I am not a researcher.. heck, I am not even in the social sciences/psychology field. And I am not a native English speaker. But I understand the metaphor and see it as a good way to make the case for broader viewpoint diversity that should be the goal of all research.
The biggest tragedy of our times is not woke politicians or corporations or celebrities - it is the abdication of academics to their sacred responsibility to pursue the truth.
"The editorial actions that raised concerns include the EIC’s decisions to:
* accept an article criticizing the original article based on three reviews that were also critical of the original article and did not reflect a representative range of views on the topic of the original article;
* invite the three reviewers who reviewed the critique favorably to themselves submit commentaries on the critique;
* accept those commentaries without submitting them to peer review; and,
* inform the author of the original article that his invited reply would also not be sent out for peer review. The EIC then sent that reply to be reviewed by the author of the critical article to solicit further comments.
Together these behaviors represent a violation of proper editorial conduct and practices, which APS is committed to upholding regardless of the topic of the research."
If racism in academic publishing manifests itself as discrimination against work by [members of any outgroup], why not review papers for publication without regard to, or even knowledge of, who the authors are? Assuming the existence of an actual racist editor, the editor cannot discriminate against a disfavored group if the editor does not know a person from that group made the submission. Wouldn't blind submission ensure merit-based selection and lead to a better quality of science literature anyway?
If one is aware that the other party tries to “problematize” almost anything, as it is argued in the linked text, then a logical question is: if you get an opportunity to be in involved in a "debate" about sensitive racial issues will you think twice before using an animal analogy?
I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write? Will you ask yourself at any point whether an animal analogy can be misinterpreted and abused? Will you?
This is a sensible question to ask, but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with? Should Mr. Jussim be expected to refrain from using a metaphor that is clear and meaningful to him for entirely honest reasons just because he doesn't want a bad faith actor to attack him for it? What sort of precedent is that? Is this tip-toeing around identatarians the way we should conduct ourselves? Perhaps yes, if the primary concern is avoiding an attack on one's motives. A sad state of affairs that would not be so consequential if academia was even remotely diverse (in the meaningful sense).
"...but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with?"
Good point although I keep saying that one must think twice before using an animal analogy in a sensitive racial debate. An average person should know that black people (and many ethnic groups) have been seen as and treated like animals. It's a no-brainer. If you want to reflect on your own writing.
Furthermore, someone who willingly engages in a sensitive racial debate should have some knowledge about stereotypes attached to black people. You engage in such discussion because you feel you are competent and yet in your defense you state you have never heard or forgot about the "old" mule trope. Here is a certain mismatch in my view. Do you know enough about the topic you so eagerly and passionately debate about?
Anyway, as I said many times I have no idea what Jussim was or not thinking when he used the analogy. However, given his way of discussing on Twitter...
The main problem in this scandal or "scandal" is that there was no safety net. The editor invited a non-diverse group of reviewers. That was the first mistake. The second mistake was when the editor decided to "promote" these three peer-reviewers into "debaters" while failing to invite a new group of independent and diverse reviewers to review their submissions. Someone could have spotted the "controversial" analogy. I forgot... the third mistake was when the editor invited Hommel to be a "consultant" regarding Roberts' reply. The fourth mistake (and how I got involved) was Jussim's repeated writing on Twitter that there was nothing wrong with the process: "This is all appropriate review process (except the accusation that Fiedler shared a confidential review, but one would want much more info on that than the accusation--eg, was Hommel a reviewer?). " https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1598728379691405317
Taken all this together... even if someone would accept that Roberts belongs to "social justice warriors... prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with," the involved "debaters" have given him too many, I seriously mean too many, reasons to complain.
You have made several remarks about interacting with anonymous people. Why do you think you post as yourself (Igor, I presume) and most of the people talking about this debate who are at skeptical of the "diversity program" are posting anonymously. Has it dawned on you? You're very close to figuring it out, you know.
Why does Lee Jussim write as himself? How does he dare speak about topics from a perspective, no mater whether he uses an animal metaphor or not, that can get him in serious trouble? You'll have to ask him.
Now, what about the anonymous folks? What's going on there? Let's work it out.
Quoting Igor:
"I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write?"
Ding, ding, ding!
You figured it out all on your own. Anyone who wants to talk about this topic that in any way the deviates from the approved message, can either risk their reputation/livelihood, remain silent, or speak while anonymous.
