Common Sense in Free Fall on College Campuses
Evidence is mounting that political
ideology is corrupting the liberal arts.
According to Campus
Reform, in late July, Portland State University accused one of its professors, Peter
Boghossian, of “‘questionable ethical behavior’ and banned him from conducting
What was the professor’s offense? He successfully convinced several prestigious, peer-reviewed journals to publish articles that were anything but scholarly. In one, he analyzed “dog rape culture,” in another, he republished portions of Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” spruced up with academic buzzwords.
This may sound like an
off-color prank, but it was a serious effort to expose a grave problem on
college campuses. Boghossian’s hypothesis was simple: the leftist fixation on intersectionality
and what he termed “grievance studies” have led to a sharp decline in the
quality and rigor of scholarship within the discipline.
Boghossian and his two colleagues, Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, made headlines in 2018 for completing an investigation into how lax some humanities journals had become.
The trio wrote and submitted 20 “hoax” articles to several prominent academic journals in various academic fields, including gender and queer studies, that the researchers felt were most influenced by progressive ideology rather than objective research.
When seven of their “fake” studies were published after undergoing the purportedly-scrupulous “peer review” process, Boghossian and his team released a report demonstrating how ideologically-driven academia has become.
PSU’s Internal Review
Board then sanctioned Boghossian for “fabricating data and studying human
subjects, specifically the various journal editors, without their consent.”
The Internal Review
Board seems to have missed the purpose of the professor’s study.
The censure led
directly to the ban Boghossian now faces. The academy seems more interested in
making an example of him than acknowledging the concern about a lack of quality
control in the field of “grievance studies,” which his efforts unveiled.
It is not as if
citizens are unaware of the issues plaguing higher education.
From the oft-referenced
replication crisis in the social sciences (wherein
academic studies cannot be reproduced by unaffiliated researchers), the insane cost of college, and the liberal bent
of a staggering percentage of university professors, many students
would do well to reconsider the value of attending college over trade schools
or other similar, skill-developing opportunities.
Boghossian’s study revealed the dangerous road that academia is sprinting down. He cited “constructivism”—the idea that truth is temporally and culturally situated—as the main culprit infecting academic research, especially within the humanities.
The research team noted
that “radical constructivists tend to believe science and reason must be
dismantled to let ‘other ways of knowing’ have equal validation as
knowledge-producing enterprises.” This idea could be what is driving many
academic journals down the ideological rabbit hole.
As Boghossian and his
team stated in their study, “As we progressed, we started to realize that just
about anything can be made to work,
so long as it falls within the moral orthodoxy and demonstrates understanding
of existing literature.”
across the world agreed with the authors’ motives and conclusions, and wrote to
PSU’s vice president for research administration in support of Boghossian. Even
Alan Sokal, the NYU scientist who got into hot water for his similar effort in 1996, defended the beleaguered
Portland professor, writing:
It seems to me that it would be a grave injustice to punish Professor Boghossian for a violation of the letter of the [Research Misconduct Policy] that did not constitute in any way a violation of that policy’s purpose and which moreover was undertaken with the goal of serving, and which did, in fact, serve the public interest …
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, given the university administration’s reaction, many of Boghossian’s fellow professors at PSU were not as supportive. In an anonymous letter to the editor in the university’s newspaper, the anti-Boghossian group wrote:
[T]he ‘hoaxes’ are simply lies peddled to journals, masquerading as articles. … Chronic and pathological, unscholarly behavior inside an institution of higher education brings negative publicity to the institution as well as the honest scholars who work there. Worse yet, it jeopardizes the students’ reputations, as their degrees in the process may become devalued.
Boghossian’s aggrieved colleagues
seem to have missed the entire point of his study, and may prefer for their
students to learn from such indoctrination.
Christina Hoff Sommers, noted scholar and critic of modern feminism, described Boghossian’s hoax project as an “eye-opening experiment,” the results of which “raise serious questions about the methods of several seemingly legitimate academic journals.”
She went on, according
to Campus Reform, to “address the accusation of improperly studying human
subjects, saying ‘This charge is hard to take seriously. By its very nature,
the parody rules out the possibility of consent: It is the view of the [Internal
Review Board] that academic journals should be shielded from critical or
PSU stated in its
disciplinary letter that it is willing to give
Boghossian another chance to conduct research, if he completes a required “protection
of human subjects training” course and otherwise satisfies the university’s administration.
However, for a nontenured professor who himself acknowledges he does not “fit the mold” of the “ideological community” on campus, the odds of him being permitted to resume his research may be slim.
highlights the problems of groupthink in any environment, especially academia.
professors are going to be more interested in placating popular opinion rather
than exposing shoddy academic practices bordering on charlatanry, then we should stop describing our
humanities’ departments as bastions of truth.
Truth is objective, not
subject to the prevailing winds of academia and the left at large.
debate, exercising a heckler’s veto over messages that do not fit within an
ideology prescribed by liberal academics, and promoting shoddy “research” that
supports that ideology, will not advance the search for truth, which should be
the ultimate goal of any serious academic institution.
All it will do is
perpetuate irrationality and ignorance.