PC Police Suppress Another Scientific Study
Apparently, saying men and women are different is something leftist academics can't tolerate.
Appealing to science as the authoritative source for non-biased objectivity and fact has long been the practiced means of “proving” the “correctness” of a certain proposition or position. And in so far as the science is sound, it has repeatedly demonstrated its power to persuade and sway opinion. That’s why it becomes highly problematic when free scientific inquiry becomes limited and suppressed by those bent on gaining power and control rather than on discovering truth. Such is the dynamic that seems to be in play regarding events surrounding the publication of a study exploring intelligence differences and their relation to men and women.
The study, entitled “An evolutionary theory for the variability hypothesis,” was coauthored by Tim Hill, a research scholar at the California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. While it had been accepted by several scientific journals, it was suddenly yanked by journals and academic institutions alike. When Hill questioned the reason for the study being rejected, he quickly learned that it had nothing to do with the quality of his research; rather it was all about politics.
As The Federalist’s Joy Pullman put it, “A study exploring Darwinian reasons there are both more highly intelligent and intelligence-deficient men than women was actively suppressed by professors at prestigious universities, all for merely discussing the reality that the sexes are different.”
One journal editor, a professor at Smith College, explained that the study had been pulled due to several academics being worried at the “very real possibility that the right-wing media may pick this up and hype it internationally.” Hill noted, “In my 40 years of publishing research papers I had never heard of the rejection of an already-accepted paper.”
Another publication, the New York Journal of Mathematics, also initially accepted the study and published it online only to suddenly delete it three days later after a math professor from the University of Chicago complained. After Hill contacted the editor of the NYJM for an explanation, he recalled that she explained “she had received no criticisms on scientific grounds and that her decision to rescind was entirely about the reaction she feared our paper would elicit. By way of further explanation, [Marjorie] Senechal even compared our paper to the Confederate statues that had recently been removed from the courthouse lawn in Lexington, Kentucky.”
Obviously, if political correctness dictates what scientific research is deemed acceptable and legitimate and what’s not, then science itself loses its source of authoritative persuasion. Clearly for the Left, it’s not about discovering and adhering to that which is true; it’s all about seeking after power.