5 ms·

“I've Been Fired. If You Value Academic Freedom, That Should Worry You”

29 points by jseliger 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
duxup 7y ago
It's not really clear to me what of any of the concerns about his tweet or other content..... really is. He characterizes a lot of things but but doesn't actually cite it. Clearly he feels some of the accusations are inaccurate, so I guess I get why he wouldn't quote that. But he kinda just alludes to some content of his own making and never says what it really was. The whole article seems like a dance around something. I'm concerned about some of the incidents at universities involving free speech, but I don't feel like the author here is being very forthcoming. Also why does every comment posted under this story seem to disappear after a few minutes?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- db48x 7y ago
  He links to his most recently published article, which has a perfectly understandable abstract (even if you would have to pay to read the rest.) I think he makes it perfectly clear what the objections to this were, and how those objections are inaccurate.
- thu2111 7y ago
  The comments on Quillette are just a mirror of recent comments posted to their forum. If you click through you can see them all there.
eesmith 7y ago
The author is Bo Winegard. RationalWiki at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard summarizes him thus: > Bo Winegard is an American hereditarian psychologist[2], nationalist[3] and pseudoscientist[4] associated with the online "race realist" community.[5] He writes discredited racialist pseudoscience articles for the right-wing online magazine Quillette[6][7][8] and surrounds himself with white nationalists, but complains if he is labelled one. The section "Fired from Marietta College" says: > In March 2020, Winegard was fired from his job as Assistant Professor of Psychology at Marietta College. He later wrote an article for Quillette stating that "many people disagree with my views about human population variation, about conservativism, about immigration, about economics, indeed about almost everything" but complained his sacking was an attack on academic freedom.[10]
- thu2111 7y ago
  Are you quoting RationalWiki to back up his complaint about it in his article? That paragraph matches his summary of what it claims about him, i.e. not exactly 'rational' writing. This is just one more story in a steady stream of such stories. It's pretty clear by now that academia is basically the opposite of what it claims to be. Not sure this new story really adds anything: the world outside of academia already got the message that "academic freedom" is a fiction, if it ever existed at all, and the supposed superiority of academic research is a lie - so much of it doesn't replicate or is just outright buggy. I used to be shocked by this sort of event but now I just wonder what these academics were thinking? Why would anyone stay in academia if they want to explore topics the hard-left ideologically rejects? It's obvious how that ends, now. Also: his mistake was apologising. He shouldn't have agreed that his tweets were badly worded or that he'd be more "strategic". If you're the victim of this sort of attack the right strategy is to attack back, strongly. You don't try and compromise with anonymous complainants, ever.
  - throwaway68888 7y ago
    The reason "academia" rejects him isn't because his claims are somehow disturbing or controversial - it's because they're scientifically bogus and there's enough reason to believe that he's not arguing in good faith. Scientists make plenty of controversial claims and aren't afraid to be vocal about it - see climate change, or the harmful effects of many products like tobacco, which used to be (and in many cases, still are) largely ignored by the general population.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I'm quoting RationalWiki because invariably - on topics which I understand - whatever I read on Quillette is whacky nonsense, while the summaries from RationalWiki are much better aligned to my independently drawn conclusions. Basically, I don't trust Quillette. Which you can see from earlier comments of mine - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=eesmith%20quillette&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... . ("More Quillette nonsense." and "I don't understand why people keep linking to Quillette. Just about every article I've read from them seems like poor-quality scholarship.") I also don't trust editorials (even in large corporate media like the NYT) - and this is an editorial. And because my understanding of "evolutionary biology" is that the field is close to a joke, full of just-so stories which are not based on evolution, anthropology, or history. (See https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-probably-isnt-possible/ https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-... ) So there are several strikes against me placing trust in the honesty of this piece. Academia is hard-left? LOL! Who's been brainwashing you? At best it's American mid-left, which is far from hard-left. Do we see most professors marching in support for unions for college employees and grad students? Do we see professors on strike for increased salaries for grad students and adjuncts? Do we see massive numbers of professors advocating for free college education for all, and against the MBA takeover of universities? No. Even then, those position wouldn't be hard-left - that would be average European.
link1922 7y ago
“I’ve been fired. If you value quality control, that should thrill you. Especially if you drive today’s cars or fly in airplanes.”
throwaway68888 7y ago
The way you tell these people are grifters and not serious scientists is that they keep writing the same article every single time. But then, what could you expect from a magazine whose pitch is literally "right-wing rejects from academia"