So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts. What sort of person is willing to do that? Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor, and whether it could be taken the wrong way or be misconstrued.
haha So Jussim is actually a hero (unlike you and several others) who bravely accepts to review Hommel paper and bravely uses the horse-mule analogy to further attack Roberts' paper instead of "only" reviewing Hommel's commentary... He is aware of the risks that an animal analogy can be used against him so he thinks hard whether something in that analogy can be easily misinterpreted (even by a researcher who grew up in ex-Yugoslavia), so he even googles mules + racism/black people, (to surprise of anyone able to use google) finds nothing and then bravely decides to publish his commentary and signs it. In your attempt to defend your own decision to discuss anonymously here, you are actually digging a grave for Jussim.
Just noticed (have it in my email) that another anonymous person replied to my question ("Will you? ") I had posted in the first post in this thread with "yes" and then after some thinking decided to delete it;-) Perhaps you should consider doing the same;-) I am not sure Jussim appreciates the way you defend him.
"So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts."
And that might be? Please help me if my bad English prevents me of understanding. What kind of animal? Brave? I hope you didn't mean stupid?
"Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor"
Hours:))) It takes 15 seconds to google it. I mean if it crosses your mind that an animal analogy in a racial debate might be a little bit insensitive or misinterpreted by those who can't wait you write something wrong... So will you or will you not think whether your writing would be misinterpreted?
The mob rules because, I would bet, a lot of the rational, subtle thinkers are afraid to speak up--anyone with anything to lose really. Those who speak up call be tarred with the 'r' word. Otherwise in academia it's a small world. I personally cannot afford to say what I think or even hit the 'like' button on many things I agree with, much less sign a counter-letter. Some guy on Twitter found that most who spoke up against the first letter were white males...which means nothing because you can't count those who don't/can't speak up, and the fact that white males speak up doesn't imply they are wrong (same could be said about the other side). I am not a white male and I think what happened is disgraceful and it's absolutely ridiculous that Lee was labeled a racist. I'm still waiting for someone to say what exactly was racist in all of this...or is it just that Roberts said so and was upset, so it must be true?
In 2022/23, how powerful is the label "racist"? Is it instant social death as it once was, or weakened by it's overuse? How long until it is totally without sting?
Most individuals don't know the actual literal meaning of pedophile. It has zip to do with being sexually attracted to kids who can't legally consent to sex acts.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like them are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
When someone calls whoever a progressive they are saying that person is an elitist. When someone calls themself a progressive they're saying I'm an elitist.
What is the percentage of true believers in the sample of 1200 vs the percentage of pure opportunists? What does that say about the nature of academic discourse and the current pressures in the field? Who is applying the pressure and why?
The Elect are elect precisely because of their ability to divine racism from the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, the flimsier the evidence, the more elect the diviner!
Roberts is correct that your metaphor was not necessary, but it sure was a convenient opportunity for him to demonstrate his advanced powers. Of course, his response was also not necessary. But he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just misread it and was not eager to see a racist trope when none was intended.
Reality does not matter... One would think that the 1200 academics presumably can pass reading comprehension test. Yet, they signed this petition based on a demonstrably false statement, that is, a lie, which can be revealed by just reading the "offensive" commentary. Unbelievable...
Heh. *I'm* on the left. Ran an Indivisible group in 2017. Its not even that they hate science, that goes too far. They hate anything that challenges their ideological dogmas, whether science, identifiable persons (such as me) or anything else.
As I was reading your article, I didn't connect the mule metaphor with the whole black population until I read where Roberts had made that connection. It appears to me that Roberts is the racist.
This is an underrated point. Almost no one alive is familiar with that trope, its been outdated for 3 generations. Roberts revived it in such a manner that the now almost 1400 academics who signed the open letter, and probably many many more, will not forget it for another generation.
We can think of the 'n' word in the same light. How many sub-literate racist non-blacks are left to use it? Very few, and the numbers shrink daily. But the word remains centrally positioned in our culture almost entirely because black popular culture refuses to let it go. It's too useful a weapon to allow to disappear into history.
1. Roberts’ interpretation of the horse-mule analogy is probably wrong.
2. Mentioning a mule in a sensitive racial “debate” is absolutely wrong.
3. Any social psychologist interested in racial issues should (have) know(n) about the negative connotation of that word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
4. Any intelligent person trying to understand others’ perspectives could (have) guess(ed) that mentioning a mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey, can be understood as offensive in a sensitive “debate” about racial inequalities. A mule is not an imperfection because one of the parents was a horse, but because the other parent was of “lower” race.
5. A diverse group of debaters (invited reviewers and editors) could pick that up before it gets accepted.
6. Given your way of discussing on twitter (i.e., ridiculing people), it is not surprising that some (many?) people interpreted your analogy as malicious.
7. Given your testimony, I have no reason to doubt you when you say you were not aware of racist mule trope: “The racist mule trope evaporated 3 generations ago.”
