The ways left wing professors make all students feel welcome*

[Metaphor]

*The title of the thread is ironic. I intend to list the ways some left wing professors create a hostile environment for some students. I was going to call the thread "White people should kill themselves", but I would not want that sentiment to be mistaken for my own.

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/professor/adamkotsko

Adam Kotsko is an associate visiting professor at North Central College, formerly known as Shimer College. According to the North Central College website, Adam teaches in the humanities and social sciences, and his research focuses on political theology, continental philosophy, and the history of Christian thought.

Kotsko also claims that all white people, regardless if anyone in their lineage owned slaves, are complicit in slavery.

In a tweet archived by the Libertarian Republic, Kotsko is asked by one of his Twitter followers what white people should do next, Kotsko replies, “Commit suicide.”

I am sure the white people in the good professor's class feel welcome and included.

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/professor/anamariacandela

Dr. Ana Maria Candela is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at Binghamton University. According to her university biography, Dr. Candela’s research focuses on Chinese History, Society, and Migrations.


A leaked syllabus for Dr. Candela’s class—“Social Change-Introduction to Sociology”— announces that in class discussions, priority will be given to people of color and women.


The syllabus—first reported on by Campus Reform—asks students who are “white, male, or someone who is privileged by racial or gender structures” to yield their questions or comments to women and “non-white folks” under the section titled “Class Discussion Guidelines.” Dr. Candela describes the practice as “progressive stacking,” which grants preferential treatment to individuals based on skin color, sexuality, gender, and race.

“We practice progressive stacking when calling on people to participate in class discussions. This means we try to give priority to non-white folks, to women, and to shy and quiet people who rarely raise their hands. It also means that if you are a 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.”

Professors across the country have adopted this tactic. Students considered marginalized by society are called on before white males. The tactic appears to have begun during Occupy Wall Street in 2011 before spreading to academia.

...

In a statement, a Binghamton University spokesman told Fox News the syllabus violates the faculty staff handbook and the term “progressive stacking” has been removed.

The Professor Watchlist reached out to Binghamton University for comment but has not received a response by publication.

I am sure white people, and white males in particular, feel welcome and included in the good professor's class.

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/professor/andrewsmith

Andrew Smith is a tenured professor in the Department of English at Tennessee Technological University (TTU or Tennessee Tech). According to Smith’s university biography, he organizes guest speakers, social events, field trips, and service-learning projects, while promoting activism in the community.


Professor Smith, along with fellow TTU Professor Julia Gruber, attacked TPUSA students at TTU and the chapter’s advisor, TTU Professor Andrew Donadio. Through misleading and misinformed flyers he posted around the TTU campus, Professor Smith accused the TPUSA chapter of harassing, and terrorizing “persons of color, feminists, liberals, and teachers.”

In an appearance on The Rude Pundit podcast, Smith admits to creating the flyers. Smith further states that he accused Professor Donadio and the students in the TPUSA chapter of being racist.

https://www.professorwatchlist.org/professor/barrypreisler

Barry Preisler is a Lecturer in the Political Science Department at Sonoma State University. According to his university biography, Preisler has taught at Sonoma for over 15 years and his area of expertise is the Middle East. Preisler’s courses include International Political Economy, Modern Political Ideologies, Ideas and Institutions, and American Political Institutions.


As revealed by a confidential source who recorded the lecture in full, Preisler accused conservatives of being “under the grasp of fascism” in Preisler’s introductory class, Modern Political Ideologies.

In the same recorded lecture, Preisler stated that present-day conditions “overlap” with fascist movements just prior to World War II. He explained that the class would be studying the rise of fascism, especially as the nation is currently witnessing the “re-emergence” of the same fascist powers.


Preisler asserted that prominent leftist academics and authors would be mandatory reading in the course, such as Naomi Klein’s, Shock Doctrine – Disaster Capitalism, Chris Hedges’, American Fascists, and selections from Noam Chomsky.


The recorded lecture continued with Preisler disparaging his students who identified as libertarians.

I'm sure conservatives and libertarians feel welcome and included in the good professor's class.

 

[Swammerdami]

I've been singing in Metaphor's choir here. Millions of Americans want to support a centrist or left-of-center agenda but are turned off by the hyper-wokeism that liberals stupidly encourage. Perhaps in a perfect world, perfect humans would see hyper-wokeism as an aid to perfection, but we live in an imperfect world and millions recoil from unfamiliar values that have very little to do with the real problems America and the world are facing. Opposition to these excesses is a big reason why both Houses of Congress will be under GOP control after the 2022 election. Smart money is betting that by 2025 Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and a large majority of state legislatures will all be in Trumpist hands. It is no exaggeration to say that the excesses of "wokeism" are helping to doom American democracy. Yes, the opponents of wokeism are mostly liars and bigots but you can't expect this to be relevant or even apparent to centrist voters. Americans have become an unusually stupid people.

On the other hand, Turning Point USA — the source of all the "news" in Mr. Metaphor's OP — is an unusually silly organization. Their Watchlist for too-liberal educators includes those who support mask mandates. Its leader, Charlie Kirk, is someone who abandoned education after high school to devote himself to criticizing universities, despite never attending one. Kirk became famous for announcing that he was rejected by West Point to make room for "a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion" but, IIRC, it turned out he'd never applied to West Point at all.

Another top advisor to Turning Point USA is — guess who? — Ginni Thomas!

The idea that an organization like Turning Point USA even exists outside the fantasies of The Onion makes one want to weep.

Heaven help America.

 

[Patooka]

Don't you dare besmirch the integrity of Toilet Paper USA Swammerdami! Those people are some of the most tolerant and inclusive people on the planet!

 

[Metaphor]

I've been singing in Metaphor's choir here. Millions of Americans want to support a centrist or left-of-center agenda but are turned off by the hyper-wokeism that liberals stupidly encourage. Perhaps in a perfect world, perfect humans would see hyper-wokeism as an aid to perfection, but we live in an imperfect world and millions recoil from unfamiliar values that have very little to do with the real problems America and the world are facing. Opposition to these excesses is a big reason why both Houses of Congress will be under GOP control after the 2022 election. Smart money is betting that by 2025 Congress, the White House, the Supreme Court and a large majority of state legislatures will all be in Trumpist hands. It is no exaggeration to say that the excesses of "wokeism" are helping to doom American democracy. Yes, the opponents of wokeism are mostly liars and bigots but you can't expect this to be relevant or even apparent to centrist voters. Americans have become an unusually stupid people.

On the other hand, Turning Point USA — the source of all the "news" in Mr. Metaphor's OP — is an unusually silly organization. Their Watchlist for too-liberal educators includes those who support mask mandates.

It includes professors who scream at students for lowering their mask to sneeze; I don't think 'general support of mask mandates' is sufficient to be included in their list (though it might be, I haven't read anything beyond the people who start with A or B, and even that was selective).

Its leader, Charlie Kirk, is someone who abandoned education after high school to devote himself to criticizing universities, despite never attending one. Kirk became famous for announcing that he was rejected by West Point to make room for "a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion" but, IIRC, it turned out he'd never applied to West Point at all.

Another top advisor to Turning Point USA is — guess who? — Ginni Thomas!

The idea that an organization like Turning Point USA even exists outside the fantasies of The Onion makes one want to weep.

Heaven help America.

Whatever you think about the site or the owner, I see no reason not to trust what they've said about the behaviour of professors. Sources are cited and available.

 

[Swammerdami]

Whatever you think about the site or the owner, I see no reason not to trust what they've said about the behaviour of professors. Sources are cited and available.

I've already stipulated that extreme "wokeism" is a pernicious trend helping to destroy America.

But so is anti-wokeism. With real problems facing America and the world, it is a tragedy that extremists of both ilks insist on whingeing about trivia, playing their mis-tuned fiddles like Nero, while the country burns.

 

[Metaphor]

Whatever you think about the site or the owner, I see no reason not to trust what they've said about the behaviour of professors. Sources are cited and available.

I've already stipulated that extreme "wokeism" is a pernicious trend helping to destroy America.

But so is anti-wokeism. With real problems facing America and the world, it is a tragedy that extremists of both ilks insist on whingeing about trivia, playing their mis-tuned fiddles like Nero, while the country burns.

As you point out, Republicans are almost certainly going to take over the House in November (and probably the Senate). And if you find think that's a bad thing, then the woke-pandering (and participating) Democrats have themselves to blame. And being anti-anti-woke won't help you, either.

 

[ZiprHead]

Whatever you think about the site or the owner, I see no reason not to trust what they've said about the behaviour of professors. Sources are cited and available.

Really? That's not what you say when Media Bias Fact Check is cited. You're obviously cherry-picking.

