Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

  1. #1
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    On Friday, The Times reported Cambridge scholar Noah Carl ‘sacked for questioning sacred left’. Noah is reportedly a gifted research fellow, with a Bachelors in Human Science, a Masters in Science, and a PhD in Philosophy. So he’s smarter than 99% of people on this forum. His high-profile research has been cited by The Guardian and The Economist.

    Dr Carl was accused of ‘racist pseudoscience’ in a petition signed by 500 academics. However, the petition gave zero evidence of this. A spokesman on Politics Live that I watched went on to defend the decision on Friday, he kept saying how this was about opposing Islamophobia and defending diversity and inclusion. What he didn’t do, was offer one single example of how Noah Carl was an extremist, nor explain why extemism shouldn’t be tolerated. If it’s okay to be Marxist in Uni, then it goes the other way, right?

    The only valid criticisms made against him were two lightweight pieces in two journals. But as Spiked reported:
    Cambridge colleges do not make a habit of terminating research fellows at the beginning of their tenure merely because of a few dud articles in a line of very good ones. Indeed, Sir Patrick Elias, the very shrewd retired judge (and ex-Cambridge academic lawyer to boot) who was asked to investigate the appointment process, was forthright: the college had, he said, ‘fairly selected the best candidate’. Given the keenness of competition for research fellowships, that is highly telling.
    The attacks against him are undoubtedly political ones masquerading as academic.

    Dr Carl responded to accusations of racism with finality:
    Given that the open letter demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the relevant science, it would seem that 586 academics can indeed all be wrong. For example, as Jeff McMahan pointed out in his comments for the first Quillette Editorial
    One passage in the open letter demands that the various institutions cited “issue a public statement dissociating themselves from research that seeks to establish correlations between race, genes, intelligence and criminality in order to explain one by the other.” This seems to imply that it is illegitimate to seek to explain any one of the four characteristics by reference to any one of the others, and thus that no aspect of intelligence can be explained by an individual’s genes. I would not trust the competence of anyone who endorses a claim that has that implication to judge the work of a candidate for a research fellowship.

    And Professor McMahan is absolutely correct: the signatories of the open letter were calling for St Edmund’s College to “issue a public statement dissociating themselves” from research backed by overwhelming scientific evidence. In fact, the contribution of genes to variation in human intelligence has been widely accepted by psychologists since
    1996, when the report ‘Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns’ was published by the American Psychological Associatio (APA). This report, co-authored by Professor Ulric Neisser and his colleagues in the aftermath of The Bell Curve debate, concluded that “a sizable part of the variation in intelligence test scores is associated with genetic differences among individuals”. Evidence for a genetic contribution to variation in human intelligence has only strengthened since the publication of the APA report.
    I reccomend you read the entire FAQ he wrote on his Medium blog, it gives a full summary and explanation.

    The firing was mostly campaigned for by student groups, claiming his presence on campus was ‘hurtful’ and ‘offensive’. On the contary, this is a rejection of diversity and inclusion, lynching the careers of people they disagree with.

    The Times reported:
    At a conference on free speech in Oxford yesterday, Dr Carl set out evidence on over-representation of left-wing views in British academia. He said four studies found that in 1960 about a third of academics supported Conservatives and 45 per cent Labour. By 2015, 11 per cent supported the Conservatives and about 70 per cent Labour.
    It does seem that Academia, in particular sociology which is Carl’s department, is dominated by progressives and socialists. This disproportion is being used to stifle free discussion and inquiry, in order to ensure anything politically incorrect is not pursued, no matter whether or not it is factually correct.

    He said this had a number of adverse consequences on campuses. “There is denial and mischaracterisation of research believed to threaten certain left-wing sacred values. I would argue I’ve been a victim of that myself, and many other people in controversial fields such as IQ research and other fields where some content appears to threaten left-wing values,” he said.
    Quillette has a great editorial on the story you should go read. You should also sign the statement attached to defend academic freedom against political censorship if you are an Academic or similar.

    If anyone reading this disagrees with me, and believes that Dr Carl should not be allowed to contribute to science, tell me one thing he has done that is genuinely beyond the pale.

    Source - Spiked

    If this is right, the sanctimonious reiteration at the end of the master’s statement of the college’s commitment to academic free speech rings somewhat hollow. What really mattered, it seems, was saving the college’s record as a promoter of diversity, inclusion and the abhorrence of racism. The image was everything; the principle of free speech, and the idea of a college as a place for debate and vigorous argument, came a poor second.
    Last edited by Aexodus; May 12, 2019 at 12:16 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    This seems to be the paper they're most upset about:

    Abstract: Public beliefs about immigrants and immigration are widely regarded as erroneous. For example, members of the public typically overestimate the immigrant fraction of the population by ∼10–15 percentage points. On the other hand, consensual stereotypes about the respective characteristics of different groups (e.g., sexes, races, nationalities) are generally found to be quite accurate. The present study shows that, in the UK, net opposition to immigrants of different nationalities (n = 23) correlates strongly with the log of immigrant arrests rates (r = .77; p = 0.00002; 95 % CI = [.52, .90]) and with the log of their arrest rates for violent crime (r = .77; p = 0.00001; 95 % CI = [.52, .90]). This is particularly noteworthy given that Britons reportedly think that an immigrant’s criminal history should be one of the most important characteristics when considering whether he or she should be allowed into the country. In bivariate models, the associations are not wholly accounted for by a general opposition to non-Whites, non-Westerners, foreigners who do not speak English, Muslims, or those from countries with low average IQ. While circumstantial in nature, the study’s findings suggest that public beliefs about the relative positions of different immigrant groups may be reasonably accurate.
    There are some caveats he could have added that would have given himself a bit better protection from this sort of thing. He should have looked at Lee Jussim's work on the accuracy of stereotypes. In short, the broad conceptions are often much more accurate predictors than anything social sciences have themselves come up with (wisdom of crowds sort of thing), but people tend to overestimate how likely such conceptions are to apply to any particular individual. Which is likely a product of evolutionary advantageous negativity bias. Distrusting and being wrong tends to be less costly than trusting and being wrong, for example.
    Last edited by sumskilz; May 12, 2019 at 02:05 PM. Reason: wrote "more" when I meant "less"
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  3. #3
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    It is absolutely horrifying things like this are seemingly seeping into British academia (or any states academic body). Controversial research has in the past cost careers sure, but rarely, and usually through the peer review process and the debates of ideas with other academics in the 'marketplace of free ideas', which weeds out bogus or silly avenues of research and subsequently destroys and gifts credibility and authority. However, it always has been and always should be entirely valid for someone to pursue such a thing (and i'm not saying Dr Carl's research was silly or bogus, i haven't properly looked), providing they can get the backing and funding required, without fear of some kind of weird 'political mob' forming to stop them, its the role of subsequent academic debate in journals, across the internet, in reviews etc. It is not the place for a political mob to decide. If this is allowed to happen, and if Universities as here, cave to 'popular' pressure, not only are we ruining careers unfairly, and skewing the 'free market of ideas' , but also you fundamentally destroy research output and practice as academics come to tailor their research into narrow 'acceptable' areas to play it safe, and in doing so, who knows what might be lost?

    There is already a problem with this in the UK as spiraling fees for Postgraduates has meant they are now 'playing it safe' in terms of research topic and areas, concentrating more on working in areas, and in ways that will be more likely to get them a 'good result' for their qualification, than as in the past when ground-breaking and risky research was undertaken using entirely new models that opened up whole new areas of study. We can't compound this culture of risk-adverse research by adding in political whining, again any issues with the ethics, premise or whatever else of the research piece will be picked out during its writing or after its been published as it gets torn to shreds (or not) by the writers peers.

    If this becomes increasingly common, i really will despair. The UK already suffers from a rather sub-standard postgraduate system. The shortening of a PHD to 3 years, and the fact you can get now in some Universities an undergraduate and MA combo within 3 years is frightening. While this is to produce more graduates faster and to try and keep spiraling costs slightly lower, it is predicted to have a deteriorating effect on the quality of researchers and our international reputation. So, great to see other problems are arising too now that will put postgraduates and new academics off kilter even further.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  4. #4

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    One of the negative consequences of this is that it tends to discredit all science among the more conservative minded and other groups. All the claims that the majority of climate scientist can be dismissed since the liberal bias currently existing in academia meant that any dissenting scirne didn't follow the politically correct on global warming were just forced out the of the field, and cite examples like this as proof. If even tenured professors can be forced out, hopeful PhD candidates who don't hold the correct political views don't have a chance. Those against vaccines can dismiss all the evidence in favor of vaccines since they can claim that anyone with opposing evidence has just been supressed and forced out, and can point to examples like this. This just erodes the trust in Academia in the public.

    That students led the campaign is not surprising , since they are young, and have been brainwashed all their lives by a very left leaning educational establishment. Student who date dare to express views that went contrary to the politically correct ones would finx their papers marked down, and lack support of their teachers to get in the University in the first place. But the more that the academic community is perceived as bias, the more what it says in general will be dismissed by more and more people. If people don't trust you and don't have faith in what you say, no matter what kind of evidence you present they won't listen.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    If he beleives in eugenic quackery, he can't be that bright.


    https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...nics-seriously

    In this country employers are free to dismiss staff, if they have reason to do so. Holding on to unsuitable people just to appease a handful of political commentators is politically correctness redefined. I'm sure Noah's replacement will do an excellent job.
    Last edited by mongrel; May 14, 2019 at 03:48 AM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  6. #6
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Just watched the full i-player interview (Cheers Aexodus for drawing me to that)... Firstly the spokesperson admits they haven't actually read their work, and admits it might even be 'good', but he signed the letter to sack Dr Carl anyway because he feels he's associated with islamophobia and 'racist' based soley on the citations that Dr Carl used...and also because he's been published in 'far right' journals...though he's never read the actual content (and Professors like David McLean, who is about as Conservative as you can get in economics, even arguing quite convincingly that Western Imperialism and the global world economy has 0 responsibility for informal empire, nor the collapse of Qing China, Latin America's troubles or The Shogunate's collapse, has published articles in Marxist Journals. Academics publish wherever they can, and tend to seek out audiences who would disagree to test how their articles hold up.

