To think 'academic freedom' and whistleblower punishment are misused in those protesting the suspension of Nathan Cofnas

[keepcounsel]

Many posters have cited 'academic freedom' and 'freedom of expression' as well as 'witch-hunt' in terms of Nathan Cofnas being suspended from the University of Ghent. They've also represented the suspension as punishing a whistle-blower due to his being one of the first to publicly communicate concerns about Jason Arday and plagiarism/academic standards. 200+ academics have signed a letter of protest about the suspension and the American ambassador to Belgium as well as Trump have called for him to be re-hired.

The grounds for his appointment seem to be to work as a post-doc on a Professor's project, so not overseen by the University HR department or a committee in the way a lecturer/professorial appointment would happen.
The work/activities of the Professor in question - Bouke De Vries - had been subject to complaints from his colleagues. When colleagues and students protested about Cofnas being hired Ghent's Rector said dissenting opinions should be allowed in the University.

Ghent have now said the grounds for suspension are due to:

a. He didn't conduct the research he was hired for
[they said 'The projects you publicly and repeatedly associate with your affiliation at Gent University, most notably your
'Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution' which advocates for racial barriers and segregation, fall entirely outside the scope of your official research mandate.']

b. He violated the University's ethics code
['prohibits spreading ideas of racial superiority or inciting racial segregation.']

c. He made statements that violate Belgian anti-discrimination legislation

d. He made remarks about Jason Arday that violate Belgian Criminal Code concerning offences against a person's honour or reputation

e. He caused significant unrest in the workplace by advocating a purge of those academics he thought ideologically wrong

My position as an academic invited to sign the letter of protest against his suspension is that academic freedom/freedom of speech is not unlimited, for example if it involves slander or seeks to assert racial supremacy.

“Score higher than their intelligence would suggest is suggesting that the IQ or grammar school test is the correct measure of their intelligence and their academic achievement isn’t.

If someone who ‘isn’t very intelligent’ can nonetheless master academic material, perhaps ‘intelligence’ isn’t a very useful measurement.

Cofnas making his assertions about race-based intelligence measures from US academic achievement is also extraordinary. The episode of Abbott Elementary where the chaotic, poorly resourced primary school gets its first white pupil and the teachers are excited because perhaps a white pupil might bring more investment is fairly eye-opening to a British viewer.

Yes IQ as a proxy for fitness for academia is another weakness of Cofnas's argument.

I’m sure there are many racist think tanks where Cofnas could be funded to do his racist research to his heart’s content. It doesn’t need to be given a stamp of acceptability by any university.

Cofnas is not being plastered everywhere. A search of the Guardian for example (often held up as a bastion of liberalism/leftism) shows just one story about him in 12 days - reporting on him being suspended - and it's all in the context of Arday. See attached.

Cofnas has sought out publicity - he announced his suspension, instigated a petition against it and his supporters released the suspension letter.
It's a totally different situation.

There are bound to be people like Cofnas, while there is DEI. It’s the scales of justice. If there wasn’t preferential treatment for poc, there wouldn't be a campaign to publicise the lower IQ of black people. The urge toward balance is strong in humans.

Oh please - do you even know what DEI is or how it works?

Well, no. You are still arguing that there is a difference in intelligence. Others are arguing that there isn't - what there is, is a difference in how well people do in a specific (and biased) handful of tests.

There is. It's a well-established fact, not disputed by any serious expert in the field, now that tests have been made langauge/culture agnostic (which historically was a legitimate criticism).

I'd stress that's mean figures, at a population level, of course.

And I’ve pointed to efforts to make tests language and culturally agnostic that still produced discriminatory outcomes against equally academically successful children which you then tried to explain away (without evidence) that those kids must have worked harder at school.

You've assumed that differences in. Results are because of discrimination rather than differences in what's being measured, which isn't proven. I'm not asserting work ethic is the reason, but saying it can't be rules out, such that your conclusion of discrimination isn't proven.

Even though the ‘race blind tutor free’ test produced worse outcomes for those groups then the previous 11+, the assumption should be that it’s simply more accurate than either the previous test and the academic record?

I dont assume. I think it needs to be tested. But no reason it couldn't be true i.e. that it eliminates the work-ethic effect that confounds the pure IQ differences.

Or perhaps it means that IQ or whatever the test is measuring isn’t actually that useful.

Maybe. But that's not the consensus amongst experts in the feild.

This is the kind of avoidance that creates both Cofnas and Arday.

I thought it was already widely agreed that the IQ test favours middle class, white men. It’s not a good measure of intelligence really but like many similar measures it sticks around because it suits some people.

No, it isn’t widely agreed. That is completely incorrect.

No. It was, but modern testing has eliminated those biases.

I’ve got a ridiculously stupidly high recorded IQ….and yet I’m not all that.

Either I’ve massively wasted my potential and could have been out there creating world peace and a cure for cancer, or it’s not actually a particularly useful measure.

Claims to have eliminated those biases.

Just like the people who wrote the tutor proof 11+ test thought they were doing when they wrote theirs. And they weren’t random thickos but highly respected.

They admitted defeat rather than trying to defend their test.

My guess is that you have no desire to be out there creating cures. Without motivation to use intelligence, its measurement is mere admin.

You are anti revisionism. ‘ get it 100% right first time, or we’ll say you were WRONG’?

or you admit process is learning?

I have no idea what you are trying to say or how it relates to what I said.

So on its own it’s fairly useless as a measure of anything productive.