Feminist professor Carrie Mott and a colleague, Daniel Cockayne, are discouraging students and scholars from citing white males in their research, claiming it perpetuates what they’ve dubbed “white heteromasculinism,” in the latest social justice effort to villainize white men.
In their 22-page paper entitled “Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement,’” Mott, a professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, and Cockayne, a professor at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, contend that researchers are disproportionately citing established white men in their research and that other groups are therefore underrepresented. They claim that the continual practice of citing white researchers will serve to perpetuate a “system of oppression” that benefits only “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered (referring to those whose gender matches their biological sex)” individuals.
“This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color.… To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice … to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism,” they wrote in the paper published recently in the journal Gender, Place and Culture.
Their paper offers several suggestions on how to avoid this “oppressive” system of research writing, including counting the number of citations and confirming that a sufficient number come from individuals of diverse backgrounds. They also suggest that editors serve as watchdogs to ensure that scholars are not relying on only white male voices in their body of work.
In an interview with Campus Reform, Mott explained that she and Cockayne were motivated to write on the subject by “shared feelings of discomfort, frustration, and anger” over actions by their fellow scholars in the field of geography. Mott insisted that the predominant citation of white, straight males means that the research fails to “reflect the experience of people from other backgrounds.”
When asked whether the disparity of citations is simply the result of there being more men than women in the field of geography, Cockayne sidestepped the question, claiming instead that the point is that marginalized voices are not cited enough in research. But as noted by Campus Reform, recent research by the American Association of Geographers shows that women account for just 37 percent of geography professors and publish only 33 percent of research articles related to geography. Then again, perhaps the research in the American Association of Geographers cites only white male geographers — and they must be either baised or wrong or at least not listened to because they are white males. However, perhaps the number of citations should be counted first before relying too heavily on the evidence.
While Mott and Cockayne defend their stance as one approach to fight against an alleged system of oppression, it is actually just another attempt by the Left to ultimately marginalize white men.
Just two months ago, a University of Hawaii math professor suggested that all white men should either quit their jobs or accept a demotion to clear the way for the advancement of minority workers. Professor Piper Harron went so far as to claim that anyone who disagreed with his viewpoint was racist, sexist, and transphobic. “If you are a white cis man (meaning one who identifies as male and was assigned male at birth) you almost certainly should resign from your position of power,” Harron insisted. “Statistically speaking, you are probably taking up room that should go to someone else.”
And earlier this year, the student union at the prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London argued that the study of philosophy should include only philosophers from Africa and Asia and should exclude white philosophers such as Descartes and Immanuel Kant. The union launched the campaign in an effort to “decolonize” the university to “address the structural and epistemological legacy of colonialism.”
A study published in May by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) reviewed 350 reading lists assigned to college freshmen across the United States and found that college professors are using reading lists to oust what they’ve dubbed “dead white authors” — i.e., Shakespeare, Dickens, Whiteman — in lieu of minority writers who advance leftist theories such as institutional racism, white privilege, class warfare, social justice, etc. Sadly, these readings very rarely are academically challenging and have little to do with the core curriculum.
Many professors, according to the study, are asking students to read books that deal with non-white characters, specifically Muslim, African-American, and Latin American characters. In fact, it found that the most assigned book of this academic year was Just Mercy, a large tome focused on poor blacks allegedly being victimized by the criminal justice system.
And the marginalization of whites on college campuses is not limited to academics. At Reed College in Oregon, for instance, only prospective minority students are being offered “all-inclusive, all-expenses paid” visits to the campus. The offer does not apply to white applicants.
“You are eligible for this program if you are a U.S. citizen or permanent resident who is a high school senior from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic backgrounds (African American, Latino, Asian American, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander) who is living with the U.S. or U.S. territories,” the program description reads.
The continued effort to villainize whites on college campuses, particularly white Christian males, will serve only to further cultivate distrust of higher institutions, a phenomenon that has risen dramatically in recent years thanks to the increasingly pervasive influence of the Left.
