Education, recent, Social Science

Cambridge Capitulates to the Mob and Fires a Young Scholar

We live at a time where academic freedom is under threat from ideologues and activists of all persuasions. The latest threat comes from St Edmund’s College, Cambridge, where administrators appear to have capitulated to a mob of activists (students and academics) who mounted a campaign to have a young scholar fired for “problematic” research. The back-story was covered by Quillette last December.

The norms of academia—which have been built up and preserved by institutions such as Cambridge for centuries—demand that academics engage with each other in a scholarly manner. That is, if one academic has a problem with the methods or conclusions of another’s research, he or she should address those concerns within journals, according to established procedures, which other scholars can then read and respond to, including the academic whose research is being challenged.

Today, due to the hyper-specialisation of academic fields, most academics will not be able to judge the quality of scholarship that is published in journals outside their field. That’s why when research is peer-reviewed it is done by experts in the specific field in which the research was carried out, not by a random selection of university professors. Just as a professor of English will not be able to judge a study conducted within chemical engineering, a chemical engineer will not be able to assess a scholarly essay on Shakespeare’s sonnets.

To judge the quality of Dr Noah Carl’s work authoritatively, one would have to be an expert in at least one of the following fields: psychology, intelligence research (a sub-field of psychology), and/or economics. The campaign against him began with an ‘open letter’ that was signed by hundreds of academics, but they did not have expertise in these areas. (For the most part, they had qualifications in fields like anthropology, gender studies and critical race studies). This is a clear departure from the established norms that, until recently, were adhered to in academic debates, a point made in an editorial about this affair by the executive team at the Heterodox Academy:

Communal inquiry and debate are at the heart of the academy. As researchers, we put our ideas into the crucible of open inquiry and rely on debate and discussion to refine understanding and advance solutions to complex problems. The practice of issuing open letters attacking scholars for their contributions undermines this important goal by evicting academics and their ideas from the arena—often on flimsy evidentiary grounds. More constructive responses can and should be employed.

The administrators at St Edmund’s College who determined that Dr Noah Carl should be fired did not have qualifications in these areas, either. The Master of St. Edmunds is a former banker, and the administrator who led the investigation that decided Dr Carl is guilty of “poor scholarship” is a veterinary scientist.

Admittedly, one does not have to be an expert in a specific field to adjudicate on matters of academic misconduct such as fraud or data fabrication—and Dr Carl has been accused of “ethical breaches”. But the statement by the Master on the college website justifying Dr Carl’s dismissal stops short of alleging anything close to academic fraud. The sin he’s been found guilty of—his “ethical breach”—is carrying out “problematic” research, such as producing a paper on the accuracy of consensual stereotypes about the characteristics of different groups (e.g. sexes, races, nationalities). Here is the key passage in the Master’s statement:

There was a serious risk that Dr Carl’s appointment could lead, directly or indirectly, to the College being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial or religious hatred, and bring the College into disrepute.

So Dr Carl has been dismissed not because his research is fraudulent or inaccurate, but because there’s a risk it could lead indirectly to bad actors promoting views that could incite racial or religious hatred. It matters not whether the scholarship is true; the critical thing is whether it upsets people.

Universities like Cambridge proudly resisted these assaults on intellectual freedom in the past—it was the home of such free thinkers as Erasmus, Charles Darwin and John Maynard Keynes. Indeed, protecting scholars from persecution by political and religious pressure became one of the defining purposes of the world’s great universities.

Imagine what would happen if the behaviour of St Edmund’s College become a new norm. Should philosophers who debate issues of euthanasia and abortion be fired because some Christian students might find their work offensive? Should novelists like Salman Rushdie be refused a platform because their work could incite religious hatred? Should geneticists who discover differences in populations emerging from genetic ancestry be fired because some students might be offended by these findings? Should biologists who operate on the assumption that sex is bimodal be defunded because some trans rights activists might find their work upsetting? The list of scholars who could be fired if the standard that has been applied to Dr Noah Carl is applied universally is endless.

The editors at Quillette steadfastly support the foundational principles of open inquiry and free thought. While we are not academics, we are gravely concerned that an injustice to a young scholar has occurred in this particular instance, and that more broadly, academic freedom is buckling under political pressure. If the custodians of Cambridge are unable to protect its distinguished history and foundational principles, it is up to all of us to take a stand in support of them.

Claire Lehmann is the Editor-in-Chief of Quillette


*   *  *

Academic Signatories in Support of Dr Noah Carl

Statement: We would like to express our support for Dr Noah Carl and our disappointment with the Governing Body of St Edmund’s College for the injustice visited upon this young scholar.

Aaron Slepkov, Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Trent University
Abhishek Saha, School of Mathematical Sciences, Queen Mary University of London
Adam Kissel, American University
Adam Rallo, Education Design, Sheridan College
Adam Rawlings, PhD
Alain Guët, Teaching Fellow, Science and Engineering-Language Department, Sorbonne University

Alberto Aimi, Research fellow, University of Brescia, Department of Law
Aldo Filomeno, Postdoctoral Researcher, Institute of Philosophy, Czech Academy of Sciences

Alex Simonelis, Computer Science Dept, Dawson College, Montreal
Alex Small, Professor of Physics, California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Alexander Larson, Student, Harvard University, Master Sergeant, US Army (retired)
Alexander Marr, Reader in the History of Early Modern Art, University of Cambridge
Anders Blomqvist, Professor Emeritus Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Linköping University
Andy Sellwood, Instructional Associate, Vancouver Community College
Andreas Kinneging, University of Leiden, Faculty of Law, Professor in Philosophy of Law
Andrei Grigoriev, Chief Researcher, Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Andres Biehl, Assistant Professor, Sociology, Pontificia Universidad Catolica, Chile
Andrew Steane, Professor of Physics, University of Oxford
Anthony Hanwell, PhD, DEng
Ann Bergman, Associate Professor, Stanford University
Anne O’Connor, PhD
Anthony Mancini, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Pace University
April Bleske-Rechek, Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire
Armando Aranda-Anzaldo, Professor of Molecular Biology, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México

Arnie Keller, Professor Emeritus, Department of English, University of Victoria
Artur Doshchyn, DPhil Student in Economics, Nuffield College and University of Oxford
Asbjørg Westum, PhD in Scandinavian Languages, Senior Lecturer

Ashok Panikkar, Lecturer
Astrid Elbers, Doctor in History of Science, University of Antwerp (Linguapolis)

Assistant Professor Jason Lepojärvi, Department of Religious Studies, Thorneloe University at Laurentian
Assistant Professor Mahan Kulasegaram

Associate Professor Darren Burke, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle
Associate Professor Geoffrey Miller, Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico
Associate Professor John Ashton, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Otago
Associate Professor Paul Johnston, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Mount Royal University
Associate Professor Peter Ouwehand, Faculty of Commerce, University of Cape Town
Associate Professor Roy Frye, Department of Pathology, University of Pittsburgh
Associate Professor, Stephen Leonard
Associate Professor Steve Stewart-Williams, University of Nottingham
Associate Professor Tim Martin

Aurelio Jose Figueredo, Professor of Psychology, University of Arizona
Barbara Hewson, Barrister-at-law
Ben J. Smith, PhD
Benjamin Winegard, Assistant Professor of Psychology
Bernard Hugueney, PhD, Lecturer in Computer Science
Bill von Hippel, Professor of Psychology, University of Queensland
Birol Baskan, PhD

Boudewijn Bouckaert, Professor Emeritus, Law School, Ghent University
Bo Winegard, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Marietta College
Brage Kraft, PhD

Bruce Brasington, Regents’ Professor of History, West Texas A&M University
C A White, PhD
Cal De Burgh, PhD candidate, International Human Rights Law, Liverpool Hope University

Cameron Harwick, Assistant Professor of Economics at the College at Brockport, SUNY
Catherine Ruth Pakaluk, Assistant Professor of Social Research and Economic Thought, The Catholic University of America
Catherine Smith, Professor, The Information School, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Carlos Garcia, PhD
Charles Banks, PhD
Charles Murray, Hayek Emeritus Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Charlotta Stern, Professor of Sociology, Stockholm University

Charmayne Paul, Learning Advisor, Indigenous Student Support, Central Queensland University, Cairns Campus
Cheryl Taylor, Associate Professor in English Literature, James Cook University (retired)

Chris Brown, Emeritus Professor of International Relations, LSE
Christian Honey DPhil
Christina Hoff Sommers, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Christine Furedy, Associate Professor Emerita, York University, Canada

Christopher Adkins, Adjunct Professor, Humanities, Hillsborough Community College
Christopher Ellis, Associate Professor of Political Science, Bucknell University
Christopher Flavin, Associate Professor of English
Christopher Lim, Assistant Teaching Professor, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Rutgers University
Christopher McDowell, Reader, International Politics, City, University of London
Christopher White, Associate Professor, International Relations, Bjorknes University College
Craig Miller, PhD University of Canterbury, NZ
Cristofre Kayser PhD, Adjunct Professor of the Humanities, Midwestern Career College

Christopher Milburn, Assistant Professor (Medicine) Dalhousie University
Colin Feltham, Emeritus Professor, Sheffield Hallam University
Colin Masters, Senior Lecturer, School of Medicine – Central Clinical, University of Queensland
Colin Mills, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford
Camilo Ortiz PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology, Long Island University-Post
Dan Demetriou, Associate Professor, Philosophy, University of Minnesota, Morris
Dan Eisenberg, Associate Professor, University of Washington

Daniel Jacobson, Professor of Philosophy, University of Michigan
Daniel Klein, Professor of Economics, George Mason University
Daniel Rogers, Professor of Psychology, Kennesaw State University
Danny Weston, PhD

Darij Grinberg, Dunham Jackson Assistant Professor, University of Minnesota
Dario Maestripieri, Professor of Professor of Comparative Human Development, Evolutionary Biology, and Neurobiology, The University of Chicago
David Butterfield, Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Classics, University of Cambridge

David Clemens, Emeritus Professor of English, Monterey Peninsula College
David Daintree, Director, Christopher Dawson Centre for Cultural Studies, Hobart, Australia
David Johnston, PhD Candidate, Australian National University
David Kwan, Department of Biology, Concordia University
David Gil, Senior Research Scientist, Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena, Germany
David Leary, Visiting Professor, Chengdu University of Technology, China
David Morley, PhD Mathematics, Rockwell Science Centern (retired)
David Mumford, University Professor Emeritus, Brown Unversity

David Potts, Professor of Philosophy, City College of San Francisco
David Walsh, Senior Lecturer Mathematics, Maynooth University (retired)

David Wootton, Professor of History, The University of York
Davide Spinello, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Ottawa
David Turnbull, PhD

D.L. Noorlander, Assistant Professor of History, SUNY Oneonta
Dayag Sheykhkarimli, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto
Deborah Fox, Professor of English, University of Alaska Anchorage
Dennis Hayes, Professor of Education and Director of Academics For Academic Freedom
Derek Tharp, Assistant Professor of Finance, University of Southern Maine
Dimokritos Kavadias, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Free University of Brussels, Belgium

Doug Jones, Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Utah
Doug Stokes, Professor in International Security, University of Exeter
Douglas Detterman, Louis D. Beaumont University Professor Emeritus, Case Western Reserve University
Douglas Macdonald, Emeritus Professor, Political Science, Colgate University

Dr Aaron Kindsvatter
Dr Abhyuday Kumara Swamy, Clinical Research Fellow, Aster hospital, Bangalore, India
Dr Adam Perkins, Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Personality, King’s College London
Dr Adrian Hilton, FRSA, The Margaret Thatcher Centre
Dr Alexander Young

Dr Alka Sehgal Cuthbert
Dr Andrej Kokkonen, Department of Political Science, University of Gothenburg
Dr Andrew Rankin
Dr Angshuman Maulik
Dr Anne O’Connor
Dr Annette Lawson
Dr Antony Browne
Dr Arthur Van Riel, Dr. Senior fellow Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy and Utrecht University

Dr B. Christopher Frueh, Professor of Psychology, University of Hawaii
Dr Bernadette De Wit

Dr Bill Budd, School of Psychology, The University of Newcastle
Dr Bruce Harry
Dr Calum Miller, Research Associate, University of Oxford
Dr Camilo Ortiz, Associate Professor of Psychology, Long Island University
Dr Camilo Ortiz, Associate Professor of Psychology, Long Island University-Post
Dr Carrie-Ann Biondi, Associate Professor of Philosophy
Dr Cesar Gonzalez-Perez, Staff Scientist, Spanish National Research Council
Dr Charleen D. Adams, Beckman Research Institute, City of Hope
Dr Charles Allen
Dr Charles Banks
Dr Chris Della Vedova, Program Director Natural Sciences, University of South Australia
Dr Christopher Langan-Fox

Dr Christopher Shell
Dr Christopher Watkins, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Abertay University
Dr Colin Sinclair
Dr Colin Wright, Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University
Dr Craig Paterson
Dr Dagfinn Skre, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo
Dr Damian O’Connor

Dr Dan Pamment
Dr Daniel Mitchell
Dr Daniele Fanelli, Fellow in Quantitative Methodology, London School of Economics

Dr David Gabbard, College of Education, Boise State University
Dr David Goodhew, Cranmer Hall, St Johns College, Durham University
Dr David Marshall
Dr Dayna V. Goldstein
Dr Diane Molloy
Dr Dimitri van der Linden

Dr Dominic Green, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society
Dr Drasko Dizdar

Dr Evan Picoult, Adjunct Professor, Decision, Risk, and Operations Department, Columbia Business School
Dr Fabian Battaglini
Dr Florian Sander, LLM, Harvard Law School

Dr Francesca Minerva, Department of Philosophy University of Gent
Dr Frank Passani, Spanish Language Teacher
Dr Frank Prengel
Dr Frank Wolters

Dr Gad Saad, Professor of Marketing, Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Science, Concordia University
Dr Gary Guerra, School of Prosthetics and Orthotics Faculty of Medicine, Mahidol University
Dr Gary Sasso,  Emeritus Dean, College of Education, Lehigh University
Dr Gary Woolley
Dr Graham Wheatley, FRCGP
Dr Graham Wood, School of Humanities, University of Tasmania
Dr Gregory Gorelik
Dr Guy Chamberland, Associate Professor, Thorneloe University at Laurentian
Dr Guy Madison, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Umeå University
Dr Hal Pashler, Professor of Psychology, Univ of California, San Diego
Dr Hardy Hulley, Senior Lecturer in Finance, University of Technology Sydney
Dr Hasan Bahçekapili

Dr Helmuth Nyborg, Professor Emeritus, Aarhus University, Denmark
Dr Isaac Balbin

Dr Jacobo Arredondo, Lead Chair Anthoplogy Department, University of Aunna-Florence
Dr James Green, PhD CEng MIMechE
Dr James Greville, Lecturer in Psychology, University of South Wales
Dr James Kierstead, Senior Lecturer in Classics, Victoria University of Wellington
Dr James Lindsay
Dr James Moran, Charité Berlin
Dr James Oexmann

Dr Jan de Ruiter
Dr Jan te Nijenhuis

Dr Jason Richwine
Dr Jaspreet Singh Boparai
Dr Javier Reyes
Dr Jay Raskin, Adjunct Philosophy Instructor, Valencia College
Dr Jeffrey Ketland
Dr Jeroen Van Rijen
Dr Jim Schofield
Dr Johan Wennström, Research Institute of Industrial Economics
Dr John Collins

Dr Jonatan Pallesen, Genetics
Dr Joshua D. Wright,  Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University
Dr Julian Naber
Dr Keith Hotten, Barrister, Principal Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong

Dr Kenya Kura, Economics, Gifu Shotoku Gakuen University
Dr Klaus Ostermann, Professor of Computer Science, University of Tuebingen
Dr Lars Davidsson, MRCPsych
Dr Leigh Gibson, Reader, Roehampton University
Dr Leon Stander

Dr Lorenzo Lazzerini Ospri
Dr Loyd S. Pettegrew, Professor Emeritus, Department of Communication, University of South Florida
Dr Maarten Biesheuvel
Dr Manfred Luetzow

Dr Marco Del Giudice, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology University of New Mexico
Dr Marcus T Anthony, Associate Professor, College of Global Talent, Zhuhai, China
Dr Markus Hahn

Dr Marian Mazzone, Art & Architectural History, College of Charleston
Dr Mario Rollo, Bioscience Institute, Coastal Campus, Sao Paulo State University
Dr Mark Andrew Ashby, Postdoctoral Researcher, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University
Dr Mark Duffett
Dr Mark Gee
Dr Mark Wanstall, Senior Lecturer, Carnegie School of Education

Dr Markus Weishaupt
Dr Martin Sewell, Economics
Dr Matt Hickey, Professor and University Distinguished Teaching Scholar, Colorado State University
Dr Margaritka Karaivanova, Professor of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical University Sofia
Dr Michael Biggs, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Oxford
Dr Michael Johnston, School of Education, Victoria University of Wellington
Dr Michelle Finley, Couple and Family Therapy, Antioch University
Dr Miguel Ángel Quintana-Paz, Professor of Philosophy, Universidad Europea Miguel de Cervantes
Dr Nando Pelusi, Psychologist, NYC
Dr Neil Thin, School of Social and Political Science, The University of Edinburgh
Dr Neven Sesardic, Philosopher
Dr Nevin Climenhaga, Research Fellow in Philosophy, Australian Catholic University
Dr Nicola De Jager
Dr Nikos Sotirakopoulos, Lectuer in Sociology and Criminology, York St John University
Dr Paul Brown, Researcher, Department of Clinical and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Dr Paul Budney
Dr Paul Georgia, Economics
Dr Paul Grayson

Dr Paul Morrissey, President Campion College Australia
Dr Peter Christoph Lobner
Dr Peter Kovac

Dr Peter Langfelder, Semel Neuroscience Institute, University of California, Los Angeles
Dr Peter Tangney
Dr Phillip Parker, School of Science, Australian Catholic University
Dr Prakash Shah, Reader in Culture and Law Department of Law, Queen Mary, University of London
Dr Punit Shah, Department of Psychology, University of Bath
Dr Rex Jung, Department of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico
Dr Richard Heffernan, Reader in Government, Open University

Dr Rick Mehta, Former Professor of Psychology, Acadia University
Dr Robert Sloan Lee
Dr Robyn Sainsbury MBBS
Dr Rosalind Arden, Research Associate, Centre for Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, London School of Economics
Dr Russell Blackford, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Newcastle
Dr Robert Gates, MB BS FRACP
Dr Ross Cowan, MA PhD
Dr Sandra Kostner, Dr, Lecturer in Migration Studies, University of Education Schwaebisch Gmuend

Dr S. Pilar
Dr Sara Boutall
Dr Sebastian Herbstreuth
Dr Seena Abraham
Dr Seye Abimbola, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney
Dr Simon Knight

Dr Spencer Case, International Research Fellow in Philosophy, Wuhan University
Dr Stefano Di Domenico, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University

Dr Stephen Basdeo
Dr Steven Bailey
Dr Stephen Byrne
Dr Stephen Gruneberg, Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, The University of Westminster
Dr Stephen Illingworth

Dr Sun Cho, Neuroscience
Dr Tania Reynolds, Postdoctoral Fellow, Kinsey Institute, Indiana University Bloomington

Dr Terrance Tomkow
Dr Terry Stygall, University of the West of England (retired)
Dr Tim Williams
Dr Timothy L. Francis, Naval History & Heritage Command
Dr Tobias Hägerland, Lecturer, Department of Literature, History of Ideas and Religion, University of Gothenburg

Dr Tom Schafer, Department of Geosciences, Fort Hays State University
Dr Vera Anderson, Licensed Psychologist

Dr Vlastimil Vohánka, Department of Philosophy and Patrology, Palacký University Olomouc
Dr Wendelin Reich, Docent in Social Psychology, Uppsala University
Dr Wendy James
Dr Roberto Colom, Department of Psychology, Autonomous University of Madrid
Duane Miller, Associate Professor, Protestant Faculty of Theology, The University of Madrid
Dwight Branvold, PhD

Eckhard Kemmann, Professor, Rutgers University, Rutgers Medical School (retired)
Edouard Ivanov, PhD Candidate in Physics, Sorbonne Université

Ed Rybicki, Professor in Microbiology
Edmund Stewart, Assistant Professor in Ancient Greek History, University of Nottingham
Edward Dutton, Adjunct Professor of the Anthropology of Religion and Finnish Culture, University of Oulu, Finland
Edward Miller, Emeritus Professor of Economics and Finance, University of New Orleans
Edward Morrison, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Portsmouth
Ella Gale, PhD, Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Bristol
Elena Feder, PhD

Emeritus Professor Anthony Jorm, School of Population Health, University of Melbourne
Emeritus Professor Asoka Ekanayaka, University of Peradeniya Sri Lanka
Eric Walls, Adjunct History Professor, East Carolina University
Errin Anderson, Faculty of Education, University of Ottawa
Eugene Walters, Emeritus Professor, University of Tasmania

Félix Bernardo, Professor of Mathematics at Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte
Felix Ovejero, Professor of Philosophy, University of Barcelona
Femke Grops, PhD Candidate, Department of the Archaeology, University of Mainz (Germany)

Fernando Peregrin Gutierrez, PhD Physics
Ferrel Christensen, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta
Filipe Nobre Faria, Research Fellow in Political Philosophy and Ethics, Nova University of Lisbon
Frances Widdowson, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Justice, and Policy Studies, Mount Royal University
Francesco Billari, Professor of Demography, Bocconi University
Francis Lankester, PhD
Francis Sansbury, PhD (Cantab)
Francisco Nieto Escámez, PhD

François Grin, Professor, FTI, University of Geneva
Frank Harrison, Josiah Meigs Distinguished Professor, Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Georgia
Frans Van eeden, PhD Researcher, Ghent University, Belgium
Garrett Hope, DMA, Instructor of Music, University of Nebraska–Lincoln
Gay Sutherland, Visiting Researcher King’s College London

Geoffrey Marcy, Professor Emeritus, UC Berkeley
Georges Auguste, Electronics Engineer (French) (Ecole Supérieure d’Electricité)
George MacDonald Ross, Visiting Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Leeds

George Valkuchak, USAF NCO Academy Instructor (Ret.) – Military Studies, World Affairs
Germán Hevia Martínez, PhD Candidate, University of Oviedo
Germán Vera Concha, PhD

Giuseppe Guaiana, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Western Ontario
Glenn Peoples, PhD
Gordon Bailey MD FRCP(C), Director, The Bailey Clinic
Gordon Nickel, Director, Centre for Islamic Studies, SAIACS Bangalore
Graham Whittaker, PhD FRSC
Grant Brown, DPhil (Oxon), LLB

Gregory Connor, Professor of Finance, Maynooth University, Ireland
Gregory Mason, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Manitob
Gunilla Lindmark, Professor Emerita International Maternal and Reproductive Health, Uppsala University

Guy Goodwin, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry, University of Oxford
Hans Peter Dietz, Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Sydney
Hayo Reinders, Professor of Education, Unitec, New Zealand
Henry-James Meiring, PhD candidate, University of Queensland

Hilve Firek, Professor of Education, Virginia Wesleyan University
Holger Schanz, Professor of Physics, University of Applied Sciences Magdeburg-Stendal, Germany

Hoyt King, Instructor at Wright College, Chicago
Hugh Avey, PhD, Former Dean of School of Sciences, University of Southern Queensland Australia
Hugo Schmidt, PhD
Iain Mansfield, Governor, Bath Spa University
Ian Folkins, PhD
Ian Pace, Senior Lecturer in Music, City, University of London
Ian Tully, PhD
Irene Ogrizek, English Department, Dawson College, Montreal
Isaías Naranjo, English Language Professor, La Laguna University, Spain
J.D. Haltigan, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto

Jack Marsh, Computer Science, The University of Exeter
James Dalziel, Dean of Education, Morling College and Professor, University of Divinity, Australia
James Day, PhD student, University College London

James D. Miller, Professor of Economics, Smith College
James Elsey, PhD Candidate in Clinical Psychology

James F. Stephens, Digital Humanities
James Frazee, Chair, Department of Psychology, Cosumnes River College

James Guest, MA, Oxon, MBA, Barrister & Solicitor, Supreme Court of Victoria, former Council Member
Monash University
James H. Cox, Professor of English, University of Texas at Austin

James Hannam, PhD
James Moore, Professor of Industrial & Systems Engineering, Civil & Environmental Engineering, and Public Policy; University of Southern California; Los Angeles, CA, United States

James Thompson, former Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University College London
James Ventola, Professor Department English and Philosophy, Massasoit Community College
Jan van de Beek, PhD

Jasmine Straight, PhD student in Philosophy, University of Colorado Boulder
Jason Manning, Associate Professor of Sociology, West Virginia University

Javier Reyes, University of Helsinki
Jeffrey Flier, Distinguished Service Professor, Harvard Univeristy Higginson Professor of Physiology and Medicine, Harvard Medical School
Jeffrey Morris, Assistant Professor, Department of Biology, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Senior Scientist, National Space Institute, Technical University of Denmark