8. Directly accusing you of racism was wrong.
9. However, even if you forgot about the racist mule trope… the main problem, as in my view Roberts tries to argue, is point 5. Not knowing, not being too sensitive… is a direct consequence of a non-existing diversity. -> Roberts is basically right in his general conclusion.
10. I got only recently interested in racial/ethnic inequalities (have one paper under review). I grew up in ex-Yugoslavia and I knew about the racist mule trope. I am so surprised to learn that many Americans and social psychologists have never heard of it.
11. We need more diversity, whatever that means, in order to prevent these things of happening again.
12. I hope you will survive this storm. I wish you well.
Discussing "intelligent people" as though this were a legitimate category, and implicitly opposing it to "unintelligent people," is offensive and probably racist (we all know the implications of using this descriptive in our sensitive culture of racial inequity).
You should have avoided using it.
Now that you have used it, you've opened yourself up to accusations of racism.
Not to mention frequent reference to the very mule trope that could be interpreted as referencing a racist trope, especially in a discussion about sensitive racial issues. By his own standards, this commenter seems to be highly racist, or at the very least highly insensitive, and should be censured.
ohh... I mean seriously guys... it's no wonder woke fanatics are winning when you can't offer anything better than this. Btw, Riley I checked your blog text. No wonder woke fanatics are winning.
I've been reviewing a few old posts, and I can't stop laughing at how this Igor fellow never actually addresses the underlying logic of the points being raised, regardless of how silly the examples might be. It's unclear if he even understands it, since he always reverts to adhom or deflection--"no wonder the wokes have won with silliness like this!" I honestly don't know if he's just trolling or if he's actually convinced himself he's winning these exchanges (nor which would be worse!) which in the event he's a troll I suppose makes him a good one ;-)
I'll give my regards to Dr. Frankenstein. What I don't understand is this "Merry Christmas to you too, Igor." Why do you wish me Merry Christmas? You assume something based on what? You know something I don't know?
Nice try. I wrote "Any intelligent person trying to understand others’ perspectives..." Trying... It should be clear from my writing in this forum that it is about not been interested in others' perspective, not having enough sensitivity about others... On the other hand, my writing is not going to be published in a leading psychology journal. It is only me here. My writing is not supported by the reputation of the major psychology journal.
You lost me at #2. How can you say this with a straight face? Same re: #3 and #4. Note, when APS and american psychologists call for diversity, they are not thinking of you but rather very specific groups that have been ordained to "count", so maybe you should apply #12 to yourself as I don't think APS will be seeking another European editor anytime soon. This could have been an opportunity to understand others better but instead Roberts pulled his stunt and everyone played their roles to a tee, as if putting on a show...
"How can you say this with a straight face? " Thank you another anonymous... Anyway,
Regarding my point 2 "Mentioning a mule in a sensitive racial “debate” is absolutely wrong." "Absolutely"= in my opinion this is certainly wrong. That's my opinion. You can or you don't have to agree.
Regarding points 3 and 4. I just copy/paste here what another researcher has written "Importantly, of the four (author + three commentaries), only one (Jussim) does work that is even remotely related to race. "
That will give you an idea why all of this has happened. Not knowing or perhaps not even thinking whether "using metaphors about animals in the context of debates about race and diversity" is appropriate or not. Diversity helps. Knowledge helps.
You make some insightful points. But mentioning a storm (as you did in 12) in a sensitive racial debate is absolutely wrong. Storm has long had racist connotations—stormfront, daily stormer, stormtrooper, etc (a lot more on google)—and many will perceive "survive this storm" as a dog whistle, whether you meant it that way or not.
Why does that matter? It will be read here by many people, and it contributes to the general cultural spirit of antiblackness. You should made more careful antiracist analysis of your expression before making it public. Do better!
Don't look for logical consistency because you won't be finding it. Arguably a single tweet has more affect on culture and people's beliefs (and is read and seen more widely) than almost every article.
It matters. And you know it very well. If you think my writing here on this forum has the same weight as a paper published in a leading psychology journal... Perhaps, people should start including tweets and number of likes in their CVs. You can make better arguments, surely.
Okay, but that doesn’t address the underlying point: anyone at any journal could find anything too sensitive to be published for any number of diverse reasons. Unless you truly think one can never be too sensitive when it comes to deciding what’s published. There are obviously costs in both kinds of errors. But as you admit, Roberts got this wrong, so it seems like perhaps people are too sensitive, seeing ghosts where there are none.
