Professor Crystal Duncan Lane released a complaint in her curriculum for Virginia Tech’s Department of Human Development and Family Science in an attempt to virtue-signal her moral superiority over her white counterparts. Sadly for her, it did not garner the attention she had hoped for.
Contrary to popular belief, the equality movement is driven mostly by white female lefties. While they openly condemn their identity as proof of their commitment to the oppressed, they continue to enjoy all of the perks they say are directly related to their privilege.
Lane’s self-deprecating preamble to her curriculum, which contained not only an apology for her skin tone but also an acknowledgment of her own racial bias, was published by Campus Reform. She said, she is a Caucasian cisgender female from Appalachia who is of Scottish, British, and Norwegian ancestry. Her husband is a cisgender guy, and they are middle-class. While she did not “ask” for her numerous advantages, she has benefited from them and will continue to gain from them whether she likes it or not. This is unjust.
Lane went on to characterize herself and all white people, including numerous of her own pupils, as fundamentally racist.
She is and will continue to be an antiracist on a regular basis, confronting the fundamental racism inside herself that is the truth and history of white people. She wishes to improve. Every single day. Every day, she shall evolve. Every day, this job worries her. She would want to ask her white pupils to accompany her on this adventure. And she apologized to her kids of color for the terrible crimes of their common history.
Lane was relieved of one of her largest perks soon after lamenting the advantages she had that she “will continue to gain from” regardless of what happened. Virginia Tech announced that the lecturer had been dismissed from two of her classes.
Ms. Duncan Lane began the fall term teaching four subjects; she is currently teaching two sessions, Assistant Vice President of University Relations Mark Owczarski revealed to Campus Reform.
Lane’s department chair, April Few-Demo, wrote a message to students stating that their lecturer had been withdrawn due to “a particular scenario.”
Pupils were irritated by Lane’s “apology” because of its evident political connotations. They stated their concern of speaking out in class due to their skin tone.
Lane’s lessons were halved. She no longer possessed one of the most important advantages she spoke about. Even better, she showed herself wrong: her skin tone was insufficient to guarantee her position as a distinguished lecturer.
If Lane was truly opposed to the benefit and bigotry she carries, she would have stood aside to allow the underprivileged a chance at her position. Rather, she appears to be one of the good while secretly being biased towards certain ethnicities. Fortunately, she was held accountable to her own moral standards.
