Ending “White Heteromasculinism”: Professors Call For Less Reliance On White, Male, Heterosexual, and “Cisgendered” Academics

cgpc20.v024.i04.coverA new study has called for a concerted effort to cite academics of color and greater diversity to make from the hold of “white heteromasculism” on research.  Geographers Carrie Mott (professor at Rutgers University) and Daniel Cockayne (professor at University of Waterloo in Ontario) has identified the reliance on research by white males as a “system of oppression” benefitting “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered.” Cisgendered refers people whose gender identity matches their birth sex.

The two academic insist in an article in the journal Gender, Place and Culture that “This important research has drawn direct attention to the continued underrepresentation and marginalization of women, people of color. … To cite narrowly, to only cite white men … or to only cite established scholars, does a disservice not only to researchers and writers who are othered by white heteromasculinism.”

The 22-page paper, “Citation matters: mobilizing the politics of citation toward a practice of ‘conscientious engagement,'” argues that the use of straight white males for support only perpetuates their views and excludes alternative views.  They said that their study was motivated by “shared feelings of discomfort, frustration, and anger” over actions of fellow scholars and publication practices in a white male-dominated system of peer review.

Of course, the higher rate of citations of males may reflect the higher numbers of male academics.   According to the American Association of Geographers, men make up 62 percent of its members.  That is changing but could be a major contributors to the higher citation rate since there are twice as many of males publishing.

Mott identified herself as  a “feminist political geographer,” who’s interested in “how resistance movements mobilize to fight against state-sponsored violence and marginalization.”

In fairness to Professors Mott and Cockayne, greater diversity in our faculties have led to valuable work challenging assumptions and perceptions in academic work.  It is important to consider the ever-widening body of research in many fields to counter any bias in analysis.

At the risk of seeming self-serving as an academic who is “white, male, able-bodied, economically privileged, heterosexual, and cisgendered,” I find the publication by Mott and Cockayne to be deeply troubling and frankly anti-intellectual.  I never consider (and often do not know the race or sexual orientation) of authors cited in my academic work.  I am interested in their ideas and the depth of their analysis.  That is the great pleasure of working in a field of intellectuals.  We are thrilled by ideas, not identities.  The article suggests that we should start to employ a type of selection process based on identity and race.  That is precisely what so many fought against in academics as we broke down racial and gender barriers.

The suggestion that the value of academic work should now be measured in part by the identity or race or sexual orientation of the author is offensive to our intellectual mission and values.  It shows how some academics are now introducing not just speech regulations but discriminatory practices into universities under the guise of diversity values.  The touchstone of our academic life is the inherent worth of ideas in their own right.  While we all strive for greater diversity of ideas and influences on our campuses, the citation of academic work must remain entirely based on the inherent quality of the underlying research and not the identity of the researcher.

What do you think?


235 thoughts on “Ending “White Heteromasculinism”: Professors Call For Less Reliance On White, Male, Heterosexual, and “Cisgendered” Academics”

  1. This PC crowd has much more in common with Chairman Mao and Pol Pot than George Washington.

    1. I agree with your comment Ivan that this PC crowd is closer to Chairman Mao and Pol Pot than George Washington but I doubt they would admit it as both Chairman Mao and Pol Pot were male, almost surely heterosexual and probably cisgendered as well.

  2. Out of 144-145 nations, the U.S. ranks 74th, 45th, 32nd or 28th in gender equity, depending on the measure applied. The U.S. never cracks the top 25.

    1. What does that stat even mean??? The way those things usually work is, that whatever PIG (Public Interest Group) is running the survey, puts up a bunch of arbitrary standards, and then measures who doesn’t measure up to the arbitrary standards.

      For example, one standard might be “Free Gov’t Paid Abortions For Everybody on Demand”, and then guess what! The U.S. fails to measure up.

      Sooo, to me, your stat is meaningless.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

    2. Freedom is constitutional. Free enterprise is constitutional. Artificial gender equity at the expense of another individual’s rights and freedoms is unconstitutional. Gender equity is not mandated by the Constitution. Freedom is. Since the government, under the Constitution, is not a dictatorship, the measurements you recited have absolutely no relevance to governance. The globalism you promote voids and nullifies the sovereignty of individual nations If you subvert the Constitution, you are a traitor who has committed treason. Globalists are traitors. I suggest you seek asylum in another country that imposes the type of dictatorship you prefer.

      1. The southern secession states prior to the Civil War used wording similar to that in your comment.
        “I suggest you” leave the nation for whom so many have sacrificed so much.
        One million Irish were allowed to die of starvation while the British used the excuse of free enterprise. The descendants of the Irish who fled tyranny and many other workers who fled the tyranny of colonialists are the people who built this nation.
        Preferential tax treatment in the form of carried interest and, lengthy patent protections, are but two examples of the current economic mutation that practices corporate welfare instead of free enterprise. Congress fosters a distorted and perverse system that enables the financial sector to drag down GDP by an estimated 2%, which labor is forced to overcome so that the nation can have economic growth.

        1. The only way to deal with rhetoric where falsities and generalities are linked with a bit of truth is to ignore what is being said. Linda, you hide behind generalities and emotions. Let’s hear some real data.

        2. Congress fosters a distorted and perverse system that enables the financial sector to drag down GDP by an estimated 2%,

          You keep recycling this pseudo-datum while refusing to say where you obtained it.

    3. Out of 144-145 nations, the U.S. ranks 74th, 45th, 32nd or 28th in gender equity, depending on the measure applied. The U.S. never cracks the top 25.

      Synthetic scales designed by political partisans to measure something unimportant if not vicious. Yeah, I’m real embarrassed.

    1. That was an hilarious article! I pulled this excerpt from it:

      In a paper for The Minnesota Review, culture and gender-studies researcher Whitney Stark argues that Newton’s understanding of physics is oppressive because it has “separated beings” based on their “binary and absolute differences” — a structure that she calls “hierarchical and exploitative” — and the same kind of system is “embedded in many structures of classification,” making it “part of the apparatus that enables oppression.”

      Stark explains: This structural thinking of individualized separatism with binary and absolute differences as the basis for how the universe works seeped into/poured over/ is embedded in many structures of classification, which understand similarity and difference in the world, imposed in many hierarchical and exploitative organizational structures, whether through gender, life/nonlife, national borders, and so on.

      Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448102/quantum-physics-oppressive-marginalized-people

      I wonder if Whitney Stark has binary light switches in her house??? You know, On and Off??? Maybe she needs one that has more choices, you know, On, Off, Half Off, Miswired???

      That would be fun to watch! She flips the switch and gets “Miswired”, which is synonymous with LGBTQXYZ, and she lights up like a Christmas Tree!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Squeeky,

        LIfe/nonlife is a “hierarchical and exploitative organizational structure”?????
        WTF does that even mean?
        Reads like postmodernist word salad…..Derrida and Foucault have royally
        screwed up American humanities professors and their unwitting guinea pigs.

  3. The inmates have taken over the asylum.

    There are Americans and then there are hyphenates.

    Let’s review the literal intent of the American Founders in 1790:

    Naturalization Act of 1790 –

    “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…”

    Karl Marx and Barry Soetoro were viscerally and diametrically opposed to America and wanted to “fundamentally transform” it out of existence.

    “I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.”

    – Isoroku Yamamoto

    Will the “…sleeping giant…” filled “…with a terrible resolve…”

    ever awaken again to impose a severe “whitelash?”

    One can only hope.

    1. LMAO! Your sickening racism is testament to what Turley’s views cultivate. As I’ve said dozens of times, the fact folks like you aren’t censored — yes, overt racists like you should be censored here, given that mere “swear words” are! — should be a source of disgrace for Turley.

      But just to shut your dumb racist azz up, let me point out the obvious: Racial Purityis a complete MYTH. Noone is 100% of any so-called race. No one. We’re all mixed up from eons of biological integration. What that means for you is you’ll never be able to wash out the remnants of blackness in you that descended millions of years ago from Africa. Nope. Those genes will always be with you. So stop hating yourself and love all people…

        1. I don’t know — how much Euro blood is in the bodies of the overwhelming numbers of white people who are serial killers, pedophiles, and caused world genocides that killed over 90 million people? Hmm, Squeeky? How much Euro-blood do those mass murderers have? (by your own idiotic uneducated logic ?)

          1. I bet you didn’t watch the video, now did you??? I am sure you are afraid to look at what you are partially responsible for. Put it on in the background and listen to it.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

            1. Turley must surely appreciate that you actually cited a video that used the word “Nigglet” — Please just go away…

              1. It’s a black guy who used the word, sooo who I am to deprive him of his cultural rights??? That would be like making rappers stop using the word.

                I bet you still didn’t watch the video, did you? It’s a good one. Tommy talks about his own upbringing, and the dumb stuff he was taught.

                Go ahead and watch. It won’t bite you.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

          2. chris marker – need a cite for that 90 million. Number seems a little high.

            1. Tzvetan Todorov: “The Conquest of America”

              1. Todorov was a literary critic with no training whatsoever in historical demography. Why not tell us what your pal Morty has to say on the subject?

              2. chris marker – his speciality is literature, French at that, and he is writing a history book about Spanish colonialism. I have taught it and am not a fan, but i don’t get 90 million dead from the Spanish. It wasn’t in their best interest to have people die off.

                1. Paul, I don’t know the number, but the Europeans brought disease so some of the uneducated believe that is the same as killing the local population. If that were true then one could say the Chinese killed a similar number since the plague (Black Death) originated in China spread southwest and onto the merchant ships to kill Europeans.

                  1. allan – it is odd we blame the white man for bringing diseases to the New World, but liberals don’t blame the Chinese for the several bouts of plague that spread through Europe.

                    1. Paul, Liberals with a capital L aren’t liberals like the classical liberal. Many are socialists and a lot are just envious and ignorant wanting to get even.

          3. I don’t know — how much Euro blood is in the bodies of the overwhelming numbers of white people who are serial killers, pedophiles, and caused world genocides that killed over 90 million people?

            In the United States, there have been a few hundred serial killers identified over the last 60 years. In Britain, there have been about 20 identified. Only in your ‘mind’ does that datum constitute ‘overwhelming numbers’.

            There has never been any such thing as a ‘world genocide’. Demographic disasters which historians speculate may have had eight digit death tolls have occurred several times in China. The Japanese rampage over the years running from 1931 to 1945 was pretty gruesome as well. The Russian civil war (1918-1922) and the first and second World War were sanguinary, but neither was conducted by white populations contra non-white populations.

            No clue how you got the idea in your mind that only white people are sex offenders.

            1. Overwhelming number of serial killers and pedophiles in U.S are white: FACT.

              1. Chris, 63% of the population is white Anglo. In 1960, the share was about 85%. If the overwhelming majority were not ‘white’, that would be quite peculiar and indicative of severe pathology in the non-white population.

            1. Mauritania. However, since chattel slavery hardly exists anywhere anymore, you’re not scoring points with that.

              1. DSS, actually it is Asia (where more than 60% of about 48 million?) are said (I don’t remember the reliability of the source) to come from five countries consisting of China, India, Bangladesh Uzbekastan and one other that I don’t remember. Mauritania’s population isn’t nearly as great so maybe you include it on the basis of proportionality. Slavery still exists in Africa among black Africans and until slavery was eradicated in the US black slave owners existed enslaving their black bretheren.

                What amazes me is that slavery in the US seems to be an excuse for many that never faced it and in many cases didn’t have families that faced it either.

                1. DSS, actually it is Asia (where more than 60% of about 48 million?) are said (I don’t remember the reliability of the source)

                  The source is likely a shizzy NGO that needs a raison d’etre. They do that by replacing one definition of slavery with another. (You recall ‘malnutritoin’ being replaced with ‘food insecurity’).

                  1. If I remember correctly they were talking about slave labor. One of the countries with a high proportion of slave labor was North Korea so I think their definition is probably a reasonable one though it is not necessarily the type of slave labor that can be bought and sold.

      1. And that anti-American screed to the Founding Fathers of the United States of America.

        Oh my!

      2. You may want to review the freedoms provided by the Constitution with emphasis on the 9th Amendment which allows every conceivable natural and god-given freedom and right.

        Discrimination is the first step of freedom.

        Ever listen to Muhammad Ali? “God didn’t make no mistake!”

        To wit,

        In a wide-ranging 1968 interview with Bud Collins, the storied Boston Globe sports reporter, Ali insisted that it was as unnatural to expect blacks and whites to live together as it would be to expect humans to live with wild animals. “I don’t hate rattlesnakes, I don’t hate tigers — I just know I can’t get along with them,” he said. “I don’t want to try to eat with them or sleep with them.”

        Collins asked: “You don’t think that we can ever get along?”

        “I know whites and blacks cannot get along; this is nature,” Ali replied. That was why he liked George Wallace, the segregationist Alabama governor who was then running for president.
        Collins wasn’t sure he’d heard right. “You like George Wallace?”

        “Yes, sir,” said Ali. “I like what he says. He says blacks shouldn’t force themselves in white neighborhoods, and white people shouldn’t have to move out of the neighborhood just because one black comes. Now that makes sense.”

        This was not some inexplicable aberration. It reflected a hateful worldview that Ali, as a devotee of Elijah Muhammad and the segregationist Nation of Islam, espoused for years. At one point, he even appeared before a Ku Klux Klan rally. It was “a heck of a scene,” he later boasted —

        Clansmen with hoods, a burning cross, “and me on the platform,” preaching strict racial separation. “Black people should marry their own women,” Ali declaimed. “Bluebirds with bluebirds, red birds with red birds, pigeons with pigeons, eagles with eagles. God didn’t make no mistake!”

