The institutional academic world has been severely compromised by the progressive socialist democrats and their nonsensical agenda-driven bullpucky...
First came the corruption of science. Science is controlled skepticism about our universe, where hypotheses are proposed, tested, published, validated or falsified. One may look at the quintessential deniers that went beyond Newtonian physics into the world of quantum mechanics -- and yet there remains no satisfying and testable unifying theory that governs the micro and macro worlds. Chaotic systems still remain beyond the scope of the fastest computers to resolve, Yet we find progressive scientists speaking with authority and certitude about that which is little more than speculation. And the progressives now pejoratively label anything that does not advance their agenda as "junk science" and those who propose alternative theories as "deniers."
Second, came the corruption of the peer review process which was originally a publishing process to weed-out wacky presentations, ensure a degree of rigor and clarity, as well to fix any obvious errors prior to publication. The reviewers are often anonymous but are scientific peers of those whose article is under scrutiny. These reviewers do not independently test assumptions, review the original data, validate the experiment, nor vouch for the author's findings and conclusions. Yet the public has been sold on the idea that papers appearing in peer-reviewed journals have more credibility than those which appear in other venues. Progressives appear to be fond of counting peer-reviewed papers and the declaring "the science is settled" by a "consensus" opinion. Unfortunately, a consensus is a political process, and there are numerous factors which make it difficult to combine disparate works to come up with a credible position.
Then came the corruption of other fields of endeavor such as economics which adopts mathematical equations and statistical techniques to deal with unknowable chaotic systems. Hayek's Nobel Lecture, "The Pretense of Knowledge" effectively with the subject.
Followed by the "grievance studies" programs in which all objectivity is lost to the progressive agenda. An entire field of endeavor that assumes a single position to be valid and that anything the disproves, falsifies, or casts doubt on the core fundamental beliefs is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong, and the author needs to be publicly castigated and denied access to their peers -- and perhaps have their livelihood compromised.
So I couldn't stop laughing when a few mischievous researchers decided to punk the progressive academic system and produced a paper titled "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship."
Part I: Introduction
Something has gone wrong in the university—especially in certain fields within the humanities. Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem.
We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as “cultural studies” or “identity studies” (for example, gender studies) or “critical theory” because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of “theory” which arose in the late sixties. As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields “grievance studies” in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.
We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research. Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations. We hope this will give people—especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice—a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, “No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.” <Source>
In essence, they published a series of bogus papers in well-respected journals using "very shoddy methodologies including incredibly implausible statistics, making claims not warranted by the data, and ideologically-motivated qualitative analyses.
What Did We Do?
We wrote 20 papers and submitted them to the best journals in the relevant fields (more on this below) with considerable success, even though we had to take the project public prematurely, and thus stop the study, before it could be properly concluded. At the time of publishing this, we have:
4 of these have been published online.
3 more have been accepted without having had time to see publication through. (This can take months).
2 have been “revised and resubmitted,” and are awaiting a decision. (A judgment of “Revise and Resubmit” usually results in publication following the satisfactory completion of requested revisions. A judgment of “Reject and Resubmit” can result in publication following more substantial ones. It is very rare for papers to be accepted outright.)
1 is still under first review at its current journal
4 are left hanging with no time to submit them to journals after rejection (2), revise and resubmit (1) or reject and resubmit (1).
An example of idiocy...
Title: Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity in Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon
Thesis: That dog parks are rape-condoning spaces and a place of rampant canine rape culture and systemic oppression against “the oppressed dog” through which human attitudes to both problems can be measured. This provides insight into training men out of the sexual violence and bigotry to which they are prone.
Purpose: To see if journals will accept arguments which should be clearly ludicrous and unethical if they provide (an unfalsifiable) way to perpetuate notions of toxic masculinity, heteronormativity, and implicit bias.
Selected Reviewer Comments:
“This is a wonderful paper – incredibly innovative, rich in analysis, and extremely well-written and organized given the incredibly diverse literature sets and theoretical questions brought into conversation. The author’s development of the focus and contributions of the paper is particularly impressive. The fieldwork executed contributes immensely to the paper’s contribution as an innovative and valuable piece of scholarship that will engage readers from a broad cross-section of disciplines and theoretical formations. I believe this intellectually and empirically exciting paper must be published and congratulate the author on the research done and the writing.” -Reviewer 1, Gender, Place, and Culture
“Thank you for the opportunity to review a really interesting paper. I think it will make an important contribution to feminist animal geography with some minor revisions, as described below.” -Reviewer 2, Gender, Place, and Culture
“As you may know, GPC is in its 25th year of publication. And as part of honoring the occasion, GPC is going to publish 12 lead pieces over the 12 issues of 2018 (and some even into 2019). We would like to publish your piece, Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland, Oregon, in the seventh issue. It draws attention to so many themes from the past scholarship informing feminist geographies and also shows how some of the work going on now can contribute to enlivening the discipline. In this sense we think it is a good piece for the celebrations. I would like to have your permission to do so.” -Editor of Gender, Place, and Culture <Source>
There is little doubt in my mind that the progressive socialist democrats present a clear and present danger to ourselves, our culture, and our Nation with their attempt to subvert science as a rationale for implementing their nonsensical and draconian public policies that advance their progressive agenda to the detriment of "We the People."
That we should believe that governmental experts (yeah, like those found at the DMV) know best what we need and how best to live our lives.
That we should continue allowing teachers, at all academic levels from pre-school to post-graduate work to indoctrinate rather than sponsor open and honest discussion.
It is about time that we call a halt to dividing America by class, race, gender, and origin. It is about time that we call a halt to progressive interference in our healthcare and energy markets for the sole purpose of controlling individuals and the economy which virtue-signaling that we must ignore our individualism for the collective good of society.
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius