Requiring peer-reviewed articles discriminates against indigenous academics: law professor

[laughing dog]

It is not an interesting topic if the lady did not do any research. I could be wrong, but I believe she is claiming she does not have any peer-reviewed publications which does not mean she did not perform any research.

But that means essentially the same thing.

In theory, it does not. In general, peer-reviewed publications are not the only imaginable methods to publicize the results. If there are other acceptable venues or methods to have peer-review without publication, then those methods could be used. In this particular case, it would seem to me, that it is up to this lady to show 1) there are such methods for her discipline, 2) she proposed them eariy on in the tenure review process, and 3) they were capriciously rejected in order for her to have a prevailing argument. Which is why I think she has a very steep uphill battle.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

But that means essentially the same thing.

In theory, it does not. In general, peer-reviewed publications are not the only imaginable methods to publicize the results. If there are other acceptable venues or methods to have peer-review without publication, then those methods could be used. In this particular case, it would seem to me, that it is up to this lady to show 1) there are such methods for her discipline, 2) she proposed them eariy on in the tenure review process, and 3) they were capriciously rejected in order for her to have a prevailing argument. Which is why I think she has a very steep uphill battle.

Bear Research... and yes we academics reviewed his work... while drinking.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Exactly when in western history has everyone been treated as individuals?

Why do you limit your question to "western" history? Was the situation ever different in "Eastern" history? Where and when?

OK, I was trying to help Derec out, but no worries. When in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF MANKIND has everyone been treated as individuals?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I think one professor defending her lack of publication may be a mildly interesting topic at a dinner party, but does not necessarily make some kind of universal statement. So I am asking what about this situation makes what point?

It's a point about identity politics.

Is there any other kind?

It's rather like black lives matters, I'd say.

Because black lives don't matter?

One black guy being shot by police for no good reason could be unfortunate. Five black guys being shot for no good reason is systemic. Of course, the evidence for something systemic is built up from showing multiple incarnations of the same kind of thing.

Which you have not done so far.

 

[ronburgundy]

99% of the stuff that passes through the journals is worthless rubbish. Not necessarily bad research, just worthless research.

The system where everybody has to get published is a joke.

The rate of rubbish among things that don't get peer reviewed is far higher. In fact, precisely because there are many peer review outlets willing to publish rubbish, means that anyone who can't get published in peer review outlets is likely producing something below "rubbish".

There are peer review journals for every type of area of inquiry that any University faculty would be hired to investigate. That includes the study of indigenous people's and their oral traditions. Universities hire tenure track professors to participate in professional academic communities and contribute to the peer reviewed literature. The University itself is benefited by peer review publications of its faculty.

Unless (and the odds of this are 1 in a billion) her University explicitly exempted her when hired from the typical job requirements such as peer reviewed publication, then she is simply refusing to do the job she was hired for and out the door she should go. If someone in administration actually did give her such an exemption, then she should stay and perhaps they should go.

Whether she is secretly doing sound research that her academic colleagues don't know or care about is irrelevant. Her job is not merely to do research but to disseminate via the pathways that positively impact the University for its role in supporting her ability to do that research, and peer review publication is the primary path by which that happens.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But that means essentially the same thing.

In theory, it does not. In general, peer-reviewed publications are not the only imaginable methods to publicize the results. If there are other acceptable venues or methods to have peer-review without publication, then those methods could be used. In this particular case, it would seem to me, that it is up to this lady to show 1) there are such methods for her discipline, 2) she proposed them eariy on in the tenure review process, and 3) they were capriciously rejected in order for her to have a prevailing argument. Which is why I think she has a very steep uphill battle.

Yeah, what she wants is no scrutiny of her "research".

 

[Metaphor]

Which you have not done so far.

Did you not read anything I wrote? I can hardly build up a case that something is systemic without references to individual cases, can I?

 

[credoconsolans]

She signed a contract. She failed to deliver on her end and has come up with a race-baiting defense.

She won't succeed.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Which you have not done so far.

Did you not read anything I wrote? I can hardly build up a case that something is systemic without references to individual cases, can I?

So you want to comment about a systemic problem for which you have no peer-reviewed (or otherwise reviewed) research to prove.

Yet you feel the subject worthy of consideration and your thoughts and analysis valid.

Hmmmmm.

 

[Metaphor]

Did you not read anything I wrote? I can hardly build up a case that something is systemic without references to individual cases, can I?

So you want to comment about a systemic problem for which you have no peer-reviewed (or otherwise reviewed) research to prove.

Yet you feel the subject worthy of consideration and your thoughts and analysis valid.

Hmmmmm.

Excuse me? Whenever you post your 'black man shot by police' threads with reference to a specific case, do you see me going in there and demanding you show me it's systemic and that that particular case qualifies, or your thread's pointless?

Also, why would peer-reviewed research be required to answer a philosophical question? Are you incapable of deciding from your own reasoning whether giving special consideration by race is appropriate in this circumstance or in general?

I know you're not incapable of it. If you did not want to discuss your thoughts, why are you even on this thread? I don't go into threads and say 'this is boring and not worth discussing'.

But as a special treat, I'm going to start a thread tonight about the cultural appropriationists' schizophrenic response to Beyoncé pretending she's Indian in Coldplay's latest music video. It'll be fun to tally the pro and anti-Beyoncé camps. I mean, she is a woman of colour but then so are Indian women! How can we decide if what she's done is okay or if she deserves public excoriation and crucifixion as another clueless American hundred-millionaire who's basically single-handedly colonionalising/raping India?

(Needless to say, the white men in Coldplay are obviously guilty and no correspondence needs to be entered into).

 

[bigfield]

Which you have not done so far.

Did you not read anything I wrote? I can hardly build up a case that something is systemic without references to individual cases, can I?

Maybe you should revisit this subject when there are multiple cases in existence, and you can present a recurring pattern of behaviour.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Lorna June McCue could arguably seek an indigenous peer to review her research. Mind you Ron Hubbard peer reviewed his own research

 

[Metaphor]

Did you not read anything I wrote? I can hardly build up a case that something is systemic without references to individual cases, can I?

Maybe you should revisit this subject when there are multiple cases in existence, and you can present a recurring pattern of behaviour.

There are, of course, multiple cases in existence where affirmative action mania has discriminated against people due to their ethnicity. I have documented many over the years on this board.

See, for example, these White firefighters who were discriminated against in promotions because of their ethnicity here.

The Latino firefighters who did not risk declining a promotion a third time (I wouldn't either), when it was made clear to them they would be denied promotions if they declined once again. They declined the first two times because they were being promoted ahead of others who ranked higher in the promotion exams.

In fact, the amount of discrimination against White men is quite staggering. The linked paper references 32 out of the 35 discrimination lawsuits filed over a decade were by White men alleging discrimination. The paper, by the way, uses the ludicrous term 'reverse discrimination', as if there could be any such thing.

 

[laughing dog]

the amount of discrimination [/URL]against White men is quite staggering. The linked paper references 32 out of the 35 discrimination lawsuits filed over a decade were by White men alleging discrimination.

Allegations are just that; allegations.

The paper, by the way, uses the ludicrous term 'reverse discrimination', as if there could be any such thing.

The term is well understood in the US to mean discrimination against white people. In that clear and well understood sense, it is certainly possible. In fact, according to you in your post, the mere allegations of it indicate it occurs at a staggering level.

 

[Metaphor]

Allegations are just that; allegations.

The uncontested facts in each suit speak for themselves -- and that is in addition to the plaintiffs winning their cases.

The term is well understood in the US to mean discrimination against white people. In that clear and well understood sense, it is certainly possible. In fact, according to you in your post, the mere allegations of it indicate it occurs at a staggering level.

I understand what people mean when they use it. Adding the qualifier 'reverse' adds no conceptual clarity whatsoever, except perhaps to enable diversity maniacs and plain old racists a short-hand code word to dismiss any such events as 'not actually discrimination'.

 

[laughing dog]

The uncontested facts in each suit speak for themselves -- and that is in addition to the plaintiffs winning their cases.

What proportion of those cases did the white plaintiffs win in the "staggering" number of 32 cases over 11 years?

I understand what people mean when they use it. Adding the qualifier 'reverse' adds no conceptual clarity whatsoever, except perhaps to enable diversity maniacs and plain old racists a short-hand code word to dismiss any such events as 'not actually discrimination'.

When someone writes "I am the victim of reverse discrimination" the reader in the in the US immediately knows what is meant without knowing the anything else. It is clear and concise. So you are simply wrong: it adds clarity. Language is fluid as every lexicographer understands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In fact, the amount of discrimination against White men is quite staggering. The linked paper references 32 out of the 35 discrimination lawsuits filed over a decade were by White men alleging discrimination. The paper, by the way, uses the ludicrous term 'reverse discrimination', as if there could be any such thing.

I have no problem with the term "reverse discrimination". It's discrimination with a motive of redressing past discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

What proportion of those cases did the white plaintiffs win in the "staggering" number of 32 cases over 11 years?

I don't know; I'm more interested in analysing uncontested facts rather than deciding whether discrimination happened or not by looking at the outcome. You live in a country, after all, that openly discriminates against Whites and Asians at an institutional level, unless the institutions are forbidden by law to do so (like in California).

When someone writes "I am the victim of reverse discrimination" the reader in the in the US immediately knows what is meant without knowing the anything else. It is clear and concise. So you are simply wrong: it adds clarity. Language is fluid as every lexicographer understands.

You can use it if you wish; I'll know what you mean. But I won't be using it. To do so would be to allow the discriminators, diversity maniacs, and other assorted riff-raff to frame the debate. Using the term 'reverse discrimination' validates the wrongheaded notion that you need to whether my race is White before you decide whether I've been discriminated against.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So you want to comment about a systemic problem for which you have no peer-reviewed (or otherwise reviewed) research to prove.

Yet you feel the subject worthy of consideration and your thoughts and analysis valid.

Hmmmmm.

Excuse me? Whenever you post your 'black man shot by police' threads with reference to a specific case, do you see me going in there and demanding you show me it's systemic and that that particular case qualifies, or your thread's pointless?

Also, why would peer-reviewed research be required to answer a philosophical question? Are you incapable of deciding from your own reasoning whether giving special consideration by race is appropriate in this circumstance or in general?

I know you're not incapable of it. If you did not want to discuss your thoughts, why are you even on this thread? I don't go into threads and say 'this is boring and not worth discussing'.

But as a special treat, I'm going to start a thread tonight about the cultural appropriationists' schizophrenic response to Beyoncé pretending she's Indian in Coldplay's latest music video. It'll be fun to tally the pro and anti-Beyoncé camps. I mean, she is a woman of colour but then so are Indian women! How can we decide if what she's done is okay or if she deserves public excoriation and crucifixion as another clueless American hundred-millionaire who's basically single-handedly colonionalising/raping India?

(Needless to say, the white men in Coldplay are obviously guilty and no correspondence needs to be entered into).

 

[Metaphor]

Excuse me? Whenever you post your 'black man shot by police' threads with reference to a specific case, do you see me going in there and demanding you show me it's systemic and that that particular case qualifies, or your thread's pointless?

Also, why would peer-reviewed research be required to answer a philosophical question? Are you incapable of deciding from your own reasoning whether giving special consideration by race is appropriate in this circumstance or in general?

I know you're not incapable of it. If you did not want to discuss your thoughts, why are you even on this thread? I don't go into threads and say 'this is boring and not worth discussing'.

But as a special treat, I'm going to start a thread tonight about the cultural appropriationists' schizophrenic response to Beyoncé pretending she's Indian in Coldplay's latest music video. It'll be fun to tally the pro and anti-Beyoncé camps. I mean, she is a woman of colour but then so are Indian women! How can we decide if what she's done is okay or if she deserves public excoriation and crucifixion as another clueless American hundred-millionaire who's basically single-handedly colonionalising/raping India?

(Needless to say, the white men in Coldplay are obviously guilty and no correspondence needs to be entered into).

View attachment 5587

Thanks for the substantive reply.