      3. Noone is 100% of any so-called race.

        Henry Louis Gates acquired samples of Rick Warren’s DNA for analysis. It turns out his ancestry is 100% caucasoid. My brother participated in 23-and-Me. We’re 99.9% caucasoid. Evidently someone married a squaw in the mid-17th century.

        Black Americans (IIRC) average about 82% west African, 16% European, and 2% other.

      4. You don’t sound like you love all people, though.
        Perhaps the log in your own eye could use some attention?

  4. Here’s some more Liberal Democratic Party Idiocy. A movie reviewer complains Dunkirk is too white. . .

    Social media ridicule followed the publishing of writer Brian Truitt’s reaction to director Christopher Nolan’s latest film, a World War II tale about Allied soldiers attempting to survive while pinned down by German adversaries. The columnist gave the film a glowing review while saying its lack of diversity “may rub some the wrong way.”

    “The trio of timelines can be jarring as you figure out how they all fit, and the fact that there are only a couple of women and no lead actors of color may rub some the wrong way,” Mr. Truitt wrote Monday. “Still, Nolan’s feat is undeniable: He’s made an immersive war movie that celebrates the good of mankind while also making it clear that no victory is without sacrifice.”

    Conservatives like National Review Online Editor Charles C.W. Cooke reacted with sarcasm and mockery.

    “It was highly problematic that the British Expeditionary Force and the French army stranded such a monochrome crew,” Mr. Cooke tweeted Tuesday.


    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Squeeky – since Obama is has been important that they tick all the boxes in Hollywood. Nolan should have put a few token blacks on the beach of Dunkirk for diversity. Nolan knows better.

      Actually Variety’s review was sterling and I am looking forward to the monochromatic film. Nolan is a great film maker

        1. Squeeky – just watched a documentary on the 18 black athletes sent to Germany for the 1936 Olympic Games. The German girls were fascinated by them. In fact there were rumors of a love garden that both the athletes and some of the girls used. The French had black soldiers. There is no reason there’s no reason the Germans could not have, if they had wanted to. Except they were rather racist.

  5. *

    See what affirmative action, teachers unions and

    welfare student loans have wrought.

    See what redistribution and social engineering have wrought.

    America has created a monster.

      1. Yes, because prior to affirmative action, teachers unions, welfare (including HEALTHCARE), people of color in the U.S. could count on being systematically treated like 3rd class citizens with virtually no access to economic and political and economic opportunity you two perverse clowns think we should return to…Nice….

        1. people of color in the U.S. could count on being systematically treated like 3rd class citizens with virtually no access to economic and political and economic opportunity you two perverse clowns think we should return to…Nice….

          Actually, real income per capita for black Americans is about what it is for Mediterranean Europe and about what it is (on average) for the UK less the London commuter belt. American blacks are the most sophisticated, affluent, and educated negroid population in the world. The notion that they are ‘systematically treated like 3rd class citizens with virtually no access to economic and political and economic opportunity ‘ is a witless fantasy.

            1. Oh please, as if what happened to this one man is demonstrative of “systematic treatment” of all black men in the US. Read the stats on who kills the most blacks in the US and then get back to us.

          1. Please stop confronting roach with facts. You’re gonna make his head explode.

            He’s never dealt with facts in his life. He only knows the anti-white pablum his community has fed him from when he was in the womb onward.

          2. My previous reply was confusing in that it did not specify the actual statement of DSS’S post to which I was objecting, this is a clarified version.

            “The notion that they are ‘systematically treated like 3rd class citizens with virtually no access to economic and political and economic opportunity ‘ is a witless fantasy.”

            The ghost of Philando Castille begs to differ.

            1. Really, and you’ve been in contact with him?

              About 2% of the homicides of blacks in this country consist of killings by police officers. The annual number of police killings in this country has been tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and there has been no secular trend in the raw number (even as the population has increased). Nor is there much indication that the black share among those killed by police exceeds the black share of the population of violent criminals generally (i.e. the composition of the population of those killed by police matches the composition of those you’d expect to have violent confrontations with people generally). If the sorosphere narrative pushers had a barrel full of good examples of unjustified lethal violence contra blacks, they would not be exploiting cases like that of Michael Brown or Eric Garner. They use these shizzy examples because they do not have better examples. The notion that lethal violence by police officers (against blacks or anyone else) is a systematic problem is rubbish.

        2. People must adapt to the outcome of freedom.

          Freedom does not adapt to people,

          dictatorship does.

