Silencing critics of racial preferences

[Derec]

Med School Professor Removed from Fellowship Director Post, Apparently for Publishing Anti-Affirmative-Action Journal Article

The University of Pittsburgh has removed a program director at its medical center because he published a scholarly, peer-reviewed white paper discussing the pitfalls of affirmative action for black and Hispanic students. This violated the First Amendment, which protects even harsh criticism of affirmative action. The white paper was gentle in its criticism of racial preferences, merely arguing that lowering admissions standards for minorities can harm their prospect of academic success by putting them in a university they are not prepared to handle. It did not advocate discrimination against any minority group….

Whatever your opinion of racial preferences is, I hope we can agree that a person should not be punished for holding opinions critical of the practice.

 

[laughing dog]

A peer reviewed "white paper" against affirmative action? I've never seen the term
peer reviewed white paper" before, so I find this a bit ironic.

Anyway, Dr Wang is not silenced by his removal as fellowship director. However, the JAHA is retracting that "white paper" (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/medicaleducation/87903)

On Thursday, August 6, JAHA formally retracted Wang's article.

"The author's institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), has notified the Editor‐in‐Chief that the article contains many misconceptions and misquotes," according to the retraction notice, "and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity."

The notice said Wang had not agreed to the retraction.

"JAHA will be publishing a detailed rebuttal. This retraction notice will be updated with a link to the rebuttal when it publishes,"the notice also stated. "The Editor‐in‐Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies."

Frankly, to this reader, the reasons for the retraction notice make me wonder what it takes to be a peer reviewer or editor for the JAHA because it is a tacit admission of extremely poor reviewing and editing on the part of the journal if true.

 

[Toni]

I think I'd like to see actual evidence that Dr. Wang was a) removed and b) was removed as a result of this paper being published.

Much more information is needed.

 

[ruby sparks]

It seems he was removed and it was because of this paper. I would have some sympathy for him, though it does seem that in his criticisms of the diversity policies in question, he slightly misrepresented the nature and scope of them and misquoted at least one source. So not a great paper.

His paper is here:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

But I still think he made some valid points and I do not think he should have lost a post. It smacks of critic-silencing.

 

[Metaphor]

A peer reviewed "white paper" against affirmative action? I've never seen the term
peer reviewed white paper" before, so I find this a bit ironic.

Anyway, Dr Wang is not silenced by his removal as fellowship director. However, the JAHA is retracting that "white paper" (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/medicaleducation/87903)

On Thursday, August 6, JAHA formally retracted Wang's article.

"The author's institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), has notified the Editor‐in‐Chief that the article contains many misconceptions and misquotes," according to the retraction notice, "and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity."

The notice said Wang had not agreed to the retraction.

"JAHA will be publishing a detailed rebuttal. This retraction notice will be updated with a link to the rebuttal when it publishes,"the notice also stated. "The Editor‐in‐Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies."

Frankly, to this reader, the reasons for the retraction notice make me wonder what it takes to be a peer reviewer or editor for the JAHA because it is a tacit admission of extremely poor reviewing and editing on the part of the journal if true.

One does wonder how the "inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials" was missed the first time.

I look forward to the 'rebuttal' paper pointing these out in detail.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think I'd like to see actual evidence that Dr. Wang was a) removed and b) was removed as a result of this paper being published.

Much more information is needed.

Following the links provided in the OP you can see the actual evidence of that. But for example: https://twitter.com/KBerlacher/status/1290248892580130816?s=20

If he sues, I predict he will win.

 

[Toni]

It seems he was removed and it was because of this paper. I would have some sympathy for him, though it does seem that in his criticisms of the diversity policies in question, he slightly misrepresented the nature and scope of them and misquoted at least one source. So not a great paper.

His paper is here:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

But I still think he made some valid points and I do not think he should have lost a post. It smacks of critic-silencing.

I found his paper but no everything fence that he was removed from any position aside from allegations from news outlets I am unfamiliar with.

If you’ve found evidence, I hope you’ll share.

 

[Toni]

I think I'd like to see actual evidence that Dr. Wang was a) removed and b) was removed as a result of this paper being published.

Much more information is needed.

Following the links provided in the OP you can see the actual evidence of that. But for example: https://twitter.com/KBerlacher/status/1290248892580130816?s=20

If he sues, I predict he will win.

No there was no actual evidence and tweets decrying the supposed removal are not evidence.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think I'd like to see actual evidence that Dr. Wang was a) removed and b) was removed as a result of this paper being published.

Much more information is needed.

Following the links provided in the OP you can see the actual evidence of that. But for example: https://twitter.com/KBerlacher/status/1290248892580130816?s=20

If he sues, I predict he will win.

No there was no actual evidence and tweets decrying the supposed removal are not evidence.

Of course Tweets decrying a removal constitute evidence, though how good it is depends on the circumstances, among them and prominently who writes the tweet. However, in the link in my post you quoted above, the tweet does not decry the removal at all. Rather, the tweet informs of the removal, and celebrate it. The person who posted the tweet is katie berlacher. You can see https://twitter.com/KBerlacher for more information on her position at the University of Pittsburg. You can find further information very quickly via a Google search (e.g., https://inside.upmc.com/upmc-honors-heart-month/ ). The celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal (from the post as program director; he wasn't fired from the university).

On the "decrying" (more like properly criticizing) front, we also have good evidence - also, from the OP link. It's an article by Eugene Voloch, a serious writer, as one can also easily find with a quick Google search (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh ).

There is a more evidence, also easily accessible, if you want to find it.

 

[laughing dog]

No there was no actual evidence and tweets decrying the supposed removal are not evidence.

Of course Tweets decrying a removal constitute evidence, though how good it is depends on the circumstances, among them and prominently who writes the tweet. However, in the link in my post you quoted above, the tweet does not decry the removal at all. Rather, the tweet informs of the removal, and celebrate it. The person who posted the tweet is katie berlacher. You can see https://twitter.com/KBerlacher for more information on her position at the University of Pittsburg. You can find further information very quickly via a Google search (e.g., https://inside.upmc.com/upmc-honors-heart-month/ ). The celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal (from the post as program director; he wasn't fired from the university).

On the "decrying" (more like properly criticizing) front, we also have good evidence - also, from the OP link. It's an article by Eugene Voloch, a serious writer, as one can also easily find with a quick Google search (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Volokh ).

There is a more evidence, also easily accessible, if you want to find it.

A tweet is evidence of someone's view of reality, it is not evidence of the actual reality.

Mr. Voloch's site is based on another report - there is no indication that Mr. Voloch has independent evidence that Dr. Wang lost his directorship.

Whether Dr. Wang was actually removed as the director is a question of fact that cannot be addressed by someone's tweet.

 

[laughing dog]

It seems he was removed and it was because of this paper. I would have some sympathy for him, though it does seem that in his criticisms of the diversity policies in question, he slightly misrepresented the nature and scope of them and misquoted at least one source. So not a great paper.

His paper is here:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

But I still think he made some valid points and I do not think he should have lost a post. It smacks of critic-silencing.

And the concern that his views would someone negatively affect his directing of fellowships is moot? Or that his views which may influence his work conflict with the mission of his department and/or school is also moot?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A tweet is evidence of someone's view of reality, it is not evidence of the actual reality.

Actually, someone's testimony usually provides evidence of that which is testified. The strenght varies from almost zero to extremely strong. And of course, as I already pointed out, the celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal (from the post as program director; he wasn't fired from the university).

As for Mr. Voloch's article, of course as a serious writer he would very probably check his sources, so either he has enough information about the author of the other article to reckon that his words constitute good evidence that Wang was removed, or else he checked in some other way, e.g., by asking in private.

Whether Dr. Wang was actually removed as the director is a question of fact that cannot be addressed by someone's tweet.

Of course it can. A tweet is testimony. Testimony is usually and properly used to assess matters of fact. It is a matter of context how good the evidence is. In this case, pretty good. Again, she informed of and was happy with the removal. And she has a high position at that university. And also - and also of course - Mr. Voloch's article is evidence as well.

 

[laughing dog]

A tweet is evidence of someone's view of reality, it is not evidence of the actual reality.

Actually, someone's testimony usually provides evidence of that which is testified. The strenght varies from almost zero to extremely strong. And of course, as I already pointed out, the celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal (from the post as program director; he wasn't fired from the university).

Again, a tweet represents someone's view of reality which is not necessarily the reality. For example, if someone tweeted _____ fucks pigs, that is not evidence ____ fucks pigs.

As for Mr. Voloch's article, of course as a serious writer he would very probably check his sources, so either he has enough information about the author of the other article to reckon that his words constitute good evidence that Wang was removed, or else he checked in some other way, e.g., by asking in private.

Your conjectures are the equivalent of tweets - they represent what you think is true, which is not the same as what is actually true. Mr. Voloch quotes Mr Bader reporting.

Of course it can. A tweet is testimony. Testimony is usually and properly used to assess matters of fact.

Testimony from direct observers is used to assess matters of fact - hearsay is not.

It is a matter of context how good the evidence is. In this case, pretty good. Again, she informed of and was happy with the removal. And she has a high position at that university. And also - and also of course - Mr. Voloch's article is evidence as well.

As far as we know, that director was repeating what she had heard.

I do not doubt Dr. Wang lost his directorship, but tweets and an article based on another report are not evidence of fact he lost his directorship.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Again, a tweet represents someone's view of reality which is not necessarily the reality. For example, if someone tweeted _____ fucks pigs, that is not evidence ____ fucks pigs.

That example is not that of a tweet containing a statement, it seems. But if someone makes a statement - whether in a tweet or not -, then - like all testimony - it usually provides evidence of that which is testified. The strenght varies from almost zero to extremely strong.

Your conjectures are the equivalent of tweets - they represent what you think is true, which is not the same as what is actually true. Mr. Voloch quotes Mr Bader reporting.

As always, it is rational and we intuitively do make probabilistic assessments on the basis of the available information. Of course, the assessment above is correct.

Testimony from direct observers is used to assess matters of fact - hearsay is not.

No, testimony from anyone is used to assess matters of fact, of course. How strong it is depends on the circumstances. And the celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal.

As far as we know, that director was repeating what she had heard.

What she had heard at the university, from other people in positions of power? Sure, and that would be good evidence.

I do not doubt Dr. Wang lost his directorship, but tweets and an article based on another report are not evidence of fact he lost his directorship.

You do not doubt Dr. Want lost his directorship. Then, the possibilities are:

a. You have seen conclusive evidence that he lost his directorship - that is, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. You are being unreasonable in your assessment of the evidence for his removal.

Have you seen evidence beyond the tweets and articles under discussion?

 

[BH]

I have two friends who majored in Education. One went to prestigious Baylor University and another went to some state university in the University of Texas system. One of them paid many times more for her education but both sat down and compared classes and they pretty much covered the same thing. What gives?

I could see Baylor as perhaps the place for upper and lower graduate work. More money for research, ect.

And if minorities have problems at the elite universities wouldnt they have the same problems at the less expensive ones and colleges?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Thinking tweets are evidence is exactly what is wrong with our country. Rational skepticism, examining evidence, and critical thinking are things we need to do in response.

 

[ruby sparks]

It seems he was removed and it was because of this paper. I would have some sympathy for him, though it does seem that in his criticisms of the diversity policies in question, he slightly misrepresented the nature and scope of them and misquoted at least one source. So not a great paper.

His paper is here:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/74/2/257

But I still think he made some valid points and I do not think he should have lost a post. It smacks of critic-silencing.

And the concern that his views would someone negatively affect his directing of fellowships is moot? Or that his views which may influence his work conflict with the mission of his department and/or school is also moot?

Imo (a) he's entitled to voice concerns and (b) his paper wasn't all that bad and made some valid, policy-supportive and constructive points. Something of an over reaction to fire him from the post, imo.

 

[barbos]

I have two friends who majored in Education. One went to prestigious Baylor University and another went to some state university in the University of Texas system. One of them paid many times more for her education but both sat down and compared classes and they pretty much covered the same thing. What gives?

People equate higher price with higher quality. Universities and sales people exploit this with great success.

 

[laughing dog]

That example is not that of a tweet containing a statement, it seems. But if someone makes a statement - whether in a tweet or not -, then - like all testimony - it usually provides evidence of that which is testified. The strenght varies from almost zero to extremely strong.

You are wrong - it was an alleged statement of fact.

No, testimony from anyone is used to assess matters of fact, of course. How strong it is depends on the circumstances. And the celebratory words of the Director of Women’s Heart program at the University of Pittsburgh are significant evidence of the removal.

No, it is evidence of her belief of his removal.

What she had heard at the university, from other people in positions of power? Sure, and that would be good evidence.

Unless you are person in a position of power at UP, there is no way for you to know that. You confuse your assumptions with fact.

You do not doubt Dr. Want lost his directorship. Then, the possibilities are:

a. You have seen conclusive evidence that he lost his directorship - that is, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
b. You are being unreasonable in your assessment of the evidence for his removal.

As usual, your reasoning is faulty. I could simply believe it without conclusive evidence.

 

[Toni]

A peer reviewed "white paper" against affirmative action? I've never seen the term
peer reviewed white paper" before, so I find this a bit ironic.

Anyway, Dr Wang is not silenced by his removal as fellowship director. However, the JAHA is retracting that "white paper" (https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/medicaleducation/87903)

On Thursday, August 6, JAHA formally retracted Wang's article.

"The author's institution, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), has notified the Editor‐in‐Chief that the article contains many misconceptions and misquotes," according to the retraction notice, "and that together those inaccuracies, misstatements, and selective misreading of source materials strip the paper of its scientific validity."

The notice said Wang had not agreed to the retraction.

"JAHA will be publishing a detailed rebuttal. This retraction notice will be updated with a link to the rebuttal when it publishes,"the notice also stated. "The Editor‐in‐Chief deeply regrets publishing the article and offers his apologies."

Frankly, to this reader, the reasons for the retraction notice make me wonder what it takes to be a peer reviewer or editor for the JAHA because it is a tacit admission of extremely poor reviewing and editing on the part of the journal if true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper

A white paper is an authoritative report or guide that informs readers concisely about a complex issue and presents the issuing body's philosophy on the matter. It is meant to help readers understand an issue, solve a problem, or make a decision.

If this was indeed accepted and published as a 'white paper' by the above definition, rather than as an opinion piece, it is easy to see why Wang would have been removed from a position where he determined the recipients of fellowships.

People are entitled to have their own opinions and to state them, publish them where they can have them published. However, when one publishes a paper that could be interpreted as falling under the auspices of one's employer or organization, one should expect that the employer or organization will expect that such opinions be stated as opinions and not as the opinions or views of the employer or organization and to face scrutiny to see if the published opinions align with the core values of the employer or organization.

Dr. Wang did not lose his job. He lost a directorship but is still employed by the same medical school.