29 points by jseliger 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

It's not really clear to me what of any of the concerns about his tweet or other content..... really is. He characterizes a lot of things but but doesn't actually cite it. Clearly he feels some of the accusations are inaccurate, so I guess I get why he wouldn't quote that. But he kinda just alludes to some content of his own making and never says what it really was. The whole article seems like a dance around something. I'm concerned about some of the incidents at universities involving free speech, but I don't feel like the author here is being very forthcoming. Also why does every comment posted under this story seem to disappear after a few minutes?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
db48x 7y ago
He links to his most recently published article, which has a perfectly understandable abstract (even if you would have to pay to read the rest.) I think he makes it perfectly clear what the objections to this were, and how those objections are inaccurate.
thu2111 7y ago
The comments on Quillette are just a mirror of recent comments posted to their forum. If you click through you can see them all there.

eesmith 7y ago

The author is Bo Winegard. RationalWiki at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bo_Winegard summarizes him thus: > Bo Winegard is an American hereditarian psychologist[2], nationalist[3] and pseudoscientist[4] associated with the online "race realist" community.[5] He writes discredited racialist pseudoscience articles for the right-wing online magazine Quillette[6][7][8] and surrounds himself with white nationalists, but complains if he is labelled one. The section "Fired from Marietta College" says: > In March 2020, Winegard was fired from his job as Assistant Professor of Psychology at Marietta College. He later wrote an article for Quillette stating that "many people disagree with my views about human population variation, about conservativism, about immigration, about economics, indeed about almost everything" but complained his sacking was an attack on academic freedom.[10]

thu2111 7y ago
Are you quoting RationalWiki to back up his complaint about it in his article? That paragraph matches his summary of what it claims about him, i.e. not exactly 'rational' writing. This is just one more story in a steady stream of such stories. It's pretty clear by now that academia is basically the opposite of what it claims to be. Not sure this new story really adds anything: the world outside of academia already got the message that "academic freedom" is a fiction, if it ever existed at all, and the supposed superiority of academic research is a lie - so much of it doesn't replicate or is just outright buggy. I used to be shocked by this sort of event but now I just wonder what these academics were thinking? Why would anyone stay in academia if they want to explore topics the hard-left ideologically rejects? It's obvious how that ends, now. Also: his mistake was apologising. He shouldn't have agreed that his tweets were badly worded or that he'd be more "strategic". If you're the victim of this sort of attack the right strategy is to attack back, strongly. You don't try and compromise with anonymous complainants, ever.
- throwaway68888 7y ago
  The reason "academia" rejects him isn't because his claims are somehow disturbing or controversial - it's because they're scientifically bogus and there's enough reason to believe that he's not arguing in good faith. Scientists make plenty of controversial claims and aren't afraid to be vocal about it - see climate change, or the harmful effects of many products like tobacco, which used to be (and in many cases, still are) largely ignored by the general population.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I'm quoting RationalWiki because invariably - on topics which I understand - whatever I read on Quillette is whacky nonsense, while the summaries from RationalWiki are much better aligned to my independently drawn conclusions. Basically, I don't trust Quillette. Which you can see from earlier comments of mine - https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&query=eesmith%20quillette&sort=byPopularity&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... . ("More Quillette nonsense." and "I don't understand why people keep linking to Quillette. Just about every article I've read from them seems like poor-quality scholarship.") I also don't trust editorials (even in large corporate media like the NYT) - and this is an editorial. And because my understanding of "evolutionary biology" is that the field is close to a joke, full of just-so stories which are not based on evolution, anthropology, or history. (See https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-probably-isnt-possible/ https://evolution-institute.org/why-evolutionary-psychology-... ) So there are several strikes against me placing trust in the honesty of this piece. Academia is hard-left? LOL! Who's been brainwashing you? At best it's American mid-left, which is far from hard-left. Do we see most professors marching in support for unions for college employees and grad students? Do we see professors on strike for increased salaries for grad students and adjuncts? Do we see massive numbers of professors advocating for free college education for all, and against the MBA takeover of universities? No. Even then, those position wouldn't be hard-left - that would be average European.

link1922 7y ago

“I’ve been fired. If you value quality control, that should thrill you. Especially if you drive today’s cars or fly in airplanes.”

throwaway68888 7y ago

The way you tell these people are grifters and not serious scientists is that they keep writing the same article every single time. But then, what could you expect from a magazine whose pitch is literally "right-wing rejects from academia"