I am sure the white people in the good professor's class feel welcome and included.

In this statement you infer something that wasn't stated in the article. You immediately decried other posters here who made inferences about another's poster's statement on masks, even though the history of the posters other statements were cited.

Your double-standards and biases are showing as brightly as the noon day sun. You're hypocrisy is on full display.

 

[Metaphor]

Whatever you think about the site or the owner, I see no reason not to trust what they've said about the behaviour of professors. Sources are cited and available.

Really? That's not what you say when Media Bias Fact Check is cited. You're obviously cherry-picking.

What on earth are you talking about? I don't use 'Media Bias Fact Check' to evaluate something for me. I am inviting people to evaluate it for themselves.

I am sure the white people in the good professor's class feel welcome and included.

In this statement you infer something that wasn't stated in the article.

Yes, that's true.

The article provided a particular professor's comments about white people, and I concluded that white people might not feel welcome in such a class, given the professor thinks white people should kill themselves.

You immediately decried other posters here who made inferences about another's poster's statement on masks, even though the history of the posters other statements were cited.

Non. I have no doubt TSwizzle repeatedly said he thinks masks are ineffective and no authoritarians will make him wear one. There's no inference there, they are plain statements.

Your double-standards and biases are showing as brightly as the noon day sun. You're hypocrisy is on full display.

Your reasoning is very poor. Patooka made a swipe, the reasoning of which did not follow from TSwizzle's statements.

It does not follow that, if somebody expresses opposition to the government telling him to wear a mask, that in order to 'stick to his principles' he should demand his dentist not wear a mask. It simply does not follow.

I have never made the claim it is somehow impermissible to draw well-reasoned inferences.

For example, as a white person, I would feel unwelcome in the class of a professor who thinks white people should kill themselves. It is not unreasonable for me to feel that, nor is it unreasonable to think other white people might have similar feelings.

Now, of course, I don't mean all white people. For example, the professor is white, and although he has evidently not chosen to lead by example in killing himself, his continued provision of his courses will ensure that there are plenty of Good White Men like himself who would probably feel virtuous being in his class.

 

[pood]

For example, as a white person, I would feel unwelcome in the class of a professor who thinks white people should kill themselves.

Can you point out where he said that white people should kill themselves?

 

[pood]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

 

[laughing dog]

There are good professors and there are bad professors who are "liberals" and who are "conservatives". Cherry picking some examples of any stripe only proves cherry picking. Creating straw indicates either desperation or ineptitude. Using a source run by Charlie Kirk as evidence of desperation or ineptitude or ignorance of the USA (that could have been easily avoided) or deep ideological bias.

In summary, the OP does provide unintended evidence that does not support the its purpose.

 

[Metaphor]

For example, as a white person, I would feel unwelcome in the class of a professor who thinks white people should kill themselves.

Can you point out where he said that white people should kill themselves?

It's in the OP. I specifically quoted it.

In a tweet archived by the Libertarian Republic, Kotsko is asked by one of his Twitter followers what white people should do next, Kotsko replies, “Commit suicide.”

 

[Metaphor]

There are good professors and there are bad professors who are "liberals" and who are "conservatives". Cherry picking some examples of any stripe only proves cherry picking.

It proves that professors can make students feel unwelcome.

Creating straw indicates either desperation or ineptitude. Using a source run by Charlie Kirk as evidence of desperation or ineptitude or ignorance of the USA (that could have been easily avoided) or deep ideological bias.

In summary, the OP does provide unintended evidence that does not support the its purpose.

My purpose was to show that left wing professors can make students feel unwelcome. If you don't think that's what these professors did, you are hopelessly biased.

 

[Metaphor]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

Of course he repudiates it, after he got backlash.

That isn't the point. Whether he meant it literally or not, his sentiment about white people and their culpability is plain. I would not feel comfortable in his class because of his views on white people and 'whiteness'. His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

 

[pood]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

Of course he repudiates it, after he got backlash.

That isn't the point. Whether he meant it literally or not, his sentiment about white people and their culpability is plain. I would not feel comfortable in his class because of his views on white people and 'whiteness'. His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

The plain fact is he does not advocate white people killing themselves. Intentionally or not, you disseminated a falsehood.

 

[pood]

Also, I have not read all his work. You quoted “original sin” of whiteness. Does he actually use that phrase? Since you were wrong about him advocating that white people kill themselves, I can’t trust anything you say. Please provide a cite.

The phrase “origingal sin” is often used to talk about America’s complicity in slavery. To say that America has an “original sin” with respect to slavery (and the use here is clearly metaphorical, not religious) is NOT to say that whiteness is an “original sin.” The meanings are quite different. Did he, or did he not, say that “whiteness is the original sin”?

 

[Metaphor]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

Of course he repudiates it, after he got backlash.

That isn't the point. Whether he meant it literally or not, his sentiment about white people and their culpability is plain. I would not feel comfortable in his class because of his views on white people and 'whiteness'. His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

The plain fact is he does not advocate white people killing themselves. Intentionally or not, you disseminated a falsehood.

I did not. He wrote what he wrote. That is not a falsehood.

But it's interesting that you appear to believe that somebody who thinks white people-all white people--are complicit in and still culpable for slavery and that he has suggested, as a rhetorical device, should commit suicide--isn't really creating a hostile environment for white students.

Or do you agree that his beliefs and his rhetoric would, in fact, create a hostile environment for some white students (not hostile, of course, for the Good White Men).

 

[pood]

Here, in fact, he explicitly repudiates the view you assign to him — that all white people should kill themselves.

Of course he repudiates it, after he got backlash.

That isn't the point. Whether he meant it literally or not, his sentiment about white people and their culpability is plain. I would not feel comfortable in his class because of his views on white people and 'whiteness'. His religious beliefs about the 'original sin' of whiteness are vulgar, racist, and wrong.

The plain fact is he does not advocate white people killing themselves. Intentionally or not, you disseminated a falsehood.

I did not. He wrote what he wrote. That is not a falsehood.

But it's interesting that you appear to believe that somebody who thinks white people-all white people--are complicit in and still culpable for slavery and that he has suggested, as a rhetorical device, should commit suicide--isn't really creating a hostile environment for white students.

Or do you agree that his beliefs and his rhetoric would, in fact, create a hostile environment for some white students (not hostile, of course, for the Good White Men).

This is now ridiculous. He DID NOT advocate white people killing himself. I gave you the link in which he explained this. Did you read it?

Oh, wait … now he suggested it as a rhetorical device? Bactracking, are we? Unable to admit you are wrong?

Also, you have no idea what I believe, or even “appear to believe.” My questions were very specific: Does he, or does he not, adovcate white people killing themselves? Answer: He does not. Your claim is refuted.

Second question. Does he, or does he not, refer to whiteness as an “original sin”? If so, please provide the exact quote, with context. Thanks.

 

[Metaphor]

Also, I have not read all his work. You quoted “original sin” of whiteness. Does he actually use that phrase?

Of course he does not. That is my characterisation of his secular religion.

Since you were wrong about him advocating that white people kill themselves, I can’t trust anything you say. Please provide a cite.

No, I was not wrong. He said the literal words.

LOL. "I can't trust anything you say". The tweets themselves were there in the OP. He did not deny making the tweets. He denied a literal interpretation of his words.

The phrase “origingal sin” is often used to talk about America’s complicity in slavery. To say that America has an “original sin” with respect to slavery (and the use here is clearly metaphorical, not religious) is NOT to say that whiteness is an “original sin.” The meanings are quite different. Did he, or did he not, say that “whiteness is the original sin”?

I don't know if he did or not. I did not claim he did.

I am claiming that the Woke left attributes to white people the stain of slavery on their souls, in much the same way as Catholics claim all children (except Mary, mother of Jesus, who was an immaculate conception) are created with the stain of the original sin (Eve and Adam eating the forbidden fruit) on their souls.

Except Catholics believe the stain is cleansed when a child gets baptised. The Woke do not offer any salvation for the original sin of whiteness.

 

[laughing dog]

It proves that professors can make students feel unwelcome.

You felt the need to prove that a profess can make students feel unwelcome. I am sure the world is a better place. for such a proof.

My purpose was to show that left wing professors can make students feel unwelcome.

I think anyone who felt the need to prove that ____ (you fill in the blank) professors have the ability to make students feel welcome is hopelessly hopeless. But the OP did provide unintended evidence that has nothing to do with the its topic.

If you don't think that's what these professors did, you are hopelessly biased.

Since my response opened with "There are good professors and there are bad professors who are "liberals" and who are "conservatives". ", one wonders what prompted such a blatantly stupid question?