Jeremy Harvey, Professor of Chemistry, KU Leuven
Jody C Baumgartner, Distinguished Professor of Political Science, East Carolina University
Joe Phillips, Associate Professor, Yonsei University
Johan Grant, Associate Professor, Department of Psychology, Lund University
Johan Braeckman, Professor of Philosophy, Ghent University, Belgium
John Anderson, Honourary Research Associate
John Blanchar, Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Swarthmore College
John Collins, PhD
John D Bain, Professor Emeritus, Griffith University
John E MacKinnon, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Saint Mary’s University
John Humphreys, Lecturer of Economics, University of Queensland
John Kaneko, Psychologist, PhD student, Stockholm University

John King, Former Lecturer in Pathology, Flinders University, Adelaide
John Lammi, PhD

John Marvin, Chancellor, St Matthew’s University
John Nazelrod, Professor of Government & Public Policy, The University of Baltimore
John Reddick, Emeritus Professor, Department of German, University of Cambridge
John Spadora, Juris Doctor
John Staddon, James B. Duke Professor of Psychology and Professor of Biology, Emeritus, Duke University
John Tooby, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, Co-Director, Center for Evolutionary Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara

Jonathan Chinchen, English Language Instructor, Waseda University, Tokyo
Joshua Dacre, Postdoctoral researcher in Neuroscience, University of Edinburgh
Jonathan Haidt, Professor, Business and Society Program, New York University, Stern School of Business

Jonathan Taylor, Professor of Geography and the Environment, California State University
Joshua Katz, Cotsen Professor in the Humanities and Professor of Classics, Princeton University
José Miguel Pereira, Professor, School of Agriculture, University of Lisbon, Portugal
Jose Salcedo, Professor of Electrical Engineering, University of Porto, Portugal
Joseph Conlon, Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Oxford

Joseph H. Manson, Professor of Anthropology, UCLA
Joseph Platnauer, PhD
Joseph Yi, Associate Professor of Political Science, Hanyang University (Seoul, Korea)
Joshua Dunn, Professor of Political Science, University of Colorado
Joshua Klugman, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Temple University
Jorge Mojarro, Associate Professorial Lecturer II, Department of Literature, University of Santo Tomas, Manila

Juan Carlos Hernandez-Barrios, PhD
Julian Friedland, Assistant Professor of Ethics, Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin
Justin Kalef, Teaching Professor, Department of Philosophy, Rutgers University
Juta Kawalerowicz, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University
Karl Brown, Course Coordinator, School of Business, University of Notre Dame Australia
Karl Daggfeldt, Senior Lecturer , Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences
Katrine Wallis, Teaching fellow, University of Warwick

Kathleen Lowrey, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of Alberta
Keith Eldershaw, Postgraduate scholar, Edith Cowan University

Keith E. Stanovich, Emeritus Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
Keith McKeown, Psychology Department, Arden University

Kenneth Boyce, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, University of Missouri
Kevin Dowd, Professor, Durham University
Kimberly Hollar, Doctor of Pharmacy
Kirsty Miller, PhD Psychology
Koen Jansen, PhD

Larry Wayte, J.D., Ph.D, Senior Instructor, University of Oregon
Laurence Copeland, Emeritus Professor of Finance and Economics, Cardiff Business School
Lee Benham, Professor Emeritus Economics, Washington University, St. Louis

Lee Jussim, Distinguished Professor, Rutgers Psychology
Leif Allmendinger, Emeritus Professor of Visual Communication, Northern Illinois University

Leonardo Orlando, PhD Candidate in Political Science at Sciences of Paris
Lianne Gabe, M.A., Director of Institutional Studies, Stockton University, (retired)
Lilian Carvalho, Professor of Marketing, University of Brasilia
Lloyd Reinhardt, Senior Lecturer, The University of Sydney
Lori Lawson, Senior Lecturer

Lorne Carmichael, Emeritus Professor of Economics, Queen’s University
Lyell Asher, Department of English, Lewis and Clark College
Maarten Boudry, Postdoctoral Researcher
Malte Griebenow, PhD Candidate, Universität Hamburg
Manfredi La Manna, Reader in Economics, University of St Andrews, Scotland

Mariah Hoard, The University of Chicago, Georgetown School of Foreign Service
Mark Koyama, Associate Professor of Economics, George Mason University

Mark Grabowski, Associate Professor of Communications, Adelphi University
Mark Fabian, Lecturer in Economics, Australian National University

Mark Pitts, PhD Economics
Mark Perrino, PhD, Columbia University
Mark Press, Undergraduate Chair, Department of Psychology, Touro College
Mark Smith, Professor of Social Work, University of Dundee, Scotland
Mark Walland, Honorary Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne
Mark van Loosdrecht, Professor, Delft University of Technology

Martin Adams, Fellow Emeritus (Music), Trinity College Dublin
Martin Cox, Director, John Locke Institute
Martin Neil, Professor of Statistics and Computer Science, Queen Mary, University of London

Martin Wynne, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford
Mary Frances Williams, PhD
Mat Langford, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, University of Tennessee Knoxville

Matthew Costello, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Hartford
Matt McGue, Regents Professor, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota
Matt Strauss, Assistant Clinical Professor, McMaster University
Matthew Kahn, Lecturer, Univerity of Luxembourg
Matthias E. Storme, Professor of Law, Law School Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Matthias Haslberger, DPhil Student in Social Policy, Nuffield College and University of Oxford
Matthew Jacobson, PhD Candidate, The University of Reading
Marc Janssens, Master of Statistics – Biostatistics, Master of Mathematics
Mark Boughan, Past-President, Emmanuel College, Kitchener, Ontario, Canada
Mark McIntire, Professor of Philosophy, Santa Barbara City College (retired)
Max Hennig, PhD Candidate in Psychology, University of Tübungen
Maxime Vandenberghe, Scientific researcher (WP), Ghent University

Maximilian Werner, Associate Professor of Writing and Rhetoric Studies
Melanie Douglass, Lecturer (Psychobiology and Evolutionary Psychology)
Melissa M. Murray, Senior Lecturer in Music Theory, School of the Arts Southern Methodist University

Michael Anderson, PhD
Michael Bailey, Professor, Northwestern University
Michael Bennett, PhD Candidate, Australian National University
Michael Bennett, Professor, Department of Business Management, Curry College
Michael Blackburn, Senior Lecturer, School of English, University of Lincoln (retired)

Michael Huemer, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado
Michael Levin, MC Psychiatrist
Michael Leznik, PhD
Michael Mills, Associate Professor of Psychology, Loyola Marymount University
Michael Minchin, PhD
Michael Palkowski, PhD Candidate in Hospitality, Edinburgh Napier University
Michael Pirson, Professor and Director Gabelli School of Business, Fordham University

Michael Sugrue, Professor of History, Ave Maria University
Michael Tooley, Emeritus Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado
Michail Theodosiadis, PhD Candidate, Goldsmiths University of London

Michael Trigoboff, PhD, Instructor, Portland Community College
Michael Withey, PhD

Michael Woodley, Lifetime Fellow, Center Leo Apostel for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Michail Theodosiadis, PhD
Mike McNulty, MA, MLIS, College Instructor and Academic Librarian

Montana Morris, Medical Student, Yale University School of Medicine
Morris Odell, Adjunct Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Monash University
Nadim Kobeissi, Professor of Applied Cryptography
Nan de Graaf, Professor
Nancy Bryson, Visiting Associate Professor of Chemistry, Berry College (retired)

Nathan Cofnas, Philosophy DPhil candidate, University of Oxford
Nathan Coombs, Lecturer in Economic Sociology, Edinburgh University
Nathan Gillespie, Associate Professor, Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavior Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth University
Narciso Benítez, PhD

Neil Gilbert, Chernin Professor of Social Welfare
Neil Kressel, Professor of Psychology, William Paterson University

Niall Ferguson, Milbank Family Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution
Nicholas Dranias, Adjunct Instructor, Business Law & Ethics, College of Business, Grand Canyon University
Nicholas Thorne, PhD

Nicholas Wickham, Clinical Associate Professor
Nick Martin, Senior Scientist, Genetic Epidemiology Unit, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute
Nick Moberly, Senior Lecturer, University of Exeter

Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford
Nils de Mol van Otterloo, PhD Candidate in Social Work
Noel Thompson, PhD Candidate in Materials Science, University of Cambridge
Norman Fenton, Professor of Computing
Norman Siebrasse, Professor of Law, University of New Brunswick, Canada
Olof Klintholm (Tobiasson), Master of Arts (St Edmund’s College, Cambridge)

Olivier Massin, Professor of Philosophy, University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Pablo De Lora, Professor of Legal Philosophy, School of Law, Autonomous University of Madrid 

Paolo S. D’Aquila, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche, Università di Sassari, Italy
Paul Irwing, Professor of Organisational Psychology, Alliance Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester
Paul Lillrank, Professor, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Science, Aalto University, Finland
Paul Linthorst, Adjunct Professor NYU
Paul Norwood, Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California
Pawel Gburzynski, Professor Emeritus, Computing Science, University of Alberta
Peggy Sastre, PhD
Pete Ferderer, Professor of Economics, Macalester College
Peter Baehr, Research Professor in Social Theory

Peter Boghossian, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Portland State University
Peter Boone, Chairman, Effective Intervention Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics
Peter Cox, BA MA, Lecturer in Architecture
Peter Furia, Associate Professor, Global Studies and Politics, University of Virginia
Peter Murphy, Adjunct Professor of Humanities and Social Sciences, La Trobe University
Petr Zizler, PhD

Per Arvidsson, MD PhD
Phil Hammond, Professor of Media & Communications, LSBU
Philippe Faes, Doctor of Science in Engineering
Philippe Lemoine, PhD Candidate in Philosophy, Cornell University
Piers Benn, Adjunct Professor (Philosophical Ethics) Fordham University London Centre

Professor Abraham Wyner, Department of Statistics, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania
Professor Andrew Adams

Professor Andrew Tettenborn, Commercial Law
Professor Barry Spurr

Professor Colin Wight, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney
Professor Craig DeLancey, Department of Philosophy, State University of New York at Oswego
Professor Daniel Drucker,  Professor of Medicine, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
Professor David B. Collum, Professor of Chemistry, Cornell University
Professor David Paton, Chair of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School
Professor Dean Rickles
Professor Emeritus Richard Haier

Professor Eric P. Kaufmann, Department of Politics, Birkbeck College, University of London, UK
Professor Félix Bernardo, Mathematics
Professor Georgia Martin
Professor Heiner Rindermann, Chemnitz University of Technology, Germany
Professor James Tooley, School of Education, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Professor Jonathan Anomaly, Philosophy
Professor Jonathan Jones, Department of Physics and Brasenose College, University of Oxford
Professor Keith White-Hunt, University of Leeds

Professor Klaus Ostermann, Computer Science, University of Tübingen
Professor Manuel Hernández, Department of Philosophy, University of Murcia, Spain
Professor Matthew J. Goodwin, Politics and International Relations, Rutherford College
Professor Paul Allen
Professor Emeritus Richard Sparks
Professor Roger Lirely

Professor Stephen Pink, Lancaster UniversityProfessor Tony Cassidy, School of Psychology, Ulster University
Radosław Pietkun, PhD

Rafael Rodriguez, Associate Professor, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Rainer Boegle, PhD

Ralph Faris, Professor of Sociology
Randall Heather, PhD, St. Edmund’s College

Randall Roth, Professor Emeritus, University of Hawaii School of Law
Ravi Kudesia, Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management, Temple University
Raymond Yeow, BA, MBBS, MBA (Exec), FIAA
Reyer Sjamaar, Professor of Mathematics, Cornell University
Richard Bailey, Assistant Professor of History, Queen’s University (retired)

Richard Katz, Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience (retired)
Richard Hench, Teacher Emeritus of Linguistics, Rhetoric, and Literary Interpretation
Richard Inglis, Doctoral Student, Florida State University
Richard Mitchell, Professor of Computing, University of Brighton, UK (retired)

Richard Volkman, Professor of Philosophy, Southern Connecticut State University
Robert-Jan Kooman, Lecturer in Mathematics, University of Leiden

Rob Keeley, Senior Lecturer, Music, King’s College London (retired)
Rob Sica, Assistant Professor, Colorado State University Libraries

Robert Anderson, Faculty, Department of Psychology, University of Maryland
Robert Benson, Instructor of Geology University of South Carolina Aiken (retired)

Robert Bremel, Emeritus Professor, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Robert Henderson, PhD Student, University of Cambridge

Robert King PhD, Lecturer in Applied Psychology, University College Cork
Robert Kok, Emeritus Professor of Bioresource Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University
Robert Seddon, Honorary Fellow, Durham University

Robert Stanley, Professor Emeritus, Art and Humanities
Rodney Warwick, PhD

Rohan Loveland, DPhil, Visiting Professor, Computer Science Dept., Whitman College
Rohit Parikh, Distinguished Professor, CUNY
Ron Cline, Professor, Kettering University, (retired)
Ronan Murray, Clinical Associate Professor
Rosa Motta, Lecturer of Classical Studies, Christopher Newport University
Rupert Norman, Postdoctoral Research Associate
Ruth Mieschbuehler, PhD, Senior Lecturer, Institute of Education, University of Derby
Russell T. Warne, Associate Professor of Psychology, Utah Valley University

Sadanand Dhume, AEI Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Sam Lehman-Wilzig, Professor & former Chair, School of Communication (Bar-Ilan University); former Chair of the Israel Political Science Association
Sander Beckers, Postdoctoral Researcher, Department of Philosophy, Utrecht University
Sandro-Angelo de Thomasis, PhD candidate, Italian Language and Literature, Yale University
São Luís Castro, Professor of Psychology at University of Porto
Sarah Tennant, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, University of Edinburgh, College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine
Sarnyai Zoltan, Lady Davis Visting Professor, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology
Saul Jacka, Professor of Statistics, University of Warwick

Scott Kim, Adjunct Professor of Psychiatry, University of Michigan
Scott K. Hansen, Zuckerberg Institute for Water Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev
Sean Mennim, PhD Candidate, United Kingdom
Sean Rife, Assistant Professor of Psychology, Murray State University

Sergei Tabachnikov, Professor of Mathematics, Pennsylvania State University
Seth Benjamin, PhD
Shalagh McCarthy, M.A. Tutor, Western Sydney University

Simon B. Chen, Resident Physician, Stanford Hospital and Clinics
Simon Newman, Senior Lecturer, University of Westminster
Simon Platt, Senior Research Associate in Nuclear Instrumentation, Lancaster University
Simon van Rysewyk, Adjunct Researcher, Department of Philosophy and Gender Studies, University of Tasmania

Solomon Stavrov, Senior Researcher, Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University
Stan Middlebrooks, Professor Emeritus and Dept. Chair, Electronic Engineering and Technology Management, Herzing University
Steije Hofhuis, PhD Candidate
Stephan Poelmans, Assistant Professor

Stephen B Perrott, Professor of Psychology, Mount St Vincent University
Stephen Blackwood, President Ralston College
Stephen Dunning, Associate Professor of English, Trinity Western University

Stephen Quilley, Associate Professor School of Environment Resources & Sustainability, University of Waterloo
Stephanie Greene, PhD candidate, Earth and Planetary Sciences, Macquarie University
Stephen Bujno, PhD Candidate, Global Center for Advanced Studies
Stephen Kershnar, Distinguished Teaching Professor, State University of New York at Fredonia
Stephen Pierson, Professor of English, Onondaga Community College, Syracuse New York
Steven Ambler, Professor, Economics, Université du Québec à Montréal
Steven Bauer, Emeritus Professor, Department of English, Miami University
Steven Masssey, Professor of Bioinformatics, University of Puerto Rico

Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor of Psychology, Harvard University
Stuart Page, Pro Vice Chancellor, York St John University
Stuart Reges, Principal Lecturer, University of Washington
Sumantra Maitra, Doctoral Researcher, University of Nottingham

Susan Brown, Senior Research Associate, Department of Linguistics, Computer Science Department, University of Colorado
Tammy Castleforte, Rare Disease Clinical Science Specialist
Tak Wing Chan, Professor of Quantitative Social Science, University College London
Terry Newman, MA Sociology, Concordia University, Montreal
Teun Voeten, PhD
Theo Dounas, Senior Lecturer, Robert Gordon University
Thomas Bouchard, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Minnesota

Thomas Cushman, Deffenbaugh de Hoyos Carlson Professor in the Social Sciences
Wellesley College
Thomas Hollett, Professor of English Language, Centro de Lenguas, University of Almería

Thomas Joseph Lynch, Adjunct Professor Business Law, Northwest Mississippi Community College
Thomas Koenig, PhD
Thomas Marmefelt, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Södertörn
Thomas Raleigh, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, United Arab Emirates University (UAEU)

Tim Olds, Professor of Behavioural Epidemiology, University of South Australia
Timothy Bates, Professor of Individual Differences in Psychology, University of Edinburgh
Trevor Williams, Professor Emeritus, University of Victoria, BC, Canada
Tobias Otterbring, Associate Professor, Aarhus University

Todd K. Shackelford, Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Oakland University
Torben Spaak, Professor of Jurisprudence & Vice-Dean for Education, Stockholm University
Torsten Akesson, Professor of Particle Physics, Lund University
Trevor Stammers, Director, Centre for Bioethics and Emerging Technologies, St Mary’s University
Tripurdaman Singh, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Indian Council of Historical Research
Tudor Ciobanu, PhD Candidate in Physics, Stony Brook University

Ulla Westin, Associate Professor, Medical Science
Vasilije Perovic, PhD Student, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
Velimir Dedic, Professor of Information Systems, Zemun, Serbia 

Victor Davis Hanson, Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Classics and Military History
The Hoover Institution, Stanford University
Vincent Debierre, MPIK Heidelberg
W. Douglas McMillin, Professor Emeritus
Walther Traberg-Christensen, PhD Candidate

William Grim, Vice-President, Humanities Education & Research Association
William Vandenberghe, Assistant professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Texas

Wojciech Pisula, Prof of psychology, Institute of Psychology, Polish Academy of Sciences
Yi-Zen Chu, Associate Professor, Department of Physics, National Central University, Taiwan
Yule Heibel, PhD
Zdenek Vajdak, DPhil


  1. TarsTarkas says

    Why are these idiots pandering to a bunch of virtue-signalling know-it-alls who hate them and despise them and will continue to do so even when the cowards do their bidding? Are they that stupid? The screamers are the ones who are promoting hatred and threats of violence. The Cambridge authorities should be firing these people left and right. Maybe once there are consequences for their actions they’ll think twice about making vile accusations.

    • Rev. Wazoo! says

      Because they like exercising power over. (other) faculty and and know such firings make subordinates compliant. The arbitrariness and ease of application to anyone are extra appealing.

    • James Cameron says

      You have misread the situation, I think. The “idiots” are not pandering to their students, they are using their students as an excuse to enact their own beliefs.

      Sadly, they are also not idiots. They have a malignant set of beliefs, at the root of which is a hatred of Western civilisation, and they are very effectively imposing those beliefs on society, in league with vocal, but minuscule, minority groups.

      The real culprits in all of this are our politicians, especially those in the centre or on the right. Every time they capitulate to a new, absurd demand (such as the sacking of Roger Scruton) they further embolden the far-left. The Conservative party in the UK are an object example of the moral capitulation that threatens to destroy Western Civilisation.

      • JWatts says

        “they are using their students as an excuse to enact their own beliefs.”

        +1, The majority of the academics involved want to suppress the ideas they don’t agree with. They just don’t want to have to publicly admit it.This give them cover to do something they wanted to do anyway.

        • TarsTarkas says

          Then why didn’t they fire him the moment the outrage mob started frothing at the mouth and provided the same lame excuse that they did eventually? The outrage mob wouldn’t then have the excuse to not mob THEM for not instantly giving in to their demands? They tried to have their cake and eat it to.

          • James Cameron says

            I see two possible explanations for this.

            The less cynical is that the academics’ perceived monopoly of the moral high-ground is an integral part, and prime driver, of their belief system. Thus, even though the outcome of the investigation was never in doubt, it was important to their self-image to have followed “due-process”.

            The more cynical is that they use “due process”, in the same way they do their students, as a cover for the implementation of their beliefs. The system is rigged, they know the outcome of the “due process” will be as they desired it, but they can pretend to the outside world that it was otherwise.

            Or perhaps a combination of both.

  2. jimhaz says

    Stereotypes are proven time and time again. They are a version of the 80/20 rule.

    • James Cameron says

      Along with libel/slander for other victims of the mob. Roger Scruton, for example, should be suing the New Statesman right now, and it does not reflect well on him that he isn’t.

  3. Saw file says

    It’s rare that one is accurate in using words such as ‘disgusted’ and ‘appalled’ when referring to such a prestigious academic academy.
    Hopefully a different one with more fortitude, integrity, and bigger balls, will step up and do the right thing and employ this apprentice scholar.

    • Alice Williams says

      There are no epithets to describe the utterly revolting treatment meted out to Carl Noah. I am desperately sorry for him, he does not deserve this but what, realistically, can be done to help him?

    • Constantin says

      What then? We all pretend nothing happened and, if asked, declare ” No harm, no foul.”?

  4. Jean Levant says

    Tipically crime thought. Some matters are not to be investigate : period. And I who believed UK has the finest people regarding freedom : what a pity!

    • Stephanie says

      That’s the US. Only country with constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.

  5. Ray Andrews says

    Surely the fall of Cambridge to the twiterii is comparable to the fall of Rome or of Athens? Of the world’s great universities, which still stand for academic integrity? Harvard and Yale are gone. Berkley is gone. Who’s left?

    • ga gamba says

      The University of Chicago. Solid on speech freedom and refused to bend the knee to those demanding the firing of medieval European history professor Dr Rachel Fulton Brown. Her antagonists include Mark Zuckerberg’s sister.

      However, its recent decision to end using standardised tests (SAT/ACT) to evaluate student applications appears designed to further DIE goals. Saw how score disparity was used to buttress Asian students’ discrimination complaint against Harvard’s affirmative action policies and binned it.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @ga gamba

        Tx. Mind, since we are already solidly post truth, we can be expected to be post standards sooner or latter. Needless to say, being post standards will not limit itself to admissions. We will need DIE in grading too won’t we? I say it again: only Equitron can ensure that all Identities have exactly equal outcomes everywhere, all the time. If professors are permitted to grade student’s work, we might find Asians scoring higher than affirmative action blacks, and that can’t be permitted. It would be Eurasiocentric and Patriarchal and Melanophobic. From conception to death, Equitron will guide our lives perfectly.

  6. Connor Barth says

    Just a shame. Thank you for keeping this story alive and fighting political pressure. Censorship of ideas from any political party is unacceptable.

  7. derek says

    I suspect that the intelligence quotient of the mob in this case would be quite low. There is a special type of stupidity that believes that an issue which is in common conversation and discussion can be banished from academia and then disappear. This heavy handed nonsense is guaranteeing that the subject will be defined by the most extreme.

    There are interesting and important questions for research. My question is whether there is a cognitive ability threshold to maintain a functioning community? And if so have policies where smart individuals being encouraged, even subsidized to leave those communities actually have created the problem?

    Canada for a long time has had an immigration policy that looks for people with qualifications. It is praised and emulated, but is it possible that it prevents the development in the places where these people come from?

    Surely these and other questions are worth pondering, and to begin to answer them requires a body of knowledge on the subject which can only come from free pursuit of knowledge.

    • Chad Chen says

      The questions you raise are beyond the reach, and resources, of modern science. The answers are unknowable.

      For example, if Mr. Smith leaves Ethiopia for a new home in Canada, there is no way to know what might have happened if Mr. Smith had remained in Ethiopia.

    • Stephanie says

      Derek, I wonder sometimes what effect the “brain drain” has on the development of countries. It’s hard to believe that extracting the people with the highest IQ and the most motivation doesn’t have a detrimental impact.

      I imagine some research could be done whereby populations of expats are studied for IQ and personality factors relevant to success, an equivalent population on these metrics is identified in the home country, their contribution to GDP or some other economic indicators is quantified, and from this the potential contribution of the expat population is inferred.

      It seems ethical to publicize the effect our immigration policy has on third world countries, but what if it turns out that we are a significant contributor to slow economic growth? Would that change the minds of expats, citizens, or politicians? Seems like the risk is too great for the government to ever find such research. It would jeopardize wage suppression of the professional class.

      • Constantin says

        @Stephanie and @derek
        I am concerned that actual human beings are treated as commodities in your expressed concern for the development of migration source countries. Whether Canada actually benefits from the brain migration at the expense of source countries is simply a function of those countries failing to provide a decent acceptable existence. I have noticed that Canadians believe that people migrate from good to better, but I doubt this to be the case. People get uprooted voluntarily only when the situation is nearly unbearable. The move is always from bad to better and only in very rare situations and where there is much cultural similarity they move from good to better. The proper perspective on such things is yo prefer the maximum amount of autonomy for the immigrant and leave out abstract consideration as yo where his or her productivity would make the greatest difference.

        • Stephanie says

          Constantin, it is in fact the Canadian immigration system that commodifies immigrations by valuing those more likely to be economically productive. If we are going to look at one side of that equation, it is only appropriate to look at the other.

          Refugees (theoretically) travel from bad to good, but we are talking about economic migrants, who do not qualify for refugee status because their home countries are safe enough. A great many immigrants travel home for vacation on a yearly basis. Those countries might not be up to your standards, but I believe immigrants would dispute your characterisation of their home countries as “bad.” Recall the outcry over Trump referring to “shithole” countries.

          Autonomy for the immigrant implies a “right” to migrate, which does not exist. Immigration policy is decided by each country, and I’m suggesting that we consider impact not only on Canadian citizens but on the countries immigrants leave behind. At the very least it would be of academic interest.

          • yendi dial says

            Good point, Africa specialist Stephen Smith: “There has never been such demographic pressure” in his book (in French, La ruée vers l’Europe : la jeune Afrique en route pour le Vieux Continent) insists that migrants are NOT miserable, around 6000 euros is needed to migrate. As to the Balkan countries losing at least a third of their population mainly to Europe just going to see the impact on land, agriculture, forest… the impact locally is very negative.

        • Ray Andrews says


          “human beings are treated as commodities”

          This is a good example of flavoring an issue and then pretending that it’s the flavor that matters, not the substance. “human beings are treated as commodities” doesn’t really say anything more than that the sayer doesn’t like it. It’s comparable to a feminist, who has nothing to whine about at the moment, can always fall back on: “Men treat wiminz bodies like OBJECTS!” When you parse that, what you end up with is less than even a tautology because wiminz bodies are objects, as are men’s. Sports stars are bought and sold ‘as commodities’ all the time. Should we weep? If a country has the smarts to prefer immigrants who will improve the place, how is that policy effectively criticized by throwing the word ‘commodity’ at it? No matter how I flavor some rotten meat, if I eat it, it might kill me. But if the meat is good, then it will nourish me, again, regardless of the spices which might be sprinkled on it.

      • Rob G says

        In the field of academia one can quantify this indirectly through citations. Reminded from recent history how making life difficult for people in the name of ideology had profound long term consequences – eg as Richard Rhodes notes Hitler’s Civil Service law “abruptly stripped a quarter of the physicists of Germany, including eleven who had earned or would earn Nobel Prizes, of their positions and their livelihood.” Elsewhere I read (not sure of the source) that 15% of this total had earned 64% of the citations, highlighting how talent is clearly non-linear in its contributions – I think it follows a power distribution? There is thus a similar possibility that companies that deliberately target all the top talent they can get their hands on from the general economy may inadvertently suppress the performance of the whole.

  8. Eurocrat says

    Oh, communism, how I miss you. At least, back then, the west promoted the free speech.

    • Mike says

      You shouldn’t be missing it. It is here now in the form of Marxism and Critical Theory and is in the process of destroying us!

  9. Chad Chen says

    Noah Carl may very well have been fired for poor quality work.His academic papers seem unlikely to create lasting knowledge.

    He has used bogus 10-word “intelligence tests” to reach absurd conclusions, such ss that US Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. Really?

    In similar fashion, he used high-level data to “test” relationships between intelligence and economic development. Pure rubbish, because no scholar has access to the vast quantities of information that would be needed to make a reliable study of this subject.

    • Rev. Wazoo! says

      Perhaps true but that wasn’t why he was fired Those would be reasons why a paper is refused publication and./or the author turned down for a faculty position.

      He was fired for political reasons which is a frighteningly foolish precedent to set in a time of Trump, Orban etc. Never hand your enemies a noose.

      • Chad Chen says

        You do not know whether he was fired for political reasons. It may just be that his academic performance was more carefully evaluated because of a politicsl uproar, and his scholarship was found wanting.

        Every profession has a code of conduct which exposes its members to sanctions for acts that bring the profession into disrepute. This guy is reasonably accused of making sociologists look irresponsible and subversive.

        • Chad Chen says

          Also, when you are appointed to the faculty of a university, there is an implied contract to do nothing to harm the university’s reputation. Unless you have tenure, the university can discontinue your employment for any reason.

        • C Young says

          Every profession has a code of conduct which exposes its members to sanctions for acts that bring the profession into disrepute. This guy is reasonably accused of making sociologists look irresponsible and subversive.

          Really? Do you honestly believe this?

          Would you have supported the sacking of Marxist academics in the 1950s and 1960s for their ‘irresponsible and subversive’ support for the mass murderers Stalin and Mao?

          Would you support the sacking of today’s social justice academics who disrupt the life of the university with ‘irresponsible and subversive’ activism?

          If not, it seems that you are expressing an authoritarian inclination to suppress views you don’t agree with.

          • Asenath Waite says

            @C Young

            “Would you have supported the sacking of Marxist academics in the 1950s and 1960s for their ‘irresponsible and subversive’ support for the mass murderers Stalin and Mao?”

            I’m guessing the answer is yes, as Chad Chen has repeatedly expressed his admiration for Stalin and Mao on these boards.

          • Asenath Waite says

            @C Young

            Meant to say the answer would be no.

        • Mr. Chen:

          Have you read Master Bullock’s “Statement from the Master regarding the outcome of the investigations into complaints about the appointment of Research Fellow – 30 April 2019”?

          It explicitly sets forth the official justification for Dr. Carl’s termination. Go to the home page of St. Edmund’s website,, where you can click on a prominent link to that statement. The statement is filled with politically-correct justifications for the termination decision, including apologies all around for having offended anyone.

          The statement says that a Special Investigative Panel found that Dr. Carl had “activities and connections” that caused his academic work to fall “outside any protection that might otherwise be claimed for academic freedom of speech.” But no substantiation of that finding, no link to how all these “activities and connections” could justify termination, and certainly no links or references to any critical examination of Dr. Carl’s research.

          If termination for “activities and connections” is NOT a firing for political reasons, then I would love to know how you would define what IS a firing for political reasons.

          • Chad Chen says

            In situations like this, only insiders know what is really happening. The publicly stated reasons for a termination may be some, all or none of the real reasons for s termination.

        • Constantin says

          Chad! Do you actually read any article before commenting? You have been told the e exact reason he was fired. Speculating, as you do about more or less imagined academic reasons looks like a baseless smear. Are you by any chance trolling Quillette’s comment section? If you do, please go away.

    • Peter from Oz says


      As usual, your contrariness is valuable. From reading the Master’s statement it would seem that the college had grounds to find that Dr Carl’s scholarship was at fault. But it would also seem that there was no need to mention the political angle at all. There was no need to bow down before the false gods of diversity and inclusion and pretend that left-wing political ideals are really the only morality there is.
      The fact that the Master indulged in all that left-wing cant proves that Dr Carl was sacked for political reasons. But even if this isn’t the case, Cambridge should never state that its values are politcally on one side of the spectrum.
      The Master should resign for the sin of mistaking values and politics.

    • Many papers are poor quality, but their authors do not get fired. The Standard Social Science Model itself is poor quality, because many social scientists cannot include in it factors that are not politically correct. How can we trust a field where somebody can get fired for trying to discuss its problems?

    • I have not read any of Dr. Carl’s research. Apparently you have. But your ungrammatical and misspelled simple little two-point basis for rejecting his entire academic contribution seriously undermines your credibility and gives robust support to Quillette’s position on this entire affair.

      • Chad Chen says

        OK. Show me the ungrammatical language in my two-point argument.

  10. AJ says

    A very bad decision to sack Dr Carl but one taken by St Edmund’s college not cambridge university itself.

  11. Alum says

    One of several recent worrying incidents at Cambridge Uni, all since the appointment of the new VC, Stephen Toope. He is at a minimum overseeing the deterioration of this vital British institution and potentially instigating it.

  12. Asenath Waite says

    Kind of afraid to sign. I suppose that’s cowardly.

    • Stephanie says

      Do it, the more names the better.

    • Joana George says

      Cowardice aside, I don’t see how signing this based on 2 Quilette articles is fundamentally different than the people who signed the open letter against him.

      If you have time to actually read his papers, that’s a different issue.

      • Asenath Waite says

        @Joana George

        It’s the principle. It seems clear that this wasn’t a result of the quality of his papers but his interest in off-limits subject areas.

        • Joana George says

          It probably also seamed clear to the people signing the petition that his research was biased and unethical.

          Look, I’m not saying that the guy didn’t get screwed over. In fact, I think that’s overwhelmingly likely. I just think that it makes sense to require a higher standard of proof before putting your name down.

          Part of the reason is that the race/IQ research is not really on the same level as all the other stuff where truth is compromised in order to not hurt feelings. There is a lot of genuine criticism of the whole field (which heavily relies on the data gathered by only a hand full of researchers). Also, if their research does turn out to be legitimate (or just starts being accepted as fact, despite scientific criticism) it could have much larger consequences than hurt feelings. For example, several countries in Africa have, according to this group, an average IQ below 70, which is the threshold we use in the West to diagnose mental retardation and determine which people aren’t capable to act in their own interest and need a guardian.

          Basically, at the end of the boy who cried wolf, a wolf does come. I do NOT think Noah Carl is a wolf. I do think that this is the general bush a wolf will eventually jump out of if we’re not careful.

          • asdf says

            If we don’t establish the facts the only possible outcome is ever greater attribution of black dysfunction to white malevolence. Doing nothing isn’t being cautious, its letting SJWs run rampant.

          • Chad Chen says

            Do you understand the meaning of an average?

          • Constantin says

            You are mistaken. IQ research is one of the most reliable social metrics ever devised in social science and its predictive ability has been so well demonstrated as to be the single most predictive metric in social sciences. I am afraid that you have fallen pray to some damaging propaganda on this front. You are basically adopting the reasoning of Cambridge in rejecting knowledge of the objective truth if it might be conceived as demeaning. I remain puzzled by the insistence that a lower IQ is a an insult. We are at the bizarre point where we accept mental illness and the inherent dignity of everybody, but draw the line at those with a lower IQ! Personally I often find simpler people with a good moral compass to be infinitelly superior to academics with an IQ of 160 and a profound lack of character and principle. I’ll bet you that could be much happier and find fulfillment among people with an IQ of 70 than on many leftist university campuses. LOL

      • Stephanie says

        Joana, that open letter was quite effective, wouldn’t you say?

        • Joana George says

          Chad, I hope I do. Why do you think I don’t? Don’t you think that accepting as “fact” that over half of the population of those countries are mentally retarded can affect western policy in dealing with them?

          Bleah….just writing that made me feel dirty, so I’ll add again that I don’t think that there is sufficient reason to believe those number are facts. My whole point is that the consequences of being wrong in this area of research can be a lot more significant than “hurt feelings”.

          • Chad Chen says

            In order to better appreciate the dubious nature of your IQ studies, consider this fact: Virtually the lowest average IQ score reported for any country in the world is a score of 62– for the black Caribbean island of St. Lucia.

            Strange, because tiny St. Lucia (population 180,000) has produced a black Nobel prize winner in Economics (Sir Arthur Lewis in 1979), and a mulatto Nobel prize winner in Literature (Derek Walcott in 1992).

          • Ray Andrews says

            @Chad Chen

            “Strange, because tiny St. Lucia”

            No Chad, not strange, because we are dealing with bell-curves. I lived on St. Lucia for two years and I can assure you that on average they are … well, some of them are so … stupid isn’t the word, it is too ‘active’ … so inert, so lacking in mental activity that it’s almost astonishing. You’d not say that their IQ is low, you’d say that their IQ doesn’t exist. Other West Indians notice this. Barbadians think of St. Lucians (and Dominicans, for that matter), as sub human. But these are averages. There is no prohibition on the next world chess champion coming from St. Lucia, we can only say that it is statistically unlikely. BTW, Lewis’s parents were from Antiqua, so he wasn’t really a St. Lucian anyway.

          • Chad Chen says

            Ray Andrews

            You are not a friend of the truth.

            There is no difference, by reputation, or in reality, between the people of St. Lucia and the people of Barbados or the other islands of the eastern Caribbean. They were all once part of the same political Federation, they share the same history and culture, and they regularly intermarry. To claim that they differ in intelligence is as absurd as claiming that the people of Binghamton, NY are different in intelligence from the people of Syracuse, NY.

      • Constantin says

        It is a public statement. It does not matter where it is made. It can be relied upon in argument and Quillette ‘s reputation might just be greater than you think, and also keeps growing by the minute.

        • Joana George says


          I wasn’t attacking IQ as a whole, just it’s validity for meaningful comparison between different groups and the research methodology used by R. Lynn and his group (see the dissertation I linked).

