CERN: new petition for an open discussion

Controversies in recent years and months in the academic world (most recently involving Prof. Strumia at CERN) relating to gender issues have shown that there is much disagreement on what constitutes best practice with regard to gender equality. There seems even to be considerable disagreement between scientists of different disciplines as to fundamental aspects of gender identity.

We believe that the resolution of these disputes is not best promoted by discrediting and even discriminating against one side or the other.

For this reason we have asked a number of specialists if they would contribute to any future event debating STEM and gender (Prof. Amanda Diekmann, Prof. Alice Eagly, Prof. David C. Geary, Prof. Lee Jussim, inter alia), in order to facilitate an intellectually honest discussion.

We invite everyone (on both sides of the gender debate) to sign our petition and encourage the administration at CERN to invite these academics to their second Workshop on High Energy Theory and Gender. 

Together, we can ensure neutrality, nuance and balance at CERN and in the whole scientific community.

Petition website: https://stemgender.com/

Lead authors
@ForStrumia; Anonymous author of Justice for Strumia, a rebuttal to the Particles for Justice letter.
Liberté Académique; @AcadFreedom
Tom Todd; Primary author of this petition to re-instate Professor Strumia.
Yi-Zen Chu; Associate Professor, Department of Physics, National Central University, Taiwan.

The Perilous State of the University: Jonathan Haidt & Jordan B Peterson

Dr. Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist at the University of Toronto and is most renowned for his book “12 Rules for life” which has sold at least 3 million copies worldwide in a considerable number of languages. More information is available on https://www.jordanbpeterson.com

Although this interview/discussion is a year and a half old, I think it is still highly relevant, both for universities and society at large.

Peterson writes this about the interview:

I recently traveled to New York University to talk with Dr. Jonathan Haidt about, among other things, disgust, purity, fear and belief; the perilous state of the modern university; and his work with Heterodox Academy (https://heterodoxacademy.org/) an organization designed to draw attention to the lack of diversity of political belief in the humanities and the social sciences. Dr. Haidt is Professor of Ethical Leadership at New York University’s Stern School of Business and a social psychologist. He studies the psychology of morality and the moral emotions. He has been described as a top global thinker by both Foreign Policy and Prospect magazines.

Dr. Haidt is the author of three books:

  • The newest is The Coddling of the American Mind: How Bad Ideas and Good Intentions are Setting up a Generation for Failure (http://amzn.to/2AN87a6).
  • The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (http://amzn.to/2yOOQnU)
  • The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom (http://amzn.to/2hJ0TzT)

His writings on diversity viewpoint for the Heterodox Academy are at (http://righteousmind.com/viewpoint-di…)

Jordan Peterson and Jonathan Haidt

Harvard Dean: contract not renewed

Dean of the College Rakesh Khurana announced that he will not renew Winthrop Faculty Deans Ronald S. Sullivan, Jr. and Stephanie R. Robinson after their term ends on June 30 in an email to House affiliates on May 11.

Ronald Sullivan is a lawyer and teacher/professor at Harvard University.
Mr. Sullivan, with his wife, Stephanie Robinson, has also served for a decade as the faculty dean of Winthrop House, an undergraduate dormitory where some 400 students live. He is the first Afro-American to occupy such a position.

In January 2019, Sullivan announced he had accepted to join the legal team defending Harvey Weinstein. This announcement resulted in a wave of protests by students at Winthrop House, apparently not the first conflict that Sullivan has been involved in over cases touching on sexual abuse in which he has been involved as a lawyer.

Apparently, Rakesh Khurana has given into this student protest, despite 52 Harvard Law School colleagues warning against any such measure. The students have protested, inter alia, against Sullivan’s criticism of Harvard’s handling of Title IX proceedings brought against Freyer about which he said: “this process has been deeply flawed and deeply unfair. … It shows what the current [#MeToo] movement, some blood in the water, and good coaching [of witnesses] can produce.”

Both representing Weinstein and this assertion of witness coaching led students to believe that these actions are in conflict with his role as Dean.

There has been considerable press echo. I will quote Professor Steven Pinker’s statement here.

Dear Rakesh,

I appreciate the complexity of any contested administrative decision, and know that there may be facts behind it that I’m not privy to. Still, I must register my dismay at the recent announcement of the decision not to renew Ron Sullivan’s appointment as Dean at Winthrop House.

The decision, of course, was made in the wake of highly publicized protests over his decision to serve as legal counsel to Harvey Weinstein. Even if the decision was based instead on Sullivan’s performance in his role of Dean, the timing of the decision, together the fact that the public announcement did not make it clear that Harvard was not punishing him for his unpopular professional activities, conveys the impression to the wider world that Harvard caved in to pressure from immature students and endorsed the notion that justice consists in joining a mob against an unpopular villain rather than an impartial system in which the accused has the right to a vigorous defense.

If our students claim to “feel unsafe” under the leadership of an eminent defense attorney who takes on unpopular clients, then we have failed to educate them on how the justice system in a liberal democracy works. We should use this as a teachable moment, rather than indulging juvenile reactions. Whether or not assuaging noisy students and acceding to a shaming mob was the motivation for the decision, that is the public perception.

As a public figure who interacts with many intelligent non-academics from diverse backgrounds and political orientations, I am frequently challenged on the integrity of the academy. “Why should we trust what academics say on climate change, or vaccine safety, or gun control?” they ask; “Everyone knows that universities are echo chambers of political correctness, with no commitment to impartiality or principle.” Incidents like this undermine the credibility of the academy in an age in which we must safeguard it more assiduously than ever.

Best Steve

Media echo

Sweden’s Academic Rights Watch supports Boghossian in the Grievance Studies affair

Sweden’s prominent academic watchdog now joins leading academics in supporting Dr Peter Boghossian following Portland State University’s decision to open an investigation into research misconduct relating to the so-called Grievance Studies Affair. Boghossian and his colleagues submitted several hoax papers that successfully exposed weaknesses in the refereeing and publication practices of a number of journals focusing on race, gender, fat and sexuality studies.

Continue reading…

US professor uninvited from Swedish pedagogy conference

(from Academic Rights Watch, Sweden)

Non-egalitarian conclusions from IQ studies “in violation of ethical standard”

Concluding, based on empirical findings, that there are differences in intelligence between individuals and groups is not permissible in educational research in Sweden, a country known for its egalitarian policies. Distinguished American professor Linda Gottfredson was originally invited to give a keynote lecture at a pedagogy conference in the Swedish city of Gothenburg. Yet, before the conference was about to take place in October this year, she received the message that she had been “uninvited” following protests from other researchers arguing that Gottfredson’s non-egalitarian conclusions contradict the organizer’s ethical standard.

Continue reading ->