This is worth your time: Why I’m Giving Up Tenure at UCLA The ideological takeover of my university has ruined academic life for anyone who still believes in freedom of thought.
I like this quote.
The entire episode recalls a prescient observation in a 1995 article by the great psychological anthropologist Roy D’Andrade: “Isn’t it odd that the true enemy of society turns out to be that guy in the office down the hall?”
Although it’s never just the guy. It’s the guy plus his minions who participate in his bullying tactics.
Interesting article. It was written with such a cynical tone and so replete with right-wing buzz words, it made me question the objectivity of the author’s observations. Were they truly as he noted or was he suffering from a severe case of confirmation bias? It was difficult to tell. Given that, I’d like to hear from a cross-section of others within the same environment before accepting the author’s perceptions as accurate. I’m glad he decided to resign, the guy sounded miserable.
That said, the one question the article never truly answered. It was somewhat the impetus of the author’s dissatisfaction and observations. Was the research of one his esteemed colleagues accurate? Or, was it rightly criticized?
Jeff had developed simulation models of the geographic and temporal patterning of urban crime, and had created predictive software that he marketed to law enforcement agencies. In Spring 2018, the department’s Anthropology Graduate Students Association passed a resolution accusing Jeff’s research of, among other counter-revolutionary sins, “entrench[ing] and naturaliz[ing] the criminalization of Blackness in the United States” and calling for “referring” his research to UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for Research, presumably for some sort of investigation.
Just because Jeff was a liberal Democrat doesn’t mean his work was valid. The author’s inference was that because Jeff was a liberal that it couldn’t be biased. I would have loved to have gotten more insight as to how other studies supported his colleague’s conclusions. If they did, then the response he received was HIGHLY inappropriate. Yet, if the accusations contained merit (based on other research) then his work and conclusions SHOULD have been challenged. The author made it sound as if the only reason for his work being criticized was because it was antithetical to “woke” philosophy (whatever that is). Maybe, maybe not…the article really doesn’t substantiates its case. But, it was a great partisan rant that will likely appeal to those that will accept the author’s conclusions at face value.
If his work was flawed, you’d think they could have found methodological grounds on which to criticize it. Instead, they took the angle that his research findings hurt people. They give us no reason to believe that they found flaws in his work, and every reason to believe their criticisms were purely ideological, so I don’t know why we need to go looking for a reason to think otherwise.
ISTM that a methodological or ideological criticism would be appropriate if they could substantiate that Jeff’s work indeed resulted in hurting people…especially given it involved law enforcement. Seems the author didn’t provide any information that validates the work of his colleague. He just noted that others objected to it and felt they were biased in their objection. Albeit full of unsubstantiated allegations, it seems those that criticized Jeff’s work were requesting a university forum to review and validate their accusations. Maybe they should have gotten it so that Jeff’s work could either be validated or dismissed. As far as I can see, that’s still an unanswered question, which is quite important. Were the critics “woke” but correct or “woke” but incorrect? I’d be interested in knowing that answer.