7 ms·

Stanford Professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya: ‘Academic freedom is dead’

41 points by cm_silva 4y ago

hexane360 4y ago
For those (like me) not familiar with the site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-college-fix/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-college-fix/
ALittleLight 4y ago
As I get older I become more and more disenchanted with, it's hard to say, what, exactly - America? Performance in the pandemic, refusal to even consider different ideas, rhetoric around elections and so on. Shameful that scientists and doctors are silenced when they disagree with our largely unelected leaders - but much worse and much more shameful is that the people responsible for our terrible COVID response will remain in power - same as the people responsible for foreign policy disasters and so on.
- alexfromapex 4y ago
  America has been an oligarchy for a long time but it's becoming super apparent because of the pandemic. Also, things like cancel culture, the two party duopoly, and weaponized social justice are not helping anything and leading to a form of progressive fascism that is killing the country by killing productive debates. Super good quotation from the article: “The thought was, if you platform me, it’s a dangerous thing,” Bhattacharya said. “You know what’s dangerous? Is to not platform me. If you have a legitimate scientific view, a legitimate policy view, then not speak of it, then essentially what it does is it sends a message that we do not care about the truth.”
entropicgravity 4y ago
Scientific progress proceeds one funeral at a time. Preferably by natural causes.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
It sounds like he took a controversial opinion during a time of great fear and death, and wasn’t fired or in any way censored by his workplace. He continued to enjoy substantial access to politicians and the press, and someone wrote and stuck up a mean poster about him (which he describes as a physical threat, but doesn’t seem to have actually been according to the description.) Academic freedom means the right to say unpopular things without losing your job. If you want to see what the opposite of that is, take a look at the McCarthy era or some of the professors who lost their jobs for saying unpopular things about US allies.
- JamesianP 4y ago
  Specifically a controversial opinion precisely within his academic field at a time when the topic mattered the most. Authoritarian societies will let you freely say non-controversial things too. He is not just complaining about students but also the administration not acting to defend him. The article directly claims censorship occurred. Perhaps they mean self-censorship due to fear. It does still count, though perhaps some few isolated threats may seem a lot worse to the target than they seem to others (go figure).
- spfzero 4y ago
  Or just take a look at all of the academics who have lost their jobs for saying unpopular things in the last few years. You don't have to go back to McCarthy, it's right here now.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    Could you provide a list just so I know who you’re talking about.
    - zsz 4y ago
      There's no list (comprehensive or otherwise), but FIRE's (www.thefire.org) work relates specifically to freedom of speech-related issues on college campuses that receive any sort of federal funding and are at least theoretically (i.e. by law) required to observe certain related standards. And I say "in theory," because if you take some time perusing their website, you get a good idea of how out of control academia in the U.S. is these days. To whet your appetite, here are just two of them: Mount Holyoke College: Event Hosts Must Recite Mandatory Land Acknowledgement as a Statement of Personal Beliefs (https://www.thefire.org/cases/mount-holyoke-college-event-hosts-must-recite-mandatory-land-acknowledgement-statement https://www.thefire.org/cases/mount-holyoke-college-event-ho...) -Quoting from the summary: "As the statement is written in the first person, it forces speakers to recite the land acknowledgement as if it reflects their own personal beliefs." Survey shows majority of college students feel ‘intimidated’ to share opinion, unlikely to disagree with professor (https://www.thefire.org/news/survey-shows-majority-college-students-feel-intimidated-share-opinion-unlikely-disagree https://www.thefire.org/news/survey-shows-majority-college-s...) -Quotes: -“More students are intimidated from speaking freely and more students are willing to intimidate others from speaking freely than at any time in the history of the survey.” -Almost half (48%) of students erroneously believe that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech; while 44% believe, correctly, that it does. This is the first time more students said that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and represents a 17% increase over the 31% of students who said this in 2017. -Disturbingly, almost half of them [students] said that in some circumstances the death penalty is an appropriate form of punishment for offensive expression [!!!].
andsoitis 4y ago
I recommend reading some of the articles he’s written about COVID as well as consider when they were written (like the one in the WSJ from March 2020 entitled “Is the Coronavirus as deadly as they say?”), against the backdrop of uncertainty and medical systems under heavy strain and some cities like NYC unable to cope with the volume of deaths and inability to treat other patients, and then compare that with his proposed strategy of driving towards herd immunity while trying to protect the vulnerable, etc. From where I sit, his experience isn’t quite one of academic freedom, but rather that he tried to change and influence policy, which backfired. I’m open to being wrong though.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  The WHO published a paper estimating the aggregate IFR to be ~0.2% and suggested social distancing measures targeting the most at risk [1]. Essentially the WHO changed its stance to match what Jay was arguing for. 1. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7...
  - microtherion 4y ago
    Using a Ioannidis paper to back Bhattacharya. The perfect crankception.
    - Manuel_D 4y ago
      Are there specific criticisms of methodology you want to make? Or is the simple fact that you disagree with the conclusions enough for you to discount the study?
      - microtherion 4y ago
        First of all, the two are both geographically and ideologically closely related — it's like "proving" Marx was right by quoting Engels. Second, the 0.2% IFR is patent nonsense. To pick only one example, Russia had an excess mortality of 1.22 million people in 2020-2022 [1]. A 0.2% IFR would imply 610 million infections. Russia has a population of 146 million, so every single inhabitant would have had more than 4 infections on average (with zero cross infection immunity). There were several regions in the world where in September 2000, when this paper appeared and multiple infections were not very common yet, more than 0.2% of the population had died already. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-covid?country=USA~RUS~MEX~BRA~IRN~PER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-...
musicale 4y ago
Stanford didn't shut Bhattacharya down, but I think he has a point that Stanford probably isn't a great place for public debate or discourse on controversial and/or political topics. Even something as seemingly appropriate and educational as hosting a prominent former government official (Mike Pence) can be controversial - some students arguing[1] that he should not be invited to the university, lest it be seen as a tacit endorsement of his ideas, policies, and rhetorical tone. Pence's topic ("Save America from the Woke Left") presumably irked them further. “The main goal of the protest is to demonstrate the fact that we don’t want to tolerate someone who spouts very hateful rhetoric coming on campus,” one of the frosh protesters said [1]. To Stanford's credit, Pence was permitted to speak, with minimal disruptions [2]. As I understand it, most faculty don't seem particularly interested in wading into the morass. Perhaps they think that Stanford's (presumably intelligent) students should be able to figure out the obvious on their own. [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/17/students-plan-protests-walk-outs-ahead-of-mike-pence-scr-event/ https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/17/students-plan-protests-... [2] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/18/pence-calls-on-students-to-be-the-freedom-generation-embrace-conservative-values/ https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/18/pence-calls-on-students...

