Perhaps we have to move to a methodology where research is presented anonymously, much like how musicians try out for orchestras! The trend of applying different standards and gauging reactions based on perceived levels of marginalization in society is not unique to higher academia. One would hope that evaluations are based on merit and scientific rigour, but that is not the case. Gosh, I'm old.
Well since you've mentioned the Talmud, they indeed had many things to say on criticism and who should you learn from (translations are all crudely mine, sorry in advance):
"A blade can't be sharpened except by the edge of another"
Regarding the disagreements between Hillel and Shamai the Talmud says "both are the living words of God".
Another saying is ""I have learned from all my teachers, but from my peers more than my teachers, and from my students more than anyone".
Finally there is a story about one of the wise man whose friend had died and he is upset with every one he studies with after, since they all admire his wisdom instead of criticizing him like his friend used to.
As the person who became the subject of the 15-minute Twitter Hate Of The Week for making the first comment on the "Hot Women Don't Feel Cold" paper, a week or so before the podcast appeared, I'm pleased to read this post. Apparently the times are now finally propitious for putting one's head above the parapet on this sort of thing. Perhaps it took the arrival of actual misogynistic fascism to make this discussion possible, which is a bit depressing.
The storm cost me a (very middle-of-the-list) authorship berth on a multi-author paper that was in draft at the time, because three other authors -- one of them of critical importance to that paper -- demanded of the lead author that my name be removed, as I was now The Worst Sexist And Probably Racist Bully In Academia I Mean Just Look At The Guy's Photo. (The lead author was very apologetic about it, and I was allowed to portray my withdrawal as being due to not meeting authorship criteria.)
I did, however, get several supportive DMs from various people, about half of them women. The phrase "WTF?" featured prominently in these messages of support.
Wow! Thanks for sharing this story. I was not aware of this at all, and I'm sorry this happened to you, Nick. Boo. And who, pray tell, are the three offended authors? As they say, my DMs are open! LOL
I didn't find out who the authors were; the lead author was very apologetic and explained as much as they felt able to when asking me nicely if I would help him out by withdrawing. There were probably 20 people on the paper. I suppose could have invited him to choose a hill to die on, but I try to be pragmatic about these things.
Hey, Michael. This is an important post. Appreciate your argument and am very familiar with the many shut-down-conversation strategies due to power dynamics. In response to systemic forms of discrimination like racism and sexism, it’s part of a suite of polarized and under-developed strategies to “level the playing field”. At the same time, there is considerable evidence from implicit bias and workplace research that minoritized groups DO tend to face harsher criticism, greater scrutiny, less advancement than their normative peers. As a practitioner and researcher in workplaces, I can verify these as very common patterns across sectors. Your early research informed my thinking on matters of bias yet it seems to be under-acknowledged in your essay. I’m curious how you account for this not just in your analysis but actual practice?
This is a fair pushback. But I think there are two issues: Should everyone's work face scrutiny? Yes, that's universalism. Are evaluators currently applying that scrutiny evenly across race, gender, and status? No. The "don't punch down" rule tries to fix the second problem by corrupting the first problem. Better to attack the bias directly: blinded review where feasible, structured rubrics instead of holistic judgments, and pushing evaluators to apply the same standards visibly across the board. That treats the cause rather than wrapping certain scholars in protective gauze, which hurts not just them but the pursuit of knowledge more generally.
Perhaps we have to move to a methodology where research is presented anonymously, much like how musicians try out for orchestras! The trend of applying different standards and gauging reactions based on perceived levels of marginalization in society is not unique to higher academia. One would hope that evaluations are based on merit and scientific rigour, but that is not the case. Gosh, I'm old.
Well since you've mentioned the Talmud, they indeed had many things to say on criticism and who should you learn from (translations are all crudely mine, sorry in advance):
"A blade can't be sharpened except by the edge of another"
Regarding the disagreements between Hillel and Shamai the Talmud says "both are the living words of God".
Another saying is ""I have learned from all my teachers, but from my peers more than my teachers, and from my students more than anyone".
Finally there is a story about one of the wise man whose friend had died and he is upset with every one he studies with after, since they all admire his wisdom instead of criticizing him like his friend used to.
Love the last story the most. The utmost sign of respect--being wiling to criticize constructively.
As the person who became the subject of the 15-minute Twitter Hate Of The Week for making the first comment on the "Hot Women Don't Feel Cold" paper, a week or so before the podcast appeared, I'm pleased to read this post. Apparently the times are now finally propitious for putting one's head above the parapet on this sort of thing. Perhaps it took the arrival of actual misogynistic fascism to make this discussion possible, which is a bit depressing.
The storm cost me a (very middle-of-the-list) authorship berth on a multi-author paper that was in draft at the time, because three other authors -- one of them of critical importance to that paper -- demanded of the lead author that my name be removed, as I was now The Worst Sexist And Probably Racist Bully In Academia I Mean Just Look At The Guy's Photo. (The lead author was very apologetic about it, and I was allowed to portray my withdrawal as being due to not meeting authorship criteria.)
I did, however, get several supportive DMs from various people, about half of them women. The phrase "WTF?" featured prominently in these messages of support.
Wow! Thanks for sharing this story. I was not aware of this at all, and I'm sorry this happened to you, Nick. Boo. And who, pray tell, are the three offended authors? As they say, my DMs are open! LOL
I didn't find out who the authors were; the lead author was very apologetic and explained as much as they felt able to when asking me nicely if I would help him out by withdrawing. There were probably 20 people on the paper. I suppose could have invited him to choose a hill to die on, but I try to be pragmatic about these things.
Hey, Michael. This is an important post. Appreciate your argument and am very familiar with the many shut-down-conversation strategies due to power dynamics. In response to systemic forms of discrimination like racism and sexism, it’s part of a suite of polarized and under-developed strategies to “level the playing field”. At the same time, there is considerable evidence from implicit bias and workplace research that minoritized groups DO tend to face harsher criticism, greater scrutiny, less advancement than their normative peers. As a practitioner and researcher in workplaces, I can verify these as very common patterns across sectors. Your early research informed my thinking on matters of bias yet it seems to be under-acknowledged in your essay. I’m curious how you account for this not just in your analysis but actual practice?
This is a fair pushback. But I think there are two issues: Should everyone's work face scrutiny? Yes, that's universalism. Are evaluators currently applying that scrutiny evenly across race, gender, and status? No. The "don't punch down" rule tries to fix the second problem by corrupting the first problem. Better to attack the bias directly: blinded review where feasible, structured rubrics instead of holistic judgments, and pushing evaluators to apply the same standards visibly across the board. That treats the cause rather than wrapping certain scholars in protective gauze, which hurts not just them but the pursuit of knowledge more generally.