Stephanie McKellop, a doctoral student and teaching assistant at Penn State University, has come under fire for revealing her use of something called “progressive stacking”.
If you haven’t heard of “progressive stacking”, you’re not alone. It’s another social Marxist strategy to combat invisible “oppression”.
An article from Dailymail explains;
“In subsequent post, McKellop explains that the tactic – called progressive stacking – was one learned from a professor in undergrad.
‘In normal life, who has the easiest time speaking, most opportunities? Flip it,’ they added.
‘The classroom is the place YOU get to control social setting.’
McKellop would continue to tweet about the reaction they were receiving for teaching the method and added: ‘Penn thinks I’m racist and discriminatory towards my students for using a very well worn pedagogical tactic which includes calling on [people of color].'”
It’s bad enough Social Marxism is driving up the cost of tuition; but studies show diversity training, which is mandatory in higher education, is ineffective and actually causes racial bias. What is perhaps most alarming is McKellop’s defense of her actions as widely accepted and practiced.
In spite of having been debunked, mandatory diversity training persists; this “training” imparts cultural Marxist philosophies to employees who must accept their political re-education as a term of employment.
“Progressive Stacking” is simply affirmative action applied to social interaction. Affirmative action, of course, has been shown to be discriminatory to Asians, but this unjustifiable discrimination is largely ignored. Likewise, progressive stacking is meant to focus on “marginalized social identity groups”, as privileged groups tend to dominate the classroom. Could these groups be dominating the conversation, because they actually earned their seat and didn’t rely on identity quotas to artificially gain them entrance to a room they aren’t qualified to be in? One has to wonder.
We couldn’t help notice that McKellop is white, and self-identifies as gender non-binary. Gender non-binaries insist that gender is a social construct, and it is oppressively cis-normative to assume someone’s gender. Perhaps she could explain how she knows the gender of her students, without first asking them?
It’s also important to note that race cannot always be easily identified, so how does she determine their nationality? It’s a microaggression to ask, according to Cultural Marxists. Of course, these same people tell us race is also a social construct; so how is McKellop navigating all this to determine the gender and race of her students? Perhaps ideological consistency isn’t her strong suit.
Of course, as a very liberal woman, she’s vastly more likely to be mentally ill than the general population; this may help explain the logical contradictions. The thing is, she doesn’t seem to see the need to exclude herself, in spite of being white. Here she is, not a black woman, taking up a position that a black woman could do.
Just like all her colleagues, she is virtue signaling and pushing cultural marxism simply as an attempt to reduce the guilt she feels for not vacating a position to a lower status victim.
Her dirty secret: it’s not about giving priority to blacks, it’s about her trying to show others how #woke she is, while assuaging her guilt for not vacating her position, an act which contradicts her ideology. She doesn’t vacate her position because she still wishes to achieve in this world.