A well-researched and well-written article by Cathy Young on Quillette (an online Independent Magazine – highly recommendable).
Her conclusion: Lastly, one can disapprove of the way in which Strumia chose to throw down the gauntlet to the “gender experts” and yet recognize that he was responding to a genuinely toxic atmosphere created by the feminism-in-science movement in its current form.
As the Guardian (UK) various media report, Cambridge University has rescinded its offer of a visiting fellowship at the divinity School to Jordan Peterson after a backlash from faculty and students.
The BBC reports: “Dr Peterson said the faculty had made a serious error of judgement in rescinding their offer to me“. A spokesperson for the University said: “[Cambridge] is an inclusive environment and we expect all our staff and visitors to uphold our principles. There is no place here for anyone who cannot,”
Peterson himself has posted a full Statement on his website. He points out that he was not even informed personally about the decision: “The Divinity Faculty (@CamDivinity) tweeted their decision to rescind, consciously making this a public issue.”
He continues by pointing out: “This is inexcusable, in my estimation, given (1) that they did not equally publicize the initial agreement/invitation (which has to be considered an event of equal import) and (2) that they implied that I came cap-in-hand to the school for the fellowship. This is precisely the kind of half-truth particularly characteristic of those who deeply practice to deceive, as the fellowship offer was a consequence of mutual discussion between those who invited me to Cambridge in July and my subsequent formal request, and not something I had dreamed up on my own.”
In a postscriptum he writes: “I also find it interesting and deeply revealing that I know the names of the people who invited me, both informally and formally, but the names of the people who have disinvited me remain shrouded in exactly the kind of secrecy that might be expected from hidden, conspiratorial, authoritarian and cowardly bureaucrats.”
We have now closed the petition and have forwarded the petition and the list of 2370 signatories from 90 countries to the director general of CERN. We also attached the detailed rebuttal of the criticism directed at Prof. Strumia by the “Particles for Justice” group/petition.
Thanks to everyone who supported this campaign.
Even though Prof. Strumia has now decided to leave CERN of his own accord in the wake of this harassment, we hope we have clearly documented the immense dissatisfaction of concerned scientists and citizens around the world.
We will continue to document such cases and hope you find this website useful.
Prof. Strumia (suspended from CERN, see our petition) was heavily criticized for his lecture in the autumn of 2018 at a one-day symposium on Gender and Physics. We have published a series of articles here.
A physics Ph.D. student published a full rebuttal of this criticism. Prof. Fiamengo of Ottawa University has now published her view of the “Particles of Justice” criticism.
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.
The latest victim of an academic mobbing is 28-year-old social scientist Noah Carl who has been awarded a Toby Jackman Newton Trust Research Fellowship at St Edmund’s College at the University of Cambridge.
Rarely has the power asymmetry between the academic mob and its victim been so stark. Dr Carl is a young researcher, just starting out in his career, who is being mobbed for being awarded a prestigious research scholarship on the basis of his peer-reviewed research.
Three hundred academics from around the world, many of them professors, have signed an open letter denouncing Dr Carl and demanding that the University of Cambridge “immediately conduct an investigation into the appointment process” on the grounds that his work is “ethically suspect” and “methodologically flawed.” The letter states: “we are shocked that a body of work that includes vital errors in data analysis and interpretation appears to have been taken seriously.” Yet the letter contains no evidence of any academic misconduct. It does not include a single reference to any of Dr Carl’s papers, let alone any papers that are “ethically suspect” or “methodologically flawed.”
Preface by ScienceCensored
It is telling that the author of this rebuttal of the paper against Strumia – a graduate student of physics – has chosen to remain anonymous – for fear of endangering his Ph.D. that he is currently working on. I have quoted the first two paragraphs here and provided a link to the full paper, which is detailed (estimated reading time 20-25 minutes).
Justice for Strumia
On the 4th of October, a blog post titled “Particles for Justice” was published by a group of physicists (henceforth referred to as “the authors”) condemning the views of professor Alessandro Strumia as “morally reprehensible”. They claim that the presentation he gave at a CERN conference on “High Energy Theory and Gender” was incorrect in asserting, that the degree of sexism in physics is overestimated, that biological factors adequately explain the observed performance disparity between men and women in science. He further claimed that there exists a widespread, ideologically motivated push to hire people based on factors other than merit. Strumia is accused of “mining” and “misrepresenting” data to support his claims, and “belittling” the legitimacy of female scientists.
In this piece, I will review the claims and sources presented by the authors. My findings lead me to believe that their outrage is misplaced and unsupported by the data they themselves cite. Furthermore, I will attempt to analyze the philosophical underpinnings of contemporary equality movements and explain why their intellectual foundations make controversies like the present one inevitable. It is my hope that this piece will help physics remain (as it should be) a field where the nature of reality can be investigated rationally without the distracting influence of moral outrage, unjustified accusations of bias, and impetuous campaigns to fix what is not demonstrably broken.