A pair of professors admitted they intentionally provoked shame, guilt, and anger in their white students—then recorded those reactions as data for a study.
When Quinn Hafen from the University of Wyoming and Marie Villescas from Colorado State University (CSU) were putting together their study at CSU to determine if co-teaching with professors of different races would be more effective at warming white students up to accepting an anti-racist agenda, ethics were never the biggest concern.
Since the research amounted to professors jotting down journal entries, the study slipped through without ever facing an internal ethics review.
That all changed when, on the eve of publication, the College Fix ran a brief piece on the concerning behavior the study detailed, and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research (JSSWR), one of the top journals of the field, pulled it, citing the onset of an additional ethics review.
[RELATED: ‘Linguistic White Supremacy’: The Left’s New Crusade Against the English Language]
Now, in a bid to provide the necessary accountability to restore trust in research, higher education, and the governmental institutions intended to address and prevent the kind of abuse detailed in the study, FAIR for All has filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
In that complaint, FAIR cites the following passages from the study as the worst examples illustrating the hostile environment the professors had created in their classes (Hafen is Author 1 and Villescas is Author 2):
Screenshot from page 2 of the OCR complaint, found here.
This OCR complaint follows similar efforts by FAIR to hold branches of higher education accountable including challenging racially discriminatory practices at the University of the District of Columbia, a racially hostile work environment at Penn State Abington, and standards that mandate compelled speech, by requiring the evaluation of students’ values and beliefs as imposed by the counseling accreditor the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).
Recent Master of Social Work graduate from CSU, Nathan Gallo, shared the following regarding FAIR’s complaint:
FAIR’s complaint to the ED’s Office of Civil Rights on September 30 should put a flashing ‘Beware’ sign above the social work field for any potential BSW, MSW, or PhD student or their loan-cosigning family member. Each year, students of all backgrounds hand over tens of thousands of dollars to higher education, trusting that professors will guide them towards developing into competent, thoughtful, and humane social work practitioners. FAIR’s complaint makes clear that Ms. Villescas and Dr. Hafen self-satisfyingly exploited this trust as they ruthlessly shamed and demonized certain race and gender groups under the cover of ‘anti-racism,’ a phenomenon that students and I also experienced during our program.
To this day, we comprise part of the fallout of this discrimination, left to slowly sift through the confusion of forced discomfort and compelled agreement, with one student poignantly contending they needed to be ‘deprogrammed’ as they secured their first job. We continue to help one another separate fact from fiction; technique from indoctrination; and realism from political nihilism. Together, we realized that no matter our identity—White, Asian, Black, Brown, female, male, Muslim, agnostic, Christian, atheist, Jewish, etc.—we deserved better than to leave class ashamed and ‘shut down,’ as did the unsuspecting bachelor’s student who tried to speak out but became covertly rebranded as a part of a ‘mini mob’.
I am someone who still believes in the humane promise and power of social work; otherwise, I would have dropped out before the sun set on my first year. But the psychological scarring depicted within FAIR’s complaint—and within social work education as a whole—must stop. If redressing harm matters to those in higher education, educators need to come together with an American public fed up with identity-based mudslinging and jointly reconsider: we don’t allow social workers in the working world to discriminate against their clients and families; why, therefore, do we tolerate discrimination in the classroom?
[RELATED: Unmasking the Campaign Against ‘White Supremacy Culture’ in Science]
Arnold Cantú, a former doctoral student at the same university who was in the same cohort as one of the authors, is quoted as saying that he is greatly appreciative of FAIR being willing to take on the filing of this OCR complaint.
Cantú has written about his demoralizing experiences in graduate school, observing how social work education had strayed into ethical and professional misconduct. He told Minding the Campus:
The disenchanting reality of this is that despite having my own values and beliefs questioned by social work faculty for not explicitly endorsing critical social justice ideology—a form of political discrimination—this piece of ‘research’ helped grant one of the authors a shiny PhD. The rectification of my cherished profession is long overdue, especially when social work is tasked with helping people from all walks of life, irrespective of their backgrounds. We can’t be picky and choosy about which identity groups are prioritized, much less so engage in the dehumanization of other groups. Our profession is guided by the Code of Ethics, and no amount of mental or linguistic gymnastics can justify the value of this ‘research’ and treating people this way, especially undergraduate students. It’s laughably shameful.