41 points by cm_silva 4y ago

For those (like me) not familiar with the site: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-college-fix/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-college-fix/

ALittleLight 4y ago

As I get older I become more and more disenchanted with, it's hard to say, what, exactly - America? Performance in the pandemic, refusal to even consider different ideas, rhetoric around elections and so on. Shameful that scientists and doctors are silenced when they disagree with our largely unelected leaders - but much worse and much more shameful is that the people responsible for our terrible COVID response will remain in power - same as the people responsible for foreign policy disasters and so on.

alexfromapex 4y ago
America has been an oligarchy for a long time but it's becoming super apparent because of the pandemic. Also, things like cancel culture, the two party duopoly, and weaponized social justice are not helping anything and leading to a form of progressive fascism that is killing the country by killing productive debates. Super good quotation from the article: “The thought was, if you platform me, it’s a dangerous thing,” Bhattacharya said. “You know what’s dangerous? Is to not platform me. If you have a legitimate scientific view, a legitimate policy view, then not speak of it, then essentially what it does is it sends a message that we do not care about the truth.”

entropicgravity 4y ago

Scientific progress proceeds one funeral at a time. Preferably by natural causes.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

It sounds like he took a controversial opinion during a time of great fear and death, and wasn’t fired or in any way censored by his workplace. He continued to enjoy substantial access to politicians and the press, and someone wrote and stuck up a mean poster about him (which he describes as a physical threat, but doesn’t seem to have actually been according to the description.) Academic freedom means the right to say unpopular things without losing your job. If you want to see what the opposite of that is, take a look at the McCarthy era or some of the professors who lost their jobs for saying unpopular things about US allies.

