Social Justice Grading

I’ve often wondered what system or set of standards my leftist colleagues deploy when assigning grades. Do they give all students C’s regardless of outcomes on tests? Or A’s? Do they only grade effort but not performance? Do they make easier assignments for students who come to college with lower ACT/SAT scores? After all, not everyone comes to college with the same level of intelligence or virtues applicable to succeeding in the academy.   So some will have to work much harder than others to achieve the exact same grades; this hardly seems fair.

So how do they grade? Well now I know! I relay the following anecdote passed on to me by a colleague (Engineering dept.) about another professor in the Social Sciences who teaches for the Social “Justice” major:

Today I was discussing socialism and communism in my freshman seminar class and a girl interrupted and said, “Hey, that’s how we took our quizzes last year in one of my classes!”

“What do you mean?” I asked.

“We kept protesting about having to take quizzes individually on our own. Eventually, the professor just let us take them in a group and we all got the same grade.”

“You mean this happened once during the semester, right?”

“No. For all the quizzes.”


“Yeah, we took quizzes for the rest of the semester in groups.”

“Who was the professor?”

“Dr. [Sunny Flowers].”

“What grade did everyone get?”

“Everyone got A’s on all the quizzes.”

If you too are tempted to protest in order to get free A’s in life, or if you’re tempted to be a coward when facing a class full of entitled bums, you might think just a wee bit more about systems of grading. For your consideration, Keith Burgess-Jackson lays out four other grading philosophies in addition to the communist-utopian one of Dr. [Sunny Flowers].


A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts


  1. As I’m sure you know, a fair bit of social justice reviewing also goes on. I and a few others once organized a philosophy conference, reviewing and accepting the paper submissions blindly. Once our decisions were made, we were lambasted by a senior faculty member because none of the revealed names looked ethnic or minority. We were told to go back and start the “blind” review process over.

  2. I assume you mean social “justice.” (Also, Trigger Warning next time for “blindly”).

    An editor of one of the more popular philosophy anthologies recounted his experience 30 years ago (or thereabouts, I can’t recall) when applying for a job. He had been an active member in the Civil Rights movement in the ’60’s and had published on race. He was invited to interview for a position in philosophy at a relatively noteworthy university. When he arrived for the on-campus interview, the department was openly dismayed to see that he was white. (This was in the Halcyon Days before the likes of Rachel Dolezal could simply identify as (e.g.) black).

  3. At some point, if they care at all for such things as consistency and intellectual honesty, the SJW’S must conclude that the concept of “grading” human beings like one grades eggs or ground sirloin (vegan alert!) is an outmoded holdover from an abusive, rationalistic, patriarchal, bigoted system of reward and punishment which has no place in the marketplace of free ideas and egalitarian equality.

    There’s still hope liberal leftist academia’s Frankenstein’s monster will turn on them and render them asunder.

Leave a Reply (Be sure to read our comment disclaimer)