University reportedly orders professor to complete free speech training after ‘biological women’ reprimand

A University of Cincinnati adjunct professor of gender studies has been reprimanded for unfairly giving a student a zero on an assignment last month.

Professor Melanie Nipper’s zero score for student Olivia Krolczyk went viral after Krolczyk posted a TikTok video last month revealing that she’d received a failing score for using the term “biological women” in her assignment.

“I got a zero on a project proposal in my class because I used the term biological women, which is apparently not allowed anymore. She even said it was a good project proposal, but I got a zero because I used this term that’s ‘exclusionary’ and not allowed anymore,” Krolczyk said in the video.

“I 100 percent know this is the most biased grade ever because my project is about transgenders competing in biological women’s sports. How am I supposed to do my final project if can’t use the word biological women, but that’s what my project’s about?” she added.

Listen below, or view the original TikTok here:

As seen in the TikTok video, here’s what Nipper wrote to Krolczyk: “Olivia, this is a solid proposal. However, the terms ‘biological women’ are exclusionary and are not allowed in this course as they further reinforce heteronormativity. Please reassess your topic and edit it to focus on women’s rights (not just ‘females’) and I’ll regrade.”

ADVERTISEMENT

So in fairness, she did offer Krolczyk the opportunity to “fix” her proposal. The problem, of course, was that there was actually nothing wrong with her proposal, since “biological women” is a perfectly reasonable, science-based term to use.

Here’s the good news: Following the TikTok going viral, Krolczyk “received a new grade and finished her class with an A,” according to Fox News. Moreover, Nipper was severely reprimanded for her infraction.

“The reprimand directs adjunct instructor Melanie Nipper to complete training about UC’s free speech policy and submit her syllabi for the coming school year to her department head,” The Cincinnati Enquirer reported this week.

The reprimand reportedly reads as follows: “Please note that this is to be considered a formal reprimand for your actions. A copy of this letter will be placed in your permanent records.”

It continues: “It is also understood that any other violations of UC policy may be subject to further disciplinary actions up to and including termination. You are reminded that as an unrepresented, unclassified ‘at will’ employee your employment may be terminated with or without cause.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Ouch.

But instead of accepting the reprimand, Nipper decided to contest it, arguing in a letter that “my restriction on harmful speech” was “necessary to ensure a safe learning environment in the course discussions and for the pedagogical purpose of teaching introductory WGSS theory.”

WGSS is short for women, gender, and sexuality studies.

Nipper continued by maintaining in the letter that she teaches from an “intersectional, 4th wave, and transnational feminist perspective” and that Krolczyk’s chosen topic for the assignment was “inappropriate as it targeted trans women as a source of oppression for cis women in sports.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“I felt it was necessary to educate her regarding inclusive language to ensure a safe learning environment for other students in the course discussion boards,” she added.

Nipper is clearly a far-leftist — the type who doesn’t believe in either biological science or the freedom of speech.

Indeed, in a subsequent interview with the Enquirer, she doubled, tripled, and quadrupled down on her radical views.

“Although Nipper said she agrees classrooms should be places for debate and discussion, that ends when ‘you are, intentionally or unintentionally, participating in a systemic harm of some kind.’ She cited transphobia and white supremacy as examples,” according to the Enquirer.

“Similar incidents had occurred in the past, said Nipper, who has taught at UC since 2021. When a student uses ‘an outdated terminology,’ Nipper said she feels it is necessary to correct those mistakes. ‘Not a zero for the course,’ Nipper clarified, ‘a zero for an assignment,'” the paper added.

ADVERTISEMENT

But why? For the “wokest” of reasons, of course: “This is unacceptable based on the community, the marginalized individuals that are at stake, and also the foundations of the course,” she said.

Krolczyk clearly disagrees …

Vivek Saxena

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles