Thread by @adrianzenz

@GolleyJane has publicly endorsed what she calls an anonymous "scholarly paper" on Xinjiang.

This "paper" is a sub-standard work of denialism that thoroughly misrepresents my work, and bills sterilization as XJ "finally implementing family planning."/1
smh.com.au/world/asia/anu…

@GolleyJane prominently endorsed it on TV, saying it was "written by scholars", that she had read it "twice, including the footnotes", and that it was suited to "debunk" key claims about the atrocity.

Instead, it distorts the integrity of my work. /2

https://twitter.com/Nrg8000/status/1384722027425140740

The authors of this "paper" either don't speak any Chinese or chose not engage with a single original source.

Instead, they cherry-picked from bits of my work, misrepresenting its substance and method, and managing to make multiple mistakes in the process. /3

The authors claim that documents don't indicate the nature of the camps, when they in fact plainly state that they are to perform 're-education', are labelled 're-education' facilities, and many have interior fencing, security doors, watchtowers, dedicated police stations. /4

The paper claims that internment durations are in fact only a few days short. This is a misinterpretation (or misrepresentation) of evidence of prior forms of re-education (prior to 2017), which do not apply to current camps. The Karakax List notes a minimum internment of 1 yr./5

The authors summarily dismiss the entire body of Uyghur testimony as coming from a "small number of exiles" who aren't reliable since "all the sources have skin in the game".

The paper doesn't acknowledge their oppression.

This is an affront to the Uyghur community. /6

The authors dismiss a comprehensive body of evidence for forced labor, highlighting only the aspect of Uyghurs having to be obedient to factory management, while ignoring substantial evidence of coercive recruitment and transfers that involve accompanying security forces. /7

In regards to my work on birth prevention, the author likewise chose to ignore some of the most damning evidence, including drastic birth rate declines, high sterilization targets, threats of internment & various draconian measures that directly target minority regions. /8

The paper bills forced birth prevention and sterilization as meaning that Xinjiang is "finally implementing family planning", uncritically echoing Chinese state counterpropaganda on the subject.

Key evidence to the contrary is disregarded - a common strategy of denialism. /9

The paper charges me with "inconsistencies" and "contradictory data points" by citing multiple percentages but without giving adequate context, thus creating an impression of just such an inconsistency.

This is not a critical review of my work, but basically deception. /10

@GolleyJane's high-profile endorsement of this work is not acceptable.

Golley told the media that forced labor is a fuzzy topic: “What if some 30 per of Uighurs are choosing to work?"

Well, that means that up to 70% may not. And I have said as much in my work./11

I personally wouldn't want to wear a piece of clothing that has a 70% chance of being made with forced labor, including potentially by detainees who were just recently released from internment camps. /12

@GolleyJane argues for academic freedom and debate.

However, academic ethics don't permit misrepresenting existing scholarship or dismissing witness accounts. /13

For me, this has crossed a red line.

I am not "attacking" Golley or the authors. They are not victims. The Uyghurs are.

I am however defending the integrity of my work and that of the Uyghur witness community. /14

@GolleyJane has not retracted her endorsement of this paper, which means she - in essence - continues to stand by a work that thoroughly misrepresents almost my entire scholarly work on Xinjiang. /15

It is regrettable if @GolleyJane received inappropriate communication on social media over her comments.

I can forward her screenshots of the nastiest imaginable things people have said about my person, incl. death threats against my family, all because of my research./16