Good Start, Binghamton U….Now Fire Her.

Binghamton University (NY) Professor Ana Maria Candela’s Introduction to Sociology syllabus originally stated that white students had to wait for “non-white folks” to talk before speaking up or asking questions, according to the syllabus.

In another charming section, Candela’s syllabus also included a quote from Chinese dictator Mao Zedong: “No investigation, no right to speak,” which she interprets benignly to mean, “Don’t speak until you know something.” I question the wisdom of quoting a Communist despot extolling “investigation,” but OK. Candela’s rules on class participation, however, embraced “progressive stacking,” which conditions “students’ participation and speaking based on their race and gender.”“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,” Candela wrote,  the New York Post  reported. { The New York Times didn’t deem a public university professor’s open discrimination against white students “fit to print.,” presumably because the best “version of the truth” keeps the public in the dark about the values being imprinted in higher education.

It took a conservative website calling them on it, but Binghamton University spokesman Ryan Yarosh confirmed  that the syllabus “violates” the university’s Faculty Staff Handbook and that Candela has changed her policy.

Why would any white student trust a professor like this to treat “white folks” fairly? Candela should be fired, or at very least, see her class left entirely to those “students of color” she prefers.

 

16 thoughts on “Good Start, Binghamton U….Now Fire Her.

  1. “No investigation, no right to speak,” which she interprets benignly to mean, “Don’t speak until you know something.”

    Seems like a very good way to prevent people from asking questions.

    -Jut

    • How does one investigate anything without asking questions?

      And, if she is so concerned about equity, she, as a white woman should resign and give her spot to a person of color with equal academic credentials.

  2. The curriculum would be arguably defensible if it were to have a pedagogical purpose, that is, if it were intended to demonstrate something about sociology. As an exercise in social interaction, those rules could be educational. Unfortunately, the professor does not seem self-aware enough to justify that. She probably actually thinks those things.

    -Jut

  3. Wow, I’m just now realizing my teachers handled class discussions all wrong. What they’d do with a new class is wait a few days to get a sense of who dominated the conversations, and then make a practice of deliberately calling on people who were more reserved to see what they had to say about things. However, that approach required teachers to use empathy skills so that people felt encouraged but not pressured to voice their thoughts.

    Obviously it’s unrealistic to expect all teachers to have decent empathy skills, and all a teacher has to do most of the time is talk at the front of the room and grade papers anyway. Those are semantics skills, so why not allow teachers to be 100% semantic?

    It’s so much simpler to apply labels to people based on their ethnicity and heritage and make them follow rules based on those labels. We can also use ethnicity and heritage as a proxy for character traits, so that we can make predictions about specific individuals without getting to know them. (We should then avoid getting to know each other, because otherwise we might find out our predictions are wrong, and then how would we know how to treat each other?)

    This is a great system! I wonder what we should call it. Do humans have a word for making rules and predictions about people using ethnic labels as a proxy for character traits?

    • I think the word you are looking for is racism. At one point, long ago, the western world considered racism bad. Now, though, we have discovered it is good. As a matter of fact, racism is the best policy in all regards, and must be applied by force for the greater good.

    • Welllll….I did, and when I was at that College That Must Not Be Named,” the indoctrination efforts regarding drugs, promiscuous sex, anti-government hate and general societal disorder was pretty intense. If any student wants some coaching, I’m ready.

      • I remember vividly when I was going through uni, one of my professors overheard my friend group talking about the bursary and scholarship catalogue.

        There were pages and pages of grants available for natives, a page specifically for women, and a column that I could apply for based on my white maleness. Now, that’s not *as* bad as it seems, most of the native grants came from native bands, and it makes sense that their communities want to support people from their communities. The one we were complaining about, bitterly, was the RBC (Royal Bank of Canada) business excellence scholarship, which was only open to native applicants. My friend group all saw this for the racist discrimination that it was (and is), but we were currently going through a couple of law modules so we could quote section and verse the portions of Canadian law that allow “positive discrimination in favour of disenfranchised minorities”. That doesn’t mean we had to like it though, and I commented that “having the right to do something doesn’t make it the right thing to do.” (This was in 2005, so yes, I’ve always been like this.)

