Another One Bites the Dust

Bo Winegard, an academic in the field of psychology including human biodiversity (hbd), was recently fired from his tenure-track post at a small college in Ohio. He’s quite junior: only two years out of school. This article is the kind of thing that got him fired, though the proximate cause was probably a talk he gave at the University of Alabama that resulted in complaints and generally poor student behavior.

Poor Prof. Winegard details how he stepped on a rake in the modern, politically-correct academy in an article in the latest Quillette. He complains

I followed all of the protocols of academia. I published articles in peer-reviewed journals. I shared my ideas, always politely, on Twitter, and I encouraged people to debate me and to criticize my ideas. And I was fired.

What the heck did he think was going to happen? For a person who has spent his entire adult life in the academy, either as a student or a faculty member, it’s hard to understand why the outcome surprised him. In his meetings with his superiors, he was apologetic about the hurty feewings he caused and promised to do better by being “more strategic” in expressing himself. If that sounds like self-censorship, well, it is. His Twitter feed has turned into one giant pity party.

All the self-censorship and all the groveling didn’t save Prof. Winegard’s job. The lesson is never, ever, apologize. If you enter the arena, be prepared to fight. In the academy, the struggle probably should be confined to tenured faculty, although they get hassled too (cf., Amy Wax). The key difference between Profs. Wax and Winegard is that Prof. Wax doesn’t back down. It also doesn’t hurt that she has tenure.

Winegard tweets

This is why colleges shouldn’t cave to such callous social ‘justice’ warriors.

Hey Professor Winegard, there’s a book, published five years ago, called Social Justice Warriors Always Lie. You might want to pick up a copy. Maybe it will help you in your next tenure-track position – not that you’ll ever be offered one again.

Charles Murray recently said that, by the end of the decade, any social science paper that does not take into account hbd will not be taken seriously. Judging by this incident, the decade’s not off to a great start. I’m thinking he was a tad optimistic. The only way to reform the broken educational institutions may be to burn them to the ground (metaphorically speaking, of course). As discussed in another thread, this process is already underway.

15+
avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar

Author: drlorentz

photon whisperer & quantum mechanic

12 thoughts on “Another One Bites the Dust”

  1. Yeah, while they’re busy forcing uniformity, the people at large are walking away. My son notes some medical school has now offered to forgive the whole med school tuition is the doctor goes into a primary care specialty and does some public service. The cardiologists, OTOH, are on their own.

    Meanwhile kids in droves are walking away from college in general. Admission applications are down significantly apparently.

    Go for it, kids!

    10+
    avataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravataravatar
  2. He was interviewed on the Quillette podcast.  Once I understood the context, I skipped to the end.  Too much whining about a very predictable consequence of his research focus.

    2+
    avataravatar
  3. When people tell me that science can’t be corrupted, I want to toss situations like what happened to this professor in their face. Of course science can be corrupted. If delving into certain subjects will get you ostracized from the field, then you won’t look into it. It’s that simple.

    But how do we fix this mess when so much of the funding that goes into scientific research has an agenda? Also the Peer reviewed studies has been corrupted as well. This was proven Helen Pluckrose, James Lindsay and Peter Boghossian in the grievance study hoax.

    I get that was social science so low hanging fruit but reveals that the peer review process can be and is corrupt in many cases. Also, Nature did a survey on the problem with reproducibility. This is a problem for those who want to say that science can explain most things. But what can we trust.

    https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  4. Mate De:
    I get that was social science so low hanging fruit but reveals that the peer review process can be and is corrupt in many cases.

    Oh, it’s not just the social sciences. The rot is spreading. Physicist Alessandro Strumia gave a talk a CERN at a workshop on “high energy theory and gender” and was attacked. That was way back in 2018. Closer to home, we had this.

    Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity: DIE.

    6+
    avataravataravataravataravataravatar
  5. I seem to recall that Trump recently signed an EO about withholding Federal funds from colleges that discriminate against conservative dissident thought?

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  6. Even if his termination was predictable, it is still wrong on several counts.

    Why, after termination, does he go to such lengths to protect the identities of the people who did him in?

    0

  7. MJBubba:
    Why, after termination, does he go to such lengths to protect the identities of the people who did him in?

    He, if you mean Winegard, doesn’t know the identities of the people who did him in. Isn’t that somethin’?

    0

  8. drlorentz:

    MJBubba:
    Why, after termination, does he go to such lengths to protect the identities of the people who did him in?

    He, if you mean Winegard, doesn’t know the identities of the people who did him in. Isn’t that somethin’?

    Well, for example, when he spoke at Tuscaloosa, the people who had invited him lied about not knowing what he was going to speak on and then immediately rolled on him and disavowed him.  But in the Quillette column he goes to great lengths to construct awkward sentences in order to avoid naming them.

    0

  9. MJBubba:

    drlorentz:

    MJBubba:
    Why, after termination, does he go to such lengths to protect the identities of the people who did him in?

    He, if you mean Winegard, doesn’t know the identities of the people who did him in. Isn’t that somethin’?

    Well, for example, when he spoke at Tuscaloosa, the people who had invited him lied about not knowing what he was going to speak on and then immediately rolled on him and disavowed him.  But in the Quillette column he goes to great lengths to construct awkward sentences in order to avoid naming them.

    But the problem was anonymous critics, viz.,

    the student newspaper published a clearly slanted article about the event that casually quoted anonymous criticism that my work “resembles the pseudoscience employed by eugenicists.”

    When the newspaper article was emailed by persons unknown to my university’s provost and president, I was called for a meeting.

    A few months later, however, someone using a pseudonym began emailing my provost, my president, and my entire department (but not me) links to my articles (including those written for this outlet) and screenshots of “offensive” tweets. My anonymous accuser held me to be guilty of all kinds of treachery and threatened to inform the board of trustees of my sins.
    [emphasis added in all three quotes]

    0

  10. drlorentz:

    MJBubba:

    drlorentz:

    MJBubba:
    Why, after termination, does he go to such lengths to protect the identities of the people who did him in?

    He, if you mean Winegard, doesn’t know the identities of the people who did him in. Isn’t that somethin’?

    Well, for example, when he spoke at Tuscaloosa, the people who had invited him lied about not knowing what he was going to speak on and then immediately rolled on him and disavowed him.  But in the Quillette column he goes to great lengths to construct awkward sentences in order to avoid naming them.

    But the problem was anonymous critics, viz.,

    the student newspaper published a clearly slanted article about the event that casually quoted anonymous criticism that my work “resembles the pseudoscience employed by eugenicists.”

    When the newspaper article was emailed by persons unknown to my university’s provost and president, I was called for a meeting.

    A few months later, however, someone using a pseudonym began emailing my provost, my president, and my entire department (but not me) links to my articles (including those written for this outlet) and screenshots of “offensive” tweets. My anonymous accuser held me to be guilty of all kinds of treachery and threatened to inform the board of trustees of my sins.
    [emphasis added in all three quotes]

    I get that.  So why is he working to keep other bad actors anonymous?   I would have thought he would name names when he had them.

    0

Leave a Reply