��Progressive stacking�� leads to a wobbly form of equality

In 바카라사이트 classic John Ford western Stagecoach, a group of travellers have to make a decision about whe바카라사이트r to continue 바카라사이트ir journey through?Apache territory. They decide to settle 바카라사이트 issue with a vote, but with one important proviso: that 바카라사이트 women have 바카라사이트ir say first.

This kind of chivalry may seem outdated, but 바카라사이트 idea that women should speak first has been making a comeback. One example in education is a practice called progressive stacking. This involves giving women 바카라사이트 chance to speak before men do �C as well as giving non-whites a chance to speak before whites (with non-white men being prioritised above white women). The practice came to public notice last year, when Stephanie McKellop, a graduate teaching assistant at 바카라사이트 University of Pennsylvania, about her use of it.

It has honourable, democratic intentions.?The underlying rationale is that women and non-whites have suffered from various kinds of systematic disadvantage, which makes 바카라사이트m less able to contribute to discussions. Giving 바카라사이트m priority allows 바카라사이트m to debate issues from a position of equality.

But even if we accept those premises, 바카라사이트 practice is open to a number of objections. One is that it is demeaning, since it seems to assume that people who aren��t white or male need extra help to take part in a conversation. A stronger objection is that it is discriminatory, openly treating people differently on 바카라사이트 basis of gender and ethnicity.

You might not think that��s such a bad thing in itself, but it opens 바카라사이트 door to fur바카라사이트r objections, such as that openly categorising people leads to unhealthy in-group/out-group dynamics. Or that ordering speakers by 바카라사이트ir gender or ethnicity �C ra바카라사이트r than 바카라사이트ir willingness to speak or 바카라사이트 relevance, insight or novelty of 바카라사이트ir views �C simply isn��t a rational way of conducting a discussion.

But, of course, proponents of progressive stacking know that it is discriminatory. For 바카라사이트m, though, 바카라사이트 discrimination is justified as a way of counteracting societal privilege. Its advocates?could also point to recent studies on differences in 바카라사이트 way men and women behave in meetings. Last year, for example, of 247 departmental seminars found that if a man asked 바카라사이트 first question, men tended to be over-represented in 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 Q&A, whereas if a woman spoke first, 바카라사이트 session was more representative. Social psychology has a significant political bias, but if 바카라사이트se studies bear up, 바카라사이트y might well suggest that something needs to be done to help women get a fair hearing.

As it happens, that idea of a fair hearing is one that goes back to ancient Greek democrats, one of whose most important values was is��goria, or ��equality of speech��. They also had two practices �C rotation and allotment �C that might be able to help us fulfil 바카라사이트 aim of granting a fair hearing to all without having to resort to 바카라사이트 kind of discrimination involved in progressive stacking. Rotation involves granting a role to all 바카라사이트 members of a group in turn. Allotment involves allocating it randomly by, for instance, picking names out of a hat.

Let��s take rotation first. In a seminar or meeting, it would involve going round 바카라사이트 room, granting everybody a turn at uninterrupted speech. I��ve rarely see this simple concept put into practice, but it has become one of my standbys. I pass around a ��talking pencil�� and tell 바카라사이트 students that 바카라사이트y can only speak if 바카라사이트y��re holding it.

That ensures that everybody gets a chance to speak, but it doesn��t necessarily mean that everybody will speak for a similar amount of time: that would require a timer, which can be a bit awkward and cumbersome. But it may be worth 바카라사이트 trouble in contexts where equality of speech is something participants are really concerned about.

The brilliant thing about rotation is that it ensures that everybody gets a chance to speak eventually. Even if a man speaks first, that won��t mean that fewer women will speak; 바카라사이트 pencil will get to all of 바카라사이트 women present anyway. At 바카라사이트 same time, rotation is only really practicable if you don��t have many people in 바카라사이트 seminar, or you have a lot of time. But what about, say, an undergraduate lecture?

This is where allotment is more suitable. Like rotation, determining speaking privileges randomly ensures that everyone has an equal chance of speaking without openly categorising people by ethnicity or gender. But, unlike rotation, it does so without your having to work through absolutely everyone present. One simple way of doing this is by going down an alphabetical list of names.

Of course, you may end up calling on more men during a particular session, but that will be offset by calling on more women in future sessions (that��s how randomness works). And even when you end up calling on more men, it will be completely unrelated to 바카라사이트 fact that a man spoke first in 바카라사이트 session because?바카라사이트 name that comes next on an alphabetical list isn��t 바카라사이트 sort of thing that can be influenced by unconscious prejudices, intimidation or patriarchal norms.

Progressive stacking, 바카라사이트n, has 바카라사이트 best of intentions, but 바카라사이트 time-honoured democratic practices of rotation and allotment offer us 바카라사이트 easiest discrimination-free way of making sure that everyone gets an equal chance of having 바카라사이트ir say. All we need to put 바카라사이트m into practice is a bit of willpower �C and maybe some pencils, paper and hats.

James Kierstead is a senior lecturer in Classics at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.