Blog Archives

And the Dirt Comes Out.......

1/29/2016

Recall the mess at the University of Missouri--you know, where the president resigned, the football team threatened to not play, and a journalism/communications professor requested “muscle” to deal with a student reporter?

Well, it was only a matter of time before people started talking and the internal politics of the situation leaked.

Let’s be clear: Nobody looks good in this. There were no voices in the shadows that stood for truth and justice.

Recently the ex-presidentof MU--Tim Wolfe--penned an email to his closest friends and supporters. This email was supposed to be private but for reasons that are not clear, the St. Louis press got ahold of it.

Give it a read and listen to his account of the backroom political dynamics, the backbiting, the political interference, and the overall ineffectiveness of the administration. The Board has yet to settle with Mr. Wolfe and they are demanding that he sign off on a confidentiality clause that would prevent him from discussing these issues in public--especially in a way that criticizes the Board.

You can read his letter here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/the-letter-timothy-m-wolfe-blasts-um-leadership/article_deeafcfd-1b71-5513-9939-18992898e292.html

Comments

January 27th, 2016

1/27/2016

Comments

I have been steadfast at work analyzing data I recently collected on the views and ideological proclivities of criminologists. The results so far are striking but I want to take the time necessary to fully understand the patterns in the data.

As part of my research on the role and functioning of ideology in an academic setting, I have been reading broadly--especially in political science and psychology. Several studies are noteworthy but this one, which is attached below, was particularly troubling.

Those of you familiar with tests of bias or tests of implicit bias understand the theory--we hold views that are sometimes unexamined, maybe even unconscious, and almost always negative towards some “other” group. A lot of work has been done on race, for example.

What the attached article shows is the depth of political partisanship in America. However, the authors also show that partisans on either side of the distribution of political ideology hold very negative views about each other. VERY NEGATIVE. In tests of implicit bias, moreover, these scholars found that the degree of bias between political partisans is much larger than the degree of bias between whites and blacks. You get that: Political partisanship generates more bias, implicit or otherwise, than race.

Think about the possible consequences of this general finding for the social sciences and the humanities. Using the data I just collected, I was able to largely replicate the findings on political partisanship.

Give their work a close read.........

JPW

iyengar-ajps-group-polarization.pdf
File Size:	507 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Comments

A Couple of Contrarian Views

1/27/2016

Comments

An interesting discussion can be found here:

https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2016/01/23/perils-of-incorrect-thought/
http://www.popecenter.org/commentaries/article.html?id=3318

Comments

Ethics As A Weapon

1/27/2016

Comments

My friend, Frank Cullen, has been a vocal opponent of the American Society of Criminology's movement to adopt a code of ethics. As many of you know, Frank is "Mr. Liberal." Well, in a show of bipartisan support I want to echo Frank's warnings and concerns about the adoption of THE CODE.

Why, you may ask, would anyone be opposed to a code of ethics? Well, to understand our opposition you really have to read the proposed code. The code is a modified version taken from the American Sociological Association and can be found here: http://www.asc41.com/ASC_Code_of_Ethics.pdf

Give it a quick read. You will immediately notice the politically charged language. For example,

In their professional activities, ASC members are committed to enhancing the general well being of societies and of the individuals and groups within them. Thus, ASC members have an obligation to avoid forms of social injustice such as discrimination, oppression, or harassment in their own work. ASC members also must be careful to avoid incompetent, unethical, or unscrupulous use of criminological knowledge.

Who knew I was responsible with enhancing the general well being of societies, individuals, and groups? I didn't even know I had this magical power. How should I do this? Am I to promote social justice ideology, advocate for decarceration, or argue that all citizens, regardless of income, should receive FREE Starbucks?

The next statement, however, really gets under my skin. I will now have an "obligation to avoid social injustice" in my own work.

WTF?

As many of you know, I have been instrumental in reviving the study of biosocial criminology. I've gone to great lengths to keep the two issues separate on this blog because I want the ideas to stand or fall on their own. However, one reason I wrote my "Conservative" book was because of the reaction I and my colleagues have received for our work in biosocial. We have, on many occasions, been subject to some rather nasty criticisms including but not limited to accusations of being scientific racists and sexists. Given our experiences, ask yourself how this clause in the ASC ethics charge will be used? Is there a possibility that those of us who work in biosocial will be charged with "creating or facilitating social injustice" in our work? And what about someone who conducts research on racial differences in offending, or the death penalty, or any other topic that is politically tinged......will they also be charged with facilitating social injustice? Could I accuse my radical brethren of promoting communism and Marxism and thus "facilitating social injustice?" Don't think it won't happen? Look at other disciplines........

Ask yourself what standard exists to determine whether someone was "incompetent, unethical, or unscrupulous" in their use of criminological knowledge? Are these terms defined or do they mean whatever someone wants them to mean? What, after all, would constitute "unscrupulous" use of criminological knowledge? Would denying sex differences qualify? Would denying the important role of biology in behaviour?

Here is another odd statement:

ASC members will not consult or use their research in any way that would support espionage, spying, torture and other activities that violate human rights or civil liberties in the US or elsewhere.

I'm sorry, but if I wish to collaborate with an intelligence agency and to bring my knowledge to bear so we can obliterate ISIS, prevent terrorist attacks, or destroy drug cartels.....I will. Believe it or not, some of us have military experience, we love our country, and we may even want to help lend a hand to defeat of our enemies. Don't agree? Then don't participate. I see no reason for the ASC to adopt this clause outside of the fact it supports their politics.

The rest of the document details expectations for damn near every part of one's professional career. There is language about teaching, about reviewing articles, about editing, about working as an administrator. Every part of my life....your life....will be subject to ASC oversight.

But wait.....how would allegations of unethical activities be investigated and what sanctions would be aimed at the offender found guilty of making students feel uncomfortable? We don't know. Nothing is spelled out.

I've been told that a committee will be formed to investigate allegations and that the punishments will be "reintegrative," including publishing the offenders misdeeds and name.

Let me be direct: We are talking about people's lives, their reputations, and their ability to make a living. The consequences that accompany any ethics complaint are serious--even if the complaint is unfounded. These things are used by others to besmirch the reputations of those they don't like and of whose work they don't like. They devolve quickly into a feeding frenzy of gossip and the "politics of personal destruction." In the end, even if acquitted, the individual's reputation suffers.

Personally, I would rather be judged by 20 random individuals drawn from a major city street than by 20 academics. In twenty years of work I have witnessed example after example where academics slandered, screwed over, lied about, and maligned other academics. I've seen instances where committee votes happened because members were too afraid to speak up and dissent. Bravery is not a defining characteristic of academics

And for those of you willing to trust others to punish you in a way that is "reintegrative" ask yourself how "reintegrated" you would feel with your name plastered across the ASC's website or published in "The Criminologist." Maybe as an experiment you could send me your name and let me publish it here? Didn't think so.

To vigorously enforce this code, I think the ASC should establish some morals police--people who are charged with making certain nothing "unethical" happens during ASC meetings. They could start at the bar and then maybe attend various panel sessions.

The "Code" is far reaching, encroaches on the legitimate oversight maintained by our universities, and offers no pre-specified enforcement mechanism. Adoption elevates the likelihood that spurious charges will be lodged against scholars for dubious reasons.

Why would anyone voluntarily subject themselves to this level of oversight? It drives up the risks associated with being an ASC member.......risks that are too high for me.

JPW

Comments

Attacks on Free Speech Today and Yesterday

1/25/2016

Comments

In 1963, with debates on North Carolina’s campuses raging, a handful of powerful state representatives snuck into law a bill that banned North Carolina universities from allowing communists to speak on campus. Not only communists were banned but so too were individuals who had claimed 5th Amendment protections in cases where they were accused of engaging in subversive activities. I found a copy of the actual bill. It is posted here.

Fast forward to today. I’m going out on a limb here but I’m going to guess that no state legislature would allow such a bill to be passed today. Individual legislatures may desire to limit speech on their state’s campus, but I doubt they would be successful.

But they no longer have to......because the Federal government has essentially colluded with many on campus who wish to control speech.

Enter the strange case of Professor Teresa Buchanan at LSU. Professor Buchanan had, yes had, an unblemished 20 year career at LSU. She was productive, won teaching awards, and appears to have been a contributing member of the university.

She also had a potty mouth and liked to tell jokes laced with sexual innuendo.

When Teresa went up for promotion to full professor something happened. It seems a student or two and a community member complained about her language. Teresa was supported all the way the chain of command in her bid to earn promotion but was eventually denied by the Provost. Not only was she denied promotion......but the administration brought charges against here that would END HER CAREER.

What, may you ask, did she do to get terminated? Did she not show up to work? No. Did she plagiarize a paper? No. Did she fabricate data? No. Did she not teach her courses. Nope, nope, and nope.

It seems her crime was that she cussed.....and told a joke.

Despite a university committees finding that she should not be fired, the administration went ahead and terminated her. They cited the Department of Education’s direction on “sexual harassment” and “creating a hostile workplace.” People and organizations had warned us that the DOE’s language would be used to ill effect, that it was overly broad, and that faculty would be fired for teaching controversial topics and for employing certain words.

To its credit, the AAUP has censured LSU. You can find their report on the internet.

In 1963 a handful of elected representatives infringed on the free speech rights of communists. It took 5 years before the law was found unconstitutional by the courts. During that time period, university presidents and faculty joined in a chorus of voices to protest the law.

In 2016 we have a handful of unelected lawyers in the DOE issuing non-binding “letters” to universities that provide the justifications for kangaroo courts and for the infringement on free speech rights of students and faculty. This time around we have no such chorus of voices.

This time around, they are complicit.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25973/

Comments

Smart People are Better Liars

1/22/2016

Comments

Universities generally hire some pretty smart people. Not always, of course, but usually. Intelligence, however, is always thought of as a net positive. Yet there is a dark side to intelligence. When intelligence is unmoored from basic ethics and values, all sorts of bad things happen. When it is used to manipulate............well, you get the point.

Research shows that smart people are better at deceiving others, that they are more creative in their efforts to deceive, and that they can better handle the cognitive load required to keep all the plates balanced in their narrative. Research also tells us that we are more likely to WANT to believe smart people when they lie to us.

So, let’s say that you really, really, really want to increase minority enrollments at a competitive school. The only thing standing in your way is a state law that forbids race being used in the decision process. What to do, what to do?

Well, smart people know that a quotient needs a numerator and a denominator and that if we can affect either one, then we can affect the quotient.

Enter the University of Michigan.

UM has been at the heart of debate about the role of race in affirmative action for a very long time and the institution is now forbidden by law from elevating race in admissions decisions. How can you get around this if you really, really want to be down with the cause?

Here is what UM did. They shrank their entering class size and then refused to draw people from the waiting list. It seems those on the waiting list were predominately white and Asian so their addition would adjust the racial quotient downward. Pretty smart, huh?

Yeah.... UM found a way to diversify its student body (an admirable goal) without violating state law. All it had to do was NOT let in as many whites/Asians. That’s right: Qualified whites and Asians were INTENTIONALLY not allowed admission because that would have affected the denominator of the quotient.

Smart.........very smart.

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/01/another-lllegal-diversity-scheme-at-michigan/

Comments

Intellectual Diversity, Demands, and Requests: Two Different Views

1/22/2016

Comments

Contrast the following demands/requests. The first is from a group of Amherst students who couldn’t find a single faculty member to present the conservative side of a debate.

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25941/
https://docs.google.com/a/students.stpiusx.com/forms/d/1KirdnrHEPAohSyaIy9R6BXR8QWeNyvFakPys8BTImmQ/viewform?c=0&w=1

This group comes for activists at Oberlin: http://new.oberlin.edu/petition-jan2016.pdf

See also: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/21/oberlins-president-refuses-negotiate-student-list-demands

Comments

Some Interesting Videos on Campus Climate

1/22/2016

Comments

Dogmatism and Broken Science

1/22/2016

Comments

Reason magazine has a couple of articles worth reading. The first is about the replication crisis in science. The author cites several studies that involved pre-clinical and clinical trials.........on things like cancer drugs. Well over 1/2 of the studies failed to replicate. Think about that.

You can read that piece here: https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/19/broken-science

In another article the same author covers the debate concerning the alleged “closed mindedness” of conservatives and their alleged preference for simplify in thought and dogmatism. In a series of studies by Conway and his colleagues, however, Conway found NO evidence that liberals or conservatives varied fundamentally on their preference for closed minded thinking, dogmatism, or lack of complexity. I believe I posted the Conway article in an earlier post but you can read about it here: https://reason.com/archives/2016/01/15/liberals-are-simple-minded

I would think it prudent that people interested in differences between groups, be they political differences or whatever, actually measure differences between groups. As I’ve said before, liberals and conservatives prioritize different things and each group can be very closed minded when it comes to their favorite topics.