    The spokesman defending the decision to sign a letter that sacked this guy...is in a complete mess. It seems to almost be 'i don't like what this guy MIGHT stand for'.

    To be slightly flippant, I've written essays about the nature of certain groups of the modern alt-right... i've naturally cited interviews and papers done by them, my work is as an academics should be 'attempting' to be as impartial as possible (You can never truly be impartial, but you recognize that limitation and try your best to be). With that in mind, people can i'm sure walk away from reading that work and say 'ahh these alt-right guys aren't so bad', or 'they have a point'. So now apparently that is in danger, likewise Dr Carl has written many publications that are 'respectable' (Which i agree with the commentators, Universities are not meant to be 'respectable' they are meant to ask questions that most people are uncomfortable with- Its why Academics play such a vital role in highlighting the lies told by modern political parties), but apparently one strain of research... that actually is valid regardless as research, is enough for him to be mobbed by.... i don't know what? Academics and students who have lost perspective and want to essentially destroy academic research in a fundamental way.

    What's more worrying is a key reason seems to be that he was only 'targeted' because he achieved a fellowship at Cambridge (because that is a 'prestigious platform'). So other universities conducting equally controversial research seem not to have been targeted. The reason Cambridge is so 'prestigious' is because they like most other British Universities allow academic freedom (one of the points of tenure indeed- we'll fund, whatever you want to do), so its a weird paradox that they A) caved in, and B) this is the reason

    I genuinely despair, this will come back if it continues, to bite us on the arse in a big way. I mean god damn basic tenants, you do not research with a 'goal' in mind (if you do, that's poor academia), you have a rough idea of the area you want to look into, and the research then can take you into very weird and wonderful places that contribute to knowledge in ways no one could ever have envisaged (To use a personal example, my 'big project' started as questioning the nature of Neo-imperialism from Suez, but has now developed into a full blown geopolitical analysis and spatial history of the Antarctic, its massive relevance to global politics currently begs for such a historic backing). So to 'cut it off' because they dislike the person... is the height of stupidity. Let his work be ripped to shreds in the peer review and public process, sure. Due to the Research Excellence Framework, he may indeed then lose his job- but that is how actual academia is supposed to function. Even the best academics have had their Dunkirk's (Niall Ferguson's life is essentially one long one Though i'm thoroughly with him on the latest Applied History drive), but sacking for 'political views'... its insulting.

    I mean literally, we know for instance that male students from Asian backgrounds, even from a lower economic standing-point generally perform better than White males from indeed a better economic position. There are a huge number of reasons for this, one indeed that is based on genetics (and arguments against it that are equally important). But the only reason this debate is happening is because an academic somewhere researched it. It has relevance to the British economy, education structures, the rise of populism, social cohesion, the benefits of multiculturalism, the issues created by multiculturalism- its incredibly useful.

    But using the logic of these academics and students who got Dr Carl fired, because it can be seen as being racist, has links to eugenics etc, this entire discussion should never have seen the light of day. Its ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    If he beleives in eugenic quackery, he can't be that bright.


    https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...nics-seriously

    In this country employers are free to dismiss staff, if they have reason to do so. I'm sure Noah's replacement will do an excellent job.
    I think Eugenics is a difficult issue. Current work on Climate change has actually put eugenics back on the table (under several different names- and indeed Eugenics in modern academia should be removed from its Imperial and Nazi connotations, because it's a tool to which political emphasis was added. I'm not defending Eugenics, but it did directly contribute to the rise of the European Welfare state, so cutting down research because of its connotations to Eugenics can have some very bad consequences for other areas). The reason its back on the table is because of the rise of 'gene-splicing' (see China recently with that controversy), issues in a post-antibiotic world (because their worryingly losing effectiveness rather faster than some thought) that might have their solution in genetic engineering (also based on Eugenics) and also population vs resources (And this is incredibly controversial indeed but in terms of preventing children from ever having physical or mental disabilities prior to birth, because some predict society will not be able to shoulder the cost- the other 'Eugenics' alternative of course is what Sweden did until the 1970s- mandated abortion for children with disabilities- so its an important area for academics to be able to look into- and a huge part of that indeed is it'll allow us to argue along ethical lines, expose academics who favour Eugenics for political/racist means and make sure their work is thoroughly discredited (if its indeed not worthy).

    By driving Eugenics underground, because its not as if academics who 'believe' in its elements will stop, it undermines 'professional academics' by having such a polarizing split, it also means there is no debate or dialogue and that academics who research Eugenics, because they are going under the academia radar, cannot be subjected to peer review and debated and analysed properly, so no ethical framework can ever really come about, until its too late and it becomes a 'political' issue as one party or another picks up their work, and then immediately that work is protected, because good luck trying to get through as a 'professional academic' to those who unquestioningly believe what Populists are advocating.

    So i do appreciate peoples quite rightly natural reactions to Eugenics, but this is exactly why it should have a place and stay within academia, and not be driven underground, so their peers can essentially keep a check on what is going on and why. Scientists, Economics, Historians, Sociologists etc, all feed into each other (its why i laugh at people who believe that 'science isn't a 'real' degree, or sociology isn't a 'real' degree- they are all connected and all parts are necessary to create a fully functioning society and peer review process. For instance without Sociologists, There would potentially be no framework for the debates around gene-splicing in terms of societal impact, which would be stupid for social cohesion and sustainability) and essentially create a 'finished piece' of knowledge together, that then is properly packaged for use in human society (or indeed not for use).
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  7. #7

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    In my view, eugenics was the wrong answer to the questions faced by late 19th early 20th century societies. I would have thought history had proven that.

    On the issue of the need to 'expose academics who favour Eugenics for political/racist means and make sure their work is thoroughly discredited'. Mr Carl is a contributor to Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to segregationism and scientific racism.

    I do see your point that it would perhaps be more effective for him to have been torn to shreds academically, rather than because of the company he keeps.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    The spokesman defending the decision to sign a letter that sacked this guy...is in a complete mess. It seems to almost be 'i don't like what this guy MIGHT stand for'.
    This is the crux of the issue. Radicals feel compelled to obstruct any investigation or research which they perceive - rightly or wrongly - as having the potential to contradict their sacred beliefs. We're reaching the stage in certain universities where certain propositions are treated, not as assertions open to scientific scrutiny, but as unquestionable truths which must be defended with militancy rather than evidence.



  9. #9

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    The relevant aspects of that article are a misrepresentation:

    This brings us to the latest example of the Gould Effect in action. It began with Toby Young, a UK journalist who gave the Constance Holden Memorial Address at the 18th annual International Society for Intelligence Research (ISIR) conference held in 2017 at the Montreal Neurological Institute. This address discussed media and academic bias against and hostility toward intelligence research. A transcript of the talk was subsequently published as an opinion piece in Intelligence (Young, 2018). Young was subsequently appointed to the newly created Office for Students, a government board tasked with protecting free speech at UK universities, among other things. Before the board had its first meeting, Young's appointment created a media firestorm in the UK largely because of negative reactions from political opponents to his generally conservative political views (for the first instance of this, see Anonymous, 2018). The opposition to his appointment became so aggressive that he resigned in short order. One of the most scurrilous attacks referred to his attending a ‘secret’ meeting of ‘eugenicists’ and ‘white supremacists’, which had been held for four years (2014–2017) – three times at University College London (UCL) – and organized by honorary senior lecturer James Thompson (these meetings were instances of the London Conference on Intelligence; LCI) (Anonymous, 2018; see also van der Merwe's [2018] ‘exposé’). The Guardian, Telegraph, and Daily Mail newspapers, The Scientist, Russia Today, and numerous other news outlets repeated these charges against the conference – making no apparent effort to determine the basis in fact of any of the allegations. Young did in fact attend the 2017 LCI meeting for a few hours in his capacity as a journalist, so as to gather information that might help him prepare his ISIR address.

    Contrary to allegations, the annual LCI conference was not secret but invitation only (like many small conferences). The attendees had a range of theoretical orientations and research interests, and their attendance does not imply agreement with the views of all of the other attendees, be they political, moral or scientific. The conference program covered many topics related to the fields of intelligence and personality research4 and there was no exclusive focus on ‘eugenics’ or IQ differences among populations (although both issues were discussed). Scientometric analysis of the abstract lists from all four years of LCI confirm this claim, revealing that a modest minority (38.7%, or 29) of the 75 talks given over four years dealt with population (racial, ethnic and national) IQ differences. Only 2.7% of talks (two) discussed the practicability and desirability of what could loosely be termed ‘eugenic’ reproductive genetic intervention.5 Talks about any kind of policy issue were rare (numbering three in total). The overwhelming preponderance of talks dealt exclusively with data or substantive theory. Moreover 48% of talks were associated with (either based on or in most cases yielding) ‘mainstream’ publications6 over four years. Thus, LCI's productivity is comparable to that of conferences in biomedical science — a field in which, according to one meta-analysis, 44.5% of conference presentations yield publications (Scherer, Langenberg, & von Elm, 2008). Finally, the speakers originated from 13 different countries in total, including Japan, China, Brazil and Slovakia, thus the conference can reasonably be described as cosmopolitan as opposed to “white supremacist” in character.

    Despite these facts and apparently informed only by the sensationalized but objectively erroneous media coverage, UCL began an investigation of conference organizer James Thompson and the holding of LCI at the university. Based on both his academic publication and popular (e.g. his blog posts) records, however, it is abundantly clear that Thompson offers only fair and honest analyses in discussions of complex and controversial data - a far cry from how he has been portrayed in certain media.