          I started looking into it because the math didn’t add up and I quickly found (by reading their papers) that they indeed don’t use IQ as a statistical artifact as it’s used by most other researchers in the field. They use “Greenwich IQ” to calibrate the tests. There is some logic to their proposed methodology, but it doesn’t have nowhere near the scientific acceptance of the general methodology used in IQ testing.

          The mental retardation threshold and how we currently handle mental retardation are crucial to my point. That some people/nations have lower IQ than others wouldn’t be such a big deal. That most of the people in these countries would be considered incapable of looking after themselves by our current standards is quite a big deal.

          This looks very similar to a lot of the rest of the PC crap so I initially dismissed it as that. However, when I saw some of the numbers these guys have put out into the world as “facts” I became suspicious and ended up reading quite a bit of their work. I’m not sure what it says about me as a person that I noticed the mathematical discrepancy before I noticed the human element….

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Chad Chen

          “There is no difference, by reputation, or in reality, between the people of St. Lucia and the people of Barbados or the other islands of the eastern Caribbean.”

          I beg to differ. I lived there for three years, on several islands. You? I can assure you that Islanders make distinctions among themselves and that each island has it’s own culture. However several islands are quite similar. But many islands have very different histories and cultures especially as they traded hands between the French, British, Dutch and Spanish at various times. Barbados and St. Lucia are easily as different as England and Scotland.

          Like the Scots, Bajans have trouble speaking English 😉

  13. There’s an apology in St. Edmund’s statement about the hurt caused. But if we had to stop doing research which hurt some people’s feelings, we wouldn’t be able to do any research into controversial topics. And that would obviously be a shame, since the controversial issues are the ones where good solutions are most needed.

  14. Morti says

    Universities are to be filled with leftists who know which questions are to be asked and which aren’t. This way they’ll ensure that science will always be on their side and that reality will always have “left wing bias” (they love that saying).

    Eventually though they’ll end up with the authority of scientific institutions ruined and if you want to bring the west to its knees there’s no better way to do it.

    • Defenstrator says

      Reality has a liberal bias. And it does. The regressive left is not liberal, however. Liberals value truth.

    • Chad Chen says

      I don’t think yours is an impartial opinion.

  15. Chad Chen says

    One would not have to be an expert in either psychology or economics to evaluate Dr. Carl’s work.

    His papers are accessible to the general reader and do not even involve the application of advanced mathematics or esoteric concepts in psychology unfamiliar to those who are not academic or professional psychologists.

    • Rev. Wazoo! says

      @Chad Chen
      Please provide links to a paper you feel warrants termination and why. I haven’t been able to find that Cambridge specified any. Lacking that, it looks like slander and libel might have carried the day.

    • Jack B. Nimble says

      @Chad Chen

      I agree with you and disagree with Ms. Lehmann.

      Her statement ‘…..due to the hyper-specialisation of academic fields, most academics will not be able to judge the quality of scholarship that is published in journals outside their field…..’ ignores the fact that–in the US at least–academic promotion applications are routinely evaluated by higher-level committees composed of faculty from many different fields, not just the field that the promotion candidate happens to be working in.

      I find it interesting that no one is commenting on the 2nd investigation into Carl’s appointment, by a retired appeals court judge. He found that Carl had not been completely candid in his application for the St Edmund’s College fellowship–presumably referring to the fact that Carl didn’t disclose his academic interest in race and eugenics. Link:

      • Peter from Oz says

        As I said above, I think Chad May be correct that Dr Carl was rightly dismissed for poor scholarship. However, if he was it was unnecessary for the Master’s statement to kowtow to the usual left wing cliches of diversity and inclusion and take such a biased left wing stance. The Master could have said simply that Dr Carl’s fellowship was withdrawn because an investigation revealed his scholarship was not up to the standard required.
        By wanking on about the “far right” and racial and religious hatred, the Master made it look like Carl was being sacked purely for annoying left wingers on campus.
        Th Master must resign, as must any academic who signed the letter which asked for Carl to be sacked merely on the basis of the nature of his research.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Peter from Oz

          As you say, there is no point in speculating why Dr. Carl was sacked, the Master does not even attempt to hide the reason. One might have thought that shame would motivate at least a trumped up charge of actually bad scholarship as a smoke screen for the real political reason, but there is no smoke screen — Carl was fired for explicitly ideological reasons.

    • Not Chad says

      Chad: the quality of Dr Carl’s work is not the reason he was fired. His conclusions were the reason. If your hypothesis was right, all of the grievance studies faculty would be immediately sacked.

      • Rev. Wazoo! says

        @not chad
        I’m not sure even his conclusions were the reason but open to links showing those which seem in short supply here.

        It seems his willingness to ” engage with” those holding the ‘wrong’ opinions’ was though I’m yet unable to ascertain if he supported or contradicted them.

    • Rev. Wazoo! says

      @Chad Chen
      I notice no such links from you despite your further postings. I can only assume none exist you know of.

  16. E. Olson says

    Almost all the academic frauds of the past 20+ years has been research promoting politically correct viewpoints, so how well do you suppose that the data, analysis, and findings of “scholarly” protesters from anthropology, gender studies and critical race studies hold up if put under scrutiny?

    And assuming that most of their research is likely to be highly biased in not outright fabricated, how likely is it that their findings of “discrimination” or worse against women, blacks, homosexuals, and other “victim” groups will lead, directly or indirectly, to the research being used as a platform to promote views that could incite racial, gender or religious hatred and discrimination against males, heterosexuals, whites, Asians, Christians, and Jews – or is that the very purpose of such research?

    • Jack B. Nimble says

      @E. Olson

      As happens all too often on this website, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      Readers who want to understand what is really going on with research fraud in academia should visit and search for, e.g., Falsification/Fabrication of Data OR Error in Data

      I just did that and got over 2200 hits! Of the first 500 fraudulent papers listed, most were in medicine or biochemistry and relatively few in psychology or sociology.

      Case closed.

      • Peter from Oz says

        You don’t need to commit fraud in psych or sociology, as the findings of studies in those disciplines so often can’t be replicated anyway. No one is going to bother to see if your latest piece of grievance studies BS is based on false data, because we all know that data isn’t important to the grievance mongers, just sophistry and bile.

        • Jack B. Nimble says


          ‘……..Almost all the academic frauds of the past 20+ years has been research promoting politically correct viewpoints…….’

          That was the naive and totally erroneous claim I rebutted–so you changed the topic away from fraud.

          Look virtually all fields of academic research have some issues with plagiarism, replication failure, inappropriate statistics, pseudo-replication, conflicts of interest, confirmation biases, etc. There is no evidence that the problem is more severe in the social sciences than in the natural sciences.

          At least in biomedicine, most of the problems seem to revolve around pressure to get published, get a grant, get promoted, etc., not political correctness.

          • E. Olson says

            JBN wrote: “That was the naive and totally erroneous claim I rebutted–so you changed the topic away from fraud.”

            It seems from your statement that you believe published research that is bogus (i.e. does not conform with or accurately predict real world outcomes) due to widespread bias or incompetency is not fraud as long as the research is never flagged as problematic. If that is the case, then I disagree with your definition of fraud, because in my book any research that is designed to get a desired PC conclusion that does not conform to reality is fraud, even if the researcher is naively unaware of their bias or didn’t intend to “cook the books”.

        • Ray Andrews says

          @Peter from Oz

          If I write a paper supporting cold fusion it is likely to refer to hard data, the sort of data that is in principal subject to replication and possible refutation — my paper can be shown to be wrong. But in those ‘Studies’ fields, where feelings are the ‘data’, how on earth is the notion of fraud even relevant? I write a paper claiming that 37.6% of college girls feel that they have been looked at lustfully. This is such a flaccid, subjective claim that it does not rise to the level of something which can be refuted. What’s that statistic of Dr. P’s? — 80% of Studies papers are never cited once? They are not knowledge at all, they are someone being paid to let us know what their feelings are. It would be unjustified praise to even accuse the Studies people of fraud, their productions are unworthy of the compliment.

      • E. Olson says

        JBN – Thank you for your snippy correction – it is nice to know there are people willing to do serious research to fact check a quickly written comment to an article about research censorship. I’m sure your search is correct in finding lots of fraudulent medical research, which is also more likely to be caught when the studied medicines and treatments subsequently turn out not to work (hopefully without killing anyone), and consequently has perhaps become so common that these frauds rarely get any media attention. My comment was written with regards to several papers that received a lot of media attention by the likes of Sokol, LaCour, Stapel, and Wansik to name a few off the top of my head, and the widespread failure of replication projects to replicate major papers in the social sciences (see links).

        It is certainly useful that someone is taking the time to formally organize all the retracted studies as your link demonstrates, but such databases still require that some researcher or other interested party do some fact checking, formal qualitative or quantitative review, and/or multiple unsuccessful replication attempts to find bias, poor research practice, and fraud in published research to demonstrate a need for retraction. Such due diligence is much more likely to happen in non-PC research involving IQ, gender, climate science, or other topics where the academic/political Left has decided that dissenting data and conclusions are not allowed. On the other hand, as Sokol, and the followup by Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose demonstrated, if a paper’s data and conclusions conform to Leftist orthodoxy, any fiction or nonsense can successfully pass through the peer review process and likely never be discovered to be based on fraud or simple incompetence that would lead to its entry into

        • Ray Andrews says

          @E. Olson

          “Lindsay, Boghossian, and Pluckrose demonstrated”

          Had they not confessed their expose, their papers would still be sitting there in the ‘scholarly’ literature. How many other sleepers might there be? If one had the patience, it might be useful to let, say, ‘The Quotations of Chairman Mao as they apply to dolphin trans-sexuality’ just sit there for a decade or two to see if anyone, ever, notices it.

          • Stephanie says

            Ray, considering how easy these papers are to write if you know what SJWs want to read, it would be a wonderful troll if hundreds or thousands of people submitted completely fraudulent papers, and came out with the troll a few of years later. These fields are already a joke, it would be hilarious to humiliate journals and those fields at large until they impose some kind of real standard.

        • Jack B. Nimble says

          @E. Olson

          Your latest comment shows that you misunderstand the peer review process. Writing as someone who has reviewed hundreds of scientific manuscripts and grant proposals, I can tell you that reviewers have to assume that the lab. methods and data that are reported in a manuscript are factual and not fabricated. It’s still a controversial question as to how much raw data authors should be required to provide prior to publication. Often, massive amounts of raw data are placed in an online depository under ’embargo’ until the paper has appeared in print. At that point, peer review is over, although any interested third party* can then download the data, analyze it to their heart’s content, and even submit a data-reanalysis for publication.

          That’s called transparency, and I’m 100% in favor of that.

          *such persons are sometimes called data pirates, because they take other people’s work for their own benefit. That’s perfectly legal, of course, but frowned on in some scientific circles. And putting data in the public domain is now a requirement by some granting agencies.

          Bottom Line: The Boghossian et al. affair demonstrated how much the publication process depends on trust among journals, reviewers and authors. Since academic journals have no enforcement powers or detection/forensic abilities outside the peer review process, it IS easy to cheat the system.

          • E. Olson says

            JBN – I do understand the peer review process very well, and data/results fabrication is likely not the serious problem with fraudulent research, but advocacy bias across the field is. If I am doing research that hopes to show public willingness to support climate change mitigation I could a write question asking: “Are you willing to buy electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming?” and would expect a strong majority would say yes. If I report 80% of respondents are willing to buy renewable electricity, I would also expect that most the journal reviewers are likely to be “pro-green” and will consequently nod with approval at such fine results and approve the article for publication. Since renewables are always more expensive, however, I should be asking something such as: Are you willing to pay 50% more to buy electricity generated by renewable sources to reduce global warming?” and I would expect that perhaps 10% of the sample would say yes. I would consequently expect that most of the pro-green reviewers would also seriously question my questions as “too negative” or find some other fault with my “downer” paper so they can reject the manuscript. Such wording differences can be applied to questions about IQ, gender, gay marriage, etc. and will give very results that will support the Leftist perspective held by most social scientists (who are the reviewers), OR be more accurate at predicting real public opinion which is most often not supportive of the Leftist perspective.

            Bottom line is it is very possible to change question wording, or sampling frames, or stimuli to move results in a desired direction, which for politically charged topics is most often not the accurate picture of public opinion, but if your reviewers share the same advocacy bias it is much more likely to get accepted for publication.

          • Jack B. Nimble says

            @E. Olson

            Your bottom paragraph refers to the fact that word choice matters in public opinion polls, which has been known for a long time. []

            Your top paragraph is a series of ‘what if…..’ and ‘I expect that…..’ statements that are purely hypothetical. Try to find some real examples.