"anyone at any journal could find anything too sensitive to be published for any number of diverse reasons. "
Indeed. However, this was supposed to be a debate on a sensitive issue. About racism and racial inequalities. Let's imagine a debate about antisemitism in which a non-Jewish researcher comments on a paper authored by a Jew... and makes some kind of nose-related analogy. Would that be appropriate? Probably not. Because probably everyone knows about that stereotype attached to Jews? My point is that this was a sensitive issue and had the more diverse group of debaters been involved, the mule trope should have been spotted before it was too late.
"Let's imagine a debate about antisemitism in which a non-Jewish researcher comments on a paper authored by a Jew... and makes some kind of nose-related analogy. Would that be appropriate?"
I think it would depend on the context and the intent. If it's clear from the context that there is no intent to imply anything racial--as was the case here--and the analogy was used not in a ham-fisted way but intentionally to make a specific point relevant to the argument, then I would think it totally unreasonable to assume anything nefarious. Akin to an oversensitive smoke alarm going off unnecessarily and stifling discussion. To use your analogy, it would be as if in a debate about anti-Semitism, you wanted to make the larger point that malicious rumors about Jews have furthered anti-Semitism, and you referred to the old Jewish saying, "what you don't see with your eyes don't witness with your mouth"--leading people to accuse you of ableism against blind and dumb people, or at the very least in being insensitive to them (shouldn't we have at least one blind and one dumb person reviewing every paper to ensure proper diversity??).
In fact, in this case, Jussim (a Jew) wrote a commentary on a paper by a white author that was in response to a black author. Claiming Jussim is being insensitive here when he's quoting from Fiddler On the Roof (a play created by two Jews based on a book by a Jew about a Jewish family, with important roots in Jewish culture, tradition, and history) to make a point about diversity is arguably the only racist (anti-Semitic) thing here, or at least the most insensitive.
"My point is that this was a sensitive issue and had the more diverse group of debaters been involved, the mule trope should have been spotted before it was too late."
Is that even true? Is there any reason why we would believe it to be true? I mean, it's an empirical question, but I very much doubt it's true.
I am sorry, but you are actually supporting my argument. Picking an analogy from own cultural heritage while discussing racial inequalities and not knowing about the mule trope, how the analogy could be interpreted by a black author and wider community, or perhaps not even asking yourself whether the analogy is appropriate in that context... not having a diverse "debaters" to pick it up before it gets accepted. To repeat: I was raised in ex-Yugoslavia and I heard about the mule trope. To repeat: in a sensitive discussion about racial inequalities one has to ask themselves whether the animal analogy is appropriate or not. To repeat: a diverse group of "debaters" could have picked that up.
I am sorry but I barely understand anything you wrote - it's my fault, I know. You just focused on me, whether I am allowed to comment and have an opinion, whether my paper will further my career... nothing, I mean nothing in your comment is connected with anything I wrote. So yes, I do agree, you are just trolling. An anonymous person trolling.
Sure. Still no specific comment on anything I wrote. Where I got it wrong. What was incorrect. What was wrong with my reasoning. No input from you. No contribution whatsoever from you. Only arrogant preaching. I cannot say I am surprised.
My understanding is that “free word association to the easiest unrelated social justice rant” is the winning tactic in most debate competitions these days, as well as actual academic disputes
Another underrated tweet. As I continue the Notes from a Witch Hunt series (and a minimum of 2 more are coming), I am considering one titled something like:
Blame it on the Implicit Association Test
It has, if not exactly caused, been a huge catalyzer on the academic left to see hidden racism and dogwhistles everywhere, because of pretty much what your comment just described, a sort of unconstrained associationism from which one can just about always find a strand of associations that leads to racism.
My next Notes from a Witch Hunt essay will not be on this, exactly, but it will be on how the social justice left can and does turn anything, no matter how innocuous, into evidence of racism, including completely opposite things.
I am not a researcher.. heck, I am not even in the social sciences/psychology field. And I am not a native English speaker. But I understand the metaphor and see it as a good way to make the case for broader viewpoint diversity that should be the goal of all research.
The biggest tragedy of our times is not woke politicians or corporations or celebrities - it is the abdication of academics to their sacred responsibility to pursue the truth.
Yep, that should have been clear to everyone.
"The editorial actions that raised concerns include the EIC’s decisions to:
* accept an article criticizing the original article based on three reviews that were also critical of the original article and did not reflect a representative range of views on the topic of the original article;
* invite the three reviewers who reviewed the critique favorably to themselves submit commentaries on the critique;
* accept those commentaries without submitting them to peer review; and,
* inform the author of the original article that his invited reply would also not be sent out for peer review. The EIC then sent that reply to be reviewed by the author of the critical article to solicit further comments.
Together these behaviors represent a violation of proper editorial conduct and practices, which APS is committed to upholding regardless of the topic of the research."
https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/news-release/2022-december-editorial-statement.html
If racism in academic publishing manifests itself as discrimination against work by [members of any outgroup], why not review papers for publication without regard to, or even knowledge of, who the authors are? Assuming the existence of an actual racist editor, the editor cannot discriminate against a disfavored group if the editor does not know a person from that group made the submission. Wouldn't blind submission ensure merit-based selection and lead to a better quality of science literature anyway?
I can't comment on https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/is-everything-problematic
so I will do it here.
If one is aware that the other party tries to “problematize” almost anything, as it is argued in the linked text, then a logical question is: if you get an opportunity to be in involved in a "debate" about sensitive racial issues will you think twice before using an animal analogy?
I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write? Will you ask yourself at any point whether an animal analogy can be misinterpreted and abused? Will you?
This is a sensible question to ask, but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with? Should Mr. Jussim be expected to refrain from using a metaphor that is clear and meaningful to him for entirely honest reasons just because he doesn't want a bad faith actor to attack him for it? What sort of precedent is that? Is this tip-toeing around identatarians the way we should conduct ourselves? Perhaps yes, if the primary concern is avoiding an attack on one's motives. A sad state of affairs that would not be so consequential if academia was even remotely diverse (in the meaningful sense).
"...but doesn't the question also set the expectation that one needs to walk on eggshells with social justice warriors because they are prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with?"
Good point although I keep saying that one must think twice before using an animal analogy in a sensitive racial debate. An average person should know that black people (and many ethnic groups) have been seen as and treated like animals. It's a no-brainer. If you want to reflect on your own writing.
Furthermore, someone who willingly engages in a sensitive racial debate should have some knowledge about stereotypes attached to black people. You engage in such discussion because you feel you are competent and yet in your defense you state you have never heard or forgot about the "old" mule trope. Here is a certain mismatch in my view. Do you know enough about the topic you so eagerly and passionately debate about?
Anyway, as I said many times I have no idea what Jussim was or not thinking when he used the analogy. However, given his way of discussing on Twitter...
The main problem in this scandal or "scandal" is that there was no safety net. The editor invited a non-diverse group of reviewers. That was the first mistake. The second mistake was when the editor decided to "promote" these three peer-reviewers into "debaters" while failing to invite a new group of independent and diverse reviewers to review their submissions. Someone could have spotted the "controversial" analogy. I forgot... the third mistake was when the editor invited Hommel to be a "consultant" regarding Roberts' reply. The fourth mistake (and how I got involved) was Jussim's repeated writing on Twitter that there was nothing wrong with the process: "This is all appropriate review process (except the accusation that Fiedler shared a confidential review, but one would want much more info on that than the accusation--eg, was Hommel a reviewer?). " https://twitter.com/PsychRabble/status/1598728379691405317
Taken all this together... even if someone would accept that Roberts belongs to "social justice warriors... prone to abusing language and logic to denigrate (and socially harm) people they disagree with," the involved "debaters" have given him too many, I seriously mean too many, reasons to complain.
Yes! You've got it exactly right.
You have made several remarks about interacting with anonymous people. Why do you think you post as yourself (Igor, I presume) and most of the people talking about this debate who are at skeptical of the "diversity program" are posting anonymously. Has it dawned on you? You're very close to figuring it out, you know.
Why does Lee Jussim write as himself? How does he dare speak about topics from a perspective, no mater whether he uses an animal metaphor or not, that can get him in serious trouble? You'll have to ask him.
Now, what about the anonymous folks? What's going on there? Let's work it out.
Quoting Igor:
"I mean if you know that the other party can't wait you do something wrong and you are aware of how they operate, will you be very careful about what you write?"
Ding, ding, ding!
You figured it out all on your own. Anyone who wants to talk about this topic that in any way the deviates from the approved message, can either risk their reputation/livelihood, remain silent, or speak while anonymous.
So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts. What sort of person is willing to do that? Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor, and whether it could be taken the wrong way or be misconstrued.
haha So Jussim is actually a hero (unlike you and several others) who bravely accepts to review Hommel paper and bravely uses the horse-mule analogy to further attack Roberts' paper instead of "only" reviewing Hommel's commentary... He is aware of the risks that an animal analogy can be used against him so he thinks hard whether something in that analogy can be easily misinterpreted (even by a researcher who grew up in ex-Yugoslavia), so he even googles mules + racism/black people, (to surprise of anyone able to use google) finds nothing and then bravely decides to publish his commentary and signs it. In your attempt to defend your own decision to discuss anonymously here, you are actually digging a grave for Jussim.