JamesianP 4y ago
Specifically a controversial opinion precisely within his academic field at a time when the topic mattered the most. Authoritarian societies will let you freely say non-controversial things too. He is not just complaining about students but also the administration not acting to defend him. The article directly claims censorship occurred. Perhaps they mean self-censorship due to fear. It does still count, though perhaps some few isolated threats may seem a lot worse to the target than they seem to others (go figure).
spfzero 4y ago
Or just take a look at all of the academics who have lost their jobs for saying unpopular things in the last few years. You don't have to go back to McCarthy, it's right here now.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  Could you provide a list just so I know who you’re talking about.
  - zsz 4y ago
    There's no list (comprehensive or otherwise), but FIRE's (www.thefire.org) work relates specifically to freedom of speech-related issues on college campuses that receive any sort of federal funding and are at least theoretically (i.e. by law) required to observe certain related standards. And I say "in theory," because if you take some time perusing their website, you get a good idea of how out of control academia in the U.S. is these days. To whet your appetite, here are just two of them: Mount Holyoke College: Event Hosts Must Recite Mandatory Land Acknowledgement as a Statement of Personal Beliefs (https://www.thefire.org/cases/mount-holyoke-college-event-hosts-must-recite-mandatory-land-acknowledgement-statement https://www.thefire.org/cases/mount-holyoke-college-event-ho...) -Quoting from the summary: "As the statement is written in the first person, it forces speakers to recite the land acknowledgement as if it reflects their own personal beliefs." Survey shows majority of college students feel ‘intimidated’ to share opinion, unlikely to disagree with professor (https://www.thefire.org/news/survey-shows-majority-college-students-feel-intimidated-share-opinion-unlikely-disagree https://www.thefire.org/news/survey-shows-majority-college-s...) -Quotes: -“More students are intimidated from speaking freely and more students are willing to intimidate others from speaking freely than at any time in the history of the survey.” -Almost half (48%) of students erroneously believe that the First Amendment does not protect hate speech; while 44% believe, correctly, that it does. This is the first time more students said that hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and represents a 17% increase over the 31% of students who said this in 2017. -Disturbingly, almost half of them [students] said that in some circumstances the death penalty is an appropriate form of punishment for offensive expression [!!!].

andsoitis 4y ago

I recommend reading some of the articles he’s written about COVID as well as consider when they were written (like the one in the WSJ from March 2020 entitled “Is the Coronavirus as deadly as they say?”), against the backdrop of uncertainty and medical systems under heavy strain and some cities like NYC unable to cope with the volume of deaths and inability to treat other patients, and then compare that with his proposed strategy of driving towards herd immunity while trying to protect the vulnerable, etc. From where I sit, his experience isn’t quite one of academic freedom, but rather that he tried to change and influence policy, which backfired. I’m open to being wrong though.

Manuel_D 4y ago
The WHO published a paper estimating the aggregate IFR to be ~0.2% and suggested social distancing measures targeting the most at risk [1]. Essentially the WHO changed its stance to match what Jay was arguing for. 1. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7947934.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340124/PMC7...
- microtherion 4y ago
  Using a Ioannidis paper to back Bhattacharya. The perfect crankception.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Are there specific criticisms of methodology you want to make? Or is the simple fact that you disagree with the conclusions enough for you to discount the study?
    - microtherion 4y ago
      First of all, the two are both geographically and ideologically closely related — it's like "proving" Marx was right by quoting Engels. Second, the 0.2% IFR is patent nonsense. To pick only one example, Russia had an excess mortality of 1.22 million people in 2020-2022 [1]. A 0.2% IFR would imply 610 million infections. Russia has a population of 146 million, so every single inhabitant would have had more than 4 infections on average (with zero cross infection immunity). There were several regions in the world where in September 2000, when this paper appeared and multiple infections were not very common yet, more than 0.2% of the population had died already. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-covid?country=USA~RUS~MEX~BRA~IRN~PER https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-excess-deaths-...

musicale 4y ago

Stanford didn't shut Bhattacharya down, but I think he has a point that Stanford probably isn't a great place for public debate or discourse on controversial and/or political topics. Even something as seemingly appropriate and educational as hosting a prominent former government official (Mike Pence) can be controversial - some students arguing[1] that he should not be invited to the university, lest it be seen as a tacit endorsement of his ideas, policies, and rhetorical tone. Pence's topic ("Save America from the Woke Left") presumably irked them further. “The main goal of the protest is to demonstrate the fact that we don’t want to tolerate someone who spouts very hateful rhetoric coming on campus,” one of the frosh protesters said [1]. To Stanford's credit, Pence was permitted to speak, with minimal disruptions [2]. As I understand it, most faculty don't seem particularly interested in wading into the morass. Perhaps they think that Stanford's (presumably intelligent) students should be able to figure out the obvious on their own. [1] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/17/students-plan-protests-walk-outs-ahead-of-mike-pence-scr-event/ https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/17/students-plan-protests-... [2] https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/18/pence-calls-on-students-to-be-the-freedom-generation-embrace-conservative-values/ https://stanforddaily.com/2022/02/18/pence-calls-on-students...