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?
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?
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...
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.
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.
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
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?
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?
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...
Great writing on a profoundly important subject. I especially love "regressively progressive academics".
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.
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
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