Just noticed (have it in my email) that another anonymous person replied to my question ("Will you? ") I had posted in the first post in this thread with "yes" and then after some thinking decided to delete it;-) Perhaps you should consider doing the same;-) I am not sure Jussim appreciates the way you defend him.
So much confusion in your post. You appear to have entirely missed the point and I have to conclude it's a language barrier.
;-)
"So it takes a different kind of animal, if you will, to put his name next to ideas on diversity that are in any way contra-Roberts."
And that might be? Please help me if my bad English prevents me of understanding. What kind of animal? Brave? I hope you didn't mean stupid?
"Exactly the kind of person who isn't so cautious that they are going to spend hours agonizing over a metaphor"
Hours:))) It takes 15 seconds to google it. I mean if it crosses your mind that an animal analogy in a racial debate might be a little bit insensitive or misinterpreted by those who can't wait you write something wrong... So will you or will you not think whether your writing would be misinterpreted?
Brief commentary on this episode here, about midway through: https://alexanderriley.substack.com/p/your-weekly-woke-report
The mob rules because, I would bet, a lot of the rational, subtle thinkers are afraid to speak up--anyone with anything to lose really. Those who speak up call be tarred with the 'r' word. Otherwise in academia it's a small world. I personally cannot afford to say what I think or even hit the 'like' button on many things I agree with, much less sign a counter-letter. Some guy on Twitter found that most who spoke up against the first letter were white males...which means nothing because you can't count those who don't/can't speak up, and the fact that white males speak up doesn't imply they are wrong (same could be said about the other side). I am not a white male and I think what happened is disgraceful and it's absolutely ridiculous that Lee was labeled a racist. I'm still waiting for someone to say what exactly was racist in all of this...or is it just that Roberts said so and was upset, so it must be true?
In 2022/23, how powerful is the label "racist"? Is it instant social death as it once was, or weakened by it's overuse? How long until it is totally without sting?
Most individuals don't know the actual literal meaning of pedophile. It has zip to do with being sexually attracted to kids who can't legally consent to sex acts.
"People/Person/Writer/Artist/Actor/Student of color", "community/communities of color" & all the other terms like them are the updated terms of the old racist term "Colored". They're a sign of devolution. Not to mention using those terms perpetuate racism instead of lessening it.
They're racist terms masqueraded as progressive/non-racist terms
When someone calls whoever a progressive they are saying that person is an elitist. When someone calls themself a progressive they're saying I'm an elitist.
What is the percentage of true believers in the sample of 1200 vs the percentage of pure opportunists? What does that say about the nature of academic discourse and the current pressures in the field? Who is applying the pressure and why?
The Elect are elect precisely because of their ability to divine racism from the flimsiest of evidence. In fact, the flimsier the evidence, the more elect the diviner!
Roberts is correct that your metaphor was not necessary, but it sure was a convenient opportunity for him to demonstrate his advanced powers. Of course, his response was also not necessary. But he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he just misread it and was not eager to see a racist trope when none was intended.
Reality does not matter... One would think that the 1200 academics presumably can pass reading comprehension test. Yet, they signed this petition based on a demonstrably false statement, that is, a lie, which can be revealed by just reading the "offensive" commentary. Unbelievable...
Great writing on a profoundly important subject. I especially love "regressively progressive academics".
Though I'm a left-winger these academics as well as certain other individuals like them would absolutely hate me
Heh. *I'm* on the left. Ran an Indivisible group in 2017. Its not even that they hate science, that goes too far. They hate anything that challenges their ideological dogmas, whether science, identifiable persons (such as me) or anything else.
As I was reading your article, I didn't connect the mule metaphor with the whole black population until I read where Roberts had made that connection. It appears to me that Roberts is the racist.
This is an underrated point. Almost no one alive is familiar with that trope, its been outdated for 3 generations. Roberts revived it in such a manner that the now almost 1400 academics who signed the open letter, and probably many many more, will not forget it for another generation.
We can think of the 'n' word in the same light. How many sub-literate racist non-blacks are left to use it? Very few, and the numbers shrink daily. But the word remains centrally positioned in our culture almost entirely because black popular culture refuses to let it go. It's too useful a weapon to allow to disappear into history.
1. Roberts’ interpretation of the horse-mule analogy is probably wrong.
2. Mentioning a mule in a sensitive racial “debate” is absolutely wrong.
3. Any social psychologist interested in racial issues should (have) know(n) about the negative connotation of that word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulatto
4. Any intelligent person trying to understand others’ perspectives could (have) guess(ed) that mentioning a mule, the hybrid offspring of a horse and a donkey, can be understood as offensive in a sensitive “debate” about racial inequalities. A mule is not an imperfection because one of the parents was a horse, but because the other parent was of “lower” race.
5. A diverse group of debaters (invited reviewers and editors) could pick that up before it gets accepted.
6. Given your way of discussing on twitter (i.e., ridiculing people), it is not surprising that some (many?) people interpreted your analogy as malicious.
7. Given your testimony, I have no reason to doubt you when you say you were not aware of racist mule trope: “The racist mule trope evaporated 3 generations ago.”
8. Directly accusing you of racism was wrong.
9. However, even if you forgot about the racist mule trope… the main problem, as in my view Roberts tries to argue, is point 5. Not knowing, not being too sensitive… is a direct consequence of a non-existing diversity. -> Roberts is basically right in his general conclusion.
10. I got only recently interested in racial/ethnic inequalities (have one paper under review). I grew up in ex-Yugoslavia and I knew about the racist mule trope. I am so surprised to learn that many Americans and social psychologists have never heard of it.
11. We need more diversity, whatever that means, in order to prevent these things of happening again.
12. I hope you will survive this storm. I wish you well.
Igor Radun https://twitter.com/Liikennepsykol1
Discussing "intelligent people" as though this were a legitimate category, and implicitly opposing it to "unintelligent people," is offensive and probably racist (we all know the implications of using this descriptive in our sensitive culture of racial inequity).
You should have avoided using it.
Now that you have used it, you've opened yourself up to accusations of racism.
Please do better!
Not to mention frequent reference to the very mule trope that could be interpreted as referencing a racist trope, especially in a discussion about sensitive racial issues. By his own standards, this commenter seems to be highly racist, or at the very least highly insensitive, and should be censured.
ohh... I mean seriously guys... it's no wonder woke fanatics are winning when you can't offer anything better than this. Btw, Riley I checked your blog text. No wonder woke fanatics are winning.
Merry Christmas to you too, Igor. Give my regards to Dr. Frankenstein.
I've been reviewing a few old posts, and I can't stop laughing at how this Igor fellow never actually addresses the underlying logic of the points being raised, regardless of how silly the examples might be. It's unclear if he even understands it, since he always reverts to adhom or deflection--"no wonder the wokes have won with silliness like this!" I honestly don't know if he's just trolling or if he's actually convinced himself he's winning these exchanges (nor which would be worse!) which in the event he's a troll I suppose makes him a good one ;-)
I'll give my regards to Dr. Frankenstein. What I don't understand is this "Merry Christmas to you too, Igor." Why do you wish me Merry Christmas? You assume something based on what? You know something I don't know?
Nice try. I wrote "Any intelligent person trying to understand others’ perspectives..." Trying... It should be clear from my writing in this forum that it is about not been interested in others' perspective, not having enough sensitivity about others... On the other hand, my writing is not going to be published in a leading psychology journal. It is only me here. My writing is not supported by the reputation of the major psychology journal.
You lost me at #2. How can you say this with a straight face? Same re: #3 and #4. Note, when APS and american psychologists call for diversity, they are not thinking of you but rather very specific groups that have been ordained to "count", so maybe you should apply #12 to yourself as I don't think APS will be seeking another European editor anytime soon. This could have been an opportunity to understand others better but instead Roberts pulled his stunt and everyone played their roles to a tee, as if putting on a show...
"How can you say this with a straight face? " Thank you another anonymous... Anyway,
Regarding my point 2 "Mentioning a mule in a sensitive racial “debate” is absolutely wrong." "Absolutely"= in my opinion this is certainly wrong. That's my opinion. You can or you don't have to agree.
Regarding points 3 and 4. I just copy/paste here what another researcher has written "Importantly, of the four (author + three commentaries), only one (Jussim) does work that is even remotely related to race. "
https://getsyeducated.substack.com/p/you-also-have-an-ideology
That will give you an idea why all of this has happened. Not knowing or perhaps not even thinking whether "using metaphors about animals in the context of debates about race and diversity" is appropriate or not. Diversity helps. Knowledge helps.
You make some insightful points. But mentioning a storm (as you did in 12) in a sensitive racial debate is absolutely wrong. Storm has long had racist connotations—stormfront, daily stormer, stormtrooper, etc (a lot more on google)—and many will perceive "survive this storm" as a dog whistle, whether you meant it that way or not.
Absolutely dripping with hate! He must be canceled immediately!
Funny. There is only one problem: my comment is not going to be published in a leading scientific journal.
Why does that matter? It will be read here by many people, and it contributes to the general cultural spirit of antiblackness. You should made more careful antiracist analysis of your expression before making it public. Do better!
Don't look for logical consistency because you won't be finding it. Arguably a single tweet has more affect on culture and people's beliefs (and is read and seen more widely) than almost every article.
It matters. And you know it very well. If you think my writing here on this forum has the same weight as a paper published in a leading psychology journal... Perhaps, people should start including tweets and number of likes in their CVs. You can make better arguments, surely.
Okay, but that doesn’t address the underlying point: anyone at any journal could find anything too sensitive to be published for any number of diverse reasons. Unless you truly think one can never be too sensitive when it comes to deciding what’s published. There are obviously costs in both kinds of errors. But as you admit, Roberts got this wrong, so it seems like perhaps people are too sensitive, seeing ghosts where there are none.
"anyone at any journal could find anything too sensitive to be published for any number of diverse reasons. "
Indeed. However, this was supposed to be a debate on a sensitive issue. About racism and racial inequalities. Let's imagine a debate about antisemitism in which a non-Jewish researcher comments on a paper authored by a Jew... and makes some kind of nose-related analogy. Would that be appropriate? Probably not. Because probably everyone knows about that stereotype attached to Jews? My point is that this was a sensitive issue and had the more diverse group of debaters been involved, the mule trope should have been spotted before it was too late.
"Let's imagine a debate about antisemitism in which a non-Jewish researcher comments on a paper authored by a Jew... and makes some kind of nose-related analogy. Would that be appropriate?"
I think it would depend on the context and the intent. If it's clear from the context that there is no intent to imply anything racial--as was the case here--and the analogy was used not in a ham-fisted way but intentionally to make a specific point relevant to the argument, then I would think it totally unreasonable to assume anything nefarious. Akin to an oversensitive smoke alarm going off unnecessarily and stifling discussion. To use your analogy, it would be as if in a debate about anti-Semitism, you wanted to make the larger point that malicious rumors about Jews have furthered anti-Semitism, and you referred to the old Jewish saying, "what you don't see with your eyes don't witness with your mouth"--leading people to accuse you of ableism against blind and dumb people, or at the very least in being insensitive to them (shouldn't we have at least one blind and one dumb person reviewing every paper to ensure proper diversity??).
In fact, in this case, Jussim (a Jew) wrote a commentary on a paper by a white author that was in response to a black author. Claiming Jussim is being insensitive here when he's quoting from Fiddler On the Roof (a play created by two Jews based on a book by a Jew about a Jewish family, with important roots in Jewish culture, tradition, and history) to make a point about diversity is arguably the only racist (anti-Semitic) thing here, or at least the most insensitive.
"My point is that this was a sensitive issue and had the more diverse group of debaters been involved, the mule trope should have been spotted before it was too late."
Is that even true? Is there any reason why we would believe it to be true? I mean, it's an empirical question, but I very much doubt it's true.
I am sorry, but you are actually supporting my argument. Picking an analogy from own cultural heritage while discussing racial inequalities and not knowing about the mule trope, how the analogy could be interpreted by a black author and wider community, or perhaps not even asking yourself whether the analogy is appropriate in that context... not having a diverse "debaters" to pick it up before it gets accepted. To repeat: I was raised in ex-Yugoslavia and I heard about the mule trope. To repeat: in a sensitive discussion about racial inequalities one has to ask themselves whether the animal analogy is appropriate or not. To repeat: a diverse group of "debaters" could have picked that up.
Justifying bad behaviour here - 'Lee should have known he'd lie about what was said'.
We should expect better from academics, telling the truth is a foundation that can't be discarded so idly.
This is a sad episode for the profession.
I am sorry but I barely understand anything you wrote - it's my fault, I know. You just focused on me, whether I am allowed to comment and have an opinion, whether my paper will further my career... nothing, I mean nothing in your comment is connected with anything I wrote. So yes, I do agree, you are just trolling. An anonymous person trolling.
Sure. Still no specific comment on anything I wrote. Where I got it wrong. What was incorrect. What was wrong with my reasoning. No input from you. No contribution whatsoever from you. Only arrogant preaching. I cannot say I am surprised.
My understanding is that “free word association to the easiest unrelated social justice rant” is the winning tactic in most debate competitions these days, as well as actual academic disputes
Another underrated tweet. As I continue the Notes from a Witch Hunt series (and a minimum of 2 more are coming), I am considering one titled something like:
Blame it on the Implicit Association Test
It has, if not exactly caused, been a huge catalyzer on the academic left to see hidden racism and dogwhistles everywhere, because of pretty much what your comment just described, a sort of unconstrained associationism from which one can just about always find a strand of associations that leads to racism.
My next Notes from a Witch Hunt essay will not be on this, exactly, but it will be on how the social justice left can and does turn anything, no matter how innocuous, into evidence of racism, including completely opposite things.
Well, debates these days ain't Shakespeare...
https://youtu.be/Yrx2bv_LoG0