Longread

Academic leftwing activists censored a paper because they didn’t like the research outcome.

8 September 2018 23:09

 

“Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores.

There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions—and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.

Darwin had also raised the question of why males in many species might have evolved to be more variable than females, and when I learned that the answer to his question remained elusive, I set out to look for a scientific explanation.

But, that same day, the Mathematical Intelligencer’s editor-in-chief Marjorie Senechal notified us that, with “deep regret,” she was rescinding her previous acceptance of our paper.

“Several colleagues,” she wrote, had warned her that publication would provoke “extremely strong reactions” and there existed a “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.”

Now some progressive faction was worried that a fairly straightforward logical argument about male variability might encourage the conservative press to actually read and cite a science paper?

In my 40 years of publishing research papers I had never heard of the rejection of an already-accepted paper.

Half his board, he explained unhappily, had told him that unless he pulled the article, they would all resign and “harass the journal” he had founded 25 years earlier “until it died.” Faced with the loss of his own scientific legacy, he had capitulated.

“A publication in a dead journal,” he offered, “wouldn’t help you.”

First Harvard, then Google, and now the editors-in-chief of two esteemed scientific journals, the National Science Foundation, and the international publisher Springer have all surrendered to demands from the radical academic Left to suppress a controversial idea.

Who will be the next, and for what perceived transgression? If bullying and censorship are now to be re-described as ‘advocacy’ and ‘academic freedom,’ as the Chicago administrators would have it, they will simply replace empiricism and rational discourse as the academic instruments of choice. Educators must practice what we preach and lead by example.”

 

Ted Hill is Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at Georgia Tech, and currently a research scholar in residence at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.

 

https://quillette.com/2018/09/07/academic-activists-send-a-published-paper-down-the-memory-hole/

 


 
True managed webspace

Lees ook deze artikelen

WOLVEN IN DRENTHE ZIJN BUITENAARDSE WEZENS: ‘HUN DNA IS RADICAAL ANDERS’

TIJDREIZENDE FIETS IN GRONINGEN: POELESTRAAT BLIJKT PORTAAL NAAR HET VERLEDEN

BABY MET GOUDEN TANDEN GEBOREN, ARTSEN GESCHOKT

BLOEDDORSTIGE KABOUTERS ONTVOEREN DIEREN UIT ASIEL IN GRONINGEN

BIZARRE METRO-ERVARING: Twee jongens via metropoortjes in ‘ander universum’ terechtgekomen

MYSTERIEUZE VERDWIJNING IN UTRECHT: Studente beleeft introductiedagen in jaren zeventig

SCHOKKEND: MAN VERDWIJNT IN PARALLEL UNIVERSUM TIJDENS BUNGEEJUMPEN

KLM Boeing 747 Sint Maarten

PLANE PORN

ART: SERGEY VINOGRADOV

MORGAN FREEMAN

THIS IS NOT MORGAN FREEMAN…

Pieter Omtzigt

‘CDA ZONDER PIETER OMTZIGT GEDECIMEERD, PROBEERT NU ZETELS TE SPROKKELEN’

Ruben uit Seahorse Parents

RUBEN (M) IS ZWANGER, THE MOTIONPICTURE

Mona Keijzer

PREMIER MONA KEIJZER (BBB)?

Beatrix van Oranje op de Groene Draeck

RTL ”’NIEUWS”’: FOUT HOUT OP EEN BOOTJE VAN DE ORANJES, STOP DE PERSEN!

Sonja van den Ende

POETINS NUTTIGE NEDERLANDSE IDOOT!

Pieter Omtzigt

PIETER OMTZIGT: ‘BOEK MET CDA IS DICHT’

Pieter Omtzigt

PIETER OMTZIGT HEEFT ‘VEEL MOOIS TE VIEREN’

obesitas

OZEMPIC: AFVALLEN DOOR ZELFMOORD?

TPO Podcast