        3. “The history of blacks in the United States has been virtually stood on its head by those advocating affirmative action. The empirical evidence is clear that most blacks got themselves out of poverty in the decades preceding the civil rights revolution of the 1960s and the beginning of affirmative action in the 1970s. Yet the political misrepresentation of what happened—by leaders and friends of blacks—has been so pervasive that this achievement has been completely submerged in the public consciousness. Instead of gaining the respect that other groups have gained by lifting themselves out of poverty, blacks are widely seen, by friends and critics alike, as owing their advancement to government beneficence.” Thomas Sowell

          Of course there are those that think blacks aren’t good enough to get themselves out of poverty. That’s racism.

  6. My favorite is “The conceptual penis as a social construct.”

    The paper, “The conceptual penis as a social construct,” went through the peer review process before it was published in the journal “Cogent Social Sciences”. After it was published the authors revealed it was a hoax to demonstrate how unserious Gender Studies is. The journal retracted it.

    The abstract is filled with meaningless post-modernist jargon. I do like how the authors say the “conceptual penis” drives “climate change.” Why wouldn’t it? Here’s the paper as published before it was retracted.


    Here’s the publisher attempting to explain how a nonsensical paper was published and got through the peer review process.


  7. Tolerance is supposed to be inclusive, not neurotic.

    We should take a page from the book of Dr King, and judge each other on the content of their character. I don’t care if you identify with unicorns and ride a unicycle. All I care about is can you do the job and not burn down the company.

    Whether you are a white male who was born male and STILL believes he is male, or a white male who BELIEVES he was born an African American female, can that person do the job? Are they nice? And most importantly, do they believe that otters are cute? (I am convinced that only psychopaths don’t do the head tilt and say “ahhhhh” instinctively to sea otters. Just think of all the problems that could be avoided if they included otter photos in job interviews.)

    This hysterical fixation on victim profiteering will lead to bigotry, bias, quotas, lowering the bar, divisiveness, and hatred of cis-gendered white males or whoever else the Mean Girls have put into their Not Speaking To Box that day.

    And to anyone who believes this nonsense about white heteromasculinism, I would ask them this question – If you get diagnosed with a very aggressive, rare form of cancer tomorrow, would you restrict your care only to the oncologists, nursing staff, phlebotomist, and all other medical personnel only to those who are transgendered minorities, regardless of skill? Or would you frankly not give 2 cents for what they look like on the outside and whom they sleep with, and only want the best care from the best medical professionals you can find?

  8. Why does anybody listen to Turley on matters of race when he enables Trump’s racist conspiracy theories about Pres. Obama and doesn’t condemn the fact that Trump’s racism represents a direct threat to our democracy, which is a fact that has caused countless leading GOP figures to leave the Republican party itself?!

    Turley simply and obviously isn’t educated enough to know that it is a documented fact that non-white scholars still do not have the institutional access to academic publishing that their white peers do and that this is the motivating thesis of this book he so ignorantly tries to discredit. This is not my opinion: it’s a documented FACT and one needs only to read the noted works of the Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, current President of the American Sociological Association, to confirm this, particularly in his discussions of his own efforts to publish in the academy.

    So called “merit” is not the issue here, or the superficial racist meme that these scholars want to be published on the basis of their race, which is a gross insult that we can add to the heap of racist discourse Turley enables.

      1. very intelligent commentary…factual and well analyzed….

      1. desperate commentary — BTW — it’s spelled despErately — with an “E” — Einstein.

    1. chris marker – has no one considered that no one wants to read a book by a leftist sociology wonk? That is why they are not getting published.

      1. Paul — Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is the PRESIDENT of the American Sociological Assoc., the most prestigious and academically rigorous entity of its kind in the nation. But go ahead and diss it outright because it’s “Leftist” OMG…

        1. Paul — Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is the PRESIDENT of the American Sociological Assoc., the most prestigious and academically rigorous entity of its kind in the nation. B

          No, the American Sociological Association is not ‘the most presitgious and academically rigorous’ ‘entity of its kind’. It might be the most corrupted of any which assemble members of arts and sciences faculties, though the Modern Language Association, the Middle East Studies Association, the American Anthropological Association, and the American Psychological Association are tough to beat.

          1. I can’t argue with someone who peddles in alternative facts. What I said about the ASA is factually true and for the record, Bonilla-Silva’s most influential work is based on the most exhaustive empirical/field analyses that have ever been done in U.S. cities. This is a fact.

            1. Chris Marker, terms like ‘most prestigious’ and ‘most rigorous’ are not ‘facts’, they are opinions. You find me a paper by Professor B-S which makes use of quantitative methods before you begin babbling about ‘most exhaustive empirical / field analyses’.

              Here’s a protip: don’t pretend to be an authority and then make clownish statements. (“Have ever been done in the U.S”).

            2. chris marker – other than your anecdotal protestations I see no facts to back up your information. Frankly, I’m not going to take your word for it. 🙂

        2. chris marker – since I hold sociologists in disdain, the fact that he is president of their association makes it just worse. Sociology is a faux science.

          1. The problem with sociology is that its professional culture is badly corrupted. It has interesting research subjects and it’s quantitative wing can and does produce papers worth reading. The problem is, the discipline as a whole permits and encourages advancement of people who are primarily polemicists, fantasits, and jargon-machines. I suspect there was a seminal period wherein gatekeeper positions were occupied by dubious characters, something that did not happen to political science or to economics (and not to American history until a generation or more later). Lots of trash in anthropology as well, but anthropology is more thoroughly segmented, so there’s a limit to which cultural anthropologists can ruin linguistics, palaeoanthropology, physical anthropology, and archaeology.

            1. Carlyle Moulton – I hold economists in high regard generally speaking however there are some economists that should be taken out and shot. And with any discipline, economists like other people are misread. Or misinterpreted. I feel the same way about my own field.

            2. ““Faux science”.like economics for example.”

              Economics might be called a faux science when people are using it to prove their own ideologies such as all too many of those that represent themselves as healthcare economists. Unlike classical economists their logic is faulty and has gaps. Their ideologies prevail. The classic economists that correctly use economic theory represent economic science knowing that their predictive ability is faulty. That is why econo talk so frequent includes “if everything remains the same then …”

              If you differ with this opinion please explain why, but remember even Newton’s laws of the physical universe around us have been revisited and revised.

          1. DSS – if his major topic is racism that is the reason they elected a president. If his major topic had been make love not war he might have gotten as high as secretary. BTW, there is no rigor in the sociology field. Anyone who is ever read any of their papers knows that. They are the redheaded stepchildren of academia.

            1. BTW, there is no rigor in the sociology field. Anyone who is ever read any of their papers knows that.

              Quit making a barroom ass of yourself.

              1. You and Paul simply just say anything without adequate support or facts. You just say stuff and believe it’s correct because you say it. Our university and public school systems are the life-line of or democracy — without these institution our democracy would perish. And you two seem to think that’s just swell.

                1. I’m reporting on the contours of his bibliography. That actually is a fact. Dr. Johnson is reviewing some of his commentary penned for general audiences, which marks the man as a privileged sectary. Sorry this is inconvenient for your sales pitch.

                2. chris marker – as someone who has taught in the public educational system I think I have a lot to say, at least anecdotally. I can speak from my own experience and the experience of my fellow teachers. However since I have been out of education is changed so much that I would hardly say it is the bastion of democracy. At best, right now it is a breeding ground for liberalism. My only hope is that the students are strong enough to stand up against the teachers indoctrination, which does seem to be happening in some cases.

              2. DSS – one of the things they made me do before I started on my Masters thesis was go out and read dissertations and thesis from other fields and sociology was one of the ones I picked. They had some of the dumbest topics I had ever seen and I don’t know why their committees ever accepted their topics. Even psychology had better topics. The math graduates couldn’t write but at least they could do the math. Humanities had some fun topics, they could write and they were accurate.

                1. Paul, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between a corrupted discipline and a spurious one. The spurious one lacks a valid research subject. Social relations not thoroughly ensconced in the world of politics or the world of production and consumption is certainly a valid research subject and can be treated rigorously.

                  1. DSS – can we assume your degree is in sociology? I think sociology is a spurious field and has no legitimate use in academia.

                    1. No, economics, if anyone cares. The faculty where I was studying did not employ sociologists who made use of quantitative methods or were invested in the study of development processes or human settlements. The one sociologist I knew there was an entertaining man but an incompetent instructor. The geography faculty had quants and urban specialist, but a limited course list (not to mention that two of the four faculty whose courses concerned social research had issues while a third got denied tenure).

                      I think sociology is a spurious field and has no legitimate use in academia.

                      1. You’re wrong.

                      2. You don’t know what you’re talking about. And, no, I don’t believe you looked at the abstracts of more than about 3 dissertations.

                      Social pathology, urban settlement patterns, modes of social group formation, and development processes conceived of from a certain angle are valid research subjects. The only way you arrive at your judgement is to say that study of society is not worthwhile or valid. I’m sure that’s a common opinion among barroom blowhards and people on the autism spectrum.

                    2. Paul, I can’t say I have been exposed to a lot of sociologists in the form of training or even reading, but I did read one book of particular interest that separated this writer from a lot of sociologists I have met. He went into the mouth of the beast and came out with some interesting material that was used by one of our better ecoonomists. I changed my view of what sociologists can do. The book: Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets by Sudhir Venkatesh

                      It is a fun read that provides some very interesting information.

                    3. DSS, just out of curiosity, I was on a blog involving healthcare run by a young to middle aged health economist and a pediatrician. Both appeared Liberal. The economist didn’t seem to know anything about Hayek when I discussed what Hayek had said. I don’t even know if he recognzied the name. Is Hayek not discussed in the university?

                    4. allan – I think unless it is Selma Hayek then I have no idea who it is, sorry. Any other Hayek was not discussed in my classes.

                    5. F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (think collectivism). In my estimation one of the very important books of the century meant for all readers, not just economists. Won the Nobel Prize for economics. He was at the U. of Chicago and was a great influence on Milton Friedman and others. I think he influenced Reagan through David Stockman.

                      Look him up. He is very important when it comes to political economics and his ideas are striking. I think the book The Road to Serfdom is in the public domain.

                    6. Is Hayek not discussed in the university?

                      He might be in discussions of the history of economic thought. Courses in economics up through the 300 level are commonly taught out of textbooks and readers and Hayek was not an author of textbooks (and certainly not current textbooks). He might be referenced by a student producing a research paper, but that is not assigned reading for classroom discussion, so if your interlocutor was not producing a paper for which you might consult Hayek, he would not have been reading them. My experience of 400 level courses has been that term papers and seminars are the order of the day, though that likely is not true anywhere. These will concern specialized components of economics – i.e. resources or I-O or international trade or monetary systems. Hayek would only be referenced if he wrote in those areas. The antique literature which I reviewed was by Harold Hotelling, because he was a seminal thinker in resource economics. I think the problem here is that your economist had devoted his attention to specilized veins of inquiry and had not encountered Hayek in any other venue. I first heard of Hayek reading intellectual histories, not economic literature.

                    7. Thanks DSS, I would have thought the name to be well known along with some of the other winners of Nobel Prizes in economics. I don’t know if you ever read The Road to Serfdom or not but if you haven’t I would advise picking it up and scanning it to see if it has interest for you especially because of the interests you seem to defend. I do know from looking up the free version on the Internet (when looking for something as I had a copy of his book long before the Internet was available) they even published an abridged version on Readers Digest which would make him somewhat of a household name of the time.

                      Your apparent field of interest “resource economics” involves a similar thinking process. Things are more related than what people generally think. I think his Nobel Prize was related to the communication of information by pricing. He was a bit of a philosopher as well and that is as it should be, I think, since the field used to be referred to as political economics.

                      I hear a lot about Keynes, but even there it seems that people only recognize one side of Keynes, spending, but not the other side saving, almost as if there are two books where only one was read.

    2. “non-white scholars still do not have the institutional access to academic publishing that their white peers do ”

      Of course merit matters.Either your paper has merit or it does not. If the percentages of minorities being published is to increase, they need to enter such fields in greater percentages and make academic contributions worthy of publication. Also, non-white scholars are published plenty in medical and other hard science research papers, judging by their last names. That said, I do not care about the race of the person. I care about their ideas.

  9. There is an appropriate time and place for anyone who feels oppressed to express their frustration, anger and resentment on that subject. However, sometimes it spills over inappropriately into areas where it is not only inappropriate but also highly counterproductive. Even if one harbors such deep resentments and even hatred of any group of people that isn’t themselves, to lash out in such a way reveals a deep, visceral desire to do unto the “oppressor” what you perceive to have been done unto you based on the fact that the historical oppression one objects to needs to be avenged and that vengeance needs to be visited upon people who share the same demographics (though by no means do they necessarily share the same beliefs) as the evil oppressor. It is possible and quite frankly, far more desirable for those who have such beliefs and feelings to express them in ways that produce positive outcomes for those they view as oppressed. Because isn’t the idea that oppression needs to come to an end? So the focus should be on the advancement of the oppressed not the crushing of those who look like the oppressor you dislike and wish to punish.

    1. The smart money says neither author was ever oppressed by anyone not residing in their own household or to be found on a school playground near them. Most people get to the age of 35 or 40 realizing that their banal personal travails don’t matter a hill ‘o beans in this world.

    2. “Feels” is an interesting word. And perceptions, as in “feeling something,” are not always correct.

  10. After thinking more about it, this may just be a plea for “affirmative action” because there is not much of a real market for navel gazing books and articles by sexually screwed-up and/or minority authors.

    It seems to be kind of a circle-jerk community to start off with most of the papers only being read by people of the same frame of mind in the academic community, and the rest of the world sort of lets them do their own thing while ignoring them. Sooo, if you are one of the dweebs writing queer theory garbage, the only people who give a hoot are other dweebs writing queer theory garbage, and the queer dweeb students taking your classes.

    Meanwhile, the cis gendered world is out there whooping it up, screwing around, making babies, and getting real jobs and going four wheeling, and who gives a crap what some queer dweeb writes about queer dweebiness??? Next, they will be whining for special queer dweeb Oscars.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Hope they don’t get it wrong and announce the wrong dweeb.

      Hey Squeeker,

      I gots a 🔥 hot 🔥 scoop for you to investigate. Interested?


    2. Affirmative action,

      in each of its various forms,

      is the very antithesis of

      free enterprise, free markets and freedom.

    3. See what affirmative action, teachers unions and welfare student loans have wrought.

      See what redistribution and social engineering have wrought.

      America has created a monster.

  11. Without historical perspective I do not think a mind can understand well the ideas of a person. Our academic institutions are full of ignorant elites who consider themselves as “intellectuals” and can easily confuse mainstream media with journalism !

  12. The only value in this book is that it fully demonstrates how bureaucrats of questionable utility justify their employment.

    1. These are the same researchers who are so sure about so many things and despite the reality screaming that they are dead wrong they continue to hold their “intellectual elitism”

  13. More Liberal bullsh*t from Academia. I seriously doubt that homosexuals possess some sort of Special Cosmic Wisdom, unless being sodomized is somehow touching a hitherto unknown part of the brain.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. @PaulCS

        Hmmm. Perhaps for Liberals their brains are located in their nether parts??? That would explain why they are always pulling explanations out of their a$$eS. . .

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    1. Both a homosexual and a heterosexual can write important books and papers. The problem gets dicey when the writer tries to appeal to his own group’s political philosophy. It gets difficult for the writer when the writer knows he will be attacked by the community he lives with only because his ideas differ. The first name that comes to mind is Randy Shilts “And The Band Played On”. He was so observant of impartiality that he refused to know the results of his HIV testing until he finished that book.

      Thus a prominent woman who is professor of woman’s studies might have difficulty writing things that might appear to conflict with today’s womens movement. Conservative women frequently aren’t even included as part of the woman’s movement.

      1. Since the women’s movement was silly and is as we speak even sillier, what’s the point of wishing to be ‘included’ in it?

        1. I am not advocating that they belong, only demonstrating the sillyness you speak of.

  14. The labels are ridiculous. However, our history has indeed been written from the perspective of wealthy white men, some of whom were conquerors of others. And we would be a better country if we included the viewpoints of other groups. For example the history of this land as viewed through the lens of women or non-whites from 1492 to today is a very different history than the one that was written by white men in power. There should be no need to choose one version of events as better or more accurate than the other. They are all accurate and reflect different experiences.

    1. Overunder – if you are writing a textbook of US history, I would suggest that a mostly male version would be more reliable. Not that there are not some great female historians, but they seem to be more specialized.

        1. Actually, in his own way, Paul proved the point that the only view that matters is that of those in power. I like your perspective better.

    2. History books are not only influenced by the author’s gender, race etc., but are also influenced by where and when it is written. The latter is perhaps more important than gender and race. Today we place too much emphasis on gender rather than an emphasis on quality work. Quality work means that the writer understands what the words meant both in place and time. Too many historians mistate history by not understanding those things and we are not improving our accuracy with such a great emphasis on gender and race studies. We see a lot of these mistakes in the comments on this blog.

          1. Communication is a two way street. The supposed receiver has as much responsibility as the sender for ensuring the communication is a success.

            1. You are right Betty that “Communication is a two way street.”. However, Betty, there can be no true communication if what you wish to communicate is unintelligible or laden with mistruths that you refuse to explain.

      1. So, you were there personally, looking over people’s shoulders as they wrote and can personally and conclusively attest to every detail that was a factor in creating every piece of historical documentation in every culture that has ever existed? People aren’t missing your point – you aren’t making a strong case for anything. There are limits to the usefulness of speculation. There are also limits to the usefulness of intellectualization. At the end of the day, actually being out *in* the world making a contribution unfettered by intellectual biases likely has more value and impact than sitting around on the internet having opinions about the world. Your choice, I guess. . .

        1. James, There are scholars that attempt to do those things, but it seems you prefer that silly idea of someone sitting on another’s shoulders. Mine is not speculation rather it is a pathway to scholarship.

          For instance one studying a portion of ancient history may learn the language of the writers in that period or even other periods. They also learn a more precise meaning of different words at different time. They might read other historian’s books and have knowledge of the historians that wrote those books. That will enhance their knowledge of what was written. Have you not read scholarly histories where the historian cites other historians and explains his thinking?

    3. Neither black nor female academics in our own time are likely to have special insights of note into the lives of their colonial-era counterparts.

  15. Thank you, Professor Turley. You offer a beacon of reason and, therefore, hope.

    A former student

Comments are closed.