    Politicized outrage about certain findings in intelligence research, and therefore the Gould Effect, is unfortunately unlikely to abate. To some on the political left (from whom the preponderance of criticism originates), the scientific findings of intelligence research will forever constitute junk science at best and system-justifying elitism and racism at worst (e.g. Gould, 1981, Gould, 1996; Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin, 1984; Richardson, 2017). This problem may ultimately be intractable owing to the action of powerful unconscious biasing factors related to certain manifestations of egalitarian moral psychology (Winegard & Winegard, 2017). However, some of the blame must surely be shouldered by substantive failures in science education, especially as it pertains to the inaccurate representation of intelligence research in introductory psychology texts (Warne, Astle, & Hill, 2018), and also to the aforementioned general reluctance of universities to cover this important topic in their course offerings. As intelligence researchers, we therefore ought to be doing a better job of explaining what it is that we actually do and what the weight of evidence shows about the nature of human intelligence, how it is measured, how it develops and how it impacts the broader world – essentially stressing that the findings of intelligence research are entirely mainstream within the broader field of psychology (Gottfredson, 1997; Neisser et al., 1996). To follow the data in the 21st century requires explorations of genetic and neuroscientific methods that may lead to interpretations of data that are contrary to popular utopian beliefs concerning the infinite malleability of human nature or the absolute equality of human groups (e.g. Haier, 2017; Pinker, 2002, Sesardic, 2005, Wade, 2014). We need to be prepared to have honest public discussions about all these matters without rancor, and the most important step towards this goal is in freely and accurately presenting all sides of the relevant arguments, so that those who may choose to make careers for themselves in the psychological sciences and also in journalism can approach the more controversial aspects of our field fully equipped with the relevant theoretical and empirical facts, such that they can engage in the best possible critical analysis.
    Communicating intelligence research: Media misrepresentation, the Gould Effect, and unexpected forces

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    I think Eugenics is a difficult issue. Current work on Climate change has actually put eugenics back on the table (under several different names- and indeed Eugenics in modern academia should be removed from its Imperial and Nazi connotations, because it's a tool to which political emphasis was added. I'm not defending Eugenics, but it did directly contribute to the rise of the European Welfare state, so cutting down research because of its connotations to Eugenics can have some very bad consequences for other areas). The reason its back on the table is because of the rise of 'gene-splicing' (see China recently with that controversy), issues in a post-antibiotic world (because their worryingly losing effectiveness rather faster than some thought) that might have their solution in genetic engineering (also based on Eugenics) and also population vs resources (And this is incredibly controversial indeed but in terms of preventing children from ever having physical or mental disabilities prior to birth, because some predict society will not be able to shoulder the cost- the other 'Eugenics' alternative of course is what Sweden did until the 1970s- mandated abortion for children with disabilities- so its an important area for academics to be able to look into- and a huge part of that indeed is it'll allow us to argue along ethical lines, expose academics who favour Eugenics for political/racist means and make sure their work is thoroughly discredited (if its indeed not worthy).
    Another issue, that was likely discussed at this conference, is the fact that average IQs are dropping by about a half point per generation, due to intelligent women having disproportionately few children (for example). Short term, that's not a big deal. Long term, it's actually a pretty dangerous trend for our species, considering it reduces our collective ability to address all our other problems.

    The things we do for moral reasons, like preventing people with genetic diseases from dying young, have genetic consequences, which may be able to be addressed within an acceptable ethical framework.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  10. #10
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,996

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    In my view, eugenics was the wrong answer to the questions faced by late 19th early 20th century societies. I would have thought history had proven that.
    This is a fair position to hold, and one that indeed is important in informing the debate around the modern use of Eugenics. For my part, i see Eugenics as being developed and used as a political tool to justify shaky Imperialist claims- White mans burden and all that rubbish, though this did lead to state governments actually start to want to take care of their working classes, particularly in Britain after the Boer War, after it was found that the negative consequences of industrialization had meant that the working classes were essentially 'unfit' for Imperial Service, and the whole premise of Empire seemed under threat. Its no coincidence it is at this point that the Liberals ditch Gladstonian liberalism and become state interventionists, following what the Tories have always believed. However, as we've seen in 1970s Sweden, there can be other political dimensions attached to it, and it can be used differently. The growing concept of 'Manufactured babies' is Eugenics-based, With the hope being that humans 'designed' in this way can alleviate much of our suffering, through preventing diseases, removing genetic issues that can blight people, genetic propensity towards obesity. That's the science view, the ethical and social implications will be 'Is this 'good' for society? Do we need to redefine ethnic cleansing? What does it mean for Racism?- but its not innately attaching Eugenics to a political view (And of course the Victorian fascination for nose and head sizes being markers of evil has largely been ditched ). So in my view, Eugenics as a tool (as seen with gene splicing and abortion essentially) is apolitical, but has then connotations attached, like all scientific tools. It can potentially be at least a way to ask the difficult questions about humanities future, but it should be allowed to happen within academia.

    On the issue of the need to 'expose academics who favour Eugenics for political/racist means and make sure their work is thoroughly discredited'. Mr Carl is a contributor to Mankind Quarterly, a publication dedicated to segregationism and scientific racism.
    He has indeed, though as i mentioned that in itself should not be seen as a 'firing offence', as academics can and will publish wherever they can get it . But also a key contention is that particularly listening to the spokesperson of the 500 academics who signed the letter to get him fired, they hadn't actually read any of his work... they saw the journals and just assumed. That's going back to what the British government did to academics who were deemed 'communist' in the 1960s and 70s. Careers were held or ruined because some academics wrote pieces that were or were not 'marxist inspired' (Which included comparisons with what the USSR at the time was perceived to have gotten right, bearing in mind during the 1970s there was widespread belief the USSR was 'winning' the Cold War on the tech and economic fronts). To get back though to journals, This also isn't his sole stomping ground, and while i agree it does show a leaning (Or though as Edgerton found with the New Left Review- it might be the only journal willing to publish his article ), this also should not be a firing offense. Bad research, that is, but you need to have political diversity within academia (hence why extreme left and far right journals exist) so that ideas are constantly at war with each other, its right that Mankind Quarterly has not been banned, because it exists as a peer reviewed journal, so that other academics and journals can take aim at their political stance, highlight its dangers and allow them to respond (further opening up targeting lines). Its just my view i know mate, but no-platforming, goes back to my previous issue about taking these guys out of academia and into the far reaches of the web, where there is no reaching them, and where they can grow unchallenged until an aspiring leader who needs a core ideology that comes replete with fanatical vocal supporters decides to raise them back to the surface.

    I do see your point that it would perhaps be more effective for him to have been torn to shreds academically, rather than because of the company he keeps.
    This i think is the best way, and indeed why it shouldn't be an issue that he's published in those journals regardless of his actual views. He's only as good as his academic output, let that be his rise or downfall (and incidentally it makes sure that the academics who disagree on the left and right are also kept in practice at reviewing and critiquing other research, as again their job is to do this publicly and to 'speak truth to power'- they thus need to keep in practice ).

    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is the crux of the issue. Radicals feel compelled to obstruct any investigation or research which they perceive - rightly or wrongly - as having the potential to contradict their sacred beliefs. We're reaching the stage in certain universities where certain propositions are treated, not as assertions open to scientific scrutiny, but as unquestionable truths which must be defended with militancy rather than evidence.
    This is my fear, we saw it as i mentioned about during the Cold War when academics with perceived 'Marxist' views (Despite Marx of course being a good social commentator and economic critique whose ideas and models are used in right-wing academia too) were hounded, and denied jobs and a platform- though this time by the state. We've now moved to the 'public' at large being able to do that under the banner of the left, and academics feeling that going outside the peer-review process and free market of ideas, to essentially eliminate rival perspectives is somehow healthy or ok. Its a huge issue, and one that the left in Britain does have to tackle (as the right had to come to terms with academic freedom during the Cold War), lest we end up like Hungary or to a certain extent Poland, whose right-wing populists are attempting to censor and re-write parts of academic research for political gain. In fact as you have quite fairly here, i should probably drop right and left and use 'radicals' or 'populists' as this is a crisis facing academia the world over from a variety of sources (except in places like China, where the state has a heavy hand in 'narrating' favoured lines of social science research... which i don't think is a good example for anyone really...).

    Quote Originally Posted by sumskilz View Post
    Another issue, that was likely discussed at this conference, is the fact that average IQs are dropping by about a half point per generation, due to intelligent women having disproportionately few children (for example). Short term, that's not a big deal. Long term, it's actually a pretty dangerous trend for our species, considering it reduces our collective ability to address all our other problems.

    The things we do for moral reasons, like preventing people with genetic diseases from dying young, have genetic consequences, which may be able to be addressed within an acceptable ethical framework.
    I wasn't actually aware of the first issue, that's another thing to keep me up at night now , but indeed on both accounts your spot on to highlight how Eugenics has and indeed must be allowed to have a place in modern academia debate, both in Natural Science and the Social Sciences. Whether that be looking into these issues, promoting particular solutions, or indeed arguing about their morality or putting forward different ways forward, its important that these conversations and debates are had, lest society or humanity generally stumble into a situation its ill prepared for (Or its blind-sided by the suppression of such discussion, by those who have continued to have it under the radar). However uncomfortable, these areas should not be off-limits.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  11. #11

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    So I looked up Noah Carl's publication in Mankind Quarterly, it was an article disputing another study published in Mankind Quarterly:

    Abstract: In their target article, León and Antonelli-Ponti propose that regions of countries subject to higher levels of UV radiation tend to have lower average IQs. They cite supporting evidence from Italy, the United States and Brazil. The present comment tests their theory using data from the United Kingdom. Contrary to the theory, average IQ among white British is higher in the southern regions of the country, where solar radiation is more intense. In fact, the cross-regional correlation between intensity of solar radiation and average IQ among white British is positive. León and Antonelli-Ponti’s theory is therefore incapable of explaining regional IQ differences in the UK.
    The foremost anti-hereditarian researcher on intelligence, James Flynn, has also published papers in Mankind Quarterly.

    For example:

    Abstract: This paper isolates gender differences in IQ that refer to the current generation of women in developed nations and where samples appear large and representative. At no age do such women begin an IQ decline vis-à-vis males. They suffer from a spatial deficit that might dictate fewer of them in “mapping jobs”. Against a male average of 100, they have a fluid intelligence of 100 (university Raven’s data) to 100.5 (Raven’s data from five modern nations); and a crystallized intelligence of 97.26 (WAIS data plus non-Wechsler IQ) to 100 (non-Wechsler GQ). No matter whether we take the lower values or a mean value, we would expect females to match males on mathematics and do no better than males at school. Both expectations are false. If there are genetic differences between men and women, these have more to do with character than intellect. First, women tend to be less violent and combative than men. Compared to schoolgirls, boys hand in assignments late, miss school more often, drop out more often, and must be disciplined more often. Second, women from infancy are more sensitive to other human beings. The ratio of women falls from dominant to rare as we go from social science to medicine and biology, to chemistry, to math and physics. There are two ways of viewing this progression: either women value math less insofar as it has no immediate human application; or women are deterred by the fact that math gets more difficult as you go from psychology to mathematics. Since either of these traits could be genetic in origin, I can see no easy way of obtaining conclusive evidence one way or the other.
    Quote Originally Posted by Enros View Post
    You don't seem to be familiar with how the burden of proof works in when discussing social justice. It's not like science where it lies on the one making the claim. If someone claims to be oppressed, they don't have to prove it.


  12. #12
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,758

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Noah is reportedly a gifted research fellow, with a Bachelors in Human Science, a Masters in Science, and a PhD in Philosophy. So he’s smarter than 99% of people on this forum.
    Many posters here have a PhD too. You are underestimating the forum. He may or may not be smarter than 99% of the posters but:
    - you cannot base it on his degrees
    - you underestimate the number of docs in this forum

    And another thing: Some socialists are among the greatest conservatives you can think of. Venezuela bans gay marriages. Women are discriminated against in Vietnam.
    Please, please don't confuse PC with socialists.
    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Now, on the rest of the topic:
    It is well known that progressives, not leftwings have gone high-wire in Academia in Western nations. Politically motivated research is increasing. There's increasing pressure to bury research results that are not liked by progressives and give greater spotlight to research that is "popular" with the progressive academic cycle.
    This is, to an extend, understandable. "Popular" research = more funds and more citations. Because we're talking about educated people and scientists, academia was always progressive-heavy since the time of the conception of Universities. But the current toxic progressiveness in academia creates a vicious circle: by pushing forward the more progressive-biased research you create more progressive that would find progressive things more popular creating even more progressive bias. Unfortunate, but true.

    But what happened in Cambridge is a disgrace that falls outside of the "progressive bias" norms set up above. Academic integrity is compromised when researchers are intimidated to produce results that fit the narrative the politicians have already decided on or risk losing their jobs because of the protests of slacktivists, snowflakes and SJWs that want us to enter a new dark age where the results are dictated by progressives and enforced by SJW inquisitions that burn the career of heretics at the stake.

    Shameful and counters what universities are supposed to represent.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

    And before the usual progressive cheerleaders in the forums start the chorus that will eventually lead to the discussion going to sub-surface levels about how this is unsubstantiated bullcrap from an evil racist regime that feels threatened or something and how that guy deserved it:

    Research should not care about the ideology or politics but whether the results were scientifically sound. Not popular, but sound. If you want to tear down his papers, find the proof. Work over them, go over the data, go over the methods, spend the hours and come up with why they were false.
    Disprove them if you can, counter them scientifically.
    It is actually good for science to give controversial results that challenge the generally accepted viewpoint by the consensus if they are scientifically sound as they expand our horizons and knowledge.

    When the Supremacists of the 1910s-1920s were publishing rubbish about subhuman species etc it was wrong. It was wrong because it was politically motivated and their methods and data were dodgy and skewed to support the narrative.
    What the progressives do in the universities in 2010s-2020s is exactly as bad.
    Last edited by alhoon; May 14, 2019 at 02:54 PM.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  13. #13
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,758

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    If he beleives in eugenic quackery, he can't be that bright.


    In this country employers are free to dismiss staff, if they have reason to do so.
    This is not the issue here though.
    THIS is the issue:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Von Hespburg View Post
    Firstly the spokesperson admits they haven't actually read their work, and admits it might even be 'good',


    Perhaps dr Carl is a quack*. They didn't care. He wasn't fired for that, he was fired because he was unpopular.
    Or better "just to appease a handful of political commentators" in your words exactly as political correctness demands.


    *After all, he has few citations and his h-index is an uninspiring 9 according to google scholar. Perhaps that's because he's relatively young (researcher for 5 years), perhaps because he's a quack.
    He most probably is not the brilliant trailblazer Aexodus claims he is. However that is not the issue. Academic integrity is the issue.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  14. #14
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    IQ is a fraught subject, race is a fraught subject, immigration is a fraught subject. He may be a genius for all I know but he's a political mess and politics matters sadly. Alhoon is on the money here.

    The process for removing him seems to be dodgy, but I'd add that the selection process is probably dodgy as well. British society (like Australia) is full of old-boy networks and rich old idiots making decisions because they know the right handshake or donated a lot of money. So this is not necessarily "right man removed in wrong way", it could be "usual ****fight boils along as usual".

    I'd love this to be a catalyst for a bit more academic rigour. Good intentions (and bad intentions) can't be a substitute for testing an idea.

    We had some sloppy late 20th century scholarship around aboriginal society. After a lot of whitewashing and racism ('...and then the aborigines, a primitive people who deserve no sympathy, mysteriously vanished and there were no bodies") there was an understandable reaction, but some historians went too far and for example described British colonial society as deliberately genocidal.

    While the actions of many amounted to this, the actual policies were often intended as benevolent (although typically almost as destructive) and the scene was highly complex. these passionate and understandable errors went unchallenged because telling an aborigine (firs in her family ever to get a degree) who has published a book thats 99% good scholarship and 1% stupid exaggeration looks like paternalism "look rewrite that bit there, you're nearly civilised but you just need to be a bit more nice to the whites, can't be unfair now".

    It gave this toxic worm called Windschuttle air time as he scored easy points refuting some stupid mistakes (he only lasted about five minutes as his own work was risibly ****house). The mainstream academic establishment came out of it reeking because they'd been nice, and not rigorous. It allowed right wing politicans to dismiss aboriginal complaints about past bad treatment as "black armband history" conflating all history of injustice with a couple of instances of bad scholarship.

    When people do research around hotly contested subjects like "race" or "IQ" there's bound to be heat. He's bundled up a bunch of hot topics into a couple of papers here, he looks dodgy but it would be good to prove that. Of course that would open up more academics to scrutiny, so I doubt they will accept that as a test.Easier to blackball the embarrassing dude than actually tidy up standards.
    Last edited by Cyclops; May 14, 2019 at 04:54 PM. Reason: I do agree with Alhoon mostly.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  15. #15
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    He most probably is not the brilliant trailblazer Aexodus claims he is.
    Sir Patrick Elias said he was the best candidate, not me.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

  16. #16
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,758

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Sir Patrick Elias said he was the best candidate, not me.
    For a Postdoc position apparently or a lecturer position. Not a big deal.
    That's not evidence of him being a genius. Also if his research was high profile, he would have more than 280 citations. He might be an awesome researcher, but there is no evidence to support this. Him getting a postdoc fellowship is not enough.
    Last edited by alhoon; May 14, 2019 at 10:47 PM.
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  17. #17

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by alhoon View Post
    This is not the issue here though.
    THIS is the issue:



    Perhaps dr Carl is a quack*. They didn't care. He wasn't fired for that, he was fired because he was unpopular.
    Or better "just to appease a handful of political commentators" in your words exactly as political correctness demands.


    *After all, he has few citations and his h-index is an uninspiring 9 according to google scholar. Perhaps that's because he's relatively young (researcher for 5 years), perhaps because he's a quack.
    He most probably is not the brilliant trailblazer Aexodus claims he is. However that is not the issue. Academic integrity is the issue.
    They don't need to read a specific document to come to a conclusion that he dabbles in quack race science ( as evidenced by his attendence to a dodgy convention at UCL, which I beleive was the same one that led to Toby Young's dismissal. People get dismissed all the time, what is so important about this chap?


    Quote Originally Posted by ep1c_fail View Post
    This is the crux of the issue. Radicals feel compelled to obstruct any investigation or research which they perceive - rightly or wrongly - as having the potential to contradict their sacred beliefs. We're reaching the stage in certain universities where certain propositions are treated, not as assertions open to scientific scrutiny, but as unquestionable truths which must be defended with militancy rather than evidence.
    I can think of 6 million reasons why the study of that quack science, eugenics should be stamped on.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  18. #18
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Sir Patrick Elias said he was the best candidate, not me.
    I think Patrick Elias is a Freemason (his brother definitely is, and they have thoroughly infiltrated the legal establishment so i woiuld say its practially a certainty) but they typically refuse to identify themselves.

    As you know they are worn to serve each other over all other bonds (even allegiance to the crown, they've been involved in several revolts).

    Maybe Noah Carl is on of these secretive and manipulative cultists? Certainly he has participated in "secret" pseudosientific conferences, so he's used to the sort of shadowy skulduggery that being a Mason entails.

    I have to say its disgraceful how British society has been infiltrated by this nefarious cult, and its a dire blight on the public honour of the legal and Parliamentary system that they pursue their secret agendas without restraint. They should all be banished from the kingdom.
    Last edited by Cyclops; May 15, 2019 at 05:38 PM.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  19. #19
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Weird things happening, unable to edit.

    I want to add that as a lawyer Elias is no more qualified to make this decision than you or I, and probably less qualified than some of our fellow posters. He's a senior lawyer given a quango outside his area of expertise because of his service to the establishment (a big problem in British society).
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  20. #20
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    8,764
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Political Correctness is Reducing Academic Freedom at Cambridge - Noah Carl Sacked

    Okay fair enough, honestly I wouldn’t have imagined a lot of people here would have PhDs, but I never thought this guy was some kind of prodigy.

    But that’s neither here nor there, the important thing is the political corruption of academia.

    I have to say its disgraceful how British society has been infiltrated by this nefarious cult, and its a dire blight on the public honour of the legal and Parliamentary system that they pursue their secret agendas without restraint. They should all be banished from the kingdom.
    hear hear +rep
    Last edited by Aexodus; May 15, 2019 at 05:55 PM.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Himster View Post
    The trick is to never be honest. That's what this social phenomenon is engineering: publicly conform, or else.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •