"Why these professors are warning against promoting the work of straight, white men," a recent Washington Post headline reads.

Upon further investigation (a brief Google image search), as it turns out, both of the professors in question are white, and one also happens to be male.

According to the Post, the paper, written by geographers Carrie Mott and Daniel Cockayne and published in Gender, Place and Culture, argues, "This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color. … To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice not only to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism …"

One would assume that only citing "established scholars" would be the hallmark of responsible research. Not according to these professors, who are contending that the best practices in scholarship merely lead to the "othering" of those victimized by white heteromasculinism — a concept with more syllables than reputable supporters.

When confronted by a Campus Reform reporter who wondered whether the "underrepresentation" of non-white heteromasculine sources can be explained by the "preponderance" of white men in the field of geography, Mott responded, "The point we are trying to make is that important research done by traditionally marginalized voices … is often ignored by 'mainstream' and very well-established scholars — which means, in geography at least, white male Marxists."

One benefit of their fellow geographers hesitating before citing white men will hopefully be that nobody ever cites this paper, given that Cockayne himself is a white man. According to his picture, that is. I don't know how he personally identifies.

Emily Jashinsky is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.