April 28th saw the publication of an academic paper titled ”In Defense of Merit in Science.”  Here’s the abstract:

Merit is a central pillar of liberal epistemology, humanism, and democracy. The scientific enterprise, built on merit, has proven effective in generating scientific and technological advances, reducing suffering, narrowing social gaps, and improving the quality of life globally. This perspective documents the ongoing attempts to undermine the core principles of liberal epistemology and to replace merit with non-scientific, politically motivated criteria. We explain the philosophical origins of this conflict, document the intrusion of ideology into our scientific institutions, discuss the perils of abandoning merit, and offer an alternative, human-centered approach to address existing social inequalities.

The authors, in other words, are making a strong, long, reasoned statement against the degrading cult of DEI in science.

Who are these authors? There are 29 of them, almost all working scientists of one sort or another, including two Nobel Prize winners. I only recognized a handful of the names:

• Biologist Jerry Coyne, who runs the excellent Why Evolution Is True website.
  
  
• Lee Jussim, a Professor of Psychology at Rutgers. Prof. Jussim is one of the authors of a book about stereotypes that I reviewed back in 2001 under the review title ”Stereotypes Aren’t So Bad.”
  
  
• Glenn Loury, Professor of the Social Sciences and also Professor of Economics at Brown University, whose 2018 video conversation with Penn law professor Amy Wax started Prof. Wax’s troubles with her college’s administrators, but who has remained friends with and supportive of Prof. Wax down to the present.
  
  
• John McWhorter, Associate Professor of linguistics at Columbia University, one of whose books I reviewed back in 2014 and whom I have had occasion to mention several times on Radio Derb and in my monthly diaries.

Obviously the paper is one whose spirit I wholeheartedly applaud. I should say, too, that for a production with 29 authors, it’s surprisingly well-written. You can download the PDF here.

Considerably to my surprise the paper got a very positive write-up in the opinion pages of the May 4th New York Times from one of their staff journalists, a lady named Pamela Paul. Even more to my surprise, the reader comments on Ms. Paul’s column are mostly positive. In the New York Times! Perhaps things aren’t as bad as I’ve feared.

And yet… well, let Ms. Paul tell you. Quote:

Yet the paper was rejected by several prominent mainstream journals, including The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Another publication that passed on the paper, the authors report, described some of its conclusions as ”downright hurtful.” The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences took issue with the word ”merit” in the title, writing that ”the problem is that this concept of merit, as the authors surely know, has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow as currently implemented” .

Instead, the paper has been published in a new journal called—you can’t make this up — The Journal of Controversial Ideas.

Scan this paper and see if you can identify what is “hurtful”. Is “merit” itself hurtful, is that the problem? If you need an operation, would you object to the surgeon being chosen on merit?https://t.co/H05HN3WQyk

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) May 5, 2023

Lee Jussim, one of the paper’s authors, fired off some comment-thread fun at Twitter by suggesting possible titles for papers as controversial as ”In Defense of Merit in Science.” Samples:

In Defense of Not Drinking Battery Fluid

In Defense of Earth Being Round

In Defense of Milk Being a Dietary Staple and not Intrinsically Linked to White Supremacy

Dental Health is Not Actually Improved by Eating Gravel

In Opposition to Cannibalism

A Defense of Umbrellas

And so on. Feel free to add some Controversial Ideas of your own.

Exactly... But, wait! Let's have a contest. Anyone can play! Who can come up with the most demented, twisted titles for academic articles?
I'll start.
In Opposition to Cannibalism
A Defense of Umbrellas
Why the First Amendment is Neither White Supremacy nor Fascism

Your turn. https://t.co/DnXc7P8khM

— The Dark Fiddling Pirate Jussim (@PsychRabble) April 28, 2023

That response from the National Academy of Sciences, along with the utter degraded wokeness of once-serious popular outlets like Scientific American, remind us that there’s a real battle still to be fought here, a battle for truth and objectivity against superstition, socially forced posturing, and totalitarian suppression.

Still, it’s heartening to know that there are working scientists willing to arm up and engage the enemy. All strength to them!