        My mathematics professor, a brilliant man who I still appreciate dearly (and whom I nominated for an outstanding faculty award despite this) barged in to this conversation and opined, “But we stole their land!”. I looked him square in the eyes and said, “Did “we”? I sure didn’t. My family sure didn’t. Dave, you know my family, I’m a third generation Canadian, my family barely escaped Holodomor. Did you? Did your family? Why are you taking that burden onto yourself?” He was speechless. I’m sure he’d never been pushed back against so hard in his entire life. He did a 180 and walked out of the room. My friends thought I was going to be expelled, and maybe if my prof was a petty tyrant, he could have made motions towards that end… But he didn’t. We did the man thing where we pretend the argument never happened and moved on, but I like to think that he either reevaluated his positions, or at least learned that they weren’t universal and appreciated.

        The war is won is a million small steps. (Just maybe pick your battles better than 20 year old me did.)

  4. She did this because it is actually quite common. At my undergraduate institution, male students were not allowed to speak at all in women’s studies (and some other) courses. They said it would ‘intimidate’ the female students. That was 30 years ago. All complaints about the policy were squashed as ‘sexist’ and any slippery-slope argument about the policies were denounced as ‘delusional’. The idea that this would be expanded from women to all minorities was dismissed. It was tolerated and excused by the media, the politicians, the justice system, and the left-leaning or cowardly public for decades and the slippery-slope arguments all turned out to be valid. Now, it is entrenched and there aren’t any faculty left who remember it being any other way. So, what happens if the sociology field states that this is standard practice in the field (an academic freedom issue)? What if they state this is good pedagogy (do the education experts have a controlling say about pedagogy)? What if they use a CRT argument that the ideas of women and minorities can’t stand in the face of the ideas of white males, so such ‘whiteness’ can’t be allowed in the classroom (that is what her syllabus suggests)? The ideas of white males have built the societies and technology of today’s world for almost all cultures. Even the Chinese follow the philosophy of white males (Marx, Lenin, and Stalin were white males). Other ideas are at a systemic disadvantage compared to the ideas that conquered the world and rule it with an iron fist. That is why calculus and other advanced math was eliminated from Virginia and California public schools. Since such fields are the ideas of white males, minorities are unable or should not even be allowed to try to understand such ‘whiteness’ and whites need to be forbidden from learning it to enforce ‘equity’ and demolish ‘whiteness’ (and don’t bring Asians into this or you are a bigot). Most universities have ‘equity’ statements now, so such arguments have to be considered by the university as part of its commitment to ‘equity’.

    At its core, CRT is a philosophy based on the belief that white supremacy is true, so ‘whiteness’ must be stopped at all costs. This has been taken to such ridiculous extremes that now, all diseases ‘disproportionately’ affect minorities. Even the weather affects minorities more severely than white males, if the media and the climate change crowd is to be believed. This isn’t just a belief that all human-created and human-run systems in the world (even in countries that are 99% non-white) are systemically biased towards white males, it is a belief that the very laws of the universe are on the side of white males. This is a true white supremacy argument.

    • “They said it would ‘intimidate’ the female students.”

      At that level of education, any female students who are intimidated by a male voice deserve to be intimidated.

      Honestly, they despise the patriarchy and would never consider themselves little princesses held for their protection in a giant castle with a moat defended by the knights in shining armor that were their daddies, but all they’ve done is turn higher education into their citadels and the administration into their protector knights.

      Not letting male students speak is the equivalent of telling them they have nothing important to contribute. That’s not education. I may not agree with everything or even anything a male student has to say but refusing to let him speak means that I will never know if I agree with him or not.

  5. The professor was probably also counseled by the administration not to leave a paper trail documenting her racism and progressive bigotry.

  6. How many black kids even go to Harpur College, SUNY Binghampton now Binghampton University? Maybe she doesn’t want any discussion in her classes?

    Other than getting a few weeks of paid vacation, I cannot imagine anything adverse happening to this woman.

  7. I hate to say this, but the progressive insanity has become to awful that it threatens the purpose of the university. I now believe we have to work on defunding public universities They are becoming filled with people like this professor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.