Michael on the strange story of how a Maori psychologist was censored for writing an article that could (or so it was claimed) 'perpetuate harm to Maori.' https://t.co/p2JgJSY2QU
She argued that it is deeply insulting to Maori to claim, as the report she critiques does, that science is not for them. It was a struggle to get it published but she managed it.
Then the journal retracted it. How utterly contemptible.
https://t.co/Mets7ess8j
@lefineder Not for nothing did Jack Goldstone include Qing China in his small group of pre-modern economic 'efflorescences' alongside e.g. Golden Age Holland: https://t.co/jHevJx3xqs
Johnson's approach, though, was rejected at Duke, likely because students feared lower grades and humanities profs wanted to keep the ability to boost student numbers by offering inflated grades. https://t.co/N5KfA1MItn
Let's go back in closing to the actual proposal at Harvard: to cap As at 20% in every class and to use a student's average rank (in %) across all their classes for academic honors (sic).
In our latest dialogue, we talk about Grant Robertson's recent breach of institutional neutrality at the University of Otago, and about the presidential elections in Colombia and Peru: https://t.co/alZTJE7h5w
1. 'Cancellarius et Subthesaurius Scaccarii' at the bottom of this one is interesting. And not just because of 'subthesaurius' for 'under-treasurer' (from Greek θησαυρός/thesaurus, treasury). But also because of the link between 'the Chancellor of the Exchequer' and...chess🧵
Author Quinn Solobodian has won acclaim for his attempt to link the famed Austrian economist to right-wing extremists. But his arguments collapse under scrutiny, writes @amlamey.
https://t.co/iLotzPOb0h
@Quillette@amlamey Sadly, Slobodian's work seems to have also hoodwinked a distinguished New Zealand academic into spreading misinformation on Hayek (though she should obviously have checked her sources). A re-post of an older piece by me, with some more recent thoughts https://t.co/nR1z1JBn3T
@Kleisthenes2 I think this is the root of it. References aren't checked if they fit the reviewers' priors - but papers are rejected on spurious grounds if they don't.
Decades ago, I had a climate econ/damages paper rejected because the reviewer "didn't believe the economic growth paradigm." 🙄
Very few people in the academy are even inclined to question arguments from the ‘good’ side, and those who do are likely to be dismissed as cranks or persecuted as witches
I think the public at large still doesn’t fully appreciate quite how common this sort of thing is at universities these days. It is, as academic like to say, structural.
6. And whether it's right or wrong, Aquinas' account of free will shows that you can be a libertarian about free will while thinking of freedom as grounded not in alternative possibilities but in an intrinsic capacity.