Remember when Jeffrey Sachs argued that: 1. There is no free speech crisis on campus
& (sic) 2. The (nonexistent) free speech crisis was over?
No? (see below).
Thread 1/n
W/(dare I say it?) data that "disrupts" that narrative or (dare I say it?) a "close look at the evidence."
First, let's dispense with the "crisis" narrative. The term is both subjective and extreme. Has climate change turned the world into a flaming pit of Hell? Is Covid the worst plague humanity has ever seen?
No? So we're all good, right?
Sachs has also claimed "its not my fault, I did not provide the titles, the editors did it!" This is true, but so what? Why did the editors give it those titles? Because they believed the titles captured the thematic points of the articles.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education recently posted data on scholars targeted for sanctions for expressing ideas. Here is a brief summary of the data.
IDK about "crisis" but "nothing to see here?" ENDED?
Looks like it has been picking up steam.
Then there is @epkaufm's report filled with over 100 tables worth of data. Here is the headline, but the report is publicly available. Summary here: cspicenter.org/reports/academ…
If you have not read it, you should consider doing so.
Here are just a few findings. Staggering numbers of faculty ("SSH staff" refers to social sciences & humanities faculty) and grads ENDORSE sanctioning colleagues for their ideas. Grads are the next generation.
It is going to get worse before it gets worse.
Iceberg model: The most severe threats are rare but built on much larger foundations of less severe threats.
What we have here is a full scale failure of academia, on politicized topics, to do anything other than become a vehicle for left activists. It is, in essence, a purge of those unwilling to toe left-activist sacred values and lines.
This is plausibly described as a slow-moving purge of nonleftists from the academy.
Shown here are two models attempting to capture how this works. Left, Kaufmann's model. Right, mine.
Think about it. Extremes are really a very small proportion of the population, typically under 10%.
But if (for all practical purposes) EVERYONE is on one side of the spectrum, even if there was no additional selection for extremists & activists, you would get FAR larger proportions of extremists and activists. Which, in academia, we do. Left, Gross's data. Right, Kaufmann's.
Why is this important? Recent work by independent teams has discovered that left wing authoritarianism is alive and well in the good old USofA.
Hell, if you follow academics at all, you can SEE behavioral manifestations of LWA, such as social vigilantism and attempts to shut people up for wrongthink. Meme on right was popular among academics on tw around the election.
And of course, what goes on academia rarely stays in academia. Long list of "cancellation" attacks here, many academics and many non-academics. threadreaderapp.com/thread/1282404…
As a result of these "nonexistent" threats that "ended" years ago, we have had a steady rise in self-censorship going back to the 1950s. persuasion.community/p/americans-ar…
Why? Because, over the last 2 decades, we traded in our culture of freedom and acceptance of differences for a cultural of social vigilantism and localized cultural authoritarianism. psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble…
Is all lost? I have no clue. I don't do the crystal ball thing.
I do suspect that things are going to get worse before they get worse.
BUT
A slew of new organizations are mobilizing against this rising American Authoritarianism. @Counter_Weight_ @fairforall_org @AFA_Alliance
and others that will be announced soon.
We are all figuring out how to do this "combating localized, non-govt forms of authoritarianism" thing.
It won't be easy and it won't be short. But it will be worth it.
In honor of this stupidity, I thread here an incomplete list of the White administrators and faculty at elite U's that have been forced out for: 1. Ethics violations 2. No ethics violation at all.
🧵
Its worth remembering that, whether or not they "defended" firings, they denied that "cancel culture" was a thing and *justified* punishing targets & *implemented* firings, suspensions & retracting papers) with variations of "look how evil that person is."
🧵w/receipts.
First, the firings. When possible, I purposely chose some of the most obvious glorification of the firings. Like here: theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
David Shor, fired for Tweeting a peer reviewed sociology article showing that peaceful protests are more effective than violent ones at persuading people. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
Dear Aidan,
Please explain how this ad is NOT in violation of U.S. and Washington DC (where APA, the society sponsoring this journal, is housed) laws prohibiting discrimination based on race.
🧵 ending in END.
The ad, shown in full above, includes:
"In service of APA's commitment to EDI... APA Publishing's fellowship program seeks to elevate leadership opportunities for ECP's (early career psychologists) from communities that have been historically underrepresented..." It explains:
"Such individuals include, but are not limited to, psychologists who are Black, Indigenous, or other people of color and ethnicities..."
Introducing the new Journal of Open Inquiry in the Behavioral Sciences. And we mean "new" not just "another." 1/2
Spread the word to those who pub behavioral sciences.
@lakens @CJFerguson1111 @MattGrossmann @JukkaSavo @JonHaidt @peterboghossian @a_m_mastroianni, @RickCarlsson @CHSommers @chrisdc77 @profyancey @ImHardcory @yorl @minzlicht @MarcusCrede @sociologyWV @primalpoly @SteveStuWill
Also, @HSJSpeaks, @lastpositivist, @Docstockk, @olivertraldi (note to philosophers: We currently have a paper under review by Holly Lawford-Smith). Journal practices inspired by @jon_rauch. @StuartJRitchie (see top tws⬆️).
THREAD
Academia continues to embarass itself. Paper retracted for absurd concocted reason (way worse than "technicality"). wsj.com/articles/medic…
1/n
From the WSJ article:
"While the respondents consented to the publication of the survey’s results, Springer insists they didn’t specifically agree to publication in a scholarly or peer-reviewed journal. That’s a strange and retrospective requirement" 2/n
How this works now -- see @JukkaSavo's thread and paper:
Unequal Treatment Under the Flaw,
on why retractions are no longer for fraud, they are in response to activists who identify flaws that are never used to retract papers that don't piss off activists.
@AndrewJ73405114@HonestNauman@Komi_Frey@Stanford If anyone is "looking for" ways to be concerned, they sure don't need to look very hard. Reply 🧵
1/n.
The initiative clearly is at Stanford & whole pt of "initiative" is to persuade others to adopt, well, what shall we call this?
@AndrewJ73405114@HonestNauman@Komi_Frey@Stanford Steelman: "New norms for inclusive language."
Alternative view: "Language policing."
Why? Because of widespread *enforcement* of these "new norms" through punishments.