Nathan Cofnas for obvious reasons. He's facing some serious prejudice (career threats, death threats, you name it) for telling the truth. And he's not hiding, he continues to speak. He's courageous.
Bryan Pesta comes to mind. As far as I can tell, they couldn’t take away his tenure based on his research, so they made up some nonsense about ethics violations.
Yep - Brian Pesta would meet the criteria very well. Does it count that he is only the second author on the 2019 paper? First author is Jordan Lasker, and last one is Emil Kirkegaard
This is the Philadelphia Neurodevelopment admixture paper, whereas John Fuerst and Gregory Connor are the authors of the subsequent ABCD admixture paper?
Pesta is not coauthor on the Fuerst, J. G. R., Hu, M., & Connor, G. (2021). Genetic ancestry and general cognitive ability in a sample of American youths. Mankind Quarterly, 62(1), 187–221. doi.org - I guess he is there in the acknowledgements. Will have a look!
Trying to sound even handed while given people on the right a good chuckle. A martyr complex is prominent on the left and I don't doubt there are many of them who would read that line straight and explain to you how the systemic racism thing is actively suppressed and that a few brave individuals (cue patriotic music)...
They are trying to sound balanced. To ACTUALLY prove systemic racism, you would need intermediate measures like X, Y, and Z that are on the whole good positive predictors of outcome. And then, you would need to show that Blacks come out on these predictors as good or better than Whites. But out of systemic racism, they don't get the good outcomes.
However, it would be difficult - the categories where Blacks come atop are entertainment and sports. It's difficult to make the case that all it takes are these two for socioeconomic status advancement.
No. Actually real systemic racism is historically not uncommon - but it is usually addressing overperforming minorities like the Jews or the Chinese. So in these cases, you can see access to top universities or top jobs limited by quotas, and not on the basis of quantifiable merit that predicts future performance.
For example, Abbott Lawrence Lowell (Harvard) proposal in 1922. Or Stalin first directing officials and academic administrators to quietly restrict the entry of Jewish applicants into top-tier universities, diplomatic academies, and elite scientific programs in 1944.
Or look at Germany before 1918 - It was exceedingly rare for an unbaptized Jew to become a full professor. Across the entire 19th and early 20th centuries, only a tiny handful of practicing Jews broke this barrier (such as mathematician Moritz Stern at Göttingen in 1859, or the rare university rectors Jakob Rosanes and Julius Bernstein). Most full professors of Jewish descent in this era—who made up about 6.9% of full faculty positions by 1909—had undergone baptism.
The perfidy is rather that it has been inverted to explain the underperformance of underperforming minorities.
Your general point is correct, but I wonder about your examples. Stalin, yes. But Lowell? Don't our current silent quotas lock out more Jews than in the 1930s? And 6.9% of German professors being Jewish was way way in excess of the population proportion. This sounds like religious discrimination, not ethnic.
How and why did this concept "never, ever, ever, say anything that might hurt black people's feelings," become our most crucial social imperative? Hitler, maybe? He was the worst and said "master race" so the only possible curative is to create a world where every single thing he said is exactly inverted and Jason Arday and Jussie Smollett are the real geniuses- something like that?
Do they have to be at an acredited university? If not I'd say Steve Sailer but that whole "his ideas must have been vindicated" thing? I don't know about that.
Of course if they follow that literally and want someone currently alive, how is that going to happen? Do people in academia ever consider ideas espoused by non-leftists to have been vindicated and now generally accepted?
The willingness of so many of the elite blacks to ruin the lives of average blacks is unbelievable. Claudine Gay who went to Phillips Exeter and then Harvard and Stanford plagiarized the work of Carrol Swain who a black woman from a poor family and so was less adept at playing the status gains. She torpedoed Fryer, whose research was actually working to improve the relation between cops and blacks, while jumping on the George Floyd bandwagon that led to so much chaos and death
Michael Bailey from Northwestern would also deserve the prize (maybe jointly). Deirdre McCloskey's crusade against him was horrible and saddened me since I always respected h er work.
Carob is a nasty substance that is sold as a substitute for chocolate but really isn't at all (what IS the significance of the name?), so perhaps Rachel Dolezal?
I've been fascinated to read about accounts of cancelled academics going back to the 1960s and 1970s. Here's one about Edward Banfield being shouted down in 1974:
The ordeals of Arthur Jensen and E.O. Wilson are well known. It seems that the "heckler's veto" form of cancellation by disruption became prominent during the larger wave of 1960s protests, but didn't die out with the 1960s.
This is a great initiative @BillAckman! However, some may question your commitment to academic truth given that you are also bankrolling the lawsuit of Francesca Gino, who *check notes* sued three brave scholars for telling the truth?
Gray —> Gay
Thanks.
Nathan Cofnas for obvious reasons. He's facing some serious prejudice (career threats, death threats, you name it) for telling the truth. And he's not hiding, he continues to speak. He's courageous.
Bryan Pesta comes to mind. As far as I can tell, they couldn’t take away his tenure based on his research, so they made up some nonsense about ethics violations.
Yep - Brian Pesta would meet the criteria very well. Does it count that he is only the second author on the 2019 paper? First author is Jordan Lasker, and last one is Emil Kirkegaard
This is the Philadelphia Neurodevelopment admixture paper, whereas John Fuerst and Gregory Connor are the authors of the subsequent ABCD admixture paper?
Pesta is not coauthor on the Fuerst, J. G. R., Hu, M., & Connor, G. (2021). Genetic ancestry and general cognitive ability in a sample of American youths. Mankind Quarterly, 62(1), 187–221. doi.org - I guess he is there in the acknowledgements. Will have a look!
Just had a look - Pesta is probably hidden under: "A full list of supporters is available at https://abcdstudy.org/federal-partners.html. A listing of participating sites and a complete listing of the study investigators can be found at https://abcdstudy.org/consortium_members/."
The only one explicitly mentioned is Jordan Lasker
But yes, Fuerst has two listed adresses - one is Cleveland State University, which is the same as Brian Pesta's.
Thanks for the tip! I found the article at https://mankindquarterly.org/archive/issue/62-1/11.
Don a white coat, Steve, and start sciencing!
"the researcher who finds that systemic racism is the primary driver of a given disparity and is dismissed by colleagues who don’t want to hear it."
Are they flirting with systemic anti-white racism, or are they delusional?
Trying to sound even handed while given people on the right a good chuckle. A martyr complex is prominent on the left and I don't doubt there are many of them who would read that line straight and explain to you how the systemic racism thing is actively suppressed and that a few brave individuals (cue patriotic music)...
They are trying to sound balanced. To ACTUALLY prove systemic racism, you would need intermediate measures like X, Y, and Z that are on the whole good positive predictors of outcome. And then, you would need to show that Blacks come out on these predictors as good or better than Whites. But out of systemic racism, they don't get the good outcomes.
However, it would be difficult - the categories where Blacks come atop are entertainment and sports. It's difficult to make the case that all it takes are these two for socioeconomic status advancement.
"Systemic racism" is cause of any and all racial gaps that can't be explained by anything specific.
No. Actually real systemic racism is historically not uncommon - but it is usually addressing overperforming minorities like the Jews or the Chinese. So in these cases, you can see access to top universities or top jobs limited by quotas, and not on the basis of quantifiable merit that predicts future performance.
For example, Abbott Lawrence Lowell (Harvard) proposal in 1922. Or Stalin first directing officials and academic administrators to quietly restrict the entry of Jewish applicants into top-tier universities, diplomatic academies, and elite scientific programs in 1944.
Or look at Germany before 1918 - It was exceedingly rare for an unbaptized Jew to become a full professor. Across the entire 19th and early 20th centuries, only a tiny handful of practicing Jews broke this barrier (such as mathematician Moritz Stern at Göttingen in 1859, or the rare university rectors Jakob Rosanes and Julius Bernstein). Most full professors of Jewish descent in this era—who made up about 6.9% of full faculty positions by 1909—had undergone baptism.
The perfidy is rather that it has been inverted to explain the underperformance of underperforming minorities.
Your general point is correct, but I wonder about your examples. Stalin, yes. But Lowell? Don't our current silent quotas lock out more Jews than in the 1930s? And 6.9% of German professors being Jewish was way way in excess of the population proportion. This sounds like religious discrimination, not ethnic.
It’s their God of the Gaps
How and why did this concept "never, ever, ever, say anything that might hurt black people's feelings," become our most crucial social imperative? Hitler, maybe? He was the worst and said "master race" so the only possible curative is to create a world where every single thing he said is exactly inverted and Jason Arday and Jussie Smollett are the real geniuses- something like that?
Do they have to be at an acredited university? If not I'd say Steve Sailer but that whole "his ideas must have been vindicated" thing? I don't know about that.
Of course if they follow that literally and want someone currently alive, how is that going to happen? Do people in academia ever consider ideas espoused by non-leftists to have been vindicated and now generally accepted?
The willingness of so many of the elite blacks to ruin the lives of average blacks is unbelievable. Claudine Gay who went to Phillips Exeter and then Harvard and Stanford plagiarized the work of Carrol Swain who a black woman from a poor family and so was less adept at playing the status gains. She torpedoed Fryer, whose research was actually working to improve the relation between cops and blacks, while jumping on the George Floyd bandwagon that led to so much chaos and death
Michael Bailey from Northwestern would also deserve the prize (maybe jointly). Deirdre McCloskey's crusade against him was horrible and saddened me since I always respected h er work.
Yes she is. She ended up having a decent career given that she didn't toe the line.
Amazing so few people know about the hit job on him by old cross dressers. Isn’t he also at Harvard?
She was at U of Illinois Circle in Chicago.
He thank you.
You should be the first million-dollar baby.
Probably shouldn't start out too controversial. Reich would be good.
Jason Arday, posthumously. But seriously...Nathan Cofnas, surely.
Norman Finkelstein
Steve Sailer, obviously. There should be an award for being first.
Carob is a nasty substance that is sold as a substitute for chocolate but really isn't at all (what IS the significance of the name?), so perhaps Rachel Dolezal?
Charles Murray
I've been fascinated to read about accounts of cancelled academics going back to the 1960s and 1970s. Here's one about Edward Banfield being shouted down in 1974:
https://theamericanenterprise.com/cancel-culture-goes-back-at-least-50-years/
The ordeals of Arthur Jensen and E.O. Wilson are well known. It seems that the "heckler's veto" form of cancellation by disruption became prominent during the larger wave of 1960s protests, but didn't die out with the 1960s.
Some of the Twitter reactions:
https://x.com/andre_quentin/status/2097156389085036579
This is a great initiative @BillAckman! However, some may question your commitment to academic truth given that you are also bankrolling the lawsuit of Francesca Gino, who *check notes* sued three brave scholars for telling the truth?
https://x.com/BasedSamParker/status/2097132731453014063
Hilarious that Bill Ackman would be funding a Trust Prize for Academic Courage after his israeli wife got busted for plagiarism. Lol.
Is Hoe Math on Twitter eligible? I’d nominate him if so.
"so whites get shot by cops disproportionately more often THAT whites shoot cops or civilians."
"That" should be 'than'.
Thanks. I'll fix it in the online version.