racist. Still not equivalent to 400 years of slavery, Jim Crow, and Trump's cousinfucking cuntball brigade, but indeed technically racist.

  • Eidde||

    Very few of the things which get called racist on college campuses are the equivalent of 400 years of slavery.

  • Eidde||

    Let's see what else isn't the equivalent of 400 years of slavery

    -Donald Trump
    -Rush Limbaugh,
    -Breitbart News
    -Fox news
    -Commenters Tony doesn't like

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I sometimes listen to Sean Hannity on the radio and I'm pretty certain that is, in fact, equivalent to 400 years of slavery.

  • DarrenM||

    Only if you can't change the dial.

  • some guy||

    So if it's not the equivalent of 400 years of slavery then it's not worth talking about?

    Okay, then. I expect to never hear anything from you on the subject again, since racism in America is solved.

  • Incredulous||

    So it's ok to be racist as long as you don't practice slavery for 400 years? WTF?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    And 400 years of slavery is hardly trying compared to 1000's of years of slave taking on every continent, especially in darkest Africa and pre-Columbian Americas.

  • MarkLastname||

    which is entirely irrelevant. No one alive today was ever a slave, and no, you don't inherit your ancestors' suffering; nor did any of us ever own slaves; nor even most of our ancestors. In fact mine were slaves (serfs). So take your whataboutism and shove it up you ass.

  • Tony||

    I thought you idiots would take that as a concession.

    But no, I should have predicted. Let no anti-white racism go unsnowflaked. Even once is too many.

  • MarkLastname||

    "Even once is too many"
    Um, yeah.

    You're really twisting in the wind tryong to defend your 'racism is okay when it's against white people' position while pretending I'm the ridiculous one.

    Here's a lesson in moral logic, dipshit: if you don't apply your principle consistently, it's not a principle, it's a prejudice.

  • Mitsima||

    prejudice = principle, when it's aimed at someone who disagrees with me, is at the heart of cognitive dissonance.

  • Incredulous||

    Good article but wrong on one point. The teacher should be immediately fired. No investigation is necessary. She openly tweeted that she practiced racist and sexist discrimination against her students. If she isn't fired. then UPenn is saying that her behavior is acceptable. If I did anything like that, I would be immediately fired. If the tweet stated she discriminated against women or non-whites, she would be immediately fired. Either UPenn is against racism and sexism. Or it's not.

  • ||

    She should have just said "I'll call on whoever I feel like calling on. butt the fuck out."

    if people don't like it, they can take someone else's class.

  • MarkLastname||

    Suddenly racism isn't such a big deal to you, curiously.

  • NRPax||

    McKellop shouldn't be punished for expressing an opinion on Twitter.
    .
    But Penn has every right to make sure its instructors are not engaged in overt racial discrimination with respect to how they treat their students.
    .
    You do understand that you just contradicted yourself in one paragraph, yes?

  • Drake||

    Awww, a queer disabled feminist. LOL. How cute. What a pretentious cunt.


    Fuck her. Fire the bitch. Send a fucking message. I'm not for firing professors just because I hate their politics [whatever they are], but this ain't about that. This is just blatant fucking racism in a public college, and she's a government employee. If this was reversed she'd be fired immediately, and rightfully so. No mercy.


    I particularly love the whole "and if I have to" line. Her hate and disgust just oozes out of her. She doesn't even *try* to hide it! She's obviously got a "mission" here. I hope all her white male students just start trolling and fucking with the bitch and make her remaining time there a living hell. They're probably too gutless and sniveling to do so, but hey, I can always hope, haha.

  • Marshal||

    Perhaps the dean of McKellop's department should remind her that she can't just ignore the white guys in her classroom.

    The institution should be required to disclose in their course handbook and online signup process that the professor openly racially discriminates along with identifying the favored and disfavored groups.

  • Ron||

    this is nothing new back in the 90's a teacher did this to my half latino brother because he was well dressed, read non gang cloths, so his Latino mom home schooled him for that class.

  • Ron||

    I should mention the teacher was black

  • Think It Through||

    Isn't this just a practical application of affirmative action principles? Suddenly everyone is all offended when we can see the individual people favored and disfavored? If you're for affirmative action, you should be for this teacher too. Or you can be against both (like me). I'm not seeing a difference between them, though.

  • Robert Masters||

    Although I agree that one shouldn't be fired for an opinion, the professor didn't state an opinion. She confessed to racist acts.

  • Mitsima||

    Asian students still getting picked first and answering correctly; don't give a fuck.

  • DarrenM||

    If McKellop had simply said, I go out of my way to call on students who are less likely to participate, in order to make sure a more diverse range of students are receiving equal attention in class, there would be no problem. Instead, McKellop admitted to practicing active discrimination against students on the basis of their skin color.

    It sounds like laziness and incompetence.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online