Special attention to samples of color deserves a place in psychological science. To be sure, if some psychologists in some fields wish to devote extra effort and attention to samples of color, I have no objection. One hilarious sticking point in this kafkaesque clusterfuck is that one of the referees, Lee Jussim, wrote this in his referee report: He missed out on some easy woke brownie points there. I’m genuinely surprised that he didn’t accuse them of lynching. In this manifesto, Roberts accuses Fiedler of being “ unsound, unscientific, ad hominem, and racist” and engaging in “ general editorial incompetence and abuse of power.” You’d think Roberts would be thrilled about being handed an additional publication on a silver platter in one of the top journals in the world, but instead of accepting the free publication and responding to his critics in a scholarly manner (why not just eviscerate them back, in the journal? If they are wrong you should be able to easily prove they are wrong using logic), he went with the nuclear option and uploaded a manifesto crying about racism and editorial malfeasance. Then he invited Roberts to publish a second paper responding to these reports. I don’t want to to get too lost in the weeds - but in essence, I glean what happened is that when Fiedler sent Hommel’s paper out for review, the 3 referees that he sent it to wrote such poignant reports that Fiedler then invited them to publish these reports in the journal, too. This saga involved a whole convoluted shitshow about editorial process, publishing norms, and abuse of power, and there are months of back-and-forth emails to pore over between editors. It’s more complicated, though, than just “Fiedler accepted a paper going against Roberts”. Roberts’ paper which Hommel attacked is called “ Racial Inequality in Psychological Research: Trends of the Past and Recommendations for the Future ” and it is pretty much exactly what you picture it to be… marxist word-soup that complains about white editors, white authors, structural inequality, etc. Thus, it’s racist to criticize his paper. This is an “anti-CRT” paper because it is focused on eviscerating a 2020 article by Stanford University psychology professor Steven Roberts. Klaus Fiedler is a German professor who was appointed in 2021 as editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science, which has the 6th highest impact factor out of all psychology journals in the world.įiedler’s crime is that he dared to accept for publication an anti-Critical Race Theory (CRT) paper written by cognitive neurophysiologist Bernhard Hommel. It was covered by the Chronicle, as well as a couple second-tier conservative outlets like Quilette & Washington Free Beacon, but beyond that I can’t find it anywhere. The lesson here, as trite as it is, is that the demand for white supremacy hate crimes far exceeds the supply.īeyond that Substack coverage, this story never really went mainstream either. This rock throwing incident was initially condemned by the UVA chapter of the NAACP, but the NAACP “ did not respond to a request for comment … when asked if it planned to release another statement with the knowledge now that the suspect is a black individual. She’ll get a light slap on the wrist… if that. Will she be charged with a hate crime? Don’t hold your breath. When served with a warrant, she apparently asked the cop to shoot her, and another part of the police document says that an officer responded to a woman in “crisis.” Her potential mental illness doesn’t excuse her from faking a hate crime, though - this is serious shit - stoking racial tensions for outrage/victimhood is reprehensible to say the least. UVA said it was definitely not racially motivated, but refused to comment beyond that. Presumably, the point of this fake hate crime was to blame it on white supremacy or the KKK or whatever, but her motives haven’t been proven in court yet.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |