The (generally quite lefty) Chronicle of Higher Ed has come out with a generally sane article on the intellectual fascism in the academia, with political correctness requiring equality of outcomes and identify politics, as well as the self-righteousness of seeing “our side” (the left) as being on the side of the angels, and the other side as evil. Of course, this last is the last stage before an actual shooting civil war (since the other people are evil, it is OK to kill them), but in the meantime leads to a complete breakdown of communication – just as in the (ongoing, as of this writing) Kavanaugh circus, the left’s allegations are primarily not credible because of their avowed “by any means necessary” attitude (these points are not simply philosophical – Blasey Ford came to Dianne Feinstein, not the Committee; Feinstein did not communicate with her colleague or the nominee (which would have given plenty of time for a non-public investigation and, if any truth were found, quiet withdrawal); the democratic party is NOT perturbed by the extensively documented allegations against their own – Keith Ellison. I could go on).
Getting back to the Chronicle of Higher Ed piece, I was amused to see that the authors still need to sacrifice at the altar of political correctness:
Examples of this include the 2017 decisions of two mathematics journals to backtrack after initially accepting a paper on the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, which asserts that men are overrepresented both among geniuses and among people of very low intelligence.
We emphasize that we are not advocates of the hypothesis; we believe that the distribution of genius is uncorrelated with gender (or race, etc.).
(boldface mine). In addition to the well-documented GMVH, there is plenty of completely uncontroversial data on race and gender differences in intelligence (both in the general levels and, particularly important for gender differences, differences in aptitudes for different kinds of skills). The authors (the second of whom is a sociologist) know better, but they are afraid of being pilloried. Sort of like all the “conservative” pundits, who say:
I would never watch Alex Jones. And if I did watch him, I would find him horrible. But still, it is a shame about his deplatforming.
The preamble is necessary to stop the listener/reader/watcher from thinking that the author is the kind of a, how to say,… oh, yes – Deplorable person who might watch Alex.
So, we are still pretty deep in the woods, and a complete breakdown seems likely, but there are some rays of sunlight shining through the dense PC canopy – more on this in the next post.