"Academic grievance studies" journals got punked & that's really bad
For almost a year, three liberal academics have been writing "intentionally broken" studies and submitting them to leading publications for approval.
They've been doing it to "expose a political corruption that has taken hold of the university."
Here's Douglas Murray in Spectator:
One of the most beautiful things to happen in recent years was ‘the conceptual penis as a social construct.’ This was an academic paper which proposed that: ‘the penis vis-à-vis maleness is an incoherent construct. We argue that the conceptual penis is better understood not as an anatomical organ but as a gender-performative, highly fluid social construct.’
This gobbledegook was presented as an academic journal, was peer-reviewed and published in Cogent Social Sciences. The only problem was that it was a hoax. A big, beautiful brilliant hoax carried out by two academics – Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay – who had immersed themselves in the academic BS of their time. In that paper they successfully punked an academic scene which (in the humanities at least) allows the most insane and untrue claims to be presented as truth, so long as they are suffused in fashionable grievances and coated in a form of academic vocabulary which is an insult to academic inquiry and an offence against language.
This is actually the sign of a cultural rot inside higher education that has become so pervasive that it's not just conservatives who are voicing concern.
Take a look at the papers they got published.
This is a really serious problem.
Also, check out this other video that these researchers did, before their hoax was exposed.