  17. codadmin says

    Mike Nayna published the final part of his Evergreen documentary a couple of weeks ago. I suggest those who are still on the fence about the seriousness of the problem watch the full documentary.

    Some of the video footage is terrifying:

  18. Charlie says

    Zeus said men will need Gods as long as they are lazy, cowardly and venal. It would appear that Cambridge is run by the lazy, cowardly and venal.

    Nancy Wake the famous SOE operator said she fought for freedom. There are hardly anyone left who saw combat prior to1943, during the dark days of the war and certainly in in late1940 to late 1942 when it looked as if the Nazis would win. Perhaps it is best. Cambridge is throwing away the freedom for which people died and were tortured.

  19. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: Cambridge University Fires a Young Scholar for ‘Problematic Research’ – News about world

  20. Pingback: New top story on Hacker News: Cambridge University Fires a Young Scholar for ‘Problematic Research’ – Outside The Know

  21. Peter from Oz says

    I don’t think you go far enough. The Master has brought St Edmunds into disrepute by giving into to evil left wingers. He and the board of the college must all be sacked. Let’s apply some of the left’s own bullying back at them, and see how they like it.
    Sinistra delenda est

  22. Andy Patton says

    I do hope that Cambridge will change the name of its Darwin College, since Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was used to promote hatred, for example, in the field of “eugenics.” This was indirect. t Idid not follow directly from his work and constituted
    a complete misunderstanding of his phrase, “the survival of the fittest.” Nonetheless, Cambridge should stand by its principles.

    I await the announcement that Cambridge will shut down all research involving genetics, since the possibility of its misuse exists—and could lead to hatred of an ethnic group.

    • Alan Geal says

      @ Andy Patton The phrase “survival of the fittest” was not originated by Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology (1864).

      More generally: your anticipated Cambridge ‘shut downs’ could usefully have a much wider scope – since only utterly spurious academic fields could resist your implied ‘precautionary’ razor – as a result outright nonsense would reign unchallenged.

      Perhaps Hitchens’s Razor should trim these repressive ideologies:

      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

      As for the pharisaic posturing and preening of Dr. Carl’s accusers, I wish them their just deserts.

      • Andy Patton says

        Thanks, Alan Geal, for your correction of my misuse of “survival of the fittest.” I did not know that—one more cautionary tale about the limits of one’s knowledge.

        Thinking further on the precautionary razor front, since the statement from Cambridge warns against research that “could lead” to racist views, it may be worthwhile to shut down all research—since one never knows where research could lead or how it might be taken up. If the university wants to be careful about even the unintended and unforeseen consequences, it seems wise to be cautious.

        As to Alan Geal fears that “outright nonsense would reign unchallenged”, shutting down all discussion as well seems the correct path, since discussion and argument, no matter how well-meaning or well-founded, could lead to unintended hurtful effects.

        I look forward to a Cambridge that features no research and no discussion.

    • Ray Andrews says

      @Andy Patton

      Darwin was ‘racism adjacent’.

    • TarsTarkas says

      I feel that Cambridge should shut down all research period whether in science, social science, psychology, or moonbattery, ’cause of the possibility of feelingz hurt. Then the research faculty could all resign, and the UK would save billions of pounds that are currently being misspent.

  23. Chad Chen says

    Some additional background information, since many commentators are rushing to judgment.

    The University of Cambridge is not known for political correctness. To the contrary: The University has a longstanding tradition of using taxpayer funds to support the education of bright, privately educated kids from wealthy families.

    There is no affirmative action plan. Fir example, the UK has 2 million black residents, but St. Edmund’s College has no blacks and rejected all of its 30-odd black applicants between 2012 and 2016.

    • Kim says

      That is not a lot of black applicants. Any stats on how many were of mixed race? (Just kidding). Have there been any people of East Indian or Oriental descent accepted to Cambridge?

    • KDH says

      Sounds like they are not yet known for political correctness. Emphasis on the yet. With respect to people of color as students there, are there any people of East Indian or Oriental descent accepted or attending, and what would their numbers be with respect to their general percentage in the population?

    • E. Olson says

      CC – So your evidence about lack of political correctness is based on: 1) educating the rich and famous at taxpayer expense, 2) lack of affirmative action to educate black residents?

      Have you never heard the hypocrisy expression: “do as we say, not as we do”? Most Leftist advocates for the victim classes don’t work or live among the poor and “oppressed”, but instead live in gated communities among their own kind of rich, privileged Leftists because they don’t want to be around low class people who voted for Brexit or Trump. Similarly, all elite academic institutions cater almost exclusively to the education of the rich, famous, and privileged. As for affirmative action, it seems you equate lack of affirmative action with “racism” which is a typical Leftist perspective, but most “normal” people would say affirmative action is the real racism because it assumes “victim” classes can’t achieve the same standards and need special lower standards to gain entry. Cambridge has simply maintained their entry standards, which is laudable, but they clearly have adopted standard Leftist perspectives when it comes to persecuting non-PC research topics and faculty.

      • Ray Andrews says

        @E. Olson

        Thanks. Correctness is not an all or nothing thing. Perhaps they are compensating for their lack of zeal in DIE by being extra zealous in rooting out thoughtcrime among their white faculty. If the truth be told, there are those who only attend Two Minutes Hate because they have to. There are those who might only DIE if they really can’t put it off any longer.

    • C Young says

      I’m not sure where you are getting this stuff from Chad. Cambridge university is known for political correctness – see below.

      At the 2015 election, only 20% of votes in Cambridge went to right wing parties. 36% went to a full on socialist party.

      Cambridge can’t have an ‘Affirmative Action’ policy because that is US terminology. It will offer places to lower performing and less privileged kids, if they think they can perform at the necessary standard once admitted. This has been the case for decades.

      Cambridge also runs innumerable schemes to boost black, working class and ethnic enrollment.

      • Stephanie says

        Are we going to forget the shoddy way Cambridge treated Jordan Peterson only a few weeks ago? “Not known for political correctness….” Geez.

      • Chad Chen says

        The reason many students and professors at the University of Csmbridge vote for the Labour Party is mostly due to naked self-interest.

        Fir example, the Labour Party supports drastically reduced or free tuition for all British university students. The governing Conservatives have been reluctant to cap tuition fees, and have been stingy with research grants.

        Also, young people tend to be rebellious during their college years and vote for underdog parties like Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens.

  24. Kim says

    I note that at my latest viewing, none of the professor’s signatures in the Quillette petition to reconsider the scholar’s firing were from Cambridge.

  25. asdf says

    The linked David Reich article is part of the problem. It says we should have academic freedom, then goes on a virtue signaling crusade, then says “the facts” won’t show XYZ (when they pretty clearly do).

    We all know the bottom line:

    1) Most stereotypes are basically proven true by the research.

    2) Variation within versus variation between is a meaningless distinction.

    Politics (and more generally all things we compete for) are pursued by groups and groups basically struggle for their piece of the pie. Groups are primarily interested in increasing the groups share of “things that are good” and decreasing the groups share of “things that are bad.” They don’t really care about individual merit or justice, that’s not the point of being part of a group and trying to get a slice of the pie for the group.

    Blacks don’t vote 90% for one party because they all convieniently came to the same philosophical conclusion of “the good”. They voted for the party they thought would get the most for blacks.

    When you say “blacks needs to be X% of Stuyvesant regardless of academic performance” you are stating loud and clear you just want more of what you want for your own kind.

    A lot of people don’t WANT to be treated fairly based on merit. They want BETTER than their merit on its own would award. And they will use identity politics to get it.

    Of course to sell this in a way that doesn’t cause backlash you have to make up some bullshit excuses (privilege theory, etc). So when someone threatens to demolish your bullshit excuses with facts its a threat to your interests and they have to be destroyed.

    3) The basic distribution of “stuff” in society is basically fair on a merit basis. Or at a minimum minority status doesn’t seem to be the primary cause on unfairness in most things. So all of these attempts to roll back “privilege” are basically unjustifiable lootings.

    4) A lot of programs to close all these gaps are doomed to failure, and as such are harmful and wasteful compared to alternative norms and resource allocations. However, a lot of people have an interest in keeping them going, so they will destroy anyone who points out the injustice of what they are doing.

    5) The potential changes to our society that would take place with an honest evaluation of genetic science are vast. There would be winners and losers in such an evaluation. And even if it resulted in a society that was OVERALL better then before, those that would lose out will fight it tooth and nail by any means necessary.

    That’s what this is about. And that is why calls for academic freedom are pointless. How does academic freedom help the interests of the people doing this? How would the truth help their interests? If it doesn’t, why the hell would they care about the truth?

    • Chad Chen says

      In a multiracial democracy, are you suggesting that blacks should pay taxes to support universities that educate only whites and Asians?

      Do you not understand how “merit” criteria can be used to block the economic and cultural development of blacks and other minorities who are told they are not bright enough to qualify for an elite education but they must pay taxes anyway so others can get ahead? Shame on you!

      • asdf says

        Blacks don’t pay much in taxes. Over their lifetime, they will receive far more in state benefits than they pay. If blacks didn’t exist, the funding situation for White/Asian education would improve dramatically. They should be seen as a parasite class that takes more than it gives.

        I think the more important question is why are Whites/Asians subsidizing blacks schooling when the ROI is so bad. Real per capita K-12 education spending is three times higher over the last few decades, but it hasn’t budged black performance. Does NYC really need to spend $20k+ per kid per year to effectively run a daycare? There is no justification based on efficiency or fairness.

        • asdf says

          And on top of that, why can’t gifted kids have a school of their own where they can move at a fast pace together? Like the magnet school I went to the cost was actually lower to the state then if I had stayed at my local school. All these poor Asian kids are asking for is to pay you money to be left alone while they study, and you won’t even let them.

        • Chad Chen says

          Since the IRS does not publish federal or state income tax payments by race, you have no idea how much in the way of federal income taxes blacks pay. But everybody pays substantial sales and excise taxes.

          Take a state like Michigan. Population 10 million. 15% black. That’s 150,000 black taxpayers. The flagship University of Michigan, which is supported by sales snd income taxes, enrolls only about 200 black students a year, most of them athletes who make money for the university as amateur football and basketball players. UM is exploiting blacks in Michigan to educate white snd Asian students.

          • asdf says

            It’s not hard to use census data by race to estimate taxes and benefits and do a few calculations. Blacks are parasites.

            What would these extra blacks do at U of Michigan? Flunk out because they don’t have the IQ to handle the material? Get a useless degree that grants them few skills and ruins the reputation of a U of Michigan degree?

            When these people graduate unable to do the jobs they have degrees for, should they also be given such jobs? How would they perform them? Is it “just” for someone to have an incompetent black doctor treat their injuries? An incompetent black teacher instruct their children? An incompetent black engineer design their nuclear power plant?

            And if you deny Whites/Asians the slots to become these things, who is going to do it for you? Who is going to provide you medical care? Educate your kids? Make sure that your house has power? Your people aren’t smart enough to do that on your own. If they were Africa wouldn’t look like Africa.

            What should the whites/asians do now that they have been denied the right to develop their talents? Just accept unchallenging and unstimulating jobs ill suited to them?

        • Chad Chen says

          “Blacks don’t pay much in taxes”

          Total BS. In addition to sales and excise taxes, which are not that different for people in different income brackets, let’s look at income taxes.

          The estimated median income for black men (about $30,000 annually) is about 75% of median income for white men.($40,500). For black women, median income ($22,500) is about 90% that of white women ($25,000) So the differences are not trivial, but not as great as you appear to believe. The majority of both blacks and whites are in the 15% federal income tax bracket.

    • Chad Chen says

      Please get educated. Read a philisophy book on the evils of crude utilitarianism.

      • asdf says

        I’m not a utilitarian, though I find it useful in some instances. There aren’t any philosophical principles I accept that justify the things you are proposing.

        • Chad Chen says

          Let’s see your numbers on taxes and benefits by race, because you appear to be uninformed.

          You also appear to have primitive ideas about IQ and the ability to acquire engineering or medical skills. You seem to think blacks are not qualified for higher education and can only be incompetent professionals.

          But here’s the thing. Black doctors serve mostly black patients, not people like you. Why should black patients gave to put up with white and Asian doctors who often mistreat and discriminate against them (there is an academic literature documenting discrimination in patient care by race).

          • asdf says

            In one of these threads I gave you a link with relevant info on black taxes and benefits. You can go through it at your leisure. Nothing will convince you, but you are wrong, and you lie about it out of hatred, malice, and a desire to keep you unjust racial looting racket going.

            Yes, being an engineer or a doctor requires a certain IQ, this is a fact. The X% of the black population that meets or exceeds that IQ can be measured. If you try to force > X% through that filter, it can only be done by admitting people with IQs too low to succeed in an objective manner.

            Black doctors don’t serve only or often even primarily black patients (this should be obvious) and non-black doctors serve blacks. Blacks need to be served by non-blacks because if they weren’t they wouldn’t receive any treatment at all since there aren’t enough black doctors.

        • Chad Chen says

          Based on the data offered up by white academics involved in IQ research, about 6 million blacks in the United States have IQs exceeding the white average.

          There are a lot fewer than 6 million blacks involved in white collar professions, so you don’t need to worry yourself about hordes of incompetent black doctors, lawyers and engineers.

          • asdf says

            Being a doctor requires an IQ a lot higher than 100. Based on commonly available estimates of doctor IQ only 0.038% of blacks can be doctors. 37 million blacks * 0.038% = 14k or so. Not much.


            “The proportion of medical students who identified as African-American or black rose from 5.6 percent in 1980 to 7.7 percent in 2016, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. That’s a substantial increase but still short of the 13.2 percent in the general population.”

            But one would expect worse given the numbers. While only 0.038% of blacks pass the threshold, something like 4.78% of the general population will. Thats more than a 10 to 1 difference in rate. Blacks shouldn’t be 7.7% of doctors, they should be less than 1.32% of doctors.

            And this explains why to get to 7.7% medical schools have to lower their standards dramatically to admit blacks. Everyone knows blacks are admitted with far lower scores and measures of merit to everything they ever do. In every field. In every endeavor. They are carried by their betters and demand what they haven’t earned.

            And of course the higher up the skill ladder we go (surgeon, etc) the higher the IQ threshold and the worse the numbers.

            P.S. Most 100 IQ people don’t graduate college and become professionals.

  26. Anonymous says

    “..Nigel Biggar, Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology, University of Oxford…”

    Some people might possibly take Professor Biggar’s name as referring to a racial slur. To protect Oxford, he must be fired – you know, take one for the team, right ?

    • TarsTarkas says

      And ‘Regius’ both refers to a King (toxic male) and has a male ending (ius’). And most Professors are male. Therefore not only should he be sacked his title should be abolished and all papers and data with that title on it, AND his name, should also be disintegrated, never to be seen or mentiond again.

      If I were on social media other than blogs I wonder how many ‘likes’ that statement would get? Even one would be too many.

  27. Sander Malschaert says

    Another victory for garbage ideology maskerading as science. This madness will pass though, I’m sure.

  28. Eigen Eagle says

    And some wonder why the political right has become increasingly suspicious that science in the academy is about ideology and not objectivity and understanding the world.

  29. Aristodemus says

    Ideologues left and right alike can’t accept the implications of evolution.

  30. Z from OZ says

    It is important to point out that Dr Carl’s hiring and firing has nothing to do with the University of Cambridge as an institution. It has everything to do with St. Edmund’s College. Research Fellows at a Cambridge college are employed by the college and they do not have a full University of Cambridge appointment. The Fellowship Committee of the college, which is a self-governing, independent body (governed in fact by the communitiy of the fellows of the college, making up what is called the Governing Body), advertises the research fellowship, which are for 2-3 years (non-tenured, not tenure-track, non-renewable) research-only positions and they interview the candidates and make the decision to appoint the most worthy candidate (or the one they believe to be most worthy), which is then voted on by the next Governing Body meeting by all the fellows of the college (mostly academics from all walks of academic life in Cambridge). The research fellow will have access to University of Cambridge faciities, including the University Library, carries a university ID but for all intents and purpuses he/she is employed by the college ONLY and not by the university. This is one of those Cambridge idiosyncracies. There are academics permanenty employed by a college, such as College Lecturers, who may teach for the respective university department but are not Uni Cambridge appointees. And there are tenure-track and tenured (these terms are not used in Cambridge though) academics who are university appointed and also have a college fellowship (i.e., they run college tutorials etc.). This disgraceful episode is the responsibility of the Governing Body of St. Edmund’s college and its Master. University of Cambridge has no control over a college resarch fellow whatsoever. It is indeed interesting that the external review of the recruitment process by Sir Patrick Elias, a well-respected legal scholar, familiar with the Cambridge college system, found no problem with the process at any point. So the Fellowship Committee did everything according to the books and they appointed the best candidate of the field. This does not only exonerate the Fellowship Committee but it also supports that Dr Carl was indeed a worthy appointee. The internal committee, however, run by a retired veterinary sciences professor, former Dean of the vet school, who may have run the committee not on the basis of his subject expertise but on his administrative background, found the issues, all rather nebulous, highlighted by Ms Lehmann’s article. It is indeed frightening that a Cambridge college is willing to go along with the mob in trying the protect its “reputation”. They must have gotten scared sh@tless that a front-page article in the Guardian on “Cambridge college supports racism” will demage the “reputation” of the college and enrolments will go down but most importantly donors will turn elsewhere.

  31. Bill Haywood says

    So has anyone on any side of this actually studied Carl’s work?

    Hard to be outraged either way without knowing what he wrote.

    • Alan Geal says

      @ Bill Haywood

      Yep! A list is here: .
      Is the pertinent question is how many of the signatory accusers either had read or comprehended any of these studies? Could it approach zero?

      Having read a selection to the best of my ability (as a mathematician) I call ‘bullshit’ on the entire tribe!

      • Alan Geal says

        The apparently audacious claim of “as a mathematician” is not meant as a bid for authority, rather the opposite, it is an admission that I have no particular expertise in Dr. Carl’s area – but this is evidently a large club!

  32. AssClown24/7 says

    “…there’s a risk it could lead indirectly to bad actors promoting views that could incite racial or religious hatred.”

    Two more degrees and we can lay the race war at the feet of Kevin Bacon.

  33. Aaron Garrad says

    ‘Should philosophers who debate issues of euthanasia and abortion be fired because some Christian students might find their work offensive? Should novelists like Salman Rushdie be refused a platform because their work could incite religious hatred? Should geneticists who discover differences in populations emerging from genetic ancestry be fired because some students might be offended by these findings? Should biologists who operate on the assumption that sex is bimodal be defunded because some trans rights activists might find their work upsetting?’

    I think you’ll find that the answer to all these questions is rapidly becoming ‘yes’.

  34. Aaron Garrad says

    Does it really matter where he publishes or who he consorts with? All that matters is the scientific merit of his research.

  35. Simon B. Chen, MD says

    Do not surrender. Stand our ground.

  36. Dominic Allaway says

    Couple of left field comments:

    Today I’ve seen two examples of this D&I political philosophy that’s been on display at Cambridge corrupting law and culture:

    A employment tribunal judgement that showed how (legal) so called ‘positive action’ was used to deny a perfectly qualified white guy a position in the police – see the publicy available case of Furlong v Cheshire Constabulary;

    A movie that had several scenes that weren’t about entertainment but pushing the political view that women are superheroes too – the latest Avengers movie. I do not go to a cinema to be subjected to political propaganda – but tonight I was.

    Saturation point has been reached.

    • Peter Kriens says

      @DA Well, there is some hope in the fact that Furlong won. That said, I’d no idea that the selection process in government’s positions has become so biased against men.

  37. Conner M. Steacy says

    I would hope that Stephen Blackwood would hire Dr Noah Carl the moment Ralston College is open for classes. Throw in Bret Weinstein and Heather Heyer as well.

  38. Josh Klugman says

    For the record, I signed this letter and left this message which Quillette omitted: “I write not in support of Noah Carl’s work, but in defense of academic freedom. A scholar should be fired only in extreme circumstances of scholarly fraud or visiting harm on human subjects participating in a study. St. Edmunds’ College’s statement says nothing about either.”

  39. Nakatomi Plaza says

    Quillette, as usual, is being dishonest. Carl apparently “published” his work on a site that did not use conventional peer-review, instead allowing unqualified people to approve five of his essays. Rather than acknowledge how problematic this practice is, Carl allowed his work to be disseminated to some very nasty right-wing websites and used as scientific evidence to support race-based arguments. Carl should have immediately objected to this, but he didn’t. Even more ridiculously, he apparently acknowledged the circumstantial nature of his conclusions but allowed them to stand. He should have damn well known that allowing dubious scholarship to be used for racial and political purposes would make him and his employer look terrible. What was this dumbass thinking? His scholarship was weak and irresponsible, yet he allowed others to rely on it for their own distinctly non-academic purposes. He deserved to get shit-canned if he’s going to embarrass his university this way.

    Everybody here is completely wrong about this Noah Carl asshole. You guys love to complain about how screwed up academia is, but you don’t know shit about how it actually works.

  40. Nakatomi Plaza says

    So groups that are perceived with hostility are more likely to be treated with hostility? Amazing.

  41. Alan says

    “We live at a time where academic freedom is under threat from ideologues and activists of all persuasions”

    Why lie? You know full well which “persuasion’ is doing the censoring and witch-hunts.

  42. Bob says

    Similar results are found consistently in other countries. Only a leftist University intellectual can still pretend that there are no ethnic difference in the average prevalence of crime. What is observed is differences up to one order of magnitude. And, when you so many people enter, their average is relevant.

  43. Marty says

    Happy to sign the petition, but why the requirement to display my possession (or lack) of academic credentials?

    This is kind of appeal to authority that emboldens the SJ mob – “I got a piece of sheepskin that says I are smarter than you.”

    It doesn’t take a university degree to recognize censorship and totalitarianism.

  44. Daniel Colascione says

    I oppose Noah Carl’s firing. I’m in industry, not academia, but I support Carl nonetheless. Free inquiry is essential to a healthy intellectual culture and a prosperous society. No good has ever come from suppressing research into anything, but history is full of harm caused by repeated attempts.

  45. Erik Friesen says

    Sometimes people are happier knowing the full truth on a matter and sometimes they become very unhappy when told the truth. And sometimes we just don’t know what the truth is because we don’t have all the facts.

    The race/intelligence question has been an open one for decades. During this same time we have learned very, very little about the neurology of intelligence and the extent to which intelligence may be a malleable thing. Why is that? Over-specialization?

    One of the first things I noted during my first year at university was the compartmentalization of fields of study. For example, at no point did a history professor ever venture an opinion on the psychology of famous historical figures in my experience. When I meet an academic I’m always curious to see how comfortable they are discussing subjects outside their field of expertise. The answer? Not very.

    So I conclude that Cambridge may be correct here. I think that research into intelligence solely on the basis of race without any understanding of ALL factors relating to intelligence from all relevant fields of knowledge is both academic negligence and unnecessarily socially damaging.

    It’s also worth pondering just for a moment the fact that the most avid consumers of the work of The Bell Curve author Charles Murray and now Noah Carl are mostly white racists.

    I’m fine with hearing people defend Noah Carls position but they should not think that their love of academic freedom gives them the moral high ground on this particular issue.

    • codadmin says

      “…the most avid consumers of the work of The Bell Curve author Charles Murray and now Noah Carl are mostly white racists.”

      Your comment means you can be also dismissed alongside with the ‘white racists’.

      • Denny Sinnoh says

        Yes. How does he know if a reader or scholar is “racist”.
        What is his measuring stick?

        • codadmin says

          The measuring stick is whatever they want it to be…leftist have know that for decades.

          As non-leftists, we must now start to define what racist means to us, and not what it means to them.

  46. Alan Geal says

    @Chad Chen

    “Make fun of Dr. Carl”… or (perhaps) even support him… Only the analysis may reveal that – the field is open!

    As Will once quipped: Surety secure; but modest doubt is call’d The beacon of the wise …

  47. bill53 says

    “Imagine what would happen if the behaviour of St Edmund’s College become a new norm. Should philosophers who debate issues of euthanasia and abortion be fired because some Christian students might find their work offensive?”

    I am not a scholar, just a Biology major retired from Verizon. I am conservative in every way including being pro-life. Every day I stumble upon Quillette’s anti-religious bigotry. This comment is an example, couple of lines no one notice it. IN WHAT DIMENSION DO YOU FOLKS LIVE IN? Where in the world does this imaginary scenario happen. It is the baby killers who can’t tolerate discussion not pro-lifers. It is government and the left pushing older or unneeded folks to move aside for everyone’s good that drives euthanasia. So trying to save this dude you offend others with exactly the same nonsense they are pulling.
    Based on your bigotry I don’t trust one word out of your mouths about this dude Noah Carl. Why would conservative or religious folks support this dude after your comments. From what I have read this dude Carl has lots of issues.
    I think this dude Carl should just look for another job.

Comments are closed.