John Stossel: Higher-ed hoaxers | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

John Stossel: Higher-ed hoaxers

838991_web1_gtr-cmns-Stossel-030919

If you are an American college professor, the way you get a raise or tenure is by getting papers published in “academic journals.”

The stupidity of these journals says a lot about what’s taught at colleges today.

Recently, three people sent in intentionally ridiculous “research” to prominent journals of women studies, gender studies, race studies, sexuality studies, obesity studies and queer studies.

“The scholarship in these disciplines is utterly corrupted,” says Dr. Peter Boghossian of Portland State University. “They have placed an agenda before the truth.”

To show that, hoaxer and mathematician James Lindsay says, “We rewrote a section of ‘Mein Kampf’ as intersectional feminism” and got it published in Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work.

For another paper, they claimed to have “closely” examined genitals of 10,000 dogs in dog parks to learn about “rape culture and queer performativity.”

Boghossian had assumed, “There’s no way they’re gonna believe that we did this!”

But the journal Gender, Place & Culture did, calling the paper “excellent scholarship.”

Seven journals accepted the absurd papers.

Hoaxers Boghossian, Lindsay and Areo Magazine editor Helen Pluckrose explain the reason for their trick.

“We think studying topics like gender, race and sexuality is worthwhile and getting it right is extremely important,” says Lindsay.

But researchers of these topics have gotten lazy and political, they say. “A culture has developed in which only certain conclusions are allowed — like those that make whiteness and masculinity problematic,” Lindsay says.

“Kind of a last straw happened,” says Lindsay. “There was this paper well-funded by the National Science Foundation that studied ‘feminist glaciology.’ It said glacier science is sexist.”

As a glaciologist giving a TED Talk put it, “the majority of glaciological knowledge that we have today stems from knowledge created by men about men within existing masculinist stories.”

One paper suggested the solution to sexism in glacier science is “feminist paintings of glaciers and feminist art projects,” says Lindsay. They praised art projects like one where they “hooked up a phone line to a glacier so you could call the glacier on the phone and listen to it.” That was “the last straw” for him.

The hoaxers didn’t get to finish their experiment because The Wall Street Journal’s Jillian Kay Melchior noticed the absurdity of the paper on dog humping. She exposed the hoax before all 20 journals weighed in.

But no university said it would stop using those journals, and no journal editor publicly said, “We must raise our standards.”

The journal editors, instead of admitting that they sometimes publish nonsense, attacked the hoaxers. They accused them of doing “unethical research.”

A dozen of Boghossian’s colleagues at Portland State University criticized him anonymously in the school newspaper, which depicted him as a clown. He’s become a pariah at his own school.

Instead of applauding him for exposing nonsense, Portland State threatened him.

How can a college criticize the hoaxers but revere ridiculous journals that publish nonsense?

“When you live in these tight ecosystems, this stuff makes total sense,” says Boghossian. For people in the tiny bubble of academic thinking, “there’s a pervading rape culture; men are bad — the whole ball of wax.”

The real “hoax” is on students who pay thousands of dollars for useless degrees in fields that end in “studies.”

John Stossel is author of “No They Can’t! Why Government Fails — But Individuals Succeed.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.