It’s clear that we have a problem in the sciences--namely that our studies generally don’t replicate. I’ve worked with “hard” scientists before and I’ve worked with medical researchers. Trust me when I say that each group has their biases, their ways of seeing the world, and their preferred explanations. They are humans. That said, the folks I’ve worked with have been very diligent in their work....sometimes having results verified by several analysts. That the rigor I’ve seen can still produce misleading or wrong science should scare the hell out of us in the social sciences where we have a tendency to grab a secondary dataset and publish away.

Maybe it is time for criminologists to drop the theorizing and refocus on establishing concrete, basic facts about criminal conduct? We know some, for example:

Being male
Age and frequency/prevalence curves
The concentration of offending in families across generations
The very high level of stability in criminal conduct and resistance to change
Moderate to high heritability’s on crime, aggression, and related phenotypes
Low impulse control / low self-control
An early age of onset

Are there other “brute facts” we need to know? Maybe.

Comments

Law Schools, Conservatives, and Talent

1/22/2016

Comments

A new paper was recently made available on SSRN. The paper takes a unique approach to analyzing data on the over-representation of liberal law school faculty. The author begins the paper in an ingenious way. Imagine, he asks, that you are a major league ball player in the 1950’s. There are many whites and few blacks but the blacks that are on the team are very good--better than average. Hmmmmm. He argues that the lack of blacks on major league teams in the 1950’s wasn’t due to a lack of ability but was instead due to some subtle and not so subtle biases. These biases (including outright discrimination) created a situation where black ball players had to be better than the average white ball player to get a spot on the team. Sometimes they had to be a lot better.

You can see where he is going with this, right?

In a parallel way, he argues, conservatives have to be better than the average liberal law professor in order to get invited to the playground.

Through some rigorous analyses, the author finds that conservative law professors publish significantly more over their career than their liberal colleagues and that they are cited waaaayyy more often.

Here is the abstract:

There are few conservatives and libertarians in legal academia. Why? Three explanations are usually provided: the Brainpower, Interest, and Greed Hypotheses. Alternatively, it could be because of Discrimination. This paper explores these possibilities by looking at citation and publication rates by law professors at the 16 highest-ranked law schools in the country. Using regression analysis, propensity score matching, propensity score reweighting, nearest neighbor matching, and coarsened exact matching, this paper finds that after taking into account traditional correlates of scholarly ability, conservative and libertarian law professors are cited more and publish more than their peers. The paper also finds that they tend to have more of the traditional qualifications required of law professors than their peers, with a few exceptions. This paper indicates that, at least in the schools sampled, conservative and libertarian law professors are not few in number because of a lack of scholarly ability or professional qualifications. Further, the patterns do not prove, but are consistent with, a story of discrimination. The downsides to having so few conservatives and libertarians in the legal academy are also briefly explored.

These types of studies are becoming more prevalent, which is good news. Seriously minded people should care about the consequences attached to such studies. Moreover, these studies help to debunk the notion that conservatives are dolts and not interested in intellectual work.

On a side note, I just read a few studies that found that liberals are “more open to experience.” Openness is a major personality factor in the 5-factor model. The authors argued that openness likely helped to explain why there are so few conservatives in the academy--you know, because conservatives don’t like new ideas and they don’t like to explore new territory. As fate would have it, I then read a paper on psychopathy. Wouldn’t you know it......openness correlated positively with narcissism. I wonder how that would get spun?

Here is the paper on lawyers:

ssrn-id2711461.pdf
File Size:	1162 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

Comments

<<Previous

And the Dirt Comes Out.......

January 27th, 2016

A Couple of Contrarian Views

Ethics As A Weapon

Attacks on Free Speech Today and Yesterday

Smart People are Better Liars

Intellectual Diversity, Demands, and Requests: Two Different Views

Some Interesting Videos on Campus Climate

Dogmatism and Broken Science

Law Schools, Conservatives, and Talent

John Paul Wright and Matt DeLisi

Archives

Categories