The filing of this latest OCR complaint by FAIR draws attention to the continued failures in research, higher education, and federal enforcement to protect students from hostile and abusive conditions. For the students who continue to suffer under the combative pedagogy of Villescas, who remains employed at CSU, this is a visceral reality.
If we are to regain social trust in society, the federal government must enforce the existing law. It’s hard to see how public skepticism in our institutions can improve if higher education is allowed to continue to skirt accountability and maintain openly abusive, racist professors on the payroll.
Follow Suzannah Alexander on X.
Editor’s Note: I encourage every reader interested in learning more about the troubling state of social work education to read the National Association of Scholars report, The Dystopian World of Social Work Education. It offers a more in-depth examination of the ethical and pedagogical issues addressed in this article.
Image: “US Department of Education” by Anne Meadows on Flickr
I am so disappointed to be reading this article. I was a part of the undergraduate social work program at CSU and had the privilege to be taught by these amazing teachers. As a white person there was never a time where I felt shamed for my identity. In fact they did an exemplary job of providing us with the space to talk about how feelings of discomfort are common amongst white people when learning about white supremacy and white privilege. This article is proving the point they were making with their dissertation in the first place. Instead of sitting with the feelings of discomfort and learning from them, the individuals associated with this are leaning into a tenet of white supremacy, the right to comfort. The right to comfort has historically been weaponized when people engage in conversations around race, oppression, and privilege (Barton, 2022). It is a way for people to get out of conversations that make them reflect on how the systems they benefit from hurt so many, to avoid complicitness. It is astonishing that people could think that the program is anti-white when CSU is a predominantly white institution and a majority of our textbooks and readings were from a white social workers perspective. Nowhere in this program is there anything to shame white students. Period. If you are offended by learning about white supremacy I hate to break it to you, you are the problem.
Barton, E. (2022). Examining the impact of white supremacy cultural norms
This reference is from Erica Barton, she has her masters in social work from the University of Nevada and her doctoral degree in education from Northeastern University. She is currently the Organizational Learning and Development Manager at the University of Washington.
I’ve been part of both the undergrad and now the grad social work program at CSU, and I know these conversations can be uncomfortable sometimes. Talking about race, privilege, and identity can bring up a lot of feelings, and that’s totally human. But honestly, this article doesn’t reflect who these professors are or how they teach! I’ve always felt respected and supported in their classes. I get that other people might have had different experiences, but I’ve never seen them shame or single anyone out. They’ve always focused on growth and honest conversation, not guilt. They make space for real discussion where everyone’s voice matters and help us look at how bigger systems impact our lives and communities. Calling their work “anti-white” really misses the point. They’re just teaching empathy, awareness, and critical thinking, which we could all use a bit more of now. If that stirs discomfort, maybe that’s a sign that their message is doing what good education should—making us reflect. I’d really encourage you to put all this energy toward what’s actually happening in our country right now! Write an article about how the current administration is rolling back rights and dividing communities, instead of going after professors who are working so hard to do the opposite!
“Calling their work “anti-white” really misses the point.
Yep, it’s actually Anti-White MALE.
They’re just teaching empathy, awareness, and critical thinking
Right…….
Go Team Trump….
Hi Cato! It’s funny how any talk about empathy or privilege somehow turns into “anti-white male.” That says a lot about how people hear these conversations. When professors discuss power and privilege, they’re not attacking anyone but asking us to understand how history created unequal opportunities. It’s not about blame; it’s about awareness, something I’m sensing you lack… People who’ve benefited most from those systems often get uncomfortable and mistake reflection for shame. It’s not that. It’s growth and accountability, two things worth exploring. Calling something “anti-white male” just because it challenges power structures isn’t oppression, it’s progress. And yeah, that discomfort is kind of the point.
So yeah, “empathy and critical thinking.” Exactly! Maybe try it sometime instead of defaulting to “Go Team Trump.” Then again, when your political hero built a whole brand on blame and denial, I get why accountability must sting. I hope you feel better soon! <3
George Santayana (the philosopher, not the musician) was famous for saying, amongst other things, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
I doubt you have ever heard of the Wiemar Republic, and a parliamentary form of government is different from what we have. But Adolph Hitler won what was a basically fair election in 1933, and a lot of German Jews voted for him. It was people like you that caused them to do that.
250 years ago, there was a British colony called “Massachusetts Bay.” If you have any idea what I am talking about, which I doubt, it’s almost certain that you have ever heard of the “Committees of Public Safety” — or the actual origin of the term “Lynching” (although that originated in Virginia).
And I’d love to know how I’ve “benefited most from those systems.” I really would.
But be careful about what you wish for, little girl, because you might just get it. “Empathy and Critical Thinking” can go both ways — 80 million votes guarantees a Presidential victory and 100 million people watched Charlie Kirk’s funeral live — with more watching it later.
Trump is a populist with ADHD — there are a lot worse. David Duke comes to immediate mind, and he once ran for President. And people like you could get him elected.
And in case you are missing the cultural reference to “little girl”, Norman Lear never expected the American public to rally behind Archie Bunker, which is exactly what happened.
“When professors discuss power and privilege, they’re not attacking anyone but asking us to understand how history created unequal opportunities. It’s not about blame; it’s about awareness, something I’m sensing you lack…”
I just realized something: You’re prejudiced…
“Prejudice” means to “pre – judge” — to judge someone whom you don’t know on the basis of a physical characteristic. Presuming that someone is a criminal because of the color of his skin is a good example of this — while a Black man is statistically more likely to murder you, that doesn’t mean that any specific black man is.
And while we’re at it, the statistics aren’t based on skin color but the fact that 76% of Black babies are fatherless — born to single mothers. It gets worse — men leave, e.g. Obama’s father. You might want to read “The Negro Family: The Case For National Action” — a 1965 report written by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was then Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Lyndon B. Johnson, of the “Great Society.”
But you’re not a prejudiced bigot, you know that the color of a man’s skin doesn’t mean that he is inherently going to rape or murder you. Right?
Well why do you assume that the color of a man’s skin (or his plumbing) means he inherently comes from wealth and privilege?
This whole article is asinine and a complete misrepresentation of the study and these professors. I have had both professors at the undergrad and graduate level and this has not been my experience in the slightest. Quinn and Marie provide an amazing classroom space to learn and push ourselves passed what we have been conditioned to believe, exactly what social work is for. We must acknowledge the white supremacist, patriarchal past to move forward in a world of justice and equity for all. If you did not understand this through the classes, maybe rethink your direction for this work. I hold many privileged identities and not once did I feel under attacked, “abused”, or forced to feel negative emotions. This content is hard, sad, and disgusting. To have this response rather than learning from the course material, is very telling.
“To have this response rather than learning from the course material, is very telling.”
No, little girl, it is you who are very telling…
“We must acknowledge the white supremacist, patriarchal past to move forward in a world of justice and equity for all. If you did not understand this through the classes, maybe rethink your direction for this work. “
Ever hear of the Nuremburg Trials, little girl?
They were good little Nazis too, just like you…
The only difference between the National Socialists and you is *who* you hate, not that you *do* hate….
The instructors confessed in print to intentionally targeting students for humiliation on the basis of their race and sex, laughing at their distress, shutting down their ability to participate, and refusing to provide a neutral learning environment. These are against Title VI and Title IX, that is direct evidence of unlawful discrimination.
And none of their peers called them on it, either.
You raise a very good point that I missed — they not only reduced this to writing but submitted it to a peer-refereed journal for publication, and the referees approved it for publication!
In English: If you submit an article to a peer-reviewed journal, they then email copies to 3-4 experts in your field — usually professors at distant universities — and they are called “referees.” So you have, say, referees in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Texas, and California independently reviewing the article to see if it is worthy of publication.
Based on what the referees say, the journal either accepts the article for publication or rejects it — and the Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research accepted the article which means the referees didn’t call them on what they had admitted to.
It’s likely even worse than this because what most people do is discuss research with trusted colleagues. That’s what happened with the Stanford Prison experiment — the girlfriend was a fellow grad student, a peer, who was horrified and told him that.
What I find disturbing is that none of the referees pointed out what you did — that this is a written confession of abuse.
Every SW professor at CSU who approved this study/dissertation needs to be reprimanded:
– Dr. Paula Yuma
– Dr. Jennifer Currin-McCullough
– Dr. Anne Williford
– Dr. Tiffany Jones
– Evan Lowe
It needs to be very clear that causing harm to human participants, whether intentional or not, represents a serious violation of social work ethics and research integrity. The social work profession is built on values of respect for human dignity, informed consent, and the protection of vulnerable populations. The focus right now needs to be on the people who were harmed. What steps have been taken to notify them, to repair harm, and to prevent further damage? As social workers, our first duty is to the well-being and dignity of those affected by our actions. “Dr.” Quinn Hafen is a terrible representation of social work and should be terminated from their position at the University of Wyoming.
Look into the Milgram Authority experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment — those are why we have human subjects review boards.
At Stanford it was the guy’s girlfriend who saved him — she recoiled in horror when she saw what was going on and told him to shut it down *now*. It messed people up, as did Milgram.
It’s why we have these rules.
As a current (accelerated) MSW Social Work student at CSU, having both of these professors, I would like to make the comment that this opinion of “white shaming” is far from the majority. Sadly, I believe this is stemming from white fragility and a sense of denial in learning what we are to know and understand in social work. My experience with these professors (as a white student) was always warm. I understand it may be difficult at times to face the messed-up society and system we are part of, but this article takes a ridiculous approach to not fully understanding what we are taught in our program. I believe that as social workers we are to face our own biases and dominant identities, and that may provoke unwanted feelings (such as shame or guilt), but that is something that needs to happen to thus move forward in this work. Without it, we become bigoted white-centered individuals, unhelpful to the people we are to support. I will say it outright, not once did these professors ever make shamming racial comments or demonize my identity as a white person in my five years of knowing them. I know those who have been with me throughout my social work undergraduate time and into my graduate studies and I am secure in us taking and working through our white fragility. I hope those associated with this article can do so too.
But then you identify as female and there is more sexism than racism in the Social Work “profession.” In fact, both professors appear to be White females.
And from the initial College Fix article:
“[T]he more I reflect on that paper, the more I find it cruel to shame students based on immutable identities they hold, regardless of identity,” one observer said via email. “For the professors, it appeared that Whiteand male students were their target.”[emphasis added]
It was the White MALE students that were being abused and you aren’t male.
It is clear that they are describing stereotypical MALE behavior.
And they didn’t run this through IRBas ethically required ever since the infamous stunts of Stanley Milgram back in the 1960s. What these women did was the equivalent of chemstry professors dumping toxic waste in the local river — that too was allowed in the 1960s but isn’t now!
It’s as unethical as a professor hitting on the pretty freshmen — and that also was acceptable in the 1960s but ain’t anymore!
These professors violated ethics rules in their research, and that alone is enough for them to be fired.
Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts. I have read your message carefully. What follows is not a personal rebuke, but a serious response to a serious issue.
You’ve written in strong defense of your professors and the program you are a part of. That is your right. What is not your right—nor anyone’s—is to dismiss differing experiences or perspectives by pathologizing them as “white fragility” or “denial.”
You’ve spoken of your own experience, and I do not question its sincerity. But your experience is not universal, nor does it entitle you to define the limits of legitimacy for those who disagree. When individuals express discomfort, concern, or dissent in response to the way race and identity are being taught, it is not acceptable to label their reactions as emotional weakness, moral failure, or evidence of unconscious bias.
That is not education. That is ideological enforcement.
We do not move society forward by insisting that guilt and shame are necessary rites of passage for professionals. Nor do we create ethical social workers by demanding that students submit to a single, unchallenged worldview under threat of being labeled “bigoted” or “unhelpful.” You speak of facing bias—I agree. But that work must include examining the bias embedded in our own ideological assumptions, not simply reinforcing them.
Your suggestion that those who critique certain pedagogical approaches become, by default, “white-centered bigots” is neither accurate nor constructive. It is an attempt to foreclose discussion through moral accusation, and that is deeply incompatible with the values of critical thinking, intellectual humility, and pluralism that ought to guide our profession.
If our field is to retain credibility—if it is to serve all people, not just those who pass ideological tests—it must allow room for disagreement, for nuance, and for the articulation of views that do not conform neatly to activist orthodoxies. That includes the right to object without being shamed, and to critique without being cast as morally deficient.
This is not about fragility. It is about freedom.
It is not about denial. It is about dialogue.
And it is not about guilt. It is about integrity.
Will their PhDs be revoked?
There are procedures for situations where the degree is based on fraudulent or unethical research. It came up when it was discovered that ML King Jr had plagiarized his dissertation — BU decided that since both King and all the members of his committee were dead, there was no one who could defend the dissertation.
But here both are alive — let them defend what they did…