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..."
Here is text from 1964 US Civil Rights Law: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer for an employer to -- (1) to fail or refuse to hire...any individual...because of such individual's race, color... or national origin."
Perhaps APA believes that calling this a "fellowship" gets around prohibitions against employment discrimination. I would hope that would fail in court, but I do not know. Nonetheless, APA is housed in Washington DC, and DC has a law for just this:
Here is the DC Law:
"It is the intent of the Council of the District of Columbia, in enacting this unit, to secure an end in the District of Columbia to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit,"
[continued]code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/…
"including, but not limited to, discrimination by reason of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, personal appearance, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression..."
SCOTUS decisions way older than the most recent one have repeatedly rejected regressive notions that innocent individuals in the present must pay a penalty to redress historical grievances.
From Bakke (1978), rejecting regressive notions of redressing grievances:
"There is no principled basis for deciding which groups would merit 'heightened judicial solicitude' and which would not."
More Bakke:
"There are serious problems of justice connected with the idea of preference itself. First, it may not always be clear that a so-called preference is, in fact, benign."
Bakke: "...there is a measure of inequity in forcing innocent persons...to bear the burdens of redressing grievances not of their making...constitutional limitations protecting individual rights may not be disregarded..."
So, Aidan, please tell us why you think this "fellowship" program does not violate U.S. and DC law protecting individual rights and requiring that hiring be based on merit.
END
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
Ok, you can't make this up. Apex journal Nature is in free fall. The centerpiece of this article: nature.com/articles/s4156…
is a cartoon.
Short Thread, 1/n.
I started reading it. Early on, it says this:
"...in many ways, the experience for minoritized scholars is more like a vicious or hostile obstacle course5,6,7,8,9,10"
The #'s, 5-10, are references. So I looked up the first one, "reference" 5 (scare quote justification incoming).
Here is reference 5. It's an f'ing tweet! Nature paper's centerpiece is a cartoon and its "scientific" reference is a tweet! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Pirate Strike!
Paper shown JUST accepted at bigtime psych journal (Perspectives on Psych Sci).
On the disingenuousness of "diversity" as deployed in psychology & academia. (who, besides your fav pirate could get such a paper accepted)?
🧵
If you haven't yet, please consider donating (I have 2x). Like the Oberlin Bake Shop, this is a fight for due process and against public slander.
DK the Oberlin Bake Shop Story?